This was then used ("voila" he flourishes) to pay "tax-free private school fees".

Can he explain how money taxed at a low rate became tax-free a few sentences later?

Second, he calls such use of trusts a "lurk" (dodge or racket per the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary).

Can he say why the use of a lawful arrangement is a dodge or racket?

Third, he suggests that the use of such trusts is a "loophole" (a means of evading a rule, per that dictionary). Can he clarify what rule is evaded by use of a trust?

Fourth, he seems to argue, optimistically and naively, that closing what he perceives to be such "loopholes" will solve funding problems for roads, railways, schools and hospitals.

If we are blessed with a Labor government in a few months, I hope the treasurer and assistant treasurer will advance more rational tax policies than those Mr Leigh advocates and will use less emotive and more considered language to promote them.

Hugh Dakin, Griffith

Labor has jabbed a hornet's nest with its imputation policy. The letters opposing the policy, which are part and parcel of a democracy, have often been quite selective in their arguments – possibly in the hope of persuading voters not affected to nevertheless vote against Labor.

These letters, and the broader campaign, almost always ignore that Labor's "Pensioner Guarantee" (that includes part-rate age pensioners) will mean that the vast majority of aged people will not be affected by the proposal. Currently, around 66 per cent of people aged 65 or older receive at least the part-rate aged pension.

Out of the remaining 33 per cent, many would not be receiving any age pension because they have income and/or assets beyond the relevant cut-off points rather than because they are using a SMSF. Furthermore, some SMSF's are "grandfathered" from the proposal.

Very few people enjoy giving up what they have or are expecting to have – even if they are paying no tax under the current law – so the furore is not surprising.

However, if people are receiving an age pension (including a part-rate pension) or expect to do so, they can ignore the furore from a personal financial perspective, and not let it influence their vote.

Bruce Paine, Red Hill

No, Tony Dillon (Letters, February 13) in relation to franking credits, what is disappointing is that people who would seem to have university-level qualifications in financial matters, like retired actuaries, misrepresent the onshore tax haven that is the superannuation system as containing marginal tax rates.

It does not, it has concessional tax rates as low as zero.

I'm in favour of that tax haven to encourage saving for income in retirement, and I'm comfortable that a lot of what happens in it uses the "Las Vegas principle" (what happens in, stays in). But here is the problem, prior to 2007 when money left the tax haven it returned to normality, subject to marginal tax rates.

Then treasurer Peter Costello said, for retirees over 60, it is Las Vegas forever.

Tony is clearly an advocate for company profits being taxed at marginal tax rates, he mentioned it five times in his letter, just not on his own holdings of shares.

I and I suspect many others, could accept franking credits being cashed out by superannuation funds, but only if it is backed up with sensible marginal tax rates on retirement benefits.

Peter Bradbury, retired economic statistician, Holt

Over coffee we were thinking about the people we respect who have been recently pilloried for one sentence, about which the press has then become "shouty".

Ken Henry regrets his moments of defensiveness about corrupt banking but we haven't forgotten his brilliant tax reform proposals.

Chris Bowen was only showing perhaps admirable stamina in defending his franking proposals in the context of his broader tax policy overview.

Can our journalists please encourage us towards in-depth assessment rather than to the condemnation of a person for a sentence?

Wise counsellors have suggested that in order to judge how someone will behave in the future we need to look at how they've behaved in the past rather than what they may inadvisably say under pressure.

Jill Sutton, Charnwood

I agree with Christopher Pyne when he laments that Australian politicians are trapped in a self-obsessed and panic-prone spiral that detracts from their ability to work for the good of the country ("'Shouty press' bad for politics, says Pyne", February 11, p1 and p4).

Mr Pyne said that his colleagues have been, since Malcolm Turnbull was deposed, succumbing to "irrational pressure" from "shouty" commentators and responding "rashly" to bad polls.

It seems to me that politicians have long been overly influenced by commentators such as Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Andrew Bolt. I find it interesting, and concerning, that the vast majority of these "shouty" commentators hail from the right or far right of the political spectrum.

