Reminder for ACT senator

Members of the Coalition parties were so unable to assess the view of their various constituencies (Senate or House) that they decided to waste $160 million on holding a plebiscite rather than knock on doors. Now you say that unless your view gets up you will abstain!

You do not represent the 200 Canberra Liberals. You do not represent the Liberal Right, the Nationals Right, the Liberal Country Party Right, the Country Liberal Right or any other right-wing faction of the various parties that make up the coalition government, you represent the people of the ACT. I do not vote for you, never have never will, but you have a responsibility to represent me, regardless of your personal views. Your personal views were sold to the people of the ACT when you stood for election.

Bill Elliott, Giralang

Senator Zed Seselja has announced that he will abstain from voting in the Senate concerning a same-sex marriage bill regardless of the outcome of a plebiscite. This just reinforces what a mockery it is that the Coalition insists on pursuing a course of action that has the potential of being divisive, destructive and deeply upsetting to many people who may already feel marginalised and victimised.

When will Mr Seselja realise that he is supposed to represent the majority wishes of the people of the ACT and that his personal ideological viewpoint should not take precedence?

Annette Gilmour, Melba

The public knew months ago that some conservatives such as senators Eric Abetz and Cory Bernardi were hell bent on sabotaging the $160 million plebiscite on marriage equality, but now we learn that Malcolm Turnbull has virtually no control over any of his troops on this matter.

The fundamental question remains; why have a plebiscite if the elected representatives are able to worm out of following the will of the people? Even Senator Seselja now wants "to reserve the right" to abstain from voting rather than follow the will of the majority in the ACT. What right is that? Shouldn't he step down if he can't implement the will of thepeople?

Bill Bowron, Farrer

Malcolm Turnbull's version of democracy is bewildering. We must have a plebiscite at a cost of $160 million on same-sex marriage which still may get defeated in the parliament as Liberals "consult with their electorates". Mr Howard unilaterally committed us to a 15-year war that is still costing us billions without even consulting the people or having a vote incorporating both houses of parliament.

Which do you think is the more important, declaring war or same-sex marriage?

Ray Armstrong, Tweed Heads South, NSW

Given the proximity of the ACT election and the known real prospect that the opposition will win, ordering the trams could have waited ("Trams ordered, cancellation cost $220m" June 28, p1). The decision to order now appears a calculated act of bastardry in the face of all ACT residents, a deliberate and unnecessary hiking of the cost of cancellation before the vote. This arrogant and shonky coalition of Labor and Greens has earned lasting contempt.

Shame the other lot are dullards.

Chris Whyte, Higgins

Capital Metro Minister Corbell's estimate of the cost to us of cancelling the contract of convenience between the present government and the tram consortium ( June 28, p1) is $220 million to $280 million. That's not "just compensation", not when the consortium knew the risk it took in bidding on a politically and financially irresponsible project. All the more reason for an incoming, financially responsible government to abrogate the contract by statute and pay only what is just in all the circumstances – that's far, far less than Corbell's fear number.

Hopefully, when sanity returns and the Northbourne trees can sway gently and safely in the spring sunshine, we'll be able to see more funding for our schools, hospitals, ACTION buses, and other obviously needed improvement projects.

"Reckless and lunatic" said the Minister. Quite. I recommend he and his colleagues shoulder thatlabel.

H. Selby, Lyneham

Simon Corbell attacks the Liberals' promise to cancel the light rail contract for, among other things, "ongoing consequences as companies factored in the possibility of cancellation in their prices for future contracts". Does he mean Labor has more white elephants up its sleeve? But seriously, does he really expect October's voters to back a party that is stupid enough and pig-headed enough to deliberately expose the ACT to such costs? I'm one Labor voter who will certainly give Labor its due.

Bronis Dudek, Calwell

Can the Chief Minister and the Capital Metro Minister explain how they are fulfilling their fiduciary duty to ACT ratepayers by loading the light rail contract up front ("Trams ordered, cancellation cost $220m", June 28, p1)? How they can justify a payment of 30 per cent of the contract price for what is effectively nothing? Why they think their disregard for acceptable commercial practice is acceptable?

Peter Gray, Rivett

I congratulate Planning Minister Mick Gentleman for persuading the Environment and Planning Directorate to finally publish the December 2013 Planning and Development Forum minutes. They show that the Director-General did not respond to a request that she commit to complying in future with Section 87 of the Planning and Development Act.

