Don't squander assets

In order for a government to sell an asset it is axiomatic that it must first find a willing buyer. The normal commercial imperative to ensure that money invested yields a satisfactory return ensures that the buyer will only pay a price such that the value of the income earned by the asset is greater than the price paid for it.

Since this transaction is necessarily a zero-sum game (what one party gains the other loses) it follows that when a government sells an asset the sale price it receives will be less than the future income foregone (ie, the government makes a loss). This principle must always hold, and inventing clever buzz-phrases like "recycling assets" will not change that. Pretending that selling property along Northbourne Avenue will reduce the amount of capital that the government has to find to build the light rail is a classic smoke and mirrors proposition.

Roger Quarterman, Campbell

Both sides of politics in the ACT should agree in the interest of all Canberrans that if public assets are sold the proceeds must be directed only into either or both health or education. The sale of our limited assets in a city of this size is a very serious matter and should only be considered in the context of an overall benefit to our community. The Assembly must put our interests first and not invest funds, that can never be regained, into ventures that are potentially wasteful or are likely to fail.

The future of Canberra and the region rests on excellent health and education services. It makes no sense that this government has been seduced by a federal grant of $60 million provided it sells our public assets to the value of $400 million and then invest in light rail. The only winners will be the developers. No Canberra family, in any context, would support such reckless disregard of money from the sale of an asset.

John Malouf, Hawker

Why the continuing angst about heritage listing of Northbourne Flats? They could be restored to look fantastic.

I recall them in the early 1960s when a friend from the British High Commission lived there. They were upmarket with human-sized rooms. The buildings have elegant lines and relate to each other. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I'm not surprised the Bauhaus movement has been mentioned.

The green ambience of the Northbourne Flats remains an iconic component of the entry to the nation's capital.

We need open spaces for the health and wellbeing of our people and to ameliorate the high-rise concrete jungles of the rich.

Why the land grab to support light rail? It's a key transport investment to ensure the city functions as it grows.

There is no reason to destroy low-key buildings or the eucalypt median strip replanted in 1983 specifically with space for trams. Ken Taylor ("People trump bricks, mortar", Times2, February 20, p1) said "there are none so blind as those who will not see" (Times 2, February 20). Will we ever learn?

Jean Geue, Aranda

There are pros and cons about heritage listing. And like most heritage enthusiasts, Ken Taylor ("People trump bricks, mortar", Times2, February 20, p1) in trying to defend the heritage listing of some old public housing in Northbourne Avenue, ignores an important "con" – that heritage listing usually costs the community money. And he is rather unkind in calling opponents of heritage-listing these flats "the usual suspects", and saying they are "blinkered, uninformed, and (have a) reactionary misinformed view of what heritage is".

Professor Taylor is wrong. I'm sure most people do understand what heritage is, and get a warm, fuzzy feeling about the listing of some of the buildings or other things that get listed. But even with buildings obviously heritage-worthy, people have to balance that against its cost – the reduced value of the land the buildings occupy.

And if buildings that are not really heritage-worthy are listed (like these Northbourne Avenue flats), one can understand the outrage at money being spent, or land values diminished, for no benefit.

R.S. Gilbert, Braddon

I enjoyed Russell McGowan's thoughts (Letters, February 24) regarding political donations, but there is a problem with his conclusion: "We should all remember this decision and its influence on our democracy when the members of the Assembly face the voters next year". Is it really our democracy or one imposed on us against our will? Terms of government were increased from three to four years not by referendum but by the Legislative Assembly. We are to have another eight MLAs, again without referendum. The Assembly is running our democracy, not the people.

We are about to excise up to 27square kilometres of Canberra from planning regulations. This land is to be heavily developed in coming years. Developers are known to make big donations. Corruption is bipartisan in our non-democracy so no matter if we vote for either of the two parties, we will get corruption. The limit on donations is being lifted before massive development around light rail.

As voting is useless in the fight against corruption I suggest an informal vote. If we can get a 50 per cent informal vote it will be our statement against corruption.

Glen Torr, Fraser

D. Zivkovic (Letters, February 25) correctly points out "the bleedin' obvious" that "the people" are not a whole, but are individuals with myriad needs, wants and beliefs, implying that many of these will be in conflict. If he has lit upon an alternative means of governing to accommodate these individuals he should put it into print. In his second point he declares that "people regard government services as essentially free, so demand for (them) is infinite ..." One hopes this generalisation applies to a tiny minority, otherwise we really are "copping the government we deserve."