The Morrison government seems particularly susceptible to being unduly influenced by these "loud" opinions, seeming desperate to do whatever it takes to hold on to power. Unfortunately, bowing to such pressure comes at the expense of running the country for the good of all Australians.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

I was delighted to see the large sign indicating that the new apartment development in Lyons (corner of Hindmarsh and Yamba, ex Strathgordon Court) is to be called "Junction".

What a "brilliant" choice of name to recognise a development adjoining this major intersection.

There seems to be no end to the uninspiring, meaningless, nondescript titles chosen by property developers in Canberra and their PR agencies.

How about using some more Australian/Canberran name choices.

I'd like to see a Cocky's Joy Court, Accadacca Apartments, Corroboree Court or even a Billabong Waters (what better title for a filled-in West Basin).

John Mungoven, Stirling

So Andrew Barr may cap petrol prices at some future point. While he is at it could he look at the land pricing rort as well? I suspect not.

N. Ellis, Belconnen

One could begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on his apparent role in having the footballer, Hakeem al-Araibi, freed from his Bangkok jail.

One could then go on to warn him that the ALP's success in passing the independents-backed medivac bill through both houses of Parliament is not the electoral gift he thinks it is.

The PM declares that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten now "owns" this border control "catastrophe" and that Australian voters will "hold him to account" in the forthcoming election. What is much more likely is that a majority of them will approve of this small shift away from the bizarre morality previously "owned" by both major parties.

In essence, this morality proclaimed that in order to "save lives at sea" it was justifiable and necessary to lock up indefinitely a few thousand asylum-seekers who have committed no crime recognised by international law.

According to both parties up till now, the incarceration of these hapless men, women and children is all that prevents the world's 65 million plus displaced people from appearing off our shores tomorrow. It needs to be remembered that the 1200 or so who died at sea heading for Australia boarded those boats of their own volition (excepting, of course, the children) and had every right to so so.

We never had any right to imprison a few thousand asylum-seekers indefinitely in the hope that their incarceration on Manus Island and Nauru might deter others from risking their lives.

Slowly, the Australian people have begun to see how pathetic this morality was. They can now reasonably expect that a future Australian government will be able to devise a border control policy which does not rely upon a fundamental immorality.

Geoff Page, Narrabundah

Without in any way diminishing the need for, or the gravity of, outcomes from recent royal commissions, are we to see their real value diminished by political gamesmanship, point-scoring and blatant vote-gathering?

Thursday's tactical maneuver to wedge the government by using an anticipated note from the Senate calling for a royal commission into disability issues, which never arrived, exposes Bill Shorten's primary self-interest rather than good governance.

However, this treatment of Parliament, the supposed People's House, has become an art form for both major parties over recent years. Currently in Question Time we rarely hear any substantial policy questions — rather inept and repetitive party political questions answered in kind.

Is it any wonder that "all Australians" trust in politicians, major parties, in particular, has diminished alarmingly, thus festering a lack of confidence in an increasingly divisive Australian community — aided and abetted by the growth of political staffers and media commentary rather than fact-driven advice or journalism.

It sure makes it hard for one to maintain a positive attitude.

That being so — maybe what we really need is a royal commission to delve into political gamesmanship, the substitution of considered departmental "fearless advice" for politically motivated staffers and the unbalanced influence of media in federal politics.

Fanciful you might say — but no more so than the plethora of mind-addling political rhetoric and half-baked promises growing in crescendo as "the next election" looms.

Len Goodman, Belconnen

In 1917, Siam's King Rama VI joined the Allies in World War I, partly to prove Siam was a civilised nation willing to uphold international norms.

He hoped this stance would enable the cancellation of so-called "unequal" treaties granting foreigners the right to be tried by their own national courts, not Siamese ones, due of the lack of proper Siamese legal codes.

