The right of association is one of the most basic concepts of freedom and the rule of law. It should not be confined to people of whom we approve but to all citizens except in the most exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances are not apparent in the ACT. A related issue is the public championing of these laws by the Chief Police Officer, a public official. Pappas also reports that extra powers are envisaged for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Could the DPP have lobbied for these – which would enable him to override magistrates in some circumstances? Surely the first duty of the Attorney-General is to support and strengthen the rule of law and our basic freedoms, not to accede to (arguably) self-interested demands by officials.

Peter Dawson, Hughes

Sorry to disappoint D.J. O'Connor (Letters, July 6), but the two maps on Facebook purportedly showing where recent Brexit voters live exactly aligning with mad cow disease in the '60s are a joke, like many other things on the internet. Professor Google didn't fail me this time either, and turned up a helpful Snopes report abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/mixed-emotions-for-stolen-generation-birthday/7563154 Hoax Slayer is another good website.

Jane Craig, Holt

Dropped into Masters last week and after assistance from a helpful staff member carried the $100 piano trolley to the checkouts. I waited and waited with over 10 staff members within sight (30 metres). I know they have self-serve but I want a human checkout.

Gave up and bought a cheaper trolley at their competitors where I was served immediately (saved over 10 per cent). As is currently the case with the election results, both Masters and the staff will whinge, pointing to many factors as to why the firm closed but conveniently miss their client service as a very significant issue. The message is for firms to focus on the person with the cash, and for politicians to focus on the person with the vote (not the cash).

Dr Tony Martin, Duffy

AirServices Australia works on a cost-recovery basis. R.S. Gilbert (Letters, July 4) expects it will make a loss this year and calls this a "subsidy" from all Australians to air travellers. This, he says, should end (the profit last year he calls inadequate). Air navigation aids, air traffic control, fire services and the other activities of AirServices Australia aren't a private benefit for each air traveller. Safety and proper conduct of air transport – of people and cargo alike –benefit all of us, not just this traveller or that consigner of cargo.

Air operators don't like meeting high, and universal, standards. But we all prefer a low risk of planes falling from the sky whether we are in them ourselves or not. We want fast handling of any fires at airports, whether in planes or otherwise; and we want safe operation of air traffic.

We could privatise air services and standards (if we ignore our international agreements). The privatised certifiers of amusement rides allowed the recent disaster in Adelaide.

The privatised certifiers of buildings have allowed appalling construction faults, so much so that legal recourse by apartment owners has been wound back and largely precluded, in the interests of shoddy developers.

Good air services are a public interest and balance the commercial risk taking we would otherwise see. Let's keep them – and let the public's AirServices Australia protect the public interest.

And let those services still be provided generally, effectively, and at cost rather than for profit.

Christopher Hood, Queanbeyan, NSW

So the ABC's "push into digital commentary has been criticised by commercial media outlets, who said it was crowding out the private sector and straying from its core business" (The Drum site axed as ABC cuts online opinion, July 6, p5).

I understood that the private sector was all about competition. If people are turning to the Drum instead of to poorly researched commercial talk-back radio, maybe it's time for those programs to lift their game instead of trying to stifle debate.

I can't believe that the ABC is axing its Fact Check service and the Drum at a time when our debates about vital issues like climate change are being hijacked by irresponsible shock jocks. An essential part of democracy is to enable an increasingly educated public to understand the issues of the day and to openly discuss them.

The ABC and SBS play a crucial role in this process. What a pity that the same can't be said of many private media outlets. We love democracy on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day but when it comes to actually standing up for it today, axing Fact Check and the Drum suggests that we are weak and uncommitted.

Rosemary Walters, Palmerston

Peter Hartcher's provocative article "Do we need government?" (Times2, July 6, p1) ends with the words "The political parties need to jolt themselves out of their self-involved partisan games or, eventually, a crisis will do it for them". A crisis of international proportions was Hitler's invasion of Poland in September 1939, igniting World War II. Winston Churchill formed a coalition government whose membership depended on merit and common purpose rather than political or factional allegiance.

