The report lauds the knowledge economy and then expresses concern about the "journey to meeting distance", while ignoring the potential of aninternet built on fibre-optic communications infrastructure. However, the blame for the lack of progress in diversification has to be sheeted home to the ACT government that has always relied on the Commonwealth government to generate employment in the towns.

Why do 5000 ANU students live on a campus in Civic and more commute daily, when the undergraduate campus could have been developed in Tuggeranong, a town capable ofsatisfying all the needs of a student population, and thereby giving a balanced location of tertiary campuses?

Why is the ACT Legislative Assembly and its associated public service located in Civic, when it could be established inany of the towns without disadvantage? The token move to Gungahlin lacks rationale and commitment. With equal access from all parts of Canberra, Molonglo should be the logical first choice. Where is the will to build a flourishing technology park in Belconnen?

One billion dollars can be found for light rail, largely to thegain of property developers, and $100million a year pumped into ACTION without any sign of long-term planning, so why not spend $100million with ANU researchers to catalyse local high-tech spin-off from that source? Is there one politician with vision and commitment notdistorted by ideology?

A. Smith, Farrer

Of course Canberra should welcome Uber and similar ride-sharing firms ("Arrival of Uber could force taxi deregulation", June16, p1).

We should welcome them with open arms. Ride-sharing offers the efficient use of expensive road infrastructure, allowing more people to travel door to door at a manageable cost. Our outmoded taxi service must adjust or pass into history.

For example, why should ataxi plate be worth serious money? That value merely reflects the undersupply of cabs.

Let's also ensure that our regulation-prone government doesn't try to hamstring Uber with regulatory demands. Uber drivers need no more scrutiny than the random relief drivers currently used by our pampered taxi owners. Ensuring the safety of an Uber-driver's car requires no more than a standard annual road-worthiness check.

Get on with it.

Veronica Giles, Chifley

Clive Banson (Letters, June 14) omits some details in claiming that wind farms are "about as farfrom the genuine passive generation of electricity as you can get". Wind farms do require significant amounts of steel and concrete in their construction, but this needs to be considered rationally in the context of a full lifecycle analysis.

Lifecycle analyses of wind turbines carried out over the past decade have found that the energy payback of wind power ranges from three to nine months, depending on various factors, the quality of the wind resource being the most obviousone.

Banson also claims that wind turbines will be left abandoned in paddocks. In first mover countries, such as Denmark and Germany, where turbines are now reaching the end of their economic life (after 20 years), wind farms are being repowered with new turbines.

These sites were originally chosen for their exceptional wind resource. Combined with the substantial performance improvements of turbines in thepast two decades, these sites will be very attractive to future wind farm developers.

Dr Ben Elliston, Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets, University of NSW

Peter Martin's article, "Abbott should stop tilting at windmills", (canberratimes.com.au, June14) pointed out the folly of the government's illogical and unscientific opposition to windpower and other environmentally sustainable energy sources.

The issue is greatly clarified by information from Dr James Hansen, arguably the world's leading climate scientist.

Hansen provided an authoritative estimate that air pollution kills at least 1million people a year globally. Even if only 1per cent (a substantial underestimate) of those deaths are caused by coal power stations, that amounts to 10,000 deaths annually.

In contrast, wind turbines andsolar farms kill no one.

One can only wonder why Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey consider their objection to wind power onaesthetic grounds outweighs the pollution from burning coal, even ignoring the aesthetics of coal power stations and their contribution to climate change. Australia's people deserve more thoughtful leadership.

Dr Peter Coyne, Aranda

I am amazed that no one has joined the dots between two recent global announcements and Tony Abbott's stupid comments about wind power. Norway's parliament, with the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund at its command, recently confirmed its proposed sell-off of coal industry investments. Then, Group of 7 leaders strengthened their position on phasing out fossil fuels (coal) in an attempt tomitigate the worst effects ofclimate change.

The coal industry has a longhistory of orchestrating conservative politicians to trot out views, misinformation and political intentions favourable toit. Mr Abbott's asinine comments, like Joe Hockey's before him, were the predictable result of these announcements, which no doubt struck fear into coal moguls' hearts.

