Arms race threat

Wroe gave significant space to the views from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) but did not disclose a significant conflict of interest, in that ASPI is part-funded by the very industry whose products it was spruiking.

The organisation's corporate sponsors for 2015-16 included BAE Systems Australia, Northrop Grumman, Boeing Defence Australia, Lockheed Martin Australia, Raytheon and others. Between them, they (or their parent company) are either responsible for, or have a strong financial interest in, several of the boys' own weapons that the article was reviewing.

What Wroe euphemistically calls a "technology race" with other nations, others would call simply an arms race.

He refers to our targeting of "the Chinese threat", thereby talking up threat perceptions, while our 2016 Defence white paper said there is no more than a remote prospect of any other nation attacking Australia in the foreseeable future. The clear message is that Australia is preparing for war against China. That being the case, it would be far more helpful to examine whether this is in Australians' interests, who stands to gain from these preparations (with a particular eye on ASPI's sponsors), and ways of actually preventing warfare with our biggest trading partner rather than sleepwalking into it.

The weapons industry and those they fund are not the most reliable commentators on these things.

Dr Sue Wareham, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) vice-president, ACT branch coordinator

With the attributes of which drones are deemed capable, why it becomes necessary to also have piloted aircraft seems confusing.

Australia intends to become the proud owner of Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs), which Lockheed Martin claim are paragons in aeronautics, despite their limited munitions capacity, their loss of "stealth" when bomb doors are opened to dissipate heat or their potential to kill a light pilot on ejection due to its instrument-laden helmet.

A JSF will neatly complement "G for George" in the War Memorial's Aircraft Hall, to further reinforce the hell of war, and the gargantuan costs it imposes on society by robbing it of funds which might otherwise be devoted to civilised pursuits.

Abbott's "horror budget" of 2014 cut social programs. Legal aid, foreign aid and domestic violence services suffered swingeing cuts. Centrelink declared war on welfare recipients. The ABC was robbed of $250million. "Budget repair" remains elusive.

However amidst this carnage, Defence Minister Marise Payne, at Avalon, announced a donation of $250million to the US military industrial complex, to develop "next-generation jamming".

Australia donated hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the "lemon" JSF and now wishes to contribute more to the US make-work war machine and its rubbery tenders, constituting an insatiable appetite for dollars. Einstein defined madness as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result each time!

Albert M.White, Queanbeyan, NSW

The Canberra Times' (March 5) call for the ACT government to commit to a review of the planning strategy is timely.

A review is crucial for Canberra to become a more sustainable city socially, economically and environmentally and provides an opportunity for the Commonwealth and ACT governments to demonstrate commitment to sustainable city development. The location of residential development should be a key focus.

Redevelopment in established areas has merit to reduce the level of travel in the territory, as Canberra Central has some 55 per cent of employment in the ACT but only 20 per cent of the city's population. The review needs to consider the design quality of the redevelopments, the cost of augmenting infrastructure to accommodate the additional population and the suitability of higher-density dwellings to all households, including those with children.

The review also needs to consider where greenfields development should occur. Currently there is a mismatch between settlement in the west of Canberra and employment growth occurring in Canberra Central, including the airport, resulting in increased travel, much of it by car with associated increases in infrastructure costs and emissions.

The high Commonwealth office share of ACT employment dictates that office location should be major focus. It is essential office location decisions be made by a joint Commonwealth and the ACT committee, not individual departments as they fail to consider the total costs of location. These costs are borne by the ACT community.

Mike Quirk, Wanniassa

CanTheTram Inc has pointed out many times that the business case for Stage1 (Gungahlin-Civic) was terribly flawed and not a sound basis of decision to proceed; it was a political decision, not an economic one.

The best benefit-cost ratio the government could produce for Stage1, using smoke and mirrors, was 1.2. CanTheTram has always claimed the BCR was only about 0.6 in real, tangible terms.

The Rattenbury/Barr government went ahead anyway with a maximum of $60million expected from the federal government, if it met specific conditions. Now the Barr government shelves the new convention centre with a claimed BCR of 2.5 because it cannot get federal money.

Readers may recall the government's "official" cost for Stage1 was $939million. In fact, it will be at least $1.3billion (June 2016 prices) and that is before any cost blowouts during construction.

This translates into a burden on every ACT taxpayer of about $550 or more per year for 20 years, irrespective of how it may be paid for. Every passenger using the tram will be subsidised by at least $11 a ride. Stage2 to Woden was an election promise but will be even more uneconomic than Stage1, if it ever gets built.

These are a few things to think about for those readers who voted for the tram, whether deliberately or indirectly in ignorance.

M. Flint, CanTheTram Inc vice-chairman, Erindale

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).