Australia is nervous about not forming a government within a few days of an election, yet Hartcher refers to Belgium, which took 589 days to form a government following its 2010 election, thereafter becoming the most successful nation in Europe. Commentators declared "In mature democracies a power vacuum is taken care of in a constructive, creative and responsible way".

Although sometimes bothersome, combining co-operation with competition is preferable to tyranny. Churchill stated in a House of Commons address in November 1947 "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

Bryan Furnass, Hughes

I look forward to the dominance of driverless cars but the initial analysis of the first fatality ("Fatal Tesla crash on autopilot sparks investigation", July 3, p13) makes little sense. How can Tesla claim to know what the dead driver noticed? How can a laser scanning the topography be fooled by either camouflage or a trailer with high clearance? This technology has been driving massive trucks in open-cut mines. I suspect the real reason relates to quality control in mass production. It's more likely the vehicle was a defective unit.

Peter Robinson, Ainslie

Paul Burt (Letters, July 4) asks about how our representatives discover the views of their electorate. Plebiscites are a crude way to do this. Many ways exist to allow informed deliberative citizen participation in advising our representatives, or even sharing more in the decision-making. These range from consultative inquiries through 'town hall' meetings to citizens' juries and even parliaments. ParticipediaNet has many examples.

Last year, the Melbourne City Council engaged ratepayers in a participatory budgeting process. In 2009, the NewDemocracy Foundation ran a Citizens' Parliament to look at how Australian democracy could be improved. In the federal electorate of Indi, Cathy McGowan engages with voters via community summits.

Many of these methods could be used in Canberra. All help build open, informed, ongoing relationships between the voter and representative.

Peter Tait, O'Connor

Graham Macafee (Letters, July 5) quotes Robert Burns: "The best-laid plans of mice and men oft gang awry". The message is right, but the words are wrong. What Burns wrote was "The best-laid schemes o' mice and men, gang aft a-gley".

Ed Highley, Kambah

"Hung parliament" is a typical Anglo-Saxon expression. This expression, which Australian journalists love so much, is used to strike fear into the hearts of the population, as it conjures up images of total chaos.

In continental Europe, parliaments meet, form coalitions, elect a Prime Minister, debate and pass legislation. In my lifetime we have had only one parliament in Australia where issues were really debated – that was during the last so-called "hung parliament".

This parliament, which was presided over by the Gillard government, was the most productive parliament in Australian history. A "hung parliament" can also be called a "cooperative parliament".

The opposite of a "hung parliament" is a rubber-stamp parliament, which journalists apparently consider to be the ideal state of affairs.

Peter M. Hill, Broulee, NSW

Should the Coalition form government, I would like to see them negotiate with Labor whereby policies are exchanged and implemented in the best interest of the country. For example: Adoption of Labor's NBN proposals in exchange for passage of the ABCC Bill; Adoption of Labor's proposed cut to the capital gains discount to enhance revenue; both parties agree to develop a bipartisan plan and costing for the implementation of the many infrastructure projects promised.

There are many other negotiations that could be made that would protect the living standards of the less well off and at the same time encourage "jobs and growth" and address the urgent need to reduce debt and safeguard Australia's credit rating.

The closeness of this election suggests that the voters want the best of both worlds and are demanding that all parties work together for the sake of the country.

Tom Cooke, Pearce

Joseph Goebbels, German propaganda minister, in 1941 wrote, "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

This propaganda technique is called the "Big Lie".

Seventy-five years later, Bill Shorten used this technique with great success, wiping out the LNC's big advantage in the House of Representatives by claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that the government intended to privatise Medicare.

Even after being called out over his scare campaign by the ABC's Leigh Sales, of all people, Shorten stuck to his story and at time of writing the election result was still up in the air. To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of Australian voters, or at least that is what Shorten staked his political future on.

D. Zivkovic, Aranda

While the result of the election remains in doubt, one thing is very clear, the Australian public want Medicare retained as their universal health system. For this to be achieved however, funding needs to be available to support an ever increasing call on the public purse, with the cost of services continuing to rise exponentially as our population ages, our life expectancy increases and medical technology advances.

