As Professor Allan Fels stated at his talk to the Canberra Mental Health Forum on Tuesday, change is traumatic for people with severe mental illness and we should always question first whether or not that change should occur.

Ros Williams, Holder

This besotted dog owner is against the Baird government's unilateral decision to shut down the dog racing industry for now. It is an elitist decision by politicians who as usual form a protected coterie with nothing at risk except their miserable political backsides, the same people who would move mountains to advance their own interests and squeal at the slightest inconvenience.

I suspect Premier Baird made up his mind about dog racing long before the McHugh report was released and it is no coincidence that Mike Baird picked a self-declared activist judge with precisely the mindset needed to get the result he wanted. After the release of the report, his anxious speed to announce the shutdown without further consultation also betrayed his lack of objectivity. Now the far reaching implications of the decision are becoming clearer and the shoddy nature of the report is being exposed, not surprisingly the little people, the unprotected who suffer the brunt of this overreach, are not going quietly.

I hope they shake the Baird coalition government to its foundations and force an embarrassing backdown. Rather than parade his virtue to the squawking activists and right-thinking people who always know best, Mike Baird might start acting like a leader and consider the interests of the overwhelming proportion of people in the industry who do the right thing.

He could start by establishing an open and accountable authority to facilitate reform with enough funding to monitor, report and intervene as required. If, despite these efforts, the industry is indeed recidivist and fails to meet acceptable standards within a reasonable timeframe, then it would be fair to shut it down.

H. Ronald, Jerrabomberra, NSW

I noted Geoff Clark's despair (Letters, May 19) at how the two major political parties are serving their own interests rather than the public. I concur with this view and do hope the forthcoming election brings fresh blood that treats the ACT public and their views with respect.

I was heartened to see that a new party, the Canberra Community Voters Party, has been formed by Richard Farmer and Tony Harris with a mission to ensure we have proper community consultation and good governance principles including a commitment to openness and transparency. This could be "the breath of fresh air" we are looking for.

Penny Moyes, Hughes

Recidivist climate change deniers, Brian Hatch and H. Ronald, have both mocked Tim Flannery over the current high rainfall and full state of dams as some sort of indirect evidence for their denialism (Letters, July 8 and 14 respectively).

Are they "playing the man" because it is problematic to attack the science? Anyway, characteristic of their ilk, they confuse weather with climate. A temporary wet spell and full dams does not mean either the end of droughts or that a drier climate won't ultimately eventuate. The exact future of climate in any one region under a warming Earth is uncertain because it is a dynamic, multi-dimensional system. It can only ever be a best estimate using complex climate models. These were not developed by Flannery who is not himself a climate scientist; his background is in palaeontology and ecology. What are Hatch's and Ronald's in? Most tellingly, the Earth is indisputably warming, whether it is wet or dry in south-eastern Australia, no matter how much Hatch and Ronald like to pretend otherwise.

Lake George could be lapping at the Federal Highway and it would still not mean that the Earth was not warming.

David Jenkins, Casey

There is a formula by which one can attack a sound argument, without factually countering it. H. Ronald (Letters, July 15) uses elements of this formula in textbook fashion. A key tactic is to focus on any small element of uncertainty and, with sweeping statements like "the science isn't settled", create the impression that every confirmed fact on the topic is unproven. Frequently state this with conviction to increase doubt. An extension of this tactic is to utilise any small mistake or overreach by your proponent to question the credibility of every other aspect of their premise. Better still, suggest a conspiracy theory or personal gain. Then use insignificant correlations ipso facto in a mic-drop moment to so-call prove the point. Many other elements of the formula used by H. Ronald are demonstrated every day in the rantings of right-wing shock jocks (Did you notice what I did? Yes, I played: guilt by association. Another trick). There are many more tricks like these. When exposed, the vacuousness of the attacking case is clear.

Mark Boscawen, Banks

Colin Rubenstein ("To fight xenophobia, speak clearly about Islamism", Comment, July 10, p17) exhorts us to think clearly about Islam. And Monday night's Q&A was dominated by it. Colin's right: it's totally wrong to condemn those of us who fear Islam because of its worldwide, violent, intolerant extremes, to not speak of it because it might promote local radicalism. That's appeasement.

As uncomfortable as it might be, some facts about local Islam must be determined. So what are they? If some future Australian Islamic leader were to ask local Muslims to choose between Allah or the infidel gods what would they do? Could their religious tolerance be legislated or otherwise guaranteed, or would Allah emerge supreme as their only god?

In 2012, a young Muslim girl in a Sydney Islamic protest parade carried a placard "Behead the Infidels". Would local Sunnis and Shiites abandon their mutual hatreds evidenced by the violent conflict between them we see elsewhere? If their leader were to ask them to support the installation of Sharia law in Australia by voting only for Islamic electoral candidates promising that, what would they do?

If the answer(s) to any of these questions is/are negative, no sweet talk from politicians or anyone else will stop local radicalisation. Just ask the French. Until we do know, it is blind for Australia to continue importing among the hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving here every year, Muslims from countries dominated by intolerant Islam.

Vince Patulny, Kambah

I must be getting deaf 'cos I don't hear any moderate Islam voices ("To fight xenophobia, speak clearly about Islamism", Comment, July 10, p17) .

