This week we have seen again how organisations' institutionalised culture has betrayed children who trusted them, with devastating consequences.

Our responsibility is to learn from the royal commission and implement its recommendations.

During the hearings, there was clear evidence that the seal of the confessional contributed to the trauma of children.

The government commissioned Justice Dodds-Streeton to provide advice on the implementation of those recommendations. Last week, I introduced legislation in the Legislative Assembly to make it an offence for any adult not to report child sexual abuse.

Justice Dodds-Streeton noted that abusers are very unlikely to tell anyone of their actions.

She also found that the introduction of a broad "failure to report" offence may result in the detection and prevention of some cases of child sexual abuse. It is our obligation to act on this.

Her honour found that non-compliance (even if founded on conscientious adherence to conflicting religious duties) is not a valid reason to refrain from enacting laws, based on sound research, policy and principle, to achieve necessary goals. I agree.

Archbishop Prowse, in his contribution in The Canberra Times this week (February 26, p18) has claimed that "priests face an impossible choice between respecting the seal of confession or the law".

I understand sensitivities around the expression of faith. But let me be unequivocally clear: Australians have an obligation to adhere to the law of the land. We have an obligation to keep children safe. There is no sound reason that any expression of faith – including matters heard within a Catholic confession – should be exempted.

We can certainly imagine scenarios where any crime is difficult to prosecute. But that will not, and should not, deter us from investigating and prosecuting the reports made by people taking action on our collective obligation to protect children.

Because no matter what your expression of faith may be, nothing can be more important than the safety of kids.

Gordon Ramsay, ACT Attorney-General

The City Renewal Authority's latest "thought bubble" on City to the Lake may have some merit after all.

Raising the south end of London Circuit would improve the grade for the light rail if it ever goes south of the lake.

But, The Canberra Times article ("ACT government's radical plan for the heart of the city", canberratimes.com.au, February 28) reveals that it is again all about how much developable land can be created.

Instead of tendering for an engineering solution, or inviting the property industry to plan more zero-street-frontage apartment buildings on City Hill, wouldn't it be great if the authority actually invited the community to genuinely participate in the design of this area, so that current and future residents could have a real say in the future look and feel of this neighbourhood.

That would really be a radical development for Canberra.

Mike Lawson, New Acton

In the past six weeks the ACT government and National Capital Authority have rejected plans for four Canberra major residential developments.

How did these proposals get to such advanced stages without intervention to ensure that they would conform with the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan provisions?

The prime residential 2.25-hectare former Stuart Flats site at Manuka is due for auction on March 20 – will the six-storey height limit and other zoning requirements be enforced by the ACT on the new owner?

Julie Doyle, Campbell

I am appalled by the report that Kay Turnbull's 'Black Magic' balloon has been banned from the "Enlighten" balloon event by Events ACT director Jo Verden on the grounds that it "may be considered racist or offensive by many in our community".

What nonsense. Next she will be banning white balloons on the grounds that obese Caucasians might be offended.

No, Ms Verden, just treat balloons as for fun and enjoy them all, even grotesque whales.

Adrian Gibbs, Yarralumla

Cost effective and politically correct do not cut it when applied to school violence (Editorial, February 28).

We are talking about teachers and students alike who are suffering repeated and more or less serious assaults.

There are other systems in place besides the education system which are better equipped to handle such situations.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

The latest Canberra Times article about a dog attack in Melba ("'Still have nightmares': fight for justice after brutal attacks on dog", February 26, p6), is a microcosm of a problem that illustrates a clear abrogation of the ACT government's responsibility, when it comes to upholding public safety laws, across this jurisdiction.

The ACT government has failed miserably to act decisively on an ongoing problem of preventing small dogs and some innocent ACT citizens, from being attacked by some dogs, particularly those that are viciously bred.

This government, its responsible minister Chris Steele, and the minor party (Greens) seem to all want to take a "softly softly" approach and not try to adopt a "double-barrel" approach that combines education and training with punitive measures like increased fees/fines.

