It is from this building that half-truths, cosy deals with developers and unions and continuing misleading over the cost and efficiency of the Capital Metro project are sourced.

It is under this government that rates have escalated alarmingly, despite protestations to the contrary before the 2012 election to support objectively identified inefficiency in transport, hospitals and questionable overseas travel by Legislative Assembly members of all persuasions.

The dilemma is that the alternative to the present tired yet arrogant rulers is generally uninspiring. So, in October, when the good citizens of Canberra elect eight more folk to the assembly at an annual cost of about $1million, there can be little confidence of improvement in the city's administration.

Indeed, the likelihood is that, whichever mob forms government, will do so with a majority of one. The best chance Canberra Liberals have of forming government is the deserved concern over the cost and demonstrably reduced benefit to commuters of the tramway between Gungahlin and Civic. No objective study has supported this project from an economic or transport viewpoint. Yet, depending on the traditional high Labor vote, the government has committed to the project.

Although the tram, which will provide slower and less-frequent service than at present, will be the major point of difference at the election, it will not be the only one. If it were, the government would almost certainly be tossed out. If it is not, its arrogance, questionable deals and support of financial inefficiency will be entrenched.

If Canberra Liberals want to prevent this, they must do far better than their present insipid approach, which indicates they are more comfortable in opposition than having to take on the responsibility of government.

Graham Downie, O'Connor

With an upcoming local election, it is timely to reflect upon some particular failings of the ALP government, as I view them.

On a local issue, some years ago the government threatened to "fix up" the dilapidated Kambah shopping centre.

There were public meetings, and consultation. A specific plan was drawn up. Where has it gone? Kambah is the largest suburb in the ACT, yet the shopping area is a disgrace. Wander down there when it is raining, and experience the roof drainage system; it is unbelievably bad. One can get drenched. As for Woolies, it is inadequate in terms of range and stock, despite the fine staff. The local IGA run by a caring Greek family is my preference.

The once-excellent barbecue area at the Kambah pool has disappeared, despite a government promise to reinstate it 10years ago. Illegal dumping has increased as garbage bins from many key public areas have also disappeared. Tip fees are not cheap. Perhaps this government may disappear, as well.

There is the tram issue. There has been enough documented about that. There is the gay marriage issue. Don't call it marriage; it demeans the real thing.

I'll refrain from comments on the quality of our resurfaced roads, especially in 50km/h zones. Once the ACT had the best of roads.

My once-preferred party has failed me.

Greg Jackson, Kambah

It is a great pity the Greens' Shane Rattenbury has not yet seen fit to take a long, hard look at the poor-quality outcomes to date for the residential and commercial redevelopment of the Dickson Centre and request Chief Minister Andrew Barr to start again with a new master plan that is far more acceptable to the surrounding community and in keeping with the quality of development and level of amenity we all deserve in Canberra but are failing to achieve ("Rattenbury calls for Manuka revamp". April 28 p2).

The current Dickson plans still promise overbuilding and overdevelopment, significantly increased traffic congestion and travelling times for private and public transport users, much more urban ugliness and loss of amenity for residents in the surrounding suburbs in particular, plus negative impacts on any natural landscape, including the surrounds to the Dickson pool.

Please speak up for Dickson, too, Mr Rattenbury.

Sue Dyer, Downer

Minister Rattenbury's dream ("What type of Canberra do we want beyond 10 years?", Forum, April 30, p5) is not one that accords with my view. I don't want to live in an overpopulated place, crowded cheek by jowl with other citizens, where there are no open spaces, limited greenery and having to vie for resources and amenities like other capital cities in Australia. The intention to saturate Canberra with citizens and remove trees to build high-density housing will create more problems than he acknowledges or accepts and will only lead to diminishing resources, hardly a "green" outcome. I would have even supported light rail if only it had been initiated in the city itself and not on a line to nowhere with nothing between the termini.

I guess its time to move on unless other citizens decide that enough is enough and change our local government at the next opportunity. All the money being spent on these pipe dreams would be better used to improve our nationally criticised hospital system for the benefit of the existing citizens of Canberra.

