The public has yet to be provided with a comprehensive explanation of why yet another gold-plated solution ($92 million was spent on an earlier clean-up) is necessary.

A key issue is the degree of asbestos contamination. We learn that 10 per cent of the Mr Fluffy homes are "so badly contaminated that they are uninhabitable" ("Planning changes on Fluffy blocks", December 5, p1) and that "fibres had been detected in the living areas of 50 to 60per cent of homes". Something certainly needs to be done with the 10 per cent but what was the extent of "fibres detected" and to what extent is this hazardous?

To turn the 50 to 60per cent figures around, it follows (assuming the report is correct) that no asbestos fibres were detected in 40 to 50per cent of Mr Fluffy homes. So why not give them the "all clear" instead of demolishing them? Then there is the issue of demolition cost. It was reported that it cost a private owner about $50,000 to demolish their Mr Fluffy house safely. So why is the ACT government budgeting for a demolition cost averaging $158,500? It is suggested that the ACT government wants the soil of every Mr Fluffy home scraped. Is this necessary? It is not at all clear why the ACT government (rather than the Mr Fluffy home owners or the Commonwealth) is having to bear nearly all the costs.

All the signs are that the ACT budget is headed for big trouble and that ACT taxpayers are going to be highly exposed to a downturn in residential land sales. By buying back 1020 residential leases in a relatively strong market, the ACT government's exposure is magnified at a time when employment looks like being subdued for some years. On top of the Mr Fluffy outlays, we also have the $800 million tramway that most Canberrans don't want, and which doubtless will run at a big loss. I shudder to think of what my rates bill will be in a few years.

J.B. O'Reilly, Palmerston

J.W. Farrands (Letters, December 9) has clearly suffered an irony transplant. To juxtapose and paraphrase his first paragraph and answer his final question: What we celebrate on Australia Day is the uninvited arrival of economic refugees with alien beliefs and attitudes, who then subsequently proceeded to destroy the federation of Australian Aboriginal tribes. Not much to celebrate there!

Wayne Ralph, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

J.W. Farrands questions recent immigration as challenging who we are as Australians, and seems to assume a homogeneity of cultures and religions which actually has never existed.

The social experiment in Australia began in January 1788. The First Fleeters were mainly Anglo-Celtic from Britain, but the Fleet records show there were 12 black Africans, 14 Americans, and 15 other nationalities including from France, Holland, Germany, Norway, Jamaica. There were also nine Sephardim Jews. And of course, these First Fleeters encountered the people who already lived in Australia. All quite a mix in the first pot. People from many cultures and religions have continued to come and settle here, right through the 1800s and 1900s and 2000s. And we've done "bloody" well at creating who we are!

M. Castle, Griffith

I have some sympathy for the views expressed by J. W. Farrands in relation to the potential change to the face and culture of Australia caused by opening the door to refugees.

However, having worked at the detention centre on Christmas Island, it is very clear that the majority of refugees are decent, law abiding people who are fleeing conflict and danger and have been traumatised in ways that are alien to our understanding. Whilst I accept that we cannot have an uncontrolled open door to all asylum seekers, we are in fact changing the face and culture of Australia by treating those asylum seekers who do come here in a disrespectful and inhumane manner. The prolonged detention of children can never be justified. Even if some of those people seeking asylum should not be allowed to settle here, we can do it in a way that is neither harmful or disrespectful.

J.W. Farrands asks what sort of Australia are we leaving to our children? I am more concerned about the sort of Australia being created by the drunken, criminal and violent behaviour being perpetrated by our own citizens daily, than fearful of the relatively few refugees seeking asylum in Australia.

Robyn Stanhope, Bruce

Colin Butler and Frank Gribbs should be commended rather than arrested for their integrity and courage in protesting against coalmining in Australia ("Canberra academic arrested at mine protest", November 29, p13). Hundreds of climate scientists worldwide have shown beyond reasonable doubt that prodigious combustion of fossil fuels, combined with deforestation, have led to local and atmospheric pollution and consequent global warming, posing serious threats to human and environmental health, and to the economy.

Unlike other OECD countries, our scientifically illiterate government has appointed no minister for science or climate change, and is addicted to short-term economic irrationalism in placing profits before people, by promoting growth in fossil fuel combustion and driving our many-barnacled ship of state, like the Titanic, towards disaster.

