But will his grandstanding ("Calls for an inquiry into the Menslink affair", February 17, p1) improve government in the ACT at all? Will it lower our rates? Will it make the buses run on time?

As Tony Abbott remarked last week, I'm not impressed with this Game of Thrones sort of behaviour.

Mike Reddy, Lyons

What is the point of investing $415, 000 to investigate any links between Mr Fluffy homes and mesothelioma ("Study into Mr Fluffy cancer link", February 16, p1) when all or most of the affected houses will have been bulldozed by the time the result of the research is known?

The ANU study should have been done before it decided to destroy all the Mr Fluffy homes, not after. The government would then have available relevant evidence on which to base appropriate action and it may even have saved a whole heap of money.

David Denham, Griffith

The ACT government is to be congratulated for its announcement that it will fund research to study the potential risks of Mr Fluffy homeowners developing the terminal asbestos-related illness mesothelioma.

As an asbestos lawyer of more than 15 years, I have seen too many families devastated by asbestos-related diseases, particularly mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a terminal illness that can develop from inhaling even a small amount of asbestos.

People can be exposed to asbestos after the slightest disturbance of fibres and it usually happens when people are not even aware it is there.

We're seeing a third wave of mesothelioma victims being diagnosed with this terminal illness, who are primarily people who have been involved in home renovations and building work that involved asbestos. Symptoms of asbestos diseases can take up to 40 years to develop, which means we are unlikely to see the full effects of asbestos until disease rates peak in the 2020s.

This is not yesterday's problem, which is why it is crucial that heads of government and industry leaders continue to raise awareness to ensure homeowners understand the risks and take appropriate steps to minimise it.

Joanne Wade, Slater and Gordon Lawyers

The ACT government is to be congratulated for holding a design competition for the new convention centre, and the outcome looks really exciting ("Convention centre 'a reality' at $700m", February 10, p3). However, its siting is not yet optimised. It is located in City Hill's southeast sector between Commonwealth Avenue, Vernon Circle, the line of Constitution Avenue, and London Circuit.

That surely requires a high degree of built-form symmetry in the matching southwest sector, on the other side of Commonwealth Avenue. It carries the view of City Hill from Parliament House. However, the convention centre has a unique physical form that cannot really be duplicated in the hill's southwest sector.

The obvious place for the centre therefore, is the hill's summit, appropriately physically above our Legislative Assembly. Griffin placed an important building on the hill in his original plan. Plenty of compensatory high-quality accessible landscaped open space can be incorporated on and around the hill with careful planning of the whole precinct inside London Circuit – especially in the southeast and southwest sectors (no apartments or hotels there please) facing the campus-like Central National Area.

An appropriate master plan for the hill precinct (also deserving a design competition), respecting the existing '60s development, could also see a large symmetrical hotel complex opposite Edinburgh Avenue, a new Legislative Assembly grouping symmetrically arranged around the axis of Constitution Avenue, a large new symmetrical city square and administrative towers complex opposite Northbourne Avenue (its disruptive through-traffic taken in a tunnel).

Jack Kershaw, Kambah

The Assembly is considering introducing legislation for the criminal offence of consorting ("Anti-bikie laws for ACT considered", February 17, p2). Consorting is not a new offence and has a very long history in the criminal law. Consorting was on the books in NSW in the 1960s when I was a member of the NSW Police Force. Consorting fell out of favour, being opposed by civil libertarians, lawyers and others mainly because it was very effective.

Consorting was a very useful tool for dealing with and controlling criminals and it would be highly successful if implemented in the ACT. It just proves that if you live long enough everything old becomes new again.

C. Lathbury, Fadden

Greg Cornwall (Letters, February 17) defends Tony Abbott's use of "holocaust" as not being a Jewish "trademark".

As a former PR practitioner and politician, Mr Cornwall should be well aware of the emotions and perceptions that are attached to certain words through common usage, regardless of their formal dictionary definitions. "Holocaust" is one such word.

Capitalised or not (and you can't differentiate with the spoken word), I wonder if Mr Cornwall, during either of his professional careers, would have used "holocaust" in the same context as Mr Abbott.