David Hall Kingston, Wanniassa

If you want to see what Mr Rattenbury's future Canberra looks like, drive up Flemington Road sometime and see the wall-to-wall apartment blocks being built already on either side (of dubious architectural merit and possibly of equal construction merit). Now envisage that extending for 12kilometres all the way down Flemington Road and Northbourne Avenue. That is Mr Rattenbury's vision for Canberra, at least for the north side of the lake. And what of the south side, when the trams fail to go beyond Civic? In again making a big case for light rail, he fails to mention that, in its own submission to Infrastructure Australia in August 2012, the government compared a bus rapid transit system with a light-rail transit system for the Gungahlin-Civic route and found the BRT would be half the cost and twice as effective. The government opted for the LRT anyway but has never explained why.

M. Silex, Erindale

The ecosystem based around our Great Barrier Reef is dying, slowly and surely, as was predicted if greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase. At the Rio Earth Conference held in 1992, the Climate Change Convention was signed by 172 nations, and agreed to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system." In 1992, atmospheric CO2 was 356ppm, with an annual increase around 1-2ppm per year.

Now in 2016 the CO2 level is over 400ppm, and the rate of increase from year to year is 2-3ppm. Mass coral bleaching occurred in 1998, 2002, 2006, and this year 93 per cent of the reefs are bleaching to some extent with severe bleaching on most reefs north of Cairns.

Ocean temperature is significantly warmer than in previous decades, plus loss of coastal wetlands, sediment runoff, pesticide runoff from farming, oxygen depletion due to fertiliser runoff, mining pollution, overfishing, crown-of-thorns starfish, and shipping are all adding to the degradation.

We've had two decades of inadequate response to this environmental catastrophe from both Liberal and Labour governments, and there are even a few MPs who still deny increasing greenhouse gas is the problem. Our politicians are holding more meetings but still aren't taking enough action. Unless we have a change in government policy and action, future generations will only be able to look at photos in the Great Barrier Reef Museum.

Stuart Walkley, Lyneham

Please point me in the right direction, H. Ronald (Letters, April 30) so that I too can read the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers grapple with climate change and share in your excitement. I just couldn't find it anywhere in my search.

Jan Gulliver, Lyneham

Awww! It was so lovely to read that Malcolm Turnbull is essentially a softie and wells up on occasions that surround the tragic loss of life and culture ("Tough-talk PM says he's easily moved to tears", April 30, p4). What about if the tragedy is the result from the cruel policy inflicted on vulnerable people by his own government? Last week one young man was so driven to distraction by the government's policy of mandatory detention that, in an act of desperation, he set himself alight and subsequently died a painful death from his burns. Did Mr Turnbull cry on the occasion of the sad and violent death of this young man? Did he cry for Omid?

Sarah Johnston, Murrumbateman, NSW

When Malcolm Turnbull was elevated to the highest office in the land, he promised to lead a government that was fair and compassionate. At last week's ceremony commemorating the tragedy of the Port Arthur massacre, our Prime Minister was moved to tears. With daily reports of the torturous, inhumane conditions in Australia's immigration detention centres and news of the 17th asylum seeker driven to suicide, our leader admonishes the nation not to get carried away with empathy. Core and non-core compassion, is it, Mr Turnbull?

Eileen O'Brien, Kambah

Many Australians would join Mr Turnbull in being moved by the massacre and deeply touched by the continuing grief of the survivors and relatives of those who died.

But the same Australians who share Mr Turnbull's grief about Port Arthur are also able to grieve sincerely and deeply for the refugees that Australia holds in detention. Surely true grief cannot easily be compartmentalised, nor turned on and off at a political whim. Is it possible that if Mr Turnbull visited and talked with the people who are asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus he might find himself so misty-eyed at their plight that he would do something truly kind for them?

Dr Anne Cawsey, Hackett

Congratulations to Dominic Knight for his article on refugees ("We must start again – slogans won't help asylum-seekers" Forum, April 30, p2). Unlike everything else I have seen, he did not use slogans, appeal to emotions or dismiss the deaths-at-sea consequences of the position of refugee "supporters" with rational-sounding solutions that could work only if the number of refugees wanting to come to Australia was a small fraction of the true number.

Rather, he proposed a solution which would largely remove the incentive for refugee-seekers to physically travel to Australia, with the consequential deaths by drowning.

We now need to address the other basic problems. Currently the number who qualify under the Geneva Convention as refugees is hugely greater than the number the rest of the world is willing to resettle. The definition of a refugee needs to be changed to reduce this discrepancy. Some who don't qualify under the new definition would then decide (correctly) that they are better off in their own country than in a camp with little hope of resettlement – the current situation of huge numbers of "refugees".

It also needs to be accepted that while refugees have the right to be safe, they do not have the right to be rich.