Section 87 defines which variations to the Territory Plan the directorate may make as technical amendments without consulting the Minister or the

Assembly.

The minutes also show that the directorate denied that it had misled the Planning and Development Forum. If that denial was accurate, then why has the directorate still not published the minutes of the Planning

and Development Forum of June 19, 2013?

Leon Arundell, Downer

During this federal election campaign, which thankfully is not as long as the US presidential elections, Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten and their colleagues have shouted at each other, berated each other and generally behaved like a bunch of 16-year-old schoolkids engaged in a lunch-time fracas. All I hear and read is how unlike each other they are.

At no point in this election campaign have they shown any respect for Australian voters. At no point have they demonstrated empathy, intelligence or anything other than juvenile school-yard politics. Perhaps they need to remember something simple: they are voted in or out to represent the people of Australia. They should show some humility. Have respect for us, the voters.

There is a reason why so many voters think that they have no options and so cast votes which do not choose a person.

I am deeply disappointed in all our politicians and am despondent for the future if they are the example of what Australians are and should be like.

They are meant to be leaders: intelligent, civilised, courteous and respectful. It's about time they started acting like it.

A. Smith, Yarralumla

There are only two real issues in this election, the rest are academic! First, a vote for minor parties or independents in the Senate is a vote to block the Coalition's policies, prevent any effective government, and eventually force the country into recession. The second is a vote for a Labor/Greens/CFMEU alliance is a vote to destroy your kids' future, with selfish uncontrolled spending and crippling debt, and the ultimate Greek tragedy. Our kids deserve better!

Johann Sheller, Forrest

In "Waiting for the wealth to trickle down" (canberratimes.com.au, June 23) Vinnie's CEO Dr John Falzon, draws on a wealth of personal and institutional knowledge to detail the failings of the tax system that benefit the well-off and disadvantage the rest.

Negative gearing for domestic property purchase is one such inequity, as Dr Fallon points out. Wal Pywell (Letters, June 26) is forceful in presenting his view on the matter: "If there is anyone who makes my blood boil, it must be those who get others to pay for their own wealth creation".

Even without considering all its other ramifications, it is hard not to conclude that the raiding of the tax pool by negatively gearing property investors is socioeconomic parasitism.

Ed Highley, Kambah

Once upon a time, (many years ago), governments employed people known as public servants. Their job was to advise ministers on government procedures and general advice. They were respected and did their job well.

Over time some disillusioned administrator or minister decided that their advice did not accord with his thinking. He then, at great expense, went outside the public service to find a solution that compared with his agenda.

We now know this as outsourcing.

Over the past several years, the Liberal Party has decimated the public service in Canberra, sacking thousands and at the same time increasing outsourcing. Malcolm Turnbull say's he stands for "jobs and growth". If this is true, he can save millions by stopping outsourcing, hire our kids into the public service, and trusting their advice.

He might be surprised how savvy they are. Trust in the people and they will work for you. In the meantime the general public has really turned off politics and a big change is needed . Listen to the people because at the moment they are not being heard. Message for Malcolm: sack your advisers.

A. Mutch, Nicholls

Jan Gulliver (Letters, June 28) must have rose-coloured glasses with very short vision when she criticises the Liberal government for instability.

Does she not remember past Labor leaders? Mark Latham, who fell on his sword before he was sacked. Kevin Rudd, a popular first-term PM sacked by his own party. Julia Gillard again sacked by her own party and then Rudd brought back because there was no one else suitable or capable to take over.

Then they lost the election and appointed Bill Shorten who was not suitable before but who was heavily involved in the sacking of two prime ministers and who now wants to spend up big to put us further into debt like past Labor governments. Instability?

I am not that happy with the Liberals at present but I know from the past that they deliver a more stable and financially responsible government by a long way.

Arthur Schuster, Chapman

I doubt that there would be any talk in these pages about the voting system in the UK referendum had the Remain case won. "Stupid xenophobic racist Brits" is the cry. While I don't know the long-term effects of Brexit, no one does, but I suspect that Britain will prosper after the dust settles.

What astonishes me in this whole affair is the blind eye turned to that overblown undemocratic unaccountable beast called the EU. What started as a very laudable attempt to bring European nations together to minimise the risk of conflict has morphed into a monster that devours everything in its course.