Surely, this type of a twofold approach will send a clear message to those dog owners who own vicious dogs that, if you fail to register, contain and educate them, then you as an owner will be subjected to the provisions of the law.

It seems that there are some, but not all, owners of dogs who blatantly disregard laws that are in place. That is, they don't permanently secure their dogs with a leash when out walking them and don't clean up after them when they relieve themselves.

I would think that this is a simple requirement of the law, given that there is nothing complex about interpreting the need to comply.

The government seems to want to disregard reports and data that demonstrate a clear increase in the spate of dog attacks or dog harassments, in shared public spaces.

I hope the government takes heed of the mitigation measures for dog owners proposed by the Deputy Opposition Leader, Nicole Lawder.

Thomas Natera, Ngunnawal

I am puzzled by the logic of Jim Bonner's statement (Letters, February 27) that denying non-taxpaying retirees tax refunds on franking credits is double taxation.

If a company has paid tax on its earnings, the franking credits ensure that a taxpaying shareholder does not pay tax on those earnings when they are distributed as dividends.

A non-taxpaying retiree who receives dividends does not pay tax on those earnings either. The earnings are taxed once, in the hands of the company. They are not taxed again, whether the shareholder is a taxpayer or a retiree who does not pay tax. That looks like single taxation to me, not double taxation.

Refunding the tax paid by the company to a non-taxpaying shareholder surely results in no tax being paid on those earnings. Can the country afford this?

Marlene Hall, Kingston

Jim Bonner (Letters, February 27) has been revealed as the Jim who has appeared in videos opposing the proposed changes to franking credits refunds.

It has been revealed that Jim is not just another retiree, but a longstanding Liberal Party employee.

Mr Bonner is correct to say that he has as much right as anyone to express his views, but if he appears in campaign material for a Liberal candidate it is deceptive to pretend to be a person off the street. He should reveal his party connections.

But he cannot be allowed to get away with the claim that denying refunds is double taxation. As he says in his letter, it is companies that have paid tax on these shares. The retiree is not being asked to pay any extra. Only one lot of tax is paid, and it is paid by the company.

John Hutchison, Coombs

On Wednesday I listened to Mr Albanese being interviewed on radio about imputation credits. Among other disputable things, he said that "If you don't pay tax, you can't get a tax refund".

This is current mantra by the Labor Party on imputation credits and is patently in error and completely dishonest. Does he not know that companies pay tax on dividends in advance (30per cent) on behalf of shareholders? Does he not know that shareholders have to declare pre-taxed dividends as income and pay tax accordingly and, if tax due is less than what has been withheld by the government (ATO), it must be given back, not confiscated as Labor intends to do? A case in point. My wife (not on a pension of any kind) earns $1500 in share dividends. The company pre-pays $500 in tax on her behalf to the government and pays her the balance of $1000.

I do her tax return, declare the full $1500 as income, as required by tax law, but her total taxable income is below the current threshold so no income tax is due.

If a Labor government does not return her pre-paid $500 (because she has a zero tax liability), it is simply stealing her money. Messrs Albanese, Cowan, Shorten and Leigh are in dishonest denial about what they plan to do with my wife's money. Anyone who owns shares in companies that employ people and are the backbone of the Australian economy would know the real situation about imputation credits.

M. Flint, Erindale

This is a tough time to be Catholic, and even tougher if you are one of its decent hardworking clergy.

I spent 10 years in a Brother's school in Melbourne, and the next 60 years as a lay person in a range of ACT parishes. The spectre of any untoward activity has totally avoided me, and I remain absolutely grateful for the education that I received, and for the pastoral care afforded me. If you are similarly minded, I suggest that we provide a concrete signal to our valued clergy by substantially increasing our plate contribution for this weekend.

Peter Hanlon, Crace

Anyone familiar with Ken Inglis' superb two volume History of the ABC would be aware of the history of political interference in the public broadcaster since its inception. The appointment of the new chair outside of the independent selection process is merely the latest episode in that history. Inglis' History of the ABC should be compulsory reading for those who would argue that there was another version of history.

