The response was that it is inappropriate to provide personal information of individuals involved in the bid process. This is a non-sequitur, since the request was for contact details for the consortia not individuals per se. Furthermore, but not of much practical help, the response indicated that all lead respondents have websites and are publicly identifiable online via the ASIC company register.

It seems there is a group of "insiders" who have sway – for example two political parties, unions, property developers and construction companies. Then there is the community, who will pay for the Metro and do without other services, that is being presented with a fait accompli.

However, let's keep up the opposition since political risk has historically focused politicians' minds, although it might take until some time in 2016 for the project to be recalibrated or whatever term will be used by the spin doctors.

Bruce Paine, Red Hill

In relation to the possible re-development of the Canberra City Bowling Club site you say in your editorial "Business kingpin an unlikely David" (Times2, March 11, p2) "whether (the betterment charge payable) would be sufficient compensation for the permanent loss of a recreational asset ... is debatable". The betterment charge, now called "lease variation charge", for Braddon is $55,000 per dwelling for a 100-unit development (which will probably be possible and permissible by the time any redevelopment occurs).

Thus the betterment payable to the government (the community) would be $5.5 million. I would have thought a gift of that amount to the community generally reasonable to require the relatively few inner-suburban residents who use the club to travel to one of the other three bowling clubs in North Canberra (or to Gungahlin, where the club would be relocated).

But as I live only about 500 metres from the club and play bowls there regularly, I join with John Mackay and Peter Conway in hoping the club stays where it is in my lifetime.

R.S. Gilbert, Braddon

Tony Powell of Griffith (Letters, March 11) says of the Land Development Agency's Canberra Brickworks and Environs Strategy that "from a town planning, urban design and social and environmental standpoint, it is a monstrosity of a scheme". Describing it as "a throwback to the kind of subdivision layouts that cheap developers favoured," he warns Yarralumla residents that this development "will progressively have seriously adverse impacts on the quality of your life".

But Catherine Carter, of the ACT Property Council, has gushed that, "The redevelopment of the Yarralumla Brickworks will be another landmark project that will benefit the people of Yarralumla and the people of Canberra – and we need to get behind the ACT government's visionary plan." Neither the views of an independent planning expert like Mr Powell, nor a petition with more than 4000 signatures, can persuade this arrogant local government to scale back its plans to sell off woodland near the Brickworks, allowing developers to build enough multi-storey apartments to more than double the population of the suburb. The LDA's community engagement is proven to be a farce.

Densification and traffic congestion will replace community walking trails through a tranquil woodland area abundant with native birdlife. Any Canberra residents protesting the destruction of suburban green spaces, walking trails, trees and birdlife are "wardenised" as nimbies. Meanwhile the Greens, once an environmental party, stay silent as a critically endangered golden sun moth faces localised extinction when its grassland habitat near the Brickworks is flattened and bulldozed to make way for drains, roads and concrete.

If we get the government we deserve, what did we do to deserve this local government?

Alan Brooke, Yarralumla

The extent to which the ACT government is prepared to go in its desperate search for revenue has reached a nadir in the latest land grab in Yarralumla, described in the recently released iteration of the cutely named "Canberra Brickworks and Environs Planning and Development Strategy".

This proposal has little to do with the Brickworks and everything to do with the obsession with infill at any price. Higher urban densities are important for increasing efficiencies in transport, infrastructure and services. This does not mean every green space should be sold and developed. If this important part of our urban landscape is considered suitable for development, then everything is on the table and nothing is safe.

Paul Ratcliffe, Yarralumla

Graeme Barrow (Letters, March 13) envisages a walking trail with huts for overnight accommodation connecting some of the most remote and wild mountains in Namadgi National Park. Almost all the mountains mentioned are in Namadgi's wilderness management zone. The proposal therefore raises questions of the intrinsic values of wilderness and if certain natural areas should be left in an undeveloped state.

Wilderness is nature's refuge – areas in which natural values can continue to evolve without significant human intervention – and vital for the health of Australia's environment. Namadgi's plan of management supports the concept of wilderness for its own sake and Graeme's proposal would undermine this.