The most obvious source of these further funds is an increase in the Medicare levy from its current two per cent

of taxable income and dedicating these additional funds directly to the operation of Medicare.

In recent times, many Australians have indicated they are prepared to pay increased taxes if this funding is used specifically for that particular service.

Given the overwhelming support shown for Medicare, surely this is one of those occasions.

This additional impost should not be borne solely by those currently in the workforce but rather include a contribution by retired people who are in a financial position to pay their share.

It would seem reasonable that self-funded retirees, with an annual income above $75,000, should be subject to the levy.

Given that both major parties have pledged their irrevocable support to the maintenance of Medicare, one can only hope that an increase in the levy designed to protect the scheme well into the future, will receive bipartisan support, regardless of which party has formed government.

Ian De Landelles, Murrays Beach, NSW

As a campaign volunteer, I offer an alternative to the often cynical analysis of the successful Labor election campaign. Labor was able to mobilise large numbers of highly motivated volunteers because it focused on values that are important to them and it clearly articulated policies consistent with those values.

Party members and affiliated unionists will work long and hard for a Labor campaign based on fairness, equality of opportunity and support for people who are doing it tough. It's that simple.

Tony Judge, Woolgoolga, NSW

The close election result should again have Labor kicking itself for not securing a third House of Representatives seat for the ACT while it was in government.

Having had a third seat (Namadgi) between 1996 and 1998, the ACT has been reduced to two. These are by far the most populous seats in the country. That makes our individual votes of lesser value than elsewhere in Australia. We get two House seats for a total enrolment of 282, 000 voters. The Northern Territory gets two for less than half that: about 132,000.Tasmania has five seats with an average enrolment of only 74,000.

These gross distortions could all be addressed by a simple legislative amendment. It does not require Constitutional change.

Prime Minister Howard – no flies on John Winston – managed to get the NT's second (and sometime Coalition ) seat guaranteed by legislation – an exemption to the standard formula derived from section 24 of the Constitution.

Why not a similar provision for Canberra?

Bob Bennett, Wanniassa

NOT ANOTHER ONE

"We may need another election – Sinodinos" (July 4, p1). Brilliant. So we keep voting until we get it right, do we?

We didn't like their policies the first time, but we'll like them the second time, will we? Give me a break.

Walter Steensby, Scullin

IMPLODING PARTIES

So the 2019 election result will be determined in the next six months by "which party implodes first" according to a nameless conservative MP ("Anger as voters' rebuke sinks in", July 4, p2). Gee, that inspires confidence. Little wonder that the general population holds politicians in such low regard.

Janet Cossart, Stirling

GENDER DIVIDE

Irrespective of the federal election outcome, I call on the prime minister in the next government to appoint 50 per cent females and 50 per cent males as ministers, to reflect our community composition.

N.L. Scherger-McCullough, Red Hill

BANKER ARROGANCE

Bendigo Bank CEO Mike Hirst is displaying typical banker arrogance in declaring gratification that the Coalition will not hold a royal commission into bank thuggery ("No royal commission good news for everyone", BusinessDay, July 4, p9). Diverse cross-bench senators seem more than enthusiastic about investigating multiple forms of bank corruption. Bankers beware!

Albert M. White, Queanbeyan, NSW

CHOPPING UP PARKS

Should we really offer another term to a government that hacks off chunks of a central park for developers? Gone forever!

Keith Hammond, Campbell

BALLOT QUEUES

I endorse Craig Gamack's gripe (Letters, July 5) re queues. With a reported three million more voters at this election, change to voting regulations, and reduced funding, is there any logic left in this great country of ours.

Ken Wood, Holt

In past election years, queues at Canberra's polling places were rare, but this time they were long and widespread. The queues were the result of the time it took to be issued a ballot paper. Issuing ballot papers requires adequate staffing at the booths, something the Electoral Commission apparently were unable/unwilling to provide across Canberra and Australia. Extended queuing due to AEC inefficiency may really test voter resolve in future.

Lance Williamson, Stirling

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).