One wonders what the Prime Minister and Treasurer's true motivations were and who supplies them with incorrect information about the noise and adverse health effects associated with wind turbines. More alarming still is that it seems there are no longer the dogged, gritty investigative journalists around who can follow the trail and expose the motivations.

I trust Mr Abbott's descendants remember him fondly when history reveals the truth about the puppeteer (big coal) and its political puppets, as the world is made a more chaotic place in response to rising levels of greenhouse gasses.

How far behind will Australia lag in the race to develop and benefit from renewable energy technology? I weep.

Julian Reid, Dickson

Daily telling-off just a tiresome turn-off

As I head to the city along William Hovell Drive, I wonder what new admonishment the ACT nanny state will deliver on its recently installed electronic advisory banner. Who are the scriptwriters for these inane scolds? If we have to endure such daily ACT government nannyisms, then it should at least employ a creative, good-humoured, positive-minded scriptwriter.

Instead of the primary school tellings-off, it would be more useful if it could warn of increasingly common prangs in the Acton tunnel, so drivers could take another route.

Peter Sesterka, Hawker

I'm relieved that you gave space to Gillian Triggs' speech to the Supreme Court ("Bill of rights would 'ensure fairness and curb power"', June16, p6). Why, then, was there no mention of the hundreds who were turned away from her public lecture at Old Parliament House, nor a picture of the eminently photo-op-able effigy of our PM? Both tell of enormous public support for Professor Triggs in her never-ending battle with the small minds of our government.

Bob Gardiner, Isabella Plains

It is almost 15 years since the federal government introduced the goods and services tax. The revenue collected by the federal government is distributed to the states and territories and replaces general assistance grants and wholesale sales tax.

It was also supposed to replace a whole range of state and territory taxes and stamp duties, many (perhaps most) of which are still being charged to residents. It is outrageous that, after 15 years, we are still paying these levies, with no end in sight. To make matters worse, there are those who feel the GST should be increased.

Allowing the states and territories to continue double-dipping from the taxpayer, with no legislated end date, is hardly an incentive.

Fred Barnes, Bruce

What would the Magna Carta say about people-smuggling?

I can't see that Captain Tony "I've Changed" Abbott has changed one iota. Furthermore he heads a cabinet of ministers well prepared to make captain's calls within their own portfolios and keep them secret, even from their own colleagues.

So it's ironic that he's currently celebrating Magna Carta and the beginning of the end of that uber Captain's Call system we call absolute monarchy. I can hear the righties now; "but he's a good king!" As for the people smugglers, it would seem they've been double dipping and now they all know. So what will the few good men on the border do next?

S.W. Davey, Torrens

The Prime Minister states that his action, and that of his government, in regard to the "evil" trade of people smuggling and stopping the boats, is moral. So moral, it would seem, that the Australian government is willing to spend $US30,000 of our money paying these same evil smugglers. Australia in the past has jailed a number of these smugglers, but now it appears that we are going to reward them as a perverse way of stopping them. I would have thought that this would simply encourage them.

Tony Abbott also apparently thinks it is moral to lock innocent people up for all of their lives if necessary, simply because they didn't arrive in Australia by air. Now, it is going to be unlawful for anyone not part of the government to speak out about harm occurring to these same unfortunates. They will face two years jail for speaking about what they have witnessed, including medical staff. Hitler would have applauded such a law.

I didn't attend an expensive religious school, but I consider that I am a more moral person than our Prime Minister.

Margaret Huddy, Kambah

Mikayla Novak ("Growth means a better standard of living", Forum, June 13, p7) argues for economic growth and against redistribution, despite the widening wealth gap in Australia caused by the neoliberal policies she advocates. Her claim that growth can address environmental issues is farcical, given that expanding material consumption drives climate change and increasing species extinctions. Exponential economic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable, and we are already breaching the limits.

Jonathan Miller, Curtin

The debate on negative gearing appears to be warming up; and the Grattan Institute has shown that claims about negative gearing causing rents to increase are made in spite of contrary evidence.

I believe negative gearing should be limited mainly to new housing construction, including the conversion of existing non-residential buildings, and restricted to, say, two existing residential properties.

The approach that Labor appears to be pursuing is a little disappointing, however, as existing users would not be affected. Surely it would be fairer all round if existing users were warned that the number of properties they could claim for would be gradually curtailed.