Eric Hunter, Cook

Regarding the Bali nine, Richard Reid (Letters, February 18) is understandably aggrieved that he (and his more than 12 associates) have been misrepresented by both Julie Bishop, when she said "all Australians abhor the imposition of the death penalty", and by Tony Abbott when he said he was "adamant all Australians are against the thought of the possible execution".

I say "understandably" because it is obvious from Mr Reid's letter that he is part of the minority of the population that support the death penalty.

Next time our Foreign Minister or Prime Minister make a similar comment (which the majority of people would support), all they need to do is insert the words "decent minded" and "thinking" between the words "all" and "Australians".

Ross Pulbrook, Wyong, NSW

The present political squabble about submarines has failed totally to reveal why we need submarines at all, what we might use them for, and, most important of all, what weapons they will be fitted with.

Given that the most recent deployments of our defence forces overseas have been "captain's calls", I am terrified that we are embarking on a slippery slope of acquiring submarines that will only have relevance if fitted with someone else's atomic weapons, and their use will become the captain's call of a prime minister with an unhealthy obsession with military matters and a lust for terror.

If we need to promote employment in South Australia how about a pyramid or two? Far safer.

Adrian Gibbs, Yarralumla

Captain's choice, as expressed by Tony Abbot is, at best, an unfortunate choice of words. A ship or aircraft captain has to undergo years of training and is subject to regular checks throughout their career. On the other hand, the Prime Minister needs no qualifications or experience to be voted in.

John White, Deakin

On February 9, Federal Liberal Party MPs reportedly agreed that Tony Abbott be given clear air for some unspecified period to establish his credentials as Prime Minister. While on February 16, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull made every effort to clear the air. But such is the endemic distrust within conservative Australia that his efforts are being suggested to be muddying the water. Perhaps the Minister should have worn a blue tie. Peta where were you?

Ken Brazel, Weston

Nicholas Stuart ("This is the end, my friends", Times2, February 17, p1) had me nodding my head in agreement – right up until he stated it beame apparent Julia Gillard wasn't on top of things either. I know he is not a Julia fan, that was apparent in his columns during her time as PM.

However, I thought he might have the good grace to now admit that she was a fine PM, dealing with an extremely hostile opposition leader and his colleagues, a very disgruntled ex-PM ready to pounce at any moment, obnoxious media etc. She managed to put through large amounts of legislation while in a minority government, needing to deal with independents as required. Give her credit where credit is due, not this continual negative narrative. She is positively lion-like against this excuse for a government we have now.

Jan Gulliver, Lyneham

I always appreciate Nicholas Stuart's opinion pieces, but I think his latest comments on the prime ministership of Tony Abbott, ("This is the end, my friends" Times2, February 17, p1) are extreme and lack any realistic balance. Abbott has made mistakes but he has "runs on the board".

We should remember that Abbott is not the president, though his role is often seen in presidential terms.

When he was elected leader of the Liberal party opinion writers said confidently that he would never be Prime Minister because he was "unelectable", especially in the eyes of women.

How wrong they were. He was a disciplined and highly effective leader of the Opposition and he ended six years of Labor chaos and excessive spending. Tony Abbott has faults but we should never underestimate him.

In spite of the obstruction of the Senate his government has achieved some of its goals. The national budget is a massive problem which his government inherited from Labor.

As Mr Stuart writes, urgent action is required to both raise income and curb spending. Any government will be unpopular as it tries to do either, but the Abbott government was given a three year mandate by the people and it will be at the end of that time that we all judge that government. I would prefer a government that tries to do what is right rather than just what is popular.

Robert Willson, Deakin

Michael Williams (Letters, February 4) thinks that Lysenkoists and Keynesians are somehow different, even though they both ignore inconvenient results and both make bold claims that are never realised.

He is also confused about the origin of austerity. It is an economic fact that one can not go on spending more than one earns. To live within your means is not austerity. If you do not, then eventually your credit card becomes maxed out, and you have to live on what you earn and make payments on your credit card. This is austerity.

It is the same for governments and countries as it is for businesses and people. However, when governments have borrowed too much, they reduce interest rates and create inflation in order to reduce the value of the currency. They do this in order to make it easier to pay back their debt.