Sadly, a century on, Thailand's appalling treatment of Hakeem al-Araibi manifested in its inability to recognise his refugee status, to discern the illegality of the warrant for his arrest, to uphold his innocence until proof of guilt, or to grant him bail while awaiting trial, let alone the disgraceful shackling of him during court appearances, all point to a reversion to barbarity that would have appalled King Rama.

Perhaps the former treaties that ensured fair and efficient process need to be reinstated? "British protection" meant something 100 years ago, why doesn't "Australian protection" mean anything today?

Brendan Whyte, Phillip

If there was ever a time where our governments at all levels must stand up and support our farmers, now surely must be the time.

The combination of natural disasters, bushfires, drought and flood have decimated livelihoods and lives and are a tragedy of epic proportions. The people who are the backbone of Australia need guaranteed financial security and personal support immediately and for as long as it takes, to ensure they are physically, mentally and financially safe.

This is a critical situation where our governments must take decisive action, put aside their petty bickering and do what is in the best interests of and truly representative of all Australians.

Jeff Rose, Mildura, Vic

While we can all sympathise with Mike Lawson's difficulties in getting information from the ACT government about its intentions for the development of the north shore of West Basin (Letters, February 13), what is missing in the ongoing commentary on this area is the question: "what would Walter Burley Griffin do?" Griffin's plans, right from his 1912 competition entry, showed development on both sides of what is now Commonwealth Avenue, extending south from civic centre towards the lake.

His 1918 plan, to some extent consistently with what Mr Lawson has gleaned about current intentions, shows a total of six city blocks of development along Commonwealth Avenue south of London Circuit. The National Capital Authority's 2004 book The Griffin Legacy is an excellent resource for those interested in Canberra's original architect's intentions.

Richard Johnston, Kingston

GREED THE PROBLEM

Shane Nunan writes "The biggest problem facing humanity is not climate change, possible extinction of insects, destruction of fish stocks, etc. It is overpopulation... People are the problem" (Letters, February 13).

I disagree. In his most famous quote Mahatma Gandhi said "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not for every man's greed". Human greed is the problem.

Rajend Naidu, Glenfield, NSW

PARLIAMENT PACKS PUNCH

Biff! Pow! Whack! Sock! No not a rerun of Batman but just another day inside the corridors of Parliament.

Thos Puckett, Ashgrove, Qld

WATCH THE BOATS

Morrison and Dutton are white-anting their crowing about the efficacy of Border Force by scaremongering that the decent Medivac Bill will open floodgates of refugee boats. It wouldn't surprise anyone if "coincidentally" a boat or two "by fluke" slipped by the mighty Border Force before the May election.

Vacy Vlazna, Collaroy, NSW

TAMPA-PROOF?

PM Morrison boasts of stopping the boats and vows to continue to do so. But which boats?

Could he be tempted to "Tampa" with the effectiveness of our patrol boats prior to the election?

Heather Stewart, Weston

CHRISTMAS CRACKER

Scott Morrison cannot face an election without people smugglers, so he creates an emergency and decides that reopening Christmas Island is "the price" Australians will pay.

Trevor Wilson, Chifley

POOR RECEPTION

The move to DAB radio is not without warts. 106.3 does not carry into the multi-storey car park at TCH and when I parked alongside a cypress hedge this morning in Hawker neither 106.3 nor 104.7 were available.

Paul O'Connor, Hawker

NEW LAWS NOT NEEDED

Why do some people think that we need new laws to deal with outlaw motorcycle gangs (or, for that matter, outlaw Mercedes-driving bank officials)?

If they are outlaws, then by definition they have already broken the law.

Leon Arundell, Downer

FUTURE PAIN?

Ever get cash back from the ATO after sending in your tax return? Ever get a tax refund? If Labor had a consistent tax policy, you never would. At the moment, Labor is only targeting retirees. Will you be next?

B. Peterson, Kambah

PRISONER CATCH

There is another name for the ACT government's plan to house prisoners outside the jail to save the cost of building more cells. It's called "catch and release". The victims of crime won't be laughing.

M. Moore, Bonython

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 or fewer words. 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).