Rohan Goyne, Evatt

With regard to aircraft designed and developed in Australia, the Jindivik seems to have been forgotten in recent announcements on such developments.

The Jindivick was a drone aircraft designed and developed by the Government Aircraft Factory (GAF) in Melbourne for the UK Ministry of Supply, with the first flight occurring in 1952.

A total of 517 aircraft were built between 1952 and 1986 and in 1997. Many were operated by Target Aircraft Flight operating out of Evetts Field on 'E' Range, Woomera. This unit later became Target Aircraft Squadron and additionally flew drone Meteor and Canberra aircraft for a number of years.

The technology was relatively primitive compared to that available today. However, the Jindivick was capable of outstanding performance and with its 15ft wing extensions exceeded 70,000ft during high-altitude trials.

Mal Phelan, Fadden

For the last sitting day of Parliament I urge our representatives to consider wearing white shirts with a lump of (unvarnished) coal dangling on a necklace.

Let the media spectacle of white shirts contaminated with just one day's grime from "clean" coal inform their constituents. And please, remain in Parliament at sitting's end to assist the cleaning staff in removing your mess of dust and carbon particles from the seats and carpet.

Ronald Elliott, Sandringham, Vic

The remarkable overnight appropriation now of MPs' public office funds for re-election advertising means they are now taking much money for the purpose both from private sources and tax revenue.

The first priority of the Shorten government must be to end the widening scandal in this space, rein in lobbying and finally make election funding transparent, fixed and purely publicly sourced.

Alex Mattea, Sydney

PUBLICISE PETROL PRICES

Given that the ACT government has instructed petrol stations to remove any reference to discount petrol in their advertising outside their station, this leaves a vacant spot in the signage for them to actually publicise their price for super 98 or 95 petrol; something transparently avoided to date.

Perhaps a nudge from the government would help!

Peter Baskett, Murrumbateman

TAPPING INTO FUSION

Robert S Buick, Mountain Creek, Qld (Letters, February 27) is quite right that the future of energy is in nuclear fusion.

I currently have a nuclear fusion-powered hot-water system. The problem of nuclear fusion is that it is hard to control.

Therefore I am forced to keep the source of my fusion reaction at a distance of around eight light minutes for safety.

Brian Burbage, Inverleigh, Vic

CLARITY ON WAR DATES

John F Janke refers to the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in December 1941 (Letters, February28).

It was Hong Kong that surrendered to the Japanese on Christmas Day, 1941, Singapore held out until February 15, 1942.

Bill Deane, Chapman

VAPING FRUSTRATIONS

Roger Dace (Letters, February 28), Iagree wholeheartedly with your letter regarding vaping.

I started vaping almost two years ago, with a gradual reduction of nicotine and have successfully quit smoking.

Yet, frustratingly, those in a position to make a positive decision would, seemingly, rather stick their heads more firmly in the sand.

Jason Herrmann, Braddon

EXPENSIVE POWER PLAN

Snowy 2 may look a good idea on paper, Bill, but putting $1.38 billion into an expensive, uneconomic and unsustainable project is insanity. Putting that money into a number of smaller pumped-hydro schemes would produce twice as much power, much sooner.

Murray Upton, Belconnen

TRUMP KEEP OUT

Yes, Dopey Donald. We know what the US wants on Korea. Please listen to Kim: he says (politely) "Yanks go home."

That's what Kim (and China) wants of you! Out of that part of the world: it isn't yours.

Or another five failed summits?

It's in your hands, Mr Trump.

Barrie Smillie, Duffy

NOT MUCH TO ENVY

If the photo of the launch of Geocon's new Envie apartments (canberratimes.com.au, February 28) reflects the company's standards of quality and taste, I don't envy those who are rich enough and choose to buy one.

S. Lindsay, Garran

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).