While his speech can certainly be read as saying that, it's not completely clear to me that that is the interpretation he intended.

He said other things in his speech that seem to be inconsistent with that view.

But, if it is his view, it would mean that what's in the public interest is a subjective, not an objective, matter.

For example, if the ALP wins the next election, it would be in the public interest for the government to do something about carbon emissions but, if the Coalition wins, it would be in the public interest for it to do nothing.

If that's really his view, it would follow that the public interest is not a very useful guide to running the country.

My view is that the public interest is an objective matter and that public servants, by dint of their subject matter expertise, are usually best placed to divine what it is.

It is therefore up to them to advise the government of the day what they think should be done, not to stay quiet because the government has determined that the public interest is something else.

Greg Pinder, Charnwood

Some defend current weak Australian government responses to greenhouse issues on the basis that real action on our 1.3 per cent share of emissions is futile globally (Letters, October 26) and only adversely impacts our economy.

But aspects of our leadership stance suggest it is a worst possible, wrecking approach in terms of our global impacts – via lack of openness and clarity in reporting domestic emission trends, de minimis gaming of national targets at international forums, dismissal of IPCC scientific warnings as irrelevant, rejecting use of economic market signals through carbon trading or pricing, and calls for government subsidies to coal-fired generation and opening up bigger coal exports.

These features send precisely the wrong message out to other nations as to considered global behaviour. They reinforce "bottom feeding" such as under the current US leadership and insult our Pacific island neighbours.

Like the UK's clever messaging to the English-speaking world, a more outward-looking contribution from Australia would be to recognise the dangers to our especially vulnerable agricultural sector from disruption to moisture balances; to leverage importers of our coal and gas to best manage their emissions; to champion a Pacific region view such as in terms of risks to sea level, reef ecology and ocean life; to provide leadership of the science, technology and economics underpinning effective responses; and to replace a de minimis approach to national emission targets with early over-achievement and marketing communications.

Think globally, not inwardly.

Roger FitzGerald, Macquarie

I noticed on the media recently a couple of off-hand racist phrases – "Dutch courage", which implies that the only brave Dutch person is a drunk one, and "scot free", which suggests that Scottish people are likely to get away with crimes.

In fact the real meaning of "scot free" was avoiding paying your tax (scot) but few know that so the phrase sounds racist.

"Political correctness going mad again," I hear some say but how did Australians feel when people would offhandedly refer to "lazy Australians" as if a hard-working Aussie was a mythical creature?

Some in the media still peddle the idea that Australians who are thrown out of work are dole bludgers.

Rosemary Walters, Palmerston

There seem to be some who are critical of MLA Bec Cody for seeking a historical re-evaluation of some of Canberra's street and locality names. Their grounds are that Ms Cody should be focusing on "less trivial" matters. I guess they won't mind if Ms Cody says she is too busy with more important matters when they next seek help in fixing their own "trivial" problems.

Eric Hunter, Cook

The ACT government proposes that schools may discriminate on the basis of a child's religion ("Schools will still be able to discriminate – with one catch," November 2, p8).

But – unlike race, sexual orientation, skin, hair and eye colour – religion is not an innate, genetic, characteristic. It should be a matter of mature informed choice.

School children cannot yet have made that choice. They must not be pressed – or deemed – to do so prematurely, especially in a publicly funded education system.

Schools should, inter alia, equip students to make informed choices in due course – including by questioning and challenging religious views, and especially those archaic doctrines that promote discrimination and denial of science.

Otherwise they are not educating, but indoctrinating. Public policy, let alone taxpayer funding, must not support such indoctrination.

Mike Hutchinson, Reid

Peter Harris (Letters, October 29), check out the "Register of Members' Interests – 45th Parliament" and you'll see that many current federal politicians state they have free Foxtel, which includes Sky News, in their electorate offices courtesy of ASTRA and Foxtel.

While the register has details about the many doozie freebies parliamentarians have acquired, it's also well worth examining to see the spelling and grammar howlers, displayed in many cases via the politicians' personal handwriting. They will make for very interesting conversation starters.

Col Shephard, Yamba, NSW

The just completed widening of Gundaroo Drive heading towards the Barton Highway at the Gungahlin Drive intersection appears to have four lanes.

One turning left towards the city, two going straight ahead towards the Barton, and the fourth, a right hand turn into Gungahlin Drive towards Ngunnawal and Casey and so on.

Sounds good except that even on a quiet mid-afternoon weekday the right hand lane only accommodates about 8-10 cars despite having plenty of width in the median strip.

About a dozen more cars wishing to turn right are stuck in the right hand lane going straight through the lights.

Only one through lane is flowing as the right hand turn light is not green for long and the traffic banks back.

The result: more delays as the turn lane is (hopefully) lengthened with more traffic interruption.

P. O'Connor, Hawker

Bravo to Owen Reid of Dunlop who rightly pointed out the real Malcolm Turnbull (Letters, October 26).

I find it amusing that most of the CT letter writers and editors have a sense of sympathy for Turnbull. I guess most of them would be left-wing Labor voters and see Turnbull as their ideal leader, much more than Bill Shorten.

The sorrow for Turnbull is amazing as he first wanted to join the ALP but they rejected him (lucky them), then he backstabs Liberal leader Brendan Nelson to gain leadership of the Liberal party.

He then loses leadership to Tony Abbott and spends the next part of his political life undermining him at every opportunity.

The press says nothing of the destabilising attempts by Turnbull on Abbott. When the roles are reversed Abbott is painted as the villain.

Turnbull eventually got what he always wanted, even as a young boy; to be prime minister of Australia.

It didn't matter which political party it was, as he has no loyalty to anyone but himself.

Did Labor reject Turnbull so that it could send him into the Liberal party to do his best to undermine and wreck that party?

