Perhaps we are all entitled to be remembered for our best deeds and not our worst? All interesting questions and the basis, no doubt, for some spirited after-dinner debate, but does the ACT Assembly really need to devote time to them? Presumably the ACT Place Names Committee was established precisely to address such issues. Why then does one MLA need to be expending such time and effort on this matter? It would appear that Bec Cody is far more concerned about the names of streets than the fact that we have too many homeless people actually living on the streets and that's just one example of a far more pressing issue. If this is the best the Labor Party can offer then they really don't deserve to be in government.

Jim Derrick, Florey

Does Bec Cody have any idea of the cost of renaming Canberra suburbs and streets? The change from Blandfordia to Forrest would have cost very little back then as would the change of electorate names, but the cost of changing suburbs and streets would be astronomical: the ACT government, mapmakers, telephone directories, businesses and private citizens would bear the expense of signage, reprinting and advising firms and friends of the change.

Ken McPhan, Spence

Simon Cowan wrote a reasonable article about the ABC on the basis that the real problem "lies not in accusations of perceived bias but in its duty to 'provide ... comprehensive broadcasting services'." ("Should govt control the ABC's budget?", November 24, Forum p11).

Without examining the reasonable concessions made about the ABC's functions including competition, drama and comedy, his ultimate suggestion was that the government "lock in funding on a task by task basis", a manoeuvre which would naturally segue into programming control.

This was justified in terms of internet service development costs, without any reference to Michelle Guthrie who was specifically tasked with facilitating that update but complained of board politicisation or bias. It completely glosses over the earlier misdirection that "perceived bias" is not a problem.

Three royal commissions precipitated by the ABC's and Fairfax's investigative journalism were running concurrently in 2017 and the financial services commission continues.

I'd call that bias, bias against established government denial of serious and pervasive malpractices, against its tacit support for them. Bias extends beyond the simplistic left and right of party politics.

The government has not only been seeking to nobble individual ABC journalists. It has been seeking to destroy the recalcitrant ABC with budget cuts and the ultimate threat to sell it off as it did Radio Australia.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

Simon Cowan's commentary is an ill-disguised but unsurprising attempt to support the commercial media's claim that the ABC is contravening the "competitive neutrality" rules. He says, "The ABC effectively has an obligation to compete with commercial services, the scope of which seems to be only really limited by funding". Therefore, the submission by the ABC to the Senate political interference inquiry to provide guaranteed sufficient funding to the ABC over a set number of years would give the ABC "carte blanche" over expansion "at the expense of the rest of the media industry".

Leaving aside his nonsensical "ABC's obligation to compete" argument (I've not heard that one before), Mr Cowan might like to consider the value to the nation of the ABC being guaranteed sufficient funding to hold its highly respected place in our society, free of cuts being imposed at will and for purely ideological reasons by government.

Wouldn't it be better for our society's intellectual growth and well-being for, not only the ABC, but SBS and other respected cultural institutions being equally protected (subject to adequate fiscal accountability) from the capricious actions of small-minded politicians. Indeed, we could go further and ensure that equally important science-based agencies like the CSIRO and the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority be similarly protected. That really would be a change for the better.

Eric Hunter, Cook

Project Wing drones are run by Google's parent company Alphabet. Do we really believe them when they say they care about the "potential for disaster relief" or being able "to deliver defibrillators" (an absurd idea given the three to five-minute window to be of use)? They say it "unlocks the potential in the airspace under 500 feet" which means the 500 feet above my house I don't want unlocked.

They say they have been "ferrying packages to alpaca farmers, math professors, equestrians and artists". Do they think this collection of careers somehow validates their product?

Forget about delivering dog treats and car parts, it seems more likely that the underlying plan, hidden by the spin, is the development of their unmanned traffic management system for navigation which they hope to sell to third parties. Also, will the data generated be of more value than whatever fees are garnered by deliveries? I won't use drones for deliveries and wasn't asked if I wanted drones in the street and suburb that I carefully selected for its amenity and birdlife. Were you?