Irrational economic growth is mistakenly afforded priority over ecological sustainability, exemplified by global subsidies in 2011 of $523 billion for fossil fuels, compared to $88 billion for renewable energy. The chief economist of the International Energy Agency at its annual conference in 2013 stated that fossil fuel subsidies are public enemy number one to sustainable energy development. When he was economic adviser to President Kennedy, Kenneth Boulding declared that there are two kinds of people who believe in perpetual growth on a physically finite planet, namely economists and madmen.

It is high time that the Australian government came to its senses, including a sense of responsibility towards future generations.

Bryan Furnass, Hughes

It does not take too high a level of intelligence to understand that Tony Abbott and his snake-oil salesmen colleagues are substituting a $5 charge to visit a GP for the previously touted $7 charge. It is a tax by any other name, yet the slippery smarmy way in which they dress it up would have us believe otherwise.

My wife, as an age pensioner concession card holder, already pays $88 per visit to see the local GP, for which she receives a $36 refund from Medicare. In reality, even though she holds the age pensioner concession card she will continue to pay $88 for a standard consultation, but will now receive a refund of $31 since her aged pension status is not recognised in the Medicare system due to the GP billing arrangements. Over the next four years or so, with a "freeze" in Medicare benefits, the $88 fee can be expected to rise to some $100 in line with probable inflation levels. Abbott and his cohort take us for fools, and with all the spin in the world they will not talk their way out of the cold harsh reality of paying ever increasing amounts for GP visits.

Philip Bewley, Barton

Be assured that the GPs will not accept the lesser amount of $5 a visit, the latest iteration of the Abbott medical roundabout.

This is the AMA you're dealing with, the country's most successful industrial union, who have never taken a drop in their gross salaries in history. Never.

Rhys Stanley, via Hall, NSW

Tony Abbott's co-payment backflip isn't surprising, particularly given that it basically follows the pattern of every other decision his government has taken – it's a cop-out.

First, the government cuts funding to universities, and to ensure they don't take the blame they say that universities don't have to increase their fees (despite a 20 per cent cut) – it is their choice, and they should be blamed.

Then they cut funding for health and education to the states, saying that the states don't have to cut health and education spending, even through they don't have the money to make up for the cuts – it is their choice, and they should be blamed.

Now, they cut the Medicare rebate to GPs, and say that GPs don't have to increase prices to make up for the lost revenue – it's their choice, and they should be blamed.

Abbott thinks he's playing clever politics, but the Australian people see through it, and judging by the polls, they know who to blame.

Joshua Smith, Gordon

With reference to the story on DVA ("Veterans' Affairs slammed as inefficient, dated, shambolic", December 9, p1), the real truth is that the department is an anachronism, delivering health, home care, compensation and income support in parallel with similar mainstream services, at a cost of over $12 billion a year.

The policies which drive it are largely remnants of the 1920s, catering for volunteers and conscripts (rather than a modern salaried and richly superannuated military), with a governance model and culture little changed. Needless to say it is protected politically by those who persist in lionising the military (as with the ABC) but with little knowledge of the detail of day-to-day management inefficiencies.

In policy terms, DVA is a complete shambles but no one is game to touch it as veterans would prefer to ignorantly defend it as the protected provider of very generous benefits to a community in which dependants now outnumber veterans. Defence, of course, likes to dump their medically discharged on DVA and thereby wash their hands of them, preferring to avoid long term OH&S responsibilities, and the cost. Particularly with respect to those mentally injured, the main game for many of these is a rich lump sum rather than rehabilitation. Past attempts to address DVA have been piecemeal, few in the bureaucracy know much about it, and for ministers it's about commemoration and feel-good issues. Yet veterans in my experience get excellent service and rich rewards, it's just that the delivery mechanism is so wasteful. Methinks just a bit too tough for Tony.

Peter Reece, Pearce

Peta Credlin is not the first powerful chief of staff to a Liberal prime minister to make herself unpopular with ministers and government backbenchers by controlling access and flow of information to the prime minister and exercising a heavy influence on decision-making. John Gorton's Credlin was Ainslie Gotto, and his tenure was characterised by unrest and infighting in the government.

Gorton lasted as prime minister three years and two months, and was replaced midway between elections by the deputy Liberal leader, William McMahon.