Tom Middlemiss, Deakin

Amanda Vanstone ("PM saved the Coalition", Comment, July 18, p18) commends Malcolm Turnbull for achieving government and saving his party from the point in time when "the Liberals were set to lose something like 38 seats". In fact, he has also saved the nation from the continued ravages of Tony Abbott. Vanstone then castigates Bill Shorten and Labor for their "cleverly crafted campaign" over Medicare.

I would submit that a far more cynical, orchestrated campaign has been run by the Coalition with regards to the demonisation and cruel treatment of asylum seekers. From the time of the Tampa and "children overboard" the Coalition has used this as a political wedge.

Politicians such as Phillip Ruddock and Scott Morrison have used the plight of unfortunate, desperate people to further their own political careers.

As a former immigration minister, Vanstone well knows the machinations. So successful was this campaign that it was emulated by Kevin Rudd. In recent times, Peter Dutton has been cranked up whenever things start to run against the government.

Peter Crossing, Curtin

Complaints about the AEC's funding of candidates who achieve 4 per cent or more of primary votes are understandable, but the consequences of abandoning it may not have been thought through. The immediate result would be that only wealthy candidates and parties could contest elections as is the case in the US, where anyone with less than a billion dollars to spend can forget it. If voting patterns are any indication, that's not what we want to see here, though it's becoming a de facto reality.

We urgently need to break the nexus between political donations and electoral success – the single most significant source of corruption of our political process.

Of course, politicians and parties need to get their policies out, but the simple equation of more money = more coverage needs to be replaced with a system that gives every party or candidate an equitable opportunity to inform voters of their positions.

AEC funding as it stands is at least an attempt, though a small and inequitable one, to level the playing field.

At least it gives small parties and independents who can demonstrate a modicum of community support some small relief from the expense of running.

Fred Pilcher, Kaleen

If one accepts the logic of the Chinese claim to vast areas of the South China Sea on traditional/historical grounds, does one regard the Roman Empire, the Greek adventures, the Ottoman Empire and even the Mongolian Empire under Genghis Khan as the legitimate claimant of vast parts of Europe, Middle East and Asia, including, in the later case, China itself.

Sound specious? So is the Chinese claim. China has accepted the modern day rules of the Law of the Sea Convention which establishes internationally endorsed limits on its outrageous claims. It needs to respect the recent Hague judgment.

Why do aspiring world powers in this day and age, see the need to push their territorial boundaries? Such actions inevitably lead to a point where they push too far.

Surely such powers can learn from the experiences of the last century when German, Japanese and Soviet attempts all ended in disaster.

G.C.Allen, Red Hill

Assigning both the environment and energy portfolios ("Joint portfolio a 'blow' for Great Barrier Reef", July 19, p5) to Josh Frydenberg, who has no qualifications of direct relevance to either environmental or energy matters (his qualifications are in economics, law, and public administration), is surely a conflict of interests.

For example, if Adani's Carmichael mine in central Queensland is allowed to go ahead (with the increasingly doubtful assumption that it is deemed economically viable by Adani's financiers), it could cause direct and indirect damage to the Reef.

Damage will certainly be done, indirectly, by the burning (in India) of all that coal. Damage could also be caused by dredging to expand the port at Abbot Point, and from possible collisions with the huge and cumbersome coal-carrying ships.

We should not be deliberately imposing such risks on one of Earth's natural wonders.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

HIS ANSWER IS 42

So, Malcolm Turnbull's new ministry numbers 42. Seems our prime minister has discovered that the answer is Life, The Universe and Everything. Pity he doesn't know the question.

Peter Moran, Watson

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Less than 12 months ago we were told that Greg Hunt had been voted "the greatest environment minister in the world". Obviously Malcolm Turnbull begs to differ.

Ian De Landelles, Murrays Beach, NSW

REACTIONARIES

For 10 years Gary Humphries, a decent and honourable man represented the ACT in the Senate. He was never a minister. The man who rolled him, right wing Liberal Zed Seselja, has been in the Senate for three years and is now a minister. It just goes to show how reactionary the Turnbull government is.

John Passant, Kambah

BEATING UP THE POOR

A government seriously contemplating gleaning billions should go where the real dollars are spent, corporate welfare ("Seselja's welfare goal", July 19, p1). This government, governing for all, takes great glee in beating up on the poor. Zed Seselja is, not surprisingly, a self-identified, vociferous advocate of scrapping penalty rates.

Albert M. White, Queanbeyan, NSW

CLARITY ON ISLAM

Dr Colin Rubenstein correctly identified the need "to create a clear public distinction between the perverse Islamism that guides attacks and moderate, majority, mainstream Islam." ("To fight xenophobia, speak clearly about Islamism", Comment, July 10, p17) The two are as distinct as Judaism and Zionism.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

DISGRACEFUL IMAGE

Your article "Court told of ex-partner's alleged threats" (July 19, p1) regarding comments made by the alleged murderer of Tara Costigan is appalling. You showed absolutely no empathy or care for the deceased woman's family, especially her children, by displaying that image of Marcus Rappel. Disgraceful.

Ed Harris, Bonython

IGNORANT ON HALAL

Pauline Hanson has on several occasions refused to eat halal food. Does she realise that the fish and chips she served at her shop, providing they were not cooked in animal fat, were halal? That every time she eats fish, fruit, vegetables, bread she is eating halal food? Or does her ignorance of Islam protect her from what, to her, would be inconvenient truths?

Judith Erskine, Belconnen

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).