Fortunately, Namadgi provides many opportunities for access to its natural wonders. There are hundreds of kilometres of trails for walkers,

cyclists and horse-riders of all abilities. Routes can be planned that link excellent camping grounds and historic huts. Namadgi is also crossed by the iconic Alpine Trail. This is not a locked up national park. I applaud Graeme's vision but I believe there are other more achievable options for significant walks in Namadgi that do not threaten the sensitivity of Namadgi's wilderness.

Rod Griffiths, president, National Parks Association of the ACT

Bravo Ross Gittins for pointing out that "immigration carries a huge threat to our productivity" ("We're not taking productivity seriously", BusinessDay, March 16, p11). As he says: "... unless we invest in enough additional housing, business equipment and public infrastructure to accommodate the extra workers and their families, this lack of "capital widening" reduces our physical capital per person and so reduces our productivity.

Dr Jane O'Sullivan, of the University of Queensland, estimates it costs the public $100,000 for infrastructure for each new person added to the population, be they born here or overseas. Given our population has been increasing by around 400,000 annually in recent years, this means $40 billion is required annually to supply the needed infrastructure just for the growth in pop-ulation, never mind replacing outdated or worn out infrastructure. It would be good to have some figures from Treasury as to what we actually gain from such growth to offset this considerable cost.

Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Housing affordability Brian Brocklebank (Letters, March 16) raises age-old economic issues of supply and demand.

Consider the flip side of axing negative gearing. Investors will flood the market with sales, lowering house prices for a while, as other options are considered for investment. Yep, houses will become more "affordable" to those with a deposit, or even without, using the various hybrids of trust funds and other avenues.

Removing landlords from the equation will reduce the availability of rentals for those unable to enter the market of home ownership, particularly those with no appropriate deposit, preferably under 80percent loans to avoid paying your bank's mortgage insurance on their behalf.

Sure, houses will be cheaper, yet our kids still don't have that elusive deposit. The tax income, reduced to zero by investors departing will see a new cost to taxpayers providing increased government housing. The states and territories won't buy your argument.

Although more houses will be available for sale, there needs to be buyers. As stamp duty is equated to sale prices, local governments won't risk the loss. Further, rental asking will increase, making it more difficult for our kids to accumulate a deposit.

The answer is to release more land. Allow our kids to buy the dirt first, then stage the building process. Relax the title law in having to build within 12 months to perhaps two years (ACT – as opposed to freehold in the states). Introduce a new First Land Owner's Grants (FLOG). If unable to fund construction within two years, our kids could then FLOG the dirt back to the government at increased value in order to fund a deposit on a home or investment rented by you.

Brian, I'll do you a deal. I'll buy the house you want to live in. Do me the same. That way we both are "in the property market" renting from one another with our choice of lifestyle rented. Over time, each may in fact become positively geared.

Phil O'Mara, Macgregor

Richard Denniss ("Joe Hockey's intergenerational gift to the wealthy", canberratimes.com.au, March 14) has misunderstood the government's Intergenerational Report. The report makes only one long-term assumption about tax: after 2020-21, total tax revenue will remain at 23.9 per cent of GDP. This is consistent with the approach in the Intergenerational Report released by the Rudd Labor government in 2010. The 2015 report doesn't make any other assumptions: it doesn't assume, as Denniss argues, that millionaires will avoid tax, super loopholes won't be fixed, the CGT discount will remain or that tax scales will be indexed every year. The report merely assumes that if one tax is growing at a rate slower than GDP the remaining taxes will grow faster.

This may be an unrealistic assumption, but it certainly doesn't justify the straw man attack by Denniss.

Michael Potter, Waverton, NSW

When will this government wake up? The budget "emergency" has been exposed for the lie that it is, but long term the government does need more revenue or it will have to reduce services. If it reduces services it will pay a political price, especially if that is done only to the less well-off.

The only realistic thing to do is to increase revenue. There are many ways to do this and if the methods adopted are fair to all and fully explained in advance, they will be accepted. What the government should not do is complain about the future age pension bill and at the same time take steps to reduce the effectiveness of compulsory super for the less well-paid so future governments will have to pay out more for pensions. Also, what the government should not do is complain about our lack of productivity and at the same time cut back on research and education and make university and TAFE more difficult for the less well-heeled.