Michael McCarthy, Deakin

Amin Saikal ("World losing patience with intransigent Israel", Forum, December 6, p7) claims Israel is refusing to reach a negotiated final settlement with the Palestinians. Israel offered the Palestinians a state in the West Bank and Gaza in 2000, 2001 and again in 2008 in accordance with the terms of the Oslo Accords, and the Palestinians refused to even make counter-proposals. Saikal claims Netanyahu refuses to negotiate in good faith. He suspended all building of dwellings in settlements for 10 months, and then released 78 Palestinian terrorists, to encourage negotiations, and each time the Palestinians refused to discuss any substantive issues. The Americans have said that when the latest talks broke up, Netanyahu had reached a stage where agreement was possible, but Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas walked away and joined Hamas.

Saikal advocates for Australia to recognise a Palestinian state, but objective, informed observers understand that peace requires both sides to compromise. Allowing the Palestinians to believe they can get their state without negotiating in good faith will simply ensure they never compromise, and there will never be peace.

Alan Shroot, Forrest

How many more empty building do we have to have in Canberra? On Monday the CT reported ("PS offices cost a mint to keep vacant", December 8, p5) that Anzac Park East is empty and costing taxpayers megabucks. And on Tuesdays I read that the John Gorton Building has had millions of dollars spent on it and is "virtually empty" paper ("Short-term thinking seen as threat to city landmark", December 9, p4).

What about the ASIO/ Ben Chifley Building that was opened by Kevin Rudd in July 2013 but still no staff are working there. This building cost over $680 million.

No wonder this country is going broke when the government can't sort out its own housing requirements!

Sandra Smith, Macgregor

Thanks to Bhakthi Purvanenthiran for the report on Monday night's Prime Minister's Literary Awards for fiction, non-fiction, history and children's fiction ("Flanagan shares Prime Minister's fiction award", December 9, p5). But I was disappointed to see that the winner of the poetry section was missing. It was Melinda Smith for Drag Down to Unlock or Place an Emergency Call (Pitt Street Poetry).

Short-listed works included Sarah Day's Tempo (Puncher & Wattmann Poetry), Stephen Edgar's Eldershaw (Black Pepper), Geoff Page's 1953 (University of Queensland Press Poetry Series) and Jakob Ziguras' Chains of Snow (Pitt Street Poetry). Congratulations to Melinda and all short-listed poets.

Why have these outstanding poets not received immediate acknowledgment as well? Is poetry somehow a lesser art than fiction? Doesn't it take as much time, effort and pain to produce a good poetry collection as it does a book of prose?

Hazel Hall, Aranda

IRRESPONSIBLE ADVICE

How irresponsible of the federal Treasurer to urge citizens to spend, spend, spend before Christmas. Any person of sense will be paying off their debts and establishing a reserve to deal with the hard times that are coming.

Andrew Stewart, Campbell

WHERE IS THE $18M?

How on earth can the Brumbies have financial losses ("Brumbies begin search for a new boss", Sport, December 9, p24)! Just in the past two years the Brumbies received an $18million windfall from the sale of its property and land in Griffith. These gains were at the expense of ACT taxpayers. An inquiry is needed.

Marguerite Castello, Griffith

PARANOID PROPAGANDA

To suggest, as some wealthy Australians have, that they would be candidates for "kidnapping" if their tax details were publicised ("Pick on Google not us, say rich", BusinessDay, December 6, p8) is so much pseudo-paranoid propaganda.

Albert M. White, Queanbeyan, NSW

KATY THE BLAND

Katy Gallagher's reign as chief minister will only be remembered for one thing – her blandness. No white-elephant futsal slabs and painted grass (a la Kate Carnell), nor roadside monstrosities going under the name of art (a la Jon Stanhope). Boring, in a word. Her elevation to the Senate will see her fade to obscurity.

Mario Stivala, Spence

SWEET SCENTS

Interesting to read that we can neutralise our body odour: replacing it with a lingering sweet scent for up to six hours just by eating sweets made in Bulgaria's ALPI candy factory ("Bulgarian deodorant candies dispel whiff of BO from inside", December 8, p6). Though we may not think we ourselves suffer from BO, I'd say bring on the lilies!

Evelyn Bean, Ainslie

AGRICULTURE SPUN OUT

The CSIRO might be going down the gurgler, but its spin doctors are alive and thriving as never before ("New science precinct of Canberra", December 6, p8). One wonders whether they accidentally missed out "Comics" from their list of Genomics, Metabolonics and Bioinformatics. The farming community will no doubt be struck dumb with awe when they realise that the word "agriculture" will no longer exist.

Baden Williams, Lyneham

BLOWING IN THE WIND

What a breath of fresh air is H. Ronald (Letters, December 9) with his balanced political insights!

Brendan Ryan, Mawson

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).