The Western world could fund decent living conditions in safe countries like Turkey or Jordan, or could encourage lower-income countries to take refugees. Either method would be cheaper than what we are now doing.

Allan Doobov, Griffith

Having read of the proposed public service shake-up ("No more 'jobs for life' under radical plan to shake up public service", April 29, p1) I hope the government will not consign public servant's "jobs for life" to history books. When times are tough those who believe they have "jobs for life" spend, which in turn supports small businesses like mine.

Conversely, those threatened with redundancy hang onto their money. Menzies knew this. It's a pity today's Libs do not realise what is blatantly obvious.

Cheryl Smythe, Ainslie

I will probably become persona non grata with the establishment for spouting what will be seen as rank heresy, but I firmly believe that a new fleet of 12 submarines is not the answer to Australia's defence needs in the future. By all means retain a submarine force but not of this magnitude; and of course nuclear. Our need is for obvious deterrence against those who might wish to invade us and the solution, as I see it, is land-based medium and short-range missiles, and plenty of them, since any invader will come by air.

There have been a number of erudite articles in the CT which have spelt out in detail the faults with the 12 conventional submarine proposal; not more needs to be said except that talking to a number of retired senior colleagues, many also have serious doubts about what will prove to be a very expensive white elephant.

Norman Lee, RAN (Retd), Weston

I wish to protest at the advertisements appearing in all major newspapers on April 26. They were authorised by the Electoral Commissioner, 50 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra, ACT.

The third paragraph reads: "If you choose to vote above the line, you now need to number at least six boxes. Put the number '1' in the box for the party or group that is your first choice, a '2' for your second choice and so on until you've numbered at least six boxes."

The first sentence is a lie. You do not need to number at least six boxes. If this system comes into force I, for one, will follow the advice "vote one only" knowing that my party vote is a formal vote.

The fourth paragraph reads: "If you choose to vote below the line, you must number at least 12 boxes, from one to 12, for individual candidates in the order of your choice." That is an even bigger lie. If this dishonest system comes into force I shall treat the advice as thought it reads: "Place the numbers one to at least six in these boxes to indicate your choice." Were I to do that I would still vote informally.

The above pieces of dishonesty are not the fault of the Electoral Commissioner, of course. It is the politicians who voted for this legislated system who are to blame.

Malcolm Mackerras, Campbell

LESBOS SETS EXAMPLE

If the poverty-stricken islanders of Lesbos in the Mediterranean Sea can be nominated for the Nobel peace prize for welcoming large numbers of refugees on their shores, can't we welcome those men on Manus who were sent there by our government for processing?

Open your hearts Australia!

Koula Poulos, Watson

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

Well done, Treasurer Scott Morrison for saving the Kidman properties for a local buyer, hopefully. We already have just too much foreign ownership in this country, our dairy industry in Victoria being a classic case.

Rex Williams, Ainslie

SIGNING OUT

According to your recent article ("Getting a foot in the door", Forum, April 30, p1), I should expect a carload of trade union organisers to turn up at my front door soon to "encourage" me to sign up to some unnamed pledge. What the article failed to answer is what will happen if I refuse to sign.

T. Leslie, Garran

NOT ALL THE SAME

Susan MacDougall (Letters, April 30) obviously sees all Catholics as thinking with one mind. But how wrong she is! In the US, for example, there is a group that calls itself "Catholics for Choice" – they actively support abortion! Ultimately, nobody – including "Catholics and other right-wing religious groups" – likes to die slowly in palliative care.

Henk Verhoeven, Beacon Hill, NSW

SAFETY COMES FIRST

Malcolm Turnbull has promised that the 12 new submarines will keep Australia safe. Will they keep us safe from climate change and Australian women safe from domestic violence?

Jeanette Handke, Kambah

NEGATIVE GEARING

When the Turnbull government decided to do nothing about negative gearing, did any of its ministers disqualify themselves from decision-making on standard probity grounds of perceived conflict of interest? Orwould that have left them without a quorum?

Phil Teece, Sunshine Bay, NSW

SAVE THE BRUMBY

As a consequence of years of NSW Parks and Wildlife Service mismanagement, the mountain brumby, which has lived in the hills and ranges for the past 180 years, is to get a bullet to the head. The same simplistic solution was applied to our walers in Palestine after World War I. What exactly have these companions done to deserve this?

Richard Crispin, Jindabyne, 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).