The answer is "more revenue". The government and the opposition should start a conversation with the electorate and among themselves and even with each other as to how best to achieve this in a fair manner.

Jim Gralton, Garran

Amanda Vanstone ("Time to think of the children", Times2, March 16, p4) recommended that critics of the PM should address the issues instead of attacking the PM himself. In order to achieve a more rational and conciliatory government, the PM and his party need to follow this advice to avoid more unwise responses to criticisms such as: claims made by Save the Children staff at Nauru, Gillian Trigg's report and the recent UN report on Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, to name a few. That would certainly help achieve the good, mature government that the Liberals claimed they would provide.

C. Foster, Bywong, NSW

Bede Harris ("Reform is overdue", Times2, March 16, p1) is quite right with his observation that Australia is not a true democracy, but I query whether these problems can be changed by voters overcoming their "political apathy and their aversion to constitutional change", or by making more demands on politicians.

Those who have tried this approach in the 114 years since the Constitution was adopted in 1901 have regularly failed to achieve their goals, or have any significant effect on political attitudes (parties or pollies).

Even the old injunction, "When all else fails, read the instructions", is no help, because politicians' instructions are contained in that failed 1901 Constitution, which gives them control, regardless of what voters want.

To cap it off, any amendment to the Constitution (clause 128) is only possible if politicians agree with the proposed changes first and last.

It's like a dog chasing its tail, and nicer when you stop.

But as a dedicated but dissatisfied voter for more than 60 years, it is only a couple of years ago since I found an organisation, Beyond Federation (beyondfederation.org.au), which I believe is on the right course to achieve changes which will place the responsibility and initiative for democratically changing the Constitution on voters first and last.

In the organisation's developing proposal, democracy would be dominant, voters would have to accept responsibility for change, and politicians would be encouraged to concentrate on co-operative, in lieu of divisive, governing.

It's a win/win proposal all round, and one which is long (115 years) overdue.

Geoff Armstrong, Monash

AID PRECONDITIONS

In order to minimise any future diplomatic difficulties, I trust that the Australian government has made clear to Vanuatu any preconditions on which life-saving, humanitarian aid is being provided. It would be unfortunate if the Australian government saved lives, only for Vanuatu to make decisions in the future that Australia was not happy with.

Gordon Fyfe, Kambah

ONE-MAN BAND

Re Shaun Crowe's insightful analysis ("Palmer's populism was doomed from the start", Times2, March 16, p5) , it appears that PUP will explode soon, when it will become BOMB ("Billionaire's One Man Band").

John Milne, Chapman

DOG ON THE RUN

The Master Builders Association wants the Australian Building and Construction Commission reinstated "Builders seek return of watchdog" (March 16, p3). The poor dog probably ran away because it couldn't stand listening to any more Monteverdi with its cultured tradie masters.

G. Burgess, Kaleen

NOT SPOTLESS

I am a 10-year-old Dalmatian dog and I can assure Dennis Richardson ("Defence signals more jobs in the gun", March 15, p1) that, unlike Defence, we Dalmatians do not lose our spots. I know where all mine are, although some may be going a little grey around the edges!

Bronagh Harrington, as dictated to Peter Harrington, Weston

ASK THE VOTERS

Joe Hockey says that the age of entitlement is over, but nobody seems to have told the ACT Remuneration Tribunal, ("Katy Gallagher receives $31,000 resettlement payment payout", March 16, p2). It is time that this unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative body was abolished and governments put their claims for increased pay and allowances directly to the people who elect them.

Ric Hingee, Duffy

TRAILING THE FIELD

If Australia is 30th out of 31 countries in its proportional spending on universities, what areas of spending do we lead, other than on other people's wars and terror?

Adrian Gibbs, Yarralumla

CAMPAIGN REACTION

Education Minister Christopher Pyne doesn't seem to be doing the government any favours in the ratings with his current campaign. Some will feel negative about it all, others neutral. Myself, simply non-plussed.

Peter Baskett, Murrumbateman, NSW

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).