Supporters of negative gearing often point to its wide use in purchasing shares. There is one great difference between that use and the buying of houses. Negative gearing can be used virtually without limit for shares but its use for buying a house only applies for properties other than the house you live in. To be consistent, perhaps home owners should be able (as I understand to be the case in some countries) to claim a tax benefit from some or all of their purchase costs – such as the interest on their mortgage.

Bob Budd, Curtin

It appears now that even the US Democrats are having second thoughts about the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership. For some time the Abbott government has been negotiating this top-secret deal. Only large corporations have access to the text of the deal and it appears that the TPP will give them the power to sue any government that legislates to improve such things as public health or environmental protection – on the grounds that such legislation could restrict their activities.

The Abbott government argues that reduced sovereignty is justified because the TPP will increase prosperity. But we have been told for 30 years now that globalisation and free-trade agreements will increase prosperity. And what do we see?

There is no money for schools, for universities, for hospitals, for research. The ANU can't afford even minor improvements to academics' offices. The public is right to be suspicious of a top-secret document that the government claims will be a boon.

Peter Hill, Broulee, NSW

President Barack Obama's own party last week voted down his request for fast track approval for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A recent ABC 7.30 program included a story concerning Huang Changran, a billionaire Chinese businessman who has supported both major parties with hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was noted that Andrew Robb, Australia's chief negotiator of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, had accepted a "gift" (paid entry to the races) from Huang Changran. Secrecy and access by major companies clouds any good that is perceived from this "partnership.

Bill Gillespie, Wamboin, NSW

As is usual with such surveys, the results of the one on Australian attitudes to climate change lived and died on the content of the questions asked ("Climate change and energy: What Australians think", June 16, p4).

Here's a question I'd love to have seen asked; coincidentally, one that can explain current government policies: "Given that global emissions will always be overwhelmingly dominated by China, the USA and India and that Australia's total emissions are relatively trivial in a global context (ie zero Australian emissions would not change the climate outlook), and given that these countries are among our most important trade competitors, should we be implementing emissions reduction policies which those countries themselves are not implementing, when such policies would make us significantly less trade-competitive?

Manson MacGregor, Amaroo

SHAME SHARED

With reference to Richard Palatino and Jane Keogh (Letters, June 16), Ionly have two words to say "Hear,hear!"

Gay von Ess, Amanda

CAPRICIOUS EXAMPLE

In 1965 in apartheid South Africa, atthe whim of the minister of the interior, Jan De Klerk, I was denied apassport. No reason was given. Does Peter Dutton intend to follow this example from a once benighted regime ?

Patrick Wagner, Queanbeyan, NSW

BREATH OF FRESH AIR

I am happy to be nominated as president of the H.Ronald Fan Club. He is a breath of fresh air among the ravings of many left-wing ideologues that permeate the letters to the editor of The Canberra Times.

Brendan Ryan, Mawson

ABOVE THE MONARCH

On the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, the Prime Minister said in Parliament that not even theking is above the law. Clearly, thePrime Minister must think he is higher than the king, given his refusal to answer whether Australian taxpayers' money was paid to people smugglers to return to Indonesia.

G. Fan, Reid

Tony Abbott is achieving the near impossible. He is beginning to make John Howard look good.

Sandor Siro, Ainslie

BRIBES DON'T WORK

A fearful and declining ancient Rome paid bribes to keep out marauding foreigners. A fearful and declining Australian government paid off people smugglers to encourage them to return to Indonesia. Bribes never work in the long run. Remember thesacking of Rome?

Byron Kaufman, Dickson

PREDILECTIONS PREVAIL

After reading Amy Jenkins ("Marriage equality: dotting Is and crossing Ts", Times2, June 15, p5), itis all clear to me: it is all about the rights and freedoms of an individual. In other words, to accommodate Joe or Mary's sexual predilections, we rewrite our civil legal code.

John Rodriguez, Florey

LAYOUT THREATENED

The authors of the report criticising Canberra's (fine) layout ("Town centres stall 'diversification"', June15, p1) seem to have overlooked the fact that this city is the national capital, meaning that the Central National Area, and not a CBD, has to physically and symbolically dominate the place, a situation threatened by the proposed radial tram system.

Jack Kershaw, Kambah

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).