The answer to date for the Abbott government is primarily "no". "Stopping the boats" may stand out as an exception to that conclusion (whatever one thinks of the policy). As for repealing the carbon and mining taxes (whatever one thinks of those policies), has anyone out there in the real world of voters noticed? Given Mr Abbott's record in opposition, I doubt that blaming things on the current opposition's "negativity" (or his problems in the Senate) will cut much ice as a convincing excuse by mid-2015.

If the May 2015 federal budget starts to wind back the unfairness of the 2014 budget by sharing out more equitably the impacts of expenditure and tax expenditure reductions; if it recognises that it makes sense to factor transparent and equitable (not sleight of hand) tax increases into the equation along with expenditure reductions; and if the Treasurer stops blaming "Labor's debt and deficit legacy" as the excuse for all his fiscal problems; then this would encourage me to start thinking the Abbott government is, after all, serious about governing for all Australians.

John Mellors, Pearce

I confess to not having read the "State of the Service" report, and am relying on the Canberra Times' coverage ("Don't spurn ministerial experience, says report", December2, p6).

The report ignores an elephant in this room that is fundamental to the overall performance of the public service: ministerial staff.

You report that "the bureaucracy was now too reactive and task-oriented and lacked ideas," and, "commissioner [Stephen] Sedgwick said the federal bureaucracy needed to give more straightforward advice to ministers rather than obscuring tough words with euphemisms".

The problem is the ministerial adviser – that "adolescent amateur" as described by a Rudd minister or as John Stone put it rather more elegantly, "those meretricious actors walking across the political stage". Often it is they who insist on softening the terms of advice or comment; "it might be one of the minister's own proposals that you are bucketing," or, "that runs against party policy".

Ministerial advisers are in positions of strength to tailor, filter or prevent advice to the minister, and when they do, it is departmental performance that is criticised.

Patrick Ryan, Turner

Frank Brassil's thought-provoking and shame-inducing article on homelessness ("Four walls and a roof the key", Times2, December1, p1) ends with the words, "The most vulnerable deserve better". It brought to mind something I happened on ages ago – a quote from "The Conditions of the Working Class in England" written in 1845 by Frederick Engels. "Every great city has one or more slums, where the working class is crowded together. True, poverty often dwells in hidden alleys close to the palaces of the rich; but, in general, a separate territory has been assigned to it, where, removed from the sight of the happier classes, it may struggle along as it can."

While there are few obvious physical slums in Canberra, in reality a "separate territory" of disadvantage continues within plain sight, woefully unaddressed. It is disheartening to think there is still some truth in the observations of Engels some 170 years later.

Ann Darbyshire, Gunning, NSW

Unfortunately, Frank Brassil, it's not so simple. Where in the ACT can one find these walls at a reasonable price (rent)?

Once upon a time, people could and did let out their spare rooms and granny flats to students and the needy. Why is this form of accommodation not available in the ACT any more?

Because the ACT government's land tax is payable on the property's entire block of land, in the event a landlord receives any form of "valuable consideration" ( rent) from a tenant. The land tax is unfair and a disincentive to lease, because it doubles the rates but takes no account of the actual size of the house on the land.

Jane Hyden, Chapman

N.Bailey (Letters, December3) would do well to adhere to his advice to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young about not "distorting the facts" in relation to the case involving the detention of two pregnant refugees in Darwin.

The two women are not, as N.Bailey claims, "illegal immigrants"; they are refugees, formally adjudged as such by the government of Nauru and living freely in the community in Nauru. The two women, both eight months pregnant, were flown by the Australian government from Nauru to Darwin to ensure they received appropriate obstetric care.

Upon arrival, they were transported to a detention centre, where they were to be detained until the birth of their babies and then returned to Nauru. N.Bailey is wrong again in claiming their detention was self-imposed – it was, in fact, forced upon them by the Department of Immigration. Why the government of Australia believes it is necessary to lock up pregnant women who have been living freely in another country and who have come to Australia for medical attention is, of course, another question.

What exactly is it that we are so afraid of?

Jon Stanhope, Bruce

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison was obviously using the two pregnant refugees in Darwin as a political stunt.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection could have issued them with short-term medical visas. These are a tool used to enable anyone needing to come to Australia for medical treatment to enter and stay in the country while they are treated.