Greg Carroll, Palmerston

Morrison's government should watch John Cleese's exposition of stupid on YouTube. National Party leader Michael McCormack said in relation to moving up to 50 Australian Maritime Safety Authority jobs to Coffs Harbour: "Last time I looked there were not too many boats and ships in Canberra..." ("Maritime Safety jobs set for Coffs Harbour", November 24, p1). A bit like Donald Trump saying that because of the cold spell in the east of US that global warming does not exist. Given that AMSA's functions are entirely supported by telecommunications; that it makes sense to be close to other federal government bodies; that Coffs Harbour is only one point on Australia's vast coast line and that I don't think there are too many ships at Coffs Harbour; and that there are plenty of boats in Canberra etc etc one has to conclude that McCormack fulfills John Cleese's definition of stupid.

Rod Holesgrove, O'Connor

The final paragraph of the article "Battle lines drawn for next phase of the energy wars" (November 24, Forum p7) should be repeated ad nauseam until accepted by our politicians. We are tired of hearing one party or another claiming they have an energy policy, which in reality is nothing more than a cover for their own ideology. We have long been waiting for a critique of energy policies conducted by engineers and economists which addresses the whole spectrum.

When can we expect such a critique of all possible systems, stripped of all subsidies, so we can properly compare them with no hidden costs? When can we, the consumers, be told what the cost per kilowatt-hour (which is what matters to us) would be for each of the differing electricity supply technologies? When can we expect to see a coherent energy policy, devoid of ideology, with a properly assessed mix of technologies contributing to the overall supply?

Is it really too much to ask the major parties to provide us with an agreed path to the future which addresses such matters as reductions in carbon emissions, available technologies, and reliability of supply?

And can it be one that recognises that there will always be emissions whether we all have electric cars, which merely move the emissions from the car to the power station, or from windmills where the emissions are in manufacturing the turbines, or roof-top or other solar plants where again the emissions are in the manufacture?

Alan Parkinson, Weetangera

The opposition's energy policy is a dogs breakfast and the Coalition does not appear to have one. In the meantime power prices continue to soar and the only ones benefiting are those feathering their financial nests with investment in the renewable energy market. There appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel for the hapless consumer, with the policy-devoid Coalition wandering in the political wilderness. And Labor promising to bankrupt the country with another pink batts scheme. Perhaps in the new year common sense will prevail and coal will be restored to its rightful place in the energy market.

Owen Reid, Dunlop

John McKerral writes (Letters, November 20) that South Australia's "wind generators were fully utilised before the wind became too strong and they shut down suddenly". Prior to the black system event, there were some 850 megawatts of wind power on the system. Only 20 megawatts were subsequently lost because of wind turbines tripping to protect against overspeed. Given the severity of the storm, wind power must surely qualify as fair dinkum.

The majority of the wind output lost that day was caused by the protection settings on some of the wind farms. The details are well documented in the AEMO final report on the event.

Ben Elliston, Hawker

The supply of electricity is becoming an expensive situation for consumers as well as governments , who are constantly being pressured to build more expensive power stations, wind turbines and hydro schemes.

Maybe federal and state governments could look at a joint scheme to fund 70 per cent of the installation cost of solar to private households. With being in receipt of the 70 per cent subsidy to households, the excess power not used by these households could go into the national grid, as is happening now, with no bonus going back to the householder .

This subsidy system would generate more power without having to build new generation systems. This scheme would be subject to already established houses and then make it mandatory that all subsequent new housing to have solar power attached without the 70 per cent subsidy and these households would receive a 50 per cent subsidy on their power bills.

Industry could cover the costs of output of power generators as for many many years they have received power at a much cheaper rate than ordinary households.