Finally he states that revenues levied from Australia's "producers" is finite and that the government is rapidly running out of "other people's money." It is not clear if he is conflating "producers" with "other people." If not, then he appears to be trying to make a valid point.

Australia's "other people," the poorer and needier, do seem to be under increasing financial stress, so that the government will eventually run out of "other people's money," with which they seem intent upon subsidising "producers."

Hugh Gibbon, Pearce

Freedom from fear may cost more than we want to pay

If there is an inevitability to Australia becoming a police and surveillance state, it is a sorrowful day for human, personal and economic freedom ("Security czar for era of heightened threat", February 23, p4).

When the federal government promises to bring us more security it means that it wants more control over our lives.

The creation of a new counter -terrorism czar to strengthen co-ordination among national security agencies is incompatible with privacy, civil liberties, dissent, disagreement and individual preferences.

In a free society people co-operate and trade with one another in a division of labour and are rewarded for doing so.

But in a police and surveillance state enormous amounts of energy are expended in attempts to influence or control or benefit from the central plan of the government.

The most frequently prosecuted crime in the former East Germany was not murder, robbery, rape, theft or even espionage. It was the failure to report someone else's crime.

The main beneficiary of the police and surveillance state is the state itself.

Victor Diskordia, McKellar

As a barrister and academic, Gillian Triggs has demonstrated intellectual capacity and absolute integrity. She has my complete confidence and the trust of most thinking people. Her opponents claim bias only because they start from such a polarised position.

Just for the record, Professor Triggs is a Master of Laws, PhD, and has practised as barrister. She was the director of the Institute for Comparative and International Law at the University of Melbourne, where she held a Chair in Law, the director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Dean of the University of Sydney Law School, and Challis Professor of International Law.

As a practising lawyer for 46 years, she has a record and reputation as a lawyer far exceeding that of the Attorney-General.

As president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, in the face of hostility from people who don't value human rights and civil liberties, she has pursued her role with efficiency and dignity.

Shooting the messenger will not make the shameful issue of successive governments' treatment of asylum seekers, especially children, go away.

Dr Kristine Klugman, president, Civil Liberties

If Gillian Triggs' supporters cannot see that the Australian Human Rights Commission report Forgotten Children is political, they have lost their perspective.

When Labor came to office in 2007 there were four people in detention and no children. It was Labor, as "silent" Bill Shorten knows, that allowed in about 800 boats with about 50,000 illegal arrivals aboard. When Labor left office there were 1400 children in detention and now there are fewer than 200.

Don't Professor Triggs' supporters know that it was Labor that reduced the capacity of the security and intelligence agencies' resources by cutting agencies' funds? If they know all these facts and do not censure Ms Triggs for expressing her political prejudices in a government report, then they stand condemned, if not as naive, but as equally in error as she is.

Greg O'Regan, Farrer

Your report of the Senate Estimates Committee ("Parliament House chief clashes with Senators", February 24, p1) refers to Ms Carol Mills, the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, and Dr Rosemary Laing, the Clerk of the Senate, as "bitter rivals". It is not clear whether this term was used by Ms Mills, or was inferred by your reporter.

In any event it is an inappropriate description: the term "rival" implies a competition for the same object, whereas the individuals that occupy the two positions above are in completely different career streams and there is no position for which they could compete.

Clearly there are differences in opinion between the two officers, centred around the concept of parliamentary privilege. Given that Dr Laing has spent a large part of her professional career directly concerned with the Senate privileges committee, the likelihood of her providing "dodgy" advice is remote.

Graham O'Loghlin, Deakin

Politicians for hire

The revelation that two British MPs – one from the Labour party, the other from the Conservative party – offered to use their parliamentary influence on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company, in return for payments ("British MPs in cash-for-access scandal", February 24, p7), reminded me of what the British historian Paul Johnson said in his book, Brief Lives, about the one-time British prime minister Edward Heath.

While at Balliol College, Oxford, Heath informed his careers don that he intended to be a "professional politician".

Nowadays, that term seems to apply to any politician who is determined to augment his official salary, through a backhander from an individual or a corporation.

