That is, all electricity consumers pay more for power to cover the cost of paying a premium to consumers who have solar panels on their roof.

Another big problem is that consumers who already subscribe to the supply authority GreenPower scheme, and pay a premium to purchase 100 per cent green electricity, now also pay an extra premium on base electricity charges, to cover these extra feed-in tariff payments to consumers with solar panels on their roof.

Effectively, this is paying twice for green electricity.

The feed-in tariff scheme and the GreenPower scheme are working against each other. The ''silo mentality'' says it all. The feed-in tariff scheme for householders is an ill-conceived distraction from the main game of achieving major greenhouse gas reductions. It panders to the small minority of ''wealthy'' and the financially astute who can afford solar panels, and to those who are misled by confused and populist government policies.

We need more clarity of thinking and a more rational approach from our politicians to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not simply an unthinking, seat-of-the-pants reaction to the clamour of demands to ''do something''.

Peter White,

Flynn

SCOURGE OF CORRUPTION

What an insidious treatise John Warhurst has offered (''Status the ticket to service'', July 2, p19). Corruption is the scourge of human advancement everywhere.

And they always say what Warhurst said: we shouldn't worry about moderately corrupt behaviour from our elected representatives, because that's just the way it is.

But corruption only moves in one direction. Less to more. When a level becomes just the way it is, that becomes the base for the move to a higher level.

Then, in Australia, we use royal commissions to try to poke the toothpaste back into the tube. Are we really keen to return to Bjelke-Petersen-style politics?

So when a federal treasurer demands his department promptly inform him, via private fax, of progress on public funding of the one car dealer he's taken a personal interest in (the PM's mate), tell him that's unacceptable, for fear he may become emboldened.

Tom Waring,

Ainslie

ROOM FOR REFUGEES?

Your editorial (''Labor's humanity tested by refugees'', July 1, p10) reminds us that Labor won the last federal election partly on the promise to pursue a more humanitarian attitude to refugees and to dismantle the Howard government's Pacific solution.

Many Australians can now acknowledge that sometimes the previous government's policies towards these desperate people was cruel and heartless.

If 10,000 asylum seekers are now headed for Australia most Australians would want us to do our very best to treat them in a humane way and accommodate them.

But the fact is that there are possibly 10 million people living in oppressive regimes to our north who might have good reasons for moving to Australia, legally or illegally. If it is 10,000 this year will we have room for triple that number next year?

It is one thing to dismantle the policies of the Howard government, but how do we replace them?

Robert Willson,

Deakin

BURKA NOT ACCEPTABLE

Bravo Virginia Haussegger for speaking out (''Ban un-Australian burka'', Forum, June 27, p16) against the oppressive enslavement of Muslim women, symbolised by enforced wearing of tent-like outer garments with slots for vision.

I can't believe that it was the Prophet's vision for half of the population. Rather the system of female servitude has been since concocted by an evil cabal of clerics and other ''interpreters'' of their scriptures who saw that male chauvinism could, to their advantage, degrade women to the status of chattels to provide sex and services maintained by cruelty and savage punishments.

On the other hand, their culture is not burdened by the parasitical fashion and cosmetics industries and the clearly provocative behaviour of many young women who wantonly display their bodies with the object of getting pregnant and netting a provider in the process.

The determination of strict Muslim society not to release the pandemic of permissiveness is understandable, but their solution, involving cruelty to women, is emphatically not acceptable here.

They must not be allowed to practise female enslavement in Australia.

C.P. Glover,

Canberra City

SUPERFICIAL UNDERSTANDING

Virginia Haussegger's article (''Ban un-Australian burka'', Forum, June 27, p16) displays a superficial understanding of the history and tradition of the burka and an even shallow understanding of what is modest dress code for men and women as promoted in the Torah, New Testament and the Koran.

The issue is not the burka, hijab, Jewish headscarf, African head garb or for that matter any other form of traditional/cultural clothing, but the freedom of choice with out stigmatisation or discrimination.

The issue is within the individual or society that holds a dogmatic view that a woman is only truly liberated if and when she is physically/sexually exposed.

Give us all a break, Virginia, and stop expressing your fury in a country that frankly has come a long way.

Australia has comfortably arrived at a point of balance that is a sign of a mature society.

A. Khan,

Gordon

COURAGE ON HEALTH

Dr Ross Hendry is to be complemented for his ongoing, courageous, determined, unrewarded efforts over decades to demand Greater Southern Area Health Service provide, and adequately fund, direct care staff at Queanbeyan Hospital (''Staff attrition rate making Qbn hospital unworkable'', July 2, p1).

Unfortunately his best efforts have been successfully thwarted by an enormously expensive, sclerotic bureaucracy stacked with functionaries and apparatchiks, most of whom would need a procedure manual to apply a Band-Aid.

Glib promises by successive NSW health ministers to de-fund bureaucracy and divert finances to ''front-line'' or ''coalface'' (both terms beloved of ministers) direct care staff were, unsurprisingly, never realised.

Were it funny, which it's not, one might give an ironic chuckle at the amazing juxtaposition of a real-time Yes Minister hospital together with operation of the ''Peter principle''.

Albert M. White,

Queanbeyan, NSW

PANACEA OF DREAMS

People who think we would have better health services by merging all the state health bureaucracies into one huge federal mega-bureaucracy are dreaming.

If it were true, why stop at health?

We could create the best possible society by creating an enormous central government department to control every aspect of life.

This misguided theory was destruct-tested in the 20th century unfortunately at the cost of more than 100 million lives.

Repeating the mistakes of the Soviet Union will only produce more of the same planned chaos, in which government departments have a vested interest.

The problems with our government- run health systems are precisely because they are government run.

The solution is to reduce or abolish central government controls of medical training, licensing, pharmaceuticals, insurance and services, not to increase them.

Justin Jefferson,

Kybeyan, NSW

FIREWORKS OF INDEPENDENCE

My dog, still outside at about 5.30pm has just gone nuts. Reason? The United States embassy has decided to have a fireworks display not July 4 but July 2.

I didn't think we could let off fireworks except on a few designated days each year, but I guess the US embassy can do whatever it likes on its own property irrespective of our ACT fireworks laws.

Some notice to the public would have been thoughtful so that we could have secured our animals.

S. Thomas,

Deakin

INDIGENOUS SOLUTIONS

It always seems that the louder the ''tut-tutting'' about issues such as indigenous life, the quicker it will go on the back burner.

Maybe the Rudd Government will establish something like a Bureau of Indian Affairs as the Americans did in the 19th century to give the semblance of caring while doing nothing. But wasn't there a Department of Aboriginal Affairs that used to perform that function?