I'm sure David Hurley is an decent, honourable man; a man of integrity and intelligence.

In the context of his nomination as our next Governor-General though, Mr Morrison should recognise what his choice represents. The opportunistic product of a dull, average, tainted imagination.

Mr Hurley should do the honourable thing. Instead of stepping up, he should step aside. Leave the post to someone else. Professor Michael McDaniel, member of the Kalari clan, of the Wiradjuri nation, for example. Here's someone who would bring honour to ALL Australians, not just us whites. Time to move forward – not stay stationary.

Mark Henshaw, Braddon

Eric Hunter's concerns (Letters, December 26) regarding the manner in which the Governor-General post was filled may very well be founded. But despite being undemocratic, unfortunately it also appears to be common practice, with both major parties indulging in such underhanded actions.

Scott Morrison did what any other party leader would have done: make a decision to benefit his own party and/or to spite the opposition, as appears to be the case in this instance.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the monarchists. To make a political appointment with an election in the offing also appears to be par for the course. If I remember correctly, our very own toytown government, led by Chief Minister Andrew Barr, rammed through contractual agreements for the light rail project just prior to the last ACT elections being held and I cannot recall the Chief Minister consulting the Leader of the Opposition before deciding, as Eric is suggesting, nor can I recall Eric vociferously complaining about the lack of democracy about that particular piece of underhandedness.

Mario Stivala, Spence

The epidemic of theft of property from new residential complexes in Canberra ("Burglars target new apartments", Sunday Canberra Times, December 23) suggests possible deficiencies in the design and quality of these buildings, this time in relation to storage and security infrastructure. If this is the case, then the developers and builders should be pursued for rectification assistance. However, new building owners, managers and apartment resident groups also have a responsibility to ensure access to their buildings is controlled and measures put in place to deter theft, without large calls on the public purse.

The police can advise these communities on how to improve security awareness and set-ups, but already have work to do without focusing more patrols on the increasing number of apartment precincts.

Sue Dyer, Downer

The Morrison government's Department of Environment and Energy has reported that, on current trends, Australia will achieve a mere 7 per cent reduction in emissions, based on 2005 levels, by 2030 ("Australia to miss 2030 Paris target by huge margin", December 22, p15).

This is in stark contrast to our "measly" (to quote the Greens' Adam Bandt) 26 per cent Paris agreement target.

The government apparently also wants to use the fact that we are on track to exceed our 2020 Kyoto target by at least 240 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to discount our Paris target. This somewhat devious move would still leave us far short of the Paris target.

A major reason for the Coalition's stubbornness on this issue is its obsession with coal and the strong influence – allegedly in the form of political donations – of the coal industry.

The attitude of the Morrison government is even harder to understand, let alone to support, in the light of a recently released study by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator. The study showed the cost of new wind and solar energy, even with hours of storage, is "unequivocally" lower than the cost of new coal-fired generation.

In the light of these findings, government plans to underwrite new coal-fired power plants and to extend the lives of existing ones, announced in October by Energy Minister Angus Taylor, are both bizarre and irresponsible.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

The editorial of December 23, "Congratulations, police, on a job well done", heavily supported the war on drugs.

It opened, "Hard drugs like methamphetamines ruin lives. They are a scourge on our society."It might help, to keep things in perspective, to look at the flipside. Control of, or rather prohibition of general access to, psychoactive drugs is more generally a function of war than a cause of any war as is indicated by research from the Defence Studies Department, King's College, London (defenceindepth.co).

Emergency measures in the UK's Defence of the Realm Act in 1916 formed the basis for Britain's approach to drug control in the post-war period.

Amphetamines were used by the British army from 1942-45. They were reputedly standard issue to pilots throughout WWII.

Pharmaceuticals use, including steroids, by our own special forces has been reported in this newspaper in the past.

Dr James Pugh wrote, "The armed forces of the United States are at the forefront of efforts to use a range of 'pharmacological countermeasures' to assist their personnel."

Amphetamines are regarded as a weapon of war. Prohibition is actually an attempt to monopolise utilisation of these substances.

The scourge is prohibition. It denies the public any quality control protection, informed education or uncompromising assistance for misuse. It also creates a massive criminal industry with huge influence which opposes legalisation.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

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 or fewer words. 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).