Curiously, barely five years ago, three Labour cabinet ministers in Britain were suspended from the party for being involved in a similar scandal. Is it any wonder, therefore, that politicians are still falling short of public expectations?

Sam Nona, Burradoo, NSW

The last avenue of appeal is gone and two young Australians are going to be cold-bloodedly shot in Indonesia.

I salute both Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran for the way they have conducted themselves. Being on Death Row is torture, and for 10 years.

I will never buy anything made in or sourced from Indonesia again and will never give money, for any reason, as I did for the last disaster.

C.J.Clarke, Tuggeranong

It's very disappointing when journalists like Jenna Price ("Alcohol free-for-all must end now for kids' sake", Times2, February 24, p5) use emotive argument to reach illogical conclusions.

Yes, alcohol abuse continues to be a concern and from someone who was raised in an alcoholic family environment, I can empathise very heavily with the effects of alcohol on families. Yes, restrictions on availability (Aboriginal communities) and closing hours (Kings Cross) are examples of the successful addressing of the issue.

However, comparing the restrictions on indigenous communities and closing hours of Kings Cross, is hardly a case to support changes in the ACT.

Her suggestion that the "drying out of the influence of the far-too-powerful Australian Hotels Association" should give her cause look at that particular organisations membership base and realise that, in fact, that organisation is not representative of the majority of hotels in the ACT and therefor wields very little power.

Small and medium enterprises are struggling in Canberra and for those which supply alcohol, an increase in input costs would drive many to the wall.

You can't increase prices hoping that you'll reduce alcohol-induced family violence. Wealthy people have alcohol problems too. Or perhaps the hope is that poorer people won't spend more of the weekly income on alcohol because it's too expensive. That's not how drug dependence works, Ms Price. The suggestion that alcohol is available "in all settings, at all times of day " is simply wrong, and made to add weight to a flawed and emotive argument. This drug is appropriately taxed and it is appropriately regulated and I hope that readers will note that the issue of alcohol consumption and the responsibilities of both government and individuals is a debate with few easy answers.

G. Miller, Barton

TRIGGER-HAPPY BLOKES

The Abbott government's shameful attack on Gillian Triggs ("Overblown attack on Gillian Triggs leaves messy egg on Attorney-General George Brandis' face", canberratimes.com.au, February 25) is a case of misogynist blokes shooting the messenger for news they don't want to hear, especially from a woman.

Patricia Saunders, Chapman

The Abbott government has lost confidence in Gillian Triggs. This missive is to state clearly that I have not lost confidence in Gillian Triggs.

Bruce Kennedy, Melba

CREDLIN KEEPS FAITH

Peta Credlin's wish to continue coaching Tony Abbott as PM seems on a par with the blind faith of Peter Cook's Sir Arthur Strieve-Greebling, whose lifelong endeavour was to teach ravens to fly under water.

M.F.Horton, Clarence Park, SA

FIRST WORLD PRICING

The Fred Hollows Foundation performs cataract surgery in Asia and elsewhere for $25. A Canberra ophthalmologist performs the same surgery for $4000. I know which end of the Medicare Benefits Schedule I'd like to see reformed.

Patricia Landrum, Queanbeyan, NSW

LIBERALS' FUND CHASE

Many years ago the Conservatives were aghast that Russian communists were funding the Labor Party. Should we now be concerned that Liberal Party honorary treasurer Phil Higginson plans to travel to the United States to raise "tens of million" from donors" ("Trouble in Abbott's camp", February 24, p1)?

Phillip Owen, Forde

ECONOMICS MADE EASY

We've had "price signal" and now "value signal". What's next: "investment"?

John May, Lyneham

FAST-LANE TAXI TRAVEL

Mike Dallwitz (Letters, February 20) came up with a good idea: to subsidise private taxi companies, which would allow the government to invest less in public transport. A much better idea would be to scrap extortionate taxi licence fees, requiring only that a prospective operator passes an advanced driving test and a security check, and has their vehicle inspected regularly. This would make taxis almost as cheap as buses and infinitely preferable.

D.Zivkovic, Aranda

BON VOYAGE BUT PAY UP

To avoid the term "death duties", I think "departure tax" would add a certain je ne sais quoi to the tax. After all life is a journey.

Felicity Chivas, Scullin

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).