I suspended contributions to Anglicare about three years ago after its bishop, Stuart Robinson, declined to accept professional advice from a board appointed by his predecessor, George Browning. As reported by The Canberra Times on December 18, 2009, the board decided in May that year Anglicare should divest itself of residential aged care. Under corporations law, the six highly credentialled board members, who resigned later in 2009, risked serious financial penalties had they continued.

Anglicare's operating losses over the four years ending June 30, 2010 were estimated at about $17 million.

In 2005, Bishop Browning said his church would consider withdrawing from residential aged care if the federal government continued to under-fund it.

The service had an operating deficit of $1 million in the previous financial year.

The decision now to sell the five nursing homes follows a report by consultants Ernst and Young that found the nursing-home operations were not large enough to achieve the economies of scale needed to be financially sustainable. This is the same or very similar advice given by the former board in May 2009.

Apparently putting more faith in God than his former board's professional advice, Bishop Robinson and/or his advisors have incurred further debt while continuing to ask people for their generous donations to support Anglicare. The sincerity of the decision to try to continue to provide residential aged care is not questioned, but supporters of this worthwhile organisation might reasonably judge harshly the wisdom of that decision. The facts were clearly known at least four years ago and were ignored.

Meanwhile, the Church's inability to continue to provide residential aged care raises serious questions generally over the future of this important service. There is clearly something seriously wrong with the federal government's funding arrangements of the service, particularly for people who cannot afford commercially-based care.

Graham Downie, O'Connor

While Cricket Australia congratulates itself for the success of the annual Big Bash League, its once proud Test batting line-up has become an embarrassment to the country's cricket history. With a few occasional exceptions our batsmen have demonstrated that they no longer have the techniques or temperament to survive 20 overs, let alone bat for a session or a day. CA would do well to shrink the BBL to a seasonal sideshow and return the Sheffield Shield to its rightful place as the centrepiece of the Australian season, but don't hold your cash registers on the chance of that happening.

Mark Slater, Melba

I am less pragmatic about cricket's Decision Review System than Amanda Dunn (''There will always be bad decisions - and we should be thankful'', Forum, July 20, p9). Many decisions that were once the province of the on-field umpires, with all the associated ''wonderful messiness'', are now subject to the judgment of the third umpire after viewing the technology in agonisingly minute detail. And yet many ''howler'' decisions remain. The decision of whether or not to invoke the DRS is manipulated by the players in a manner that has nothing to do with cricket ability or tactical nous associated with the game itself. The SWEDRS (Shane Watson Exclusive Decision Review System) also gives cause for concern. Even when he is plumb lbw, it still gives him out.

Peter Crossing, Curtin

D. Castle (Letters, July 22) asks ''if the government announces a change in the fringe benefits tax for cars, starting in April next year, why is there not a rush to get a car now?'' The simple answer is because the change is effective from the date of the announcement, that is from July 17. Of course the Labor government has to amend the law and backdate the change to that date so it may not happen - something about elections comes to mind - but good risk management dictates that you factor in the possibility the law will change with effect from that date.

John Passant, Kambah

It is close to the time when new efficiency dividends will be announced. I am writing to suggest an alternative to this over-used term. It should be replaced by ''the efficiency incentive'', which gives a more accurate and honest description of what is implied. This tax is being imposed on government departments and other public institutions in order to encourage (or require) them to do more with less funding in the following year.

My main problem with the current phrase is that it gets the direction of the financial transaction wrong, as perceived by the general public. Companies that make a profit give dividends to shareholders at the end of the year. Any company regularly announcing instead that it was going to take away a percentage of the money invested, but still calling this a ''dividend'', would not last very long.

Stewart Turner, Kingston

I could not believe my eyes when Stephanie Anderson (''Roos take brunt of road kill'', July 19, p3) referred to kangaroos as ''culprits'' in animal collisions with Canberra drivers, as though the kangaroos were at fault.

It is not the kangaroos who drive lethal weapons at high speed through this land they have peacefully occupied for millions of years. Journalists should choose words with more care.

