The next morning, however, I was sharply reminded (Letters, November 12) of the memorial's $500 million redevelopment scheme.

I cannot imagine how this proposal got through the expenditure review committee of cabinet.

If the memorial has a genuine case for more exhibition space – bearing in mind the parlous circumstances of its colleague institutions – it could be achieved at one-tenth or less than the cost of the present planned redevelopment.

How? Turning to Mitchell, 15-20 minutes drive north off the Federal Highway. The memorial's world-class conservation annexe was opened there in 1979 and a very large, purpose-built facility for the memorial's heavy technology collection was added nearby in the early '90s. The National Museum has a major facility at Mitchell and other national institutions commonly have off-site establishments.

Another high quality facility to accommodate the Chinook, Sea Hawk and Black Hawk helicopters, F/A-18 and other large items coming on stream would enhance the museum presence further. Many museums around the world have more than one campus.

No need to demolish the elegant and award-winning Anzac Hall. No need for the memorial to be a construction site for nine long years, whatever some say to the contrary.

The present proposal should not proceed.

Brendon Kelson, former AWM director, Isabella Plains

In his opinion piece "Merchants of death should not be funding Australian War Memorial" (canberratimes.com.au, November 7), Douglas Newton takes a simplistic and rather myopic view of the defence industry and its place at the Australian War Memorial.

Yes, the defence industry does make money out of selling weaponry, but Mr Newton seems to totally ignore the fact that sometimes, in some circumstances, military operations are necessary, and those very same weapons become absolutely critical.

He might oppose our history on some fronts, but does that extend to saying we should never have been involved in opposing Nazi Germany, or perhaps should never have sent armed troops to help Timor L'este gain its independence?

How confident can he be that there will never be