Anyone who can borrow money will do so, and use the borrowed money to buy assets that will inflate in value beyond the cost of the low interest loans. Does anyone want to lend me $10million, so I can buy some real estate and shares, to be paid back after 10 years in a devalued currency? This is how the rich get richer. On the other hand, deflation increases the purchasing power of the worker's pay packet.

Deflation is anathema to governments and the rich who have leveraged their wealth by borrowing. Deflation makes it more difficult to service loans, because the currency has increased in value (and becomes more difficult to obtain) while the outstanding amount of the loan has not decreased correspondingly.

Bruce A. Peterson, Kambah

LNP politician Teresa Gambaro has spoken about the strength and benefits of our migration program. Could she produce substantive arguments to define the words strength and benefits? What strengths and benefits are derived from a population now less cohesive and homogenous than in the past? In short, why is multiculturalism (multiracialism) a good thing?

Rod Matthews, Fairfield, Vic.

I congratulate the ACT Heritage Council on its decision ("Dickson 'eyesores' get heritage protection", February 18, p1) to protect some of the Northbourne public housing precinct. I find more than a little sad some of the hysterical responses to the attempts to preserve these buildings. As a society we are the poorer if the only architectural survivals of the past are expensive, high-end, public and private buildings, which, while possibly aesthetically pleasing, do not give a full picture of our social history. In many respects these residences are no "uglier" than many of the appalling box-like housing units dotting the city's landscape. We should cherish and celebrate our architectural heritage, and these flats deserve our respect. They may not be beautiful in the conventional sense but they help us understand and remember the lives of ordinary Canberrans who called these places home.

Gary Kent, Griffith

After ABC-TV's definitive exposure of the cruelty we have always known occurs in greyhound racing, the industry will express shock and dismay for about five minutes before resuming business as usual. Animal welfare will always run a poor second to profit; the only way to eliminate cruelty in racing – greyhounds or thoroughbreds – is to ban it outright.

Gaynor Morgan, Braddon

All civilised persons are shuddering specifically at the grotesquely cruel practices in dog racing. We (perhaps with the exception of the odd country member in the Senate) condemn generally any cruelty in animal husbandry. However, it is high time the RSPCA investigated the egregious interrogative techniques Sarah Ferguson has been using on senior government ministers.

Paul Fennell, Scullin

QUALIFIED TO COMMENT

Can Hugh Jorgahen (Letters, February 16) please explain why climate change deniers need qualifications while climate change believers need none?

People such as Andrew Leigh frequently make unqualified assumptions about climate change. Do they not discredit the argument as much as scientifically illiterate non-believers?

Harry Jakobasch, Flynn

PEACE BUT NOT LOVE

So the leaders of France and Germany go to see Vladimir Putin, and a ceasefire/peace accord is struck.

Neville Chamberlain went to see Mr Hitler in 1938 and look how that worked out. Appeasement, not love, is in the air post Valentine's Day.

Ian Jannaway, Monash

JOB FOR POLICE

Margaret Owens' statement (Letters, February 17) that "any fit and able young person trained in basic self-defence tactics, could have disarmed this young woman of her knife without anybody getting injured" is inane in the extreme. Could the same fit young person have disarmed the Lindt cafe hostage taker? Or Julian Knight? Or any of the hundreds of armed and violent offenders dealt with by police every year?

T.J. Farqahar, Ainslie

ASK THE PUBLIC

We are all taxpayers and it is our money that will be used to fund the light rail project. I fear that I may need to leave Canberra (a city I love) because I won't be able to afford to live here in the future. Give us the chance to let the government know how we feel about this before any contracts are signed.

Nola Shoring, Nicholls

RISK TO TRADESMEN

Any scientific study into links between living in a Mr Fluffy home and the deadly cancer mesothelioma ("Study into Mr Fluffy cancer link", February 16, p1) should be extended to include tradesmen who have done work at Mr Fluffy homes. My neighbour, an electrician, died of mesothelioma, and another electrician has told me he expects to die the same way.

John Milne, Chapman

ANSWERS, PLEASE

ABC-TV presents a very stimulating program Q&A each Monday but can someone make it clear to Tony Jones that it's about his guests – not him!

Brian Millett, Yass

LASTING SATISFACTION

There is something deeply satisfying knowing that Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs will still be in her job when Abbott loses his.

John Passant, 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).