I was not, however, surprised to see the ACT government taking the opportunity to use the collision statistics as though they could somehow justify its current cull of eastern grey kangaroos. Quite the reverse is true. The collision statistics are just further evidence of the view held by reputable ecologists that eastern kangaroo numbers are actually in serious decline. Between culling, harvesting, urban development and other habitat loss, polluted and damaged waterways, climate change and, of course, death on the roads, eastern grey kangaroos, along with many other native animal species, are simply not coping.

Surely no one is naive enough to believe the statistics produced by those who have a vested interest in killing kangaroos, over those put forward by scientists who have no axe to grind!

Lydia Steele, Red Hill

Were wealthy Jews any less at risk of persecution by the Nazis than poor Jews? Are wealthy Iranians any less at risk of persecution by religious literalists than poor Iranians? One could go on but in every case, the question remains the same. Just because some people can afford to pay to get as far away from danger as possible does not mean that they are just ''economic migrants''.

If asylum cannot be granted to everyone who seeks it, then surely it should be granted on the basis of need. That need may be demonstrated by a wealthy family's willingness to spend its fortune to get visitors visas and airline tickets to a First World country, or by less wealthy families paying people to get them on obsolete boats and take them on the risky journey to a safer place.

It is arguable that the more desperate a person is to get to a particular country, the more grateful they might be to be given asylum in that country, and determined to become an exemplary citizen.

John F. Simmons, Kambah

How have we as a nation come to sink so low that we allow our politicians to use the humanitarian crisis of the refugees as a political football and a vote getter? The latest proposal from our Prime Minister puts the burden of what is our problem - dealing with the people trying to reach our shores - on to another nation that is far less able to handle such an influx. The heart of the ''Pacific solution'' has been out of sight, out of mind until some incident like last weekend's riot on Nauru hits the headlines.

Where would we as a nation be today if it were not for the many refugees we have accepted over the past 60 years? We may militarily play our part in what we believe is protecting freedom and democracy, but we have never had to endure the horror of our country being invaded and the whole civilian population caught up in the fighting. ''Unto those whom much is given much will be required'' is a principle that must surely tie in with our belief that we are a nation that offers a fair go to everyone.

If, in the 1990s, we had practised the policies of earlier decades and worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to process refugees quickly by the proper channels, we would not have the problem of people smugglers. The problem is of our own making and it behoves us to face what our determination to maintain what we have for ourselves is costing our neighbours. Otherwise our platitudes when we come to chair the Security Council will fall on deaf ears.

Celia Farquharson, Tura Beach, NSW

I expect smarter analysis of the political scene by Nicholas Stuart, not the glib stuff in his article ''The strange case of Dr Kev'' (Times2, July 23, p4). The Rudd government's changes to refugee policy in 2008 were because of the groundswell of repugnance in the electorate to Howard's policy. Abbott and co. have shamefully undermined that electorate goodwill, playing to the xenophobia in Australia, and the Coalition's ''Stop the Boats'' mantra has encouraged the smuggling industry to get as many boats here as possible before any challenge to their business.

So now the electorate wants the boats stopped, somehow, and the Rudd government has put out a comprehensive smuggling business stopper. Why is that ''flipping''? It looks more like pragmatic governing!

Marguerite Castello, Griffith

There is absolutely no excuse for the destruction that the illegal entrants carried out on Nauru. The damage was to Australian property, which will doubtless be rebuilt at Australian expense. Nauru is a sovereign nation, but it is tiny and financially straitened. It is unlikely to be able to handle the effects of the riot.

These refugees say they are fleeing lawlessness in their countries, yet they think that violence will advance their cause. This is the mindset of people who are incompatible as migrants, lawful or otherwise, and regardless of their frustration. Already in breach of Australian laws by their illegal entry, many illegal entrants (let's not perpetuate the United Nations euphemism of ''asylum seeker'') are emboldened by refugee councils, misguided clerics, migrant agents, quick-buck lawyers, middle-class left-wing academics and media, and naive idiots who advocate an open door policy.

The rioters believe they have the right to inflict damage on what has been given to them freely. The Nauru incident is one of several, and it was pure luck that no one was killed. Had that occurred we can be sure that none of the above refugee support groups would see themselves accountable, of course.

Who are these rioters? Are they bona fide refugees? The question prior to the riot was whether they should be allowed into this country, now it is a question easily answered in the negative.

