As such they detract from the performance of all there.

The Senate is no ordinary workplace.

It is a place of serious debate and consideration.

To have children, of any age or capacity, minded on the floor of either House detracts from the serious process of government.

There can be no compromise.

The woman who brought her child in recently showed lack of understanding and respect for the Senate and its grave responsibilities and place in Australia's governance.

Her personal judgement is so impaired that she and her supporters, including parliamentarians, show an ignorance of the high-level role and importance of the Parliament and a lack of respect for the institution, and thus for their fellow Australians, in favour of a misguided feminism.

The Senate sits off and on according to a program publicised in advance. If a senator cannot organise baby-sitting for the hours she is actually in the Senate, or if she does not want to be separated from her infant, or if her partner is not cooperating, then that senator is unable to fulfil the role of a senator and should resign.

As usual, Bob Brown, being a Green, cannot help proposing an unrealistic solution.

He seeks publicity at any cost. He wants to appear warm and fuzzy.

For the President of the Senate to agree to Brown's short-sighted idea is the thin edge of a wedge.

Why not have male senators minding children on the Senate floor too?

Greg O'Regan,

Farrer

As balanced as John Warhurst's article (''Parliaments can't be strangers to changing times'', June 25, p15) may seem, he seems to draw some bizarre ecclesiastical comparisons.

Sacred or not, I would put another point of view.

One cannot ignore the fact that Parliament House is itself one large workplace. It has some public areas and galleries where visitors can view parliamentary proceedings, but it is no different to any other set of public service megaliths, such as Defence, ASIO or DFAT.

The red and green houses are, in essence, functioning board rooms where matters of importance to the nation are debated and voted upon.

To place this in a private sector setting, I suppose barristers' chambers or the offices of BHP-Billiton might be equivalent.

I would also propose that a large department store, where staff need to concentrate on the job at hand serving customers, might represent an even closer parallel.

None of these places are suitable venues for staff or executive to be accompanied by their toddlers and I suspect most people would express their displeasure if they were served by a retail assistant with a two-year-old on their hip at DJs.

Where would Natasha Stott-Despoja's definition of child begin and end? Is a six-year-old an allowable stranger in the house? What about an 11-year-old? Do I hear 15?

There is a perfectly adequate creche in Parliament House and, like normal parents, parliamentarians should drop their children there before work and pick them up when they are finished.

From previous Canberra Times reports, I gather the toddler in question was playing with toys in the senator's office when the bells rang.

I would like to see a senior executive officer in the Department of Finance building getting away with a toy-and-toddler strewn office.

Evolve the rules by all means, but practically, not emotively.

Warren Feakes,

Jindabyne, NSW

ALBERT HALL'S BENEFITS

Re the ongoing controversy as to the future of the Albert Hall (''It's hall off: NCA buries cafe plan'', June 23, p1).

This building is eminently suitable as a performing hall for moderate size chamber/solo concerts, apart from being architecturally attractive. Canberra just does not have such a venue and is now large enough to accommodate such a place.

The building even has a balcony area, the stage is of a reasonable size, the acoustics are pretty good so everything would be in place.

I was actually thinking of the Albert Hall while in Europe recently, as most cities there have such a facility.

It could perhaps also be considered for modest theatrical productions.

Many years ago, when there was no choice, pianists of the calibre of Schnabel performed in the Albert Hall, so I am not proposing anything new.

If this project eventuates, a nice spill-over effect could then extend to that unfortunate ''temporary'' parking area which runs alongside the Commonwealth Bridge.

After all, how long is ''temporary"?

There we could then have a ''tourist hub'' with cafes, etc, on the lake foreshore. What a wonderful setting this would be for a cup of coffee.

Magda Sitsky,

Chifley

R. S. Gilbert (Letters, June 25) laments that the National Capital Authority has abandoned plans for development of the Albert Hall precinct on Commonwealth Avenue due to lack of (community) interest.

He reckons that the national interest should govern decisions about the future of this small and merely locally significant part of Canberra.

I, for one (and I gather I am one of many), am glad that, for once, things will stay as they always have been.

Like many Canberrans, I have attended a variety of events at the Albert Hall, ranging from photo frame/carpet/coat sales, to sales of super stuff (cards, prints, books) from the National Library and other national institutions, to performances of traditional dances by Buddhist monks.

We value this amenity which is truly universal in its utility. Long may it remain.

The rest of central-inner south Canberra is being transformed into something very different to the down-at-heel, slightly tacky but worthy town I first learned to love when I arrived in the year of the Bicentennial 1988.

Gilbert says that the actions of the NCA should not be ''directed to satisfying the lobbying of particular interest groups''.

Well, I didn't do any lobbying on this occasion, but I was pleased to see that those doing the lobbying reflected my views.

Just as I'm satisfied with the outcome.

Thanks, guys.

M. A. Smith,

Kambah

POMMY AND PROUD

In response to the racist and ignorant comments of your WA correspondent, Mark Tomkinson (Letters, June 26), I came to Australia as an eight-year-old child in 1969 and suffered all the usual taunts of pommy this and pommy that. I've since grown a very thick skin and have learned when it's meant affectionately and when it's not. I will decide when to become an Australian citizen and that will be when I can genuinely want Australia to win an Ashes cricket series. This may be seen as flippant by some but I believe true citizenship comes from the heart. Until that day comes I will continue to be one of Tomkinson's pommy bastards and very proud of it.

Julie Clark,

Flynn

NO PRE-AUCTION OFFER

Contrary to your report (''Construction firm pays $11m for Forrest car park, June 13, p6), the ACT Government neither received nor rejected an offer of any size by the National Press Club or anyone associated with the club for the purchase of a prime piece of land in Forrest.

The one and only ''offer'' made to the Government was the $11.325 million offered (and accepted) last week by the successful bidders at open auction.

The ACT's statutory methods for granting leases are set out in the Planning Act and include auction, tender, ballot or direct sale. There is no capacity for developers to make an ''offer'' outside a competitive process.

Again contrary to your report, there is no evidence that the Government would have made a cent more on the sale if it had agreed to a direct sale rather than going to open auction. Of the range of valuations for the site obtained by the Government, the highest obtained was for $10.8million.

Robust interest on the day of the auction resulted in a somewhat better result for the Government than could have been expected.

With respect to the figure of $16million quoted by your reporter, all applicants for the direct sale of land are required to demonstrate their financial capacity to purchase and develop land. This, incidentally, requires them to estimate how much they might expect to pay for the land subject, of course, to valuation. To construe this estimate as an ''offer'' for the land is simply wrong. As explained, it was never open to the applicants to make an offer of any size or shape. The law does not allow it, and they did not do it.

Jon Stanhope, MLA

Chief Minister