Since the churches are pushing the argument that allowing gay marriages will harm children, have they considered who will suffer most if they carry out their hiring and firing threats? Yes, it will be the children in church schools. Teachers ought not be hired for their adherence to a particular faith but for their ability to teach.

As long as they are good teachers, and decent and compassionate people, none of which depends on their beliefs, why should they be punished by outdated religious views? And what about heterosexual divorced teachers; shouldn't they, too, on the same scriptural grounds, also be unacceptable? Further, would un-married gay teachers keep their jobs? I don't think any school can afford to lose good teachers, regardless of their gender or martial status. Finally, do the churches plan to have a ballot, postal or otherwise, to find out what parents think?

Eric Hunter, Cook

Archbishops Hart and Costelloe, in threatening to sack teachers and parish employees if they marry their same-sex partner if gay marriage is legalised, are reported as saying that those who work for the organisation are expected to uphold the church's values totally (Sunday Canberra Times, August 20, page 1).

How many priests and teachers were sacked for not upholding the church's values in relation to children in their care?

Graham Wright, Yarralumla

So the Catholic Church is threatening a hard line on marriage equality ("Catholic gay marriage threat", Sunday Times, August 20). Given what has been revealed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, I find it beyond comprehension that the church considers it wields any credible authority whatever in any area of human sexual morality.

Peter Dark, Queanbeyan

I agree with Ian Warden that adjusting speeding fines according to income is a great idea ("Magic reindeer made me speed", Sunday Canberra Times, August 20). However, in households consisting of more than one person, it would be possible to claim that the lowest-income earner was driving at the time of the offence.

Felicity Chivas, Scullin

Huawei Technologies rejects the baseless allegations made in the Sunday Canberra Times (August 20, p13) regarding the Solomon Islands undersea cable project.

Huawei has never given, implied, nor promised any political donations in relation to this project.

As a leading global business entity, Huawei does not involve itself in politics.

Huawei forbids all of its global subsidiaries from making any form of political donation, including in places where this practice is legal.

Cyber security remains a top priority at Huawei. We incorporate strict security protection into all of our business processes, and remain open to working with governments and industries to address global cyber security challenges.

Jeremy Mitchell, Huawei director of corporate affairs

The August 23 ISCCC community forum on this proposal was attended by about 220 people (CT, August 23).

Despite residents' pleas to locate the proposed Fyshwick waste incinerator fuelled by NSW and ACT household garbage further along the railway line outside the urban area, ACTewAGL was adamant the power station had to be located at their partners' block in Ipswich St in Fyshwick.

The reason put forward related to their concern that transmission with the electricity network would impact on their projected gains from the $200m facility.

First in 2012 and then in 2016 ACTewAGL did not express this same concern in regard to such losses transferring power from their $1.5billion – or was it $1.2billion? –proposal for a gas-fired power station at Dalton some 80km from Canberra.

Key questions: why plant a substantial power station reliant on burning garbage and toxic fuels in the centre of Canberra? And who could conceivably benefit from such an antisocial idea? Little wonder the audience on the night almost universally rejected the proposal.

Peter Moore, Kingston

Further to the letter by Vern Ize (Letters, August 24) about the government's report on its survey for light rail Stage2. The report gives statistics about feedback from respondents and claims that "97 per cent of respondents supported light rail ..."

Of course, statistically, the survey results are a nonsense, but that will not stop this government from claiming the foregoing level of support for light rail. The report is lightweight, to say the least, which means the government has not much to crow about at present. It says a lot about what the government did in consultation and survey feedback but nothing else other than the usual light rail feel-good propaganda.

There was not one mention of potential cost in the report, not that there needed to be, given the purpose of the report.

Minister Fitzharris subsequently stated the cost would be comparable with the $939m for Stage 1 – read "much greater", given a bridge to build (or steal from motorists) and a possibly difficult route, once sorted out.

The real test for Stage2 will come with the next planned step, ie: preparation of the business case.

In the above-mentioned report, the government is already throwing up difficulties for Stage 2. Readers should not be surprised if it all becomes too costly and difficult for the government to justify.

As expected, the government has formally advised me that the business case will not be made public before consideration by the government.

M. Flint, Smart Canberra Transport co-ordinator, Erindale

Re "Raiders consider shift back to Queanbeyan".

The ACT government has thrown funding at them and gifted concessional land at Bruce Oval, Northbourne Oval and the old Braddon club site now under planning development to build units.

Can we get that back, please? We can give them back the little they paid for it.

Geoff Davidson, Braddon