Greg O'Regan, Farrer

To put Australia's ''problem'' into perspective. Altogether, 1079 asylum seeking refugees (they are not illegal immigrants) have arrived on the tiny island of Malta this year, and 17,743 in the past decade.

But in the European Union's smallest state, which has just over 400,000 people and a land mass of 316 square kilometres, this figure is much larger than it would seem. Malta's land size is just over one third the size of Canberra's suburbs, which is 814 square kilometres.

The equivalent number of arrivals in Australia would be around 59,000 over 12 months, and more than 975,865 over the past decade. That's more or less equivalent to the populations of Canberra, Wollongong, Hobart and Darwin put together. What is the problem for such an advanced economy whose recent economic history has been labelled the envy of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? I just don't get it.

Raphael Dingli, Watson

In your reporting of the last-minute win by the Brumbies over the Cheetahs at Canberra Stadium on Sunday, no mention was made of the despicable behaviour by the Brumbies' equine mascot, Brumby Jack, who stood in a privileged position right behind the opposition player as he settled to attempt the kick that might have changed the result.

The mascot jumped around, gestured violently encouraging the crowd, in a noisy background, to put him off. Brumby Jack happened to be in that position by sheer serendipity, but ought to have moved away some distance from the footballer attempting the kick.

It amazed me and my neighbours. It also was a surprise that the referee, who also was close by, as entitled to be, did not stop the match, and order the mascot to remove himself.

All in all, the mascot's behaviour was not a good reflection on Canberran sportsmanship.

T. W. Campbell, Bruce

I left Canberra Stadium on Sunday evening with mixed emotions. I was happy and relieved that the Brumbies had won, but annoyed at the antics of Brumby Jack in the final minute of the match. As the Cheetahs kicker lined up the kick which, if successful, would give his team a deserved opportunity to play extra time, Brumby Jack positioned himself behind the kicker and encouraged the fans (many of whom needed no encouragement) to boo and heckle the kicker. In this age of professionalism, traditionalists like me have become used to fans who try to distract the opposition, but when this behaviour is orchestrated by a club mascot, it doesn't reflect well on the club.

Rod Macleod, Isaacs

ROYALLY LUCKY

The latest male heir to the English throne is certainly lucky he will never know what it was like being born to a family who had to take their chances on a leaky boat only to have it turned away from the ''lucky country''.

D.J. Fraser, Mudgeeraba, Qld

DEAL OF FORTUNE

Steve Thomas (Letters, July 22) should count himself lucky that he lives in the inner south. I calculated that his rates went up only 7 per cent for the financial year.

If he feels hard done by with his latest rates rise, maybe he can spare a thought for other ACT residents. Treasurer Andrew Barr slugged me with a 15 per cent increase in my rates as he moved to equalise rates across the city.

Maybe the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence Mr Thomas.

Alistair Nitz, Franklin

SHOW US THE POLICIES

Exactly what are the Coalition's policies on education, health, infrastructure, job creation, refugees, climate change and so on? Do they actually have any?

It would seem not, unless Tony Abbott has decided to keep them a deep, dark secret.

Vic Adams, Reid

ABBOTT AT SEA ON PNG

So, Tony Abbott is all at sea over the federal government's PNG plan to deal with the asylum-seeker/refugee issue (''Don't let political opportunism hide an idea that may work'', canberratimes.com.au, July 23)? More like drowning in an ocean of shallow policy slogans.

John Richardson, Wallagoot, NSW

INFORMAL ADDRESS

If the proposal to send all asylum seekers to PNG becomes a major platform in the forthcoming election, sadly I have decided that I will have no choice but to vote informal.

Elizabeth Vitek, Bungendore, NSW

MISSED OPPORTUNITY

I for one am disappointed that we won't be getting that deluge of economic refugees from Iran that Bob Carr has warned us about. These are just the sort of people Australia's multiculturalism should support: intelligent, hard-working, ethically-centred, family-focused people seeking escape from religious fanaticism.

Chris Williams, Griffith

PUT UP YOUR HAND, OR …

Why don't these people who are protesting about the treatment of refugees take a family of four to eight people into their homes, feed them, clothe them, teach them English and find them jobs. I bet you will not get too many takers.

R.B. Smith, Fadden

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).