N.W.H. Timms, Bungundarra, Qld

Dr Bjorn Sturmberg in "Fair dinkum lingo aids energy debate" (November 17, Forum p2), indulges in the energy babble himself. He redefined baseload generation to suit himself. Baseload is the minimum level of electrical power consumption on a daily basis. It just happens that coal-fired plants are best for providing it, cheaper and more reliable than other options.

He stated that many wind and solar generators spread around the country would smooth their output. Data from the Australian Energy Market Operator puts lie to this assertion. If he checked the Aneroid Energy site on the web regularly he would find that the total wind output on the south-east Australian grid falls as low as 3per cent of maximum possible generation. That does not sound encouraging.

Also the more duplication you have in generating electricity, the more expensive it will be. He also has a strange idea of what dispatchable means. It means that a particular generating plant will contract to deliver an agreed amount of electricity at a particular time, a day or so in advance. That is something that wind and solar cannot achieve. Let's see wind and solar operate under the same conditions that coal-fired plants do. There are fines for not supplying contracted electricity. Wind and solar just provide electricity when the weather allows.

Battery and pumped hydro are a horribly expensive way of backing up unsuitable renewables and just make it more expensive.

John Mckerral, Batemans Bay, NSW

AMP Capital's chief economist Shane Oliver claims that when world oil prices fall there is a lag in lower petrol prices because the petrol we use now may have been bought a few weeks ago ("'There's just not a lot of competition"', November 22, p2). What a strange claim to make especially when oil prices raise the cost of petrol increases immediately and not when the "cheaper" petrol bought weeks ago runs out. Your argument does not hold up for other cities, regardless that there may be greater competition. Canberra drivers are ripped off whichever way you look at it.

Jack Wiles, Gilmore

THANKS FOR YOUR WORK

Jack Waterford of The Canberra Times ("When nagging doubt turns to inexorable erosion", November 23, p6-7) deserves thanks for highlighting the farce that was the first trial of David Eastman. The late Rod Campbell (legal reporter) and The Canberra Times team have reported thoroughly throughout the first trial, the Commission of Inquiry and second trial. All deserve thanks.

Warwick Davis, Isaacs

TRANSFER NOT ON

Political morality, never gold standard, has reached a blatantly egregious nadir, gouging the public purse for sleazy party-political purposes, with the disastrous, monstrously expensive transfer of APVM to Armidale and planned transfers to — again — Nationals' seats ("Maritime Safety jobs set for Coffs Harbour", November 24, p1).

Albert M. White, Queanbeyan, NSW

PORK BARRELLING

Given that AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) already has 18 regional offices outside Canberra, including at Newcastle and Port Kembla, what does it need another one for, this time at Coffs Harbour? Looks like an attempt to shore up support in a Nationals electorate. As Senator David Smith has been quoted as saying, "Looks and smells like a pork barrel".

Don Sephton, Greenway

SCARE CAMPAIGN FAILS

I am pleased to see that Ms Laura Norder, a perennial LNP candidate, wasn't successful in the Victorian election. The commonsense and sense of proportion of Victorians have seen through the angry scare campaigns of Dutton, Morrison and Guy. Hopefully the LNP will now realise that inflated attacks on minorities by association and selectively framing mental illness as "terrorism" are not vote winners.

David Roth, Kambah

FUEL COST HORRENDOUS

Thursday 9.15am E10 at 119.9¢ in Sydney suburbs. Arrive Canberra some three hours later and faced with 165.4¢ at Coles Express, Greenway. Who can explain this horrendous mark-up?

JW Seaborn, Wanniassa

RIP-OFFS ABOUND

Why are people complaining about "excessive" bonuses paid to bank executives? For years the community expectation has been an individual's contribution to work, community, politics etc should be no more than the bare minimum necessary to receive their "entitlement".

Long gone are the days when doing your best was the community expectation. So, the banks and others ripped you off — that's the community standard.

Roger Dace, Reid

BISHOP GROUNDED

Will the portrait of Bronwyn Bishop, to be unveiled this week at Parliament House, have her standing beside a chopper?

Pat Tracey, Chisholm

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).