A supranational beast that interferes in the democratically elected governments of its members in a way that we Australians would never tolerate. They can't even get their membership right, admitting mendicant states such as Greece, even though they did not meet the minimum financial requirements.

A perfect metaphor for this failed experiment is Angela Merkel's reckless unilateral invitation to all refugees and economic migrants to come to Germany, creating a massive problem for the whole community.

So much for respecting your EU partners. This was probably the catalyst for Brexit. Frankly, I am surprised that the Brits and others have put up with this for as long as they have. Unless the EU changes quickly, and I doubt that is possible, there will be more exits to come.

H. Ronald, Jerrabomberra, NSW

As a birdwatcher, I frequently visit the woodlands in the vicinity of Campbell Park offices.

Last week, I noticed that several dead trees had been completely removed, presumably by people gathering firewood.

I was later informed that other birdwatchers had come across such people and were told they had permission from Defence to do so – the area in question is, after all, Defence land and not part of the Mount Majura Nature Reserve.

Today, I was devastated to see that a fine old dead tree with numerous nesting hollows was gone. For some years, this particular tree had hosted a family of owlet nightjars.

While I accept that this land is not under the jurisdiction of the ACT government, I find it difficult to accept that Defence would condone such environmental vandalism. The area in question has long been recognised as one of the ACT's most renowned birdwatching sites, and one of the best remnants of mixed woodland in the ACT and it needs protection from wood gatherers and also, of late, people dumping building waste.

If, and I doubt it, Defence granted permission for firewood harvesting then it should be rescinded immediately and the area should be patrolled to prevent further vandalism.

I am appalled by what has happened.

J.F. Bishop, Flynn

I've noticed a cubby house develop on Oakey Hill (Lyons) recently and it reminded me of my innocent youth in the 1960s, venturing over Red Hill, trapping rabbits, fishing for yabbies and also building cubby houses.

Walking my dog today, I noticed a sign next to the cubby house advising that the fun police were going to remove this structure as it was a violation of the environment (my words).

These kids should be at home playing their electronic games and joining the culture of obesity instead of stimulating themselves outdoors.

M. Ryan, Weston Creek

DO NOTHING SENATOR

How appropriate that after three years of inertia, Senator Zed Seselja has decided that when marriage equality is put to the vote in the Senate, he will abstain. It's official, the do nothing senator now has 'do nothing' as part of his election platform.

Rob Ey, Weston

Rather than representing the views of his electorate, Senator Seselja will probably abstain from voting on same sex marriage if a plebiscite is carried. Abstaining is not neutral, it is effectively a negative vote as it does not carry the motion. If Senator Seselja is incapable of representing the views of his electorate, why is he standing for office?

K.J. Sullivan, Jerrabomberra, NSW

RESPECT FOR LAW

Peter Adamson (Letters, June 21) and Daryl Powell (Letters, June 23) have commented on the removal of Labor, Greens or Sustainable Australia campaign posters from roadsides and their replacement with Liberal Party signs.

How ironic that supporters of the traditional "law and order" party appears to have no respect for the law when it suits them.

Patricia Saunders, Chapman

UNEXPECTED RESULT

In his campaign launch speech this week, Malcolm Turnbull said "Always expect the unexpected". Has he prepared for a loss at the ballot box?

Michaela Coleborne, Michelago, NSW

GAINING MANDATE

A "mandate" is support for a policy or course of action as derived from the wishes of the people in an election. As the individual vote for a party or candidate does not delineate between tabled policies (unlike a referendum), the victorious parties/candidates who can therefore claim a mandate regarding any policy can only be those with a single policy platform.

Phil O'Brien, Flynn

GIVING IT TO THEM

It appears that Jobson Groath's "great economic plan" is to suck at the public teat for six-sevenths of an election campaign, reduce the amount of tax that One's Friends have to spend money evading, and clamp down on the "undeserving poor". What-ho, jolly good show. Why not bring back the work house, flogging and transportation also?

Janelle Caiger, Stirling

NOT CUTTING IT

I have noticed that the grips on scissors in public schools are decreasing in size, just like the amount of education funding the current government is supplying. It is just not cutting it.

Sam Harding, Farrer

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).