Turnbull's views are more at home with the left, the Labor Party.

When [finally] challenged by his own party, he calls a spill and loses. So what does he do now, takes his bat and goes home.

Oh, but his other home is in New York, lucky him, where he can Tweet on social media how hard done by he was. At least Abbott stayed with his party and toughed it out.

Now with the loss of Wentworth, the usual suspects are blaming Abbott and co again, but Labor and Greens votes went down as well.

Wentworth reminds me a bit of affluent Canberra where the voters like virtual signalling on things like climate change because they never have to worry about paying high prices for electricity bills and would let the floodgates open for illegal immigrants because they would live 300 kilometres up the road, not next door to them.

Turnbull has really left the Liberal Party in a state of disarray and I feel sorry for Scott Morrison, who has to pick up the pieces.

Ian Pilsner, Weston

The ACT's latest housing strategy ("Housing strategy omits key details", October 30, p1) would have prompted deja vu for many readers.

It made the same vague promises as many previous, and equally vague, announcements.

Remember Yvette Berry's undertaking to public housing tenants that after eviction they would be able to move into similar housing situated in salt and pepper locations on main transit routes.

Over two elections our current government has made many commitments to remedy the housing affordability crisis.

Some of the promises have been deliberately forgotten. Others have been paid lip service at best.

The housing affordability crisis and high rates of homelessness are still with us.

The problem is not with the actual price of building a house. That cost has risen in line with the CPI .

Affordable housing is housing that does not cost more than one-third of the average weekly wage.

Because of the high price of land, housing in Canberra and other capitals can be well over half the average weekly wage.

A simple solution would be to sell land to average wage earners at independently valued prices.

Repayment terms and amounts would be set to sit comfortably into an average household budget.

The land should be sold over the counter and purchasers should be given the opportunity to sit on it for sufficient time to grow their savings and equity to the point where they would qualify for finance to build.

This is more or less what happened between 1950 and 1980. It worked well for Canberrans then and would work well again now.

At the moment the ACT government has a scheme for land rent that fits nowhere near the average wage and still entrenches high land prices.

That said, I don't believe the current government would ever adopt what I have proposed.

Without high land prices, and the corresponding rates, it would be well and truly in the red.

I cannot see how they have the gall to call themselves a Labor Party.

Howard Carew, Isaacs

I refer to recent proposals that applicants for grants from the Australian Research Council be required to demonstrate that their research will be relevant to Australia's national interests.

Some years ago, I became aware of a book by Natalie Zemon Davis, The Gift in Sixteenth Century France.

Needless to say, I was not struck by its immediate relevance to Australia's pressing problems. About which, more shortly.

More than 250 years ago, an anonymous commentator noted "the most extraordinary inventions were rather the effect of chance and subsequent trial, than of any profound forethought and contrivance".

Since then, some very useful things have been discovered by accident – penicillin among them. One might also mention vulcanised rubber; gelignite; the potato chip, the chocolate chip cookie, the microwave oven and Viagra.

The magic word here is serendipity, which I don't believe exists in the lexicon of Australian ministers of education.

Back to 16th century France. Davis' book dealt with exchange relationships between nobility and peasants.

I thought it might have some application to contemporary policing.

Two colleagues and I drew on Davis' intellectual architecture to write a book, Lengthening theArm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the 21st Century (Cambridge University Press 2009).

Copies were sent to every police commissioner in Australia.

I would argue that the mind-numbing managerialism and "paint-by-numbers" mentality that afflicts the governance of Australian universities makes it more difficult to achieve serendipitous insight. This is definitely not in Australia's national interest.

Peter Grabosky, Forrest

THIN EDGE OF WEDGE

Owen Reid (Letters, November 2) has missed the point. A research paper into Post-Orientalist Arts at the Strait of Gibraltar may be a sitting duck for rejection, but once you've established the principle that a government can decide what research is in the national interest and what's not, the die is cast. Research into, for example, The Effect of Political Donations on Australian Party Policy would undoubtedly be rejected on the same grounds.

Fred Pilcher, Kaleen

BAD MOVES

Throwing money at wars keeps the hawks on the hill throwing money at the war memorial. Stop it.

Howard Ubey, Yarralumla

CRUSADE A STUNT

As an MLA on the backbench with no particular responsibilities in the governing party, I suspect Bec Cody suffers from relevance deprivation syndrome, and that her "crusade" in relation to the ACT's place and street names is simply a cynical exercise in drawing attention to herself.

After all, if she doesn't engage in stunts like this every now and then, who would know that she even exists?

Don Sephton, Greenway

SHAME? JOYCE?

N. Ellis (Letters, November 2). I don't think shame is an emotion with which Barnaby is familiar.

Michael McCarthy, Deakin

WRONG MESSAGE

G. King (Letters, October 31) is exactly right when he says bicycles crossing at pedestrian crossings at 10km/h is contentious.

We were taught to stop and look before crossing as this benefits both pedestrian and the vehicle driver. What example are we giving our children if we show they can basically run across a crossing without any thought for a driver or their own safety?

Ed Gaykema, Reid

STAYING AS IS

I was once a boy. My wife was once a girl. I am now a man and she is a woman.

To the Labor Party: Please do not de-sex us.

Pat Tracey, Canberra

TOADS A TOUGH ASK

I read we must persist with identifying cane toads and ridding the Canberra region of this destructive pest. Should the need arise here, and it almost inevitably will, such an achievement would be welcomed by Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, where the little beasts have proved ineradicable.

G. Wilson, Macgregor

WRONG CALL

Driving along Drakeford Drive just before the Hindmash drive exit, a programmable electronic sign read: "Missing a call won't kill you, just hang up and drive". It should read "just ignore it and drive".

B. Hale, Wanniassa

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).