The visual of the Griffin Plan Amendment 60 printed in John Thistleton's article on the ASIO building (''Secret Manoeuvres'', Forum, August 15, pp 4-5), reveals a plan for Section 49, Parkes, that is quite different from the current ASIO plan for the section.
Yet, contrary to the views of many experts, the National Capital Authority continues to assert that they are consistent. How can this be?
Senator Kate Lundy's suggestion of ''gratuitous clap-trap'' implies the NCA could have been misleading the public when Amendment 60 was discussed.
This suggestion is lent plausibility by NCA chief executive, Garry Rake and national capital plan acting executive director Andrew Smith's reported position that ''consultation was completed in the lead up to Amendment 60'' and that ''the site was always going to be occupied by a large building''.
Surprise. That's not what the Amendment 60 plans, on public display in late 2006, show. So who was involved in this consultation?
Not the public, who could not have seen the ASIO design until it appeared on the Department of Finance's website in March 2009.
Maybe Rake and Smith are referring to private consultations with ASIO and the Department of Finance?
If these consultations in 2006-07 included the ASIO building designs, why are the published plans so different?
Maybe they did intend to hoodwink the public, as Lundy suggests.
No one has said whether the NCA first saw the ASIO design before the public hearings on Amendment 60.
But if the NCA was not intent on misleading the public at that stage why did it subsequently approve a design so different from the published plans that it promoted so hard to the public in 2006-07?
Smith and Rake may claim their organisations were not bulldozed but either the NCA was misleading the public or it had already become the ''National Capitulation Authority''.
L. Band, Campbell
The imminent ASIO monstrosity is a creature of the Howard government, as pointed out by Sandor Siro (Letters, August 18), and its ''in-your-face'' character reflects a paranoia about national security.
We don't need another reminder of John Howard: the state of our roads, railways, and transport system generally, and our failure to be at the forefront of alternative energy support and development are reminders enough.
The ASIO affront could and should be relocated to a convenient (for them) and suitably discreet location such as Campbell Park. I'm afraid, though, that it's far too late for change.
Dr Douglas Mackenzie, Queanbeyan
Justice bail-out
Before we rush to establish more judges (''Waiting game: justice on hold'', August 19, p1) the question might be asked, ''Why do we need a judge to hear a bail application?'' Presumably the purpose of a bail application is to determine whether the applicant will be a risk to the community if allowed bail or whether the applicant will abscond to avoid his/her day in court.
Why not appoint panels, each with three responsible local citizens, to hear the arguments for bail (from the applicant's lawyer or the applicant) and against bail (from the police) and arrive at a decision?
This suggestion would not only reduce the delay in bail hearings, it would free up justices for tasks where their skills can be more appropriately used.
If the jury system is good enough to decide guilt or innocence why not a bail panel?
Roger J. Dace, Googong, NSW
Health for sale
I am thankful I am healthy and not feeling the plight of others who live in the Belconnen area and were once treated by Dr John Horsley.
Since the passing of Dr John Horsley I have had to find a new doctor.
My first consultation was a fact finding mission for my new doctor as she cannot access my medical files.
Primary Health Care has ''purchased'' Dr Horsley's patient files and will not release them.
Hence, needy patients cannot have important files accessed to ensure a continuance of credible medical advice.
It's enough to make anyone sick.
Peter Walker, Hawker
Email a friend