Also, on what basis can the government argue that it is all right to place registered refugees into detention. It Might be legal, but it's certainly not moral. It appears to me that Morrison is just obsessed with keeping any refugee out of the country, irrespective of whether it is legal or not.

Terry Walls, Mawson

I wonder on what basis does Katy Gallagher make her statement that, "by far, the majority of people [Mr Fluffy home owners] are comfortable – but not 100per cent happy, but they are happy to proceed with the government's buy-back offer" ("Nothing in Fluffy inquiry to change buy-back plans: Gallagher", December3, p1).

I would suggest most people, like me, are very uncomfortable with the scheme, but have no realistic choice other than to go along with the government's so-called "voluntary participation" program.

Ms Gallagher states that the views of owners who had made submissions to the inquiry did not represent the views of the majority. How does she know the views of the silent majority?

I accept the rationale behind the government's decision, but the prospect of having to move out of my beautiful home of the last 30 years and find another place to live, competing in the real estate market over the next seven months with other Fluffy owners with the money they receive from a valuation fixed at October28, 2014, makes me very uncomfortable.

Name and address withheld by request

As with so many promises made by governments, territory, state and federal, words seem to only mean what politicians want them to mean and, as we all know, the meaning can, and frequently does, change. I refer to the article "Parents fear nowhere for special-needs children to go" (December3, p1).

No doubt Jennifer Merriman was also at the public meeting held in June to provide parents and other interested parties with information about the implications of the NDIS roll-out in the ACT. At this meeting, Minister Joy Burch clearly stated the NDIS would provide parents with choice.

Replacing the opportunity for children to attend specialised autism spectrum disorder (ASD) groups three times a week with one session a week is not offering parents choice. Parents have either to accept reduced group hours or have no educational group setting at all for their children.

I am aware that different providers may be offering different amounts of time, but this is the situation for children who attended an Autism Intervention Unit (for three and four children) and whose families wish them to continue with a specialised ASD provider.

Like Mrs Merriman, I too heard that the plan is to phase specialised group settings out altogether by the end of 2015 ... and the Minister calls this choice. It is no wonder the Australian population is becoming increasingly cynical where politicians are concerned.

Gay von Ess, Aranda

Regarding Tim Fischer's letter (December3) relating the ballot for national service during the Vietnam War, I believe the marbles in the barrel were purely fictitious. My former colleagues at the former Department of Civil Aviation reliably inform me the ballot was actually conducted on the department's computer system in Henty House, Little Collins Street, Melbourne.

This was so for two reasons: the department had the second-biggest computer system in the Commonwealth at the time (second to the ATO) and Henty House was one of the few Commonwealth-owned properties in Australia that was bounded by four laneways. Consequently, it was relatively easy for the police to secure the building while the ballot was being conducted. If my information is correct, this is just a further example of the propaganda we were fed by our political and military leaders of that day.

Doug Rankin, Chisholm

ASTROLOGY AND THE ARMY

Is Tim Fischer (Letters, December3) serious about the national service "death lottery"? More than one marble per particular birth date? And particular skills associated with a particular birth date? Perhaps the letter represents Fischer's job application for the position of newspaper astrologer.

Frank Marris, Forrest

I was intrigued and puzzled by Tim Fischer's suggestion that the national service ballot was skewed to select birth dates which yield particular skills. Are we to believe that the Australian army includes astrology in itstactical armoury, or is it Tim who is losing his marbles?

G. Burgess, Kaleen

A QUESTION OF CERTAINTY

Canberra Times "Editorials" aside, could someone at the Canberra Times please direct the inevitable next article about the Eastman case to an explanation for the layman as to how Mr Justice Brian Martin could have reached the conclusion he was "fairly certain" of David Eastman's guilt?

Roger Terry, Kingston

POLITICAL AFFILIATION

Owen Reid (Letters, December4), congratulated Victorians who voted Labor and suggested their vote was actually a vote for the CFMEU. Alternatively, Victorian voters could have voted Liberal, which would have been a vote for big business.

P.J. Carthy, McKellar

BALANCING THE LEDGER

Will the federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey, give as much publicity to the revenue losses he allows resulting from benefits given to the select few involving negative gearing, superannuation and fuel excise as he gives to his need for expenditure cuts to universal benefits?

Bob Wade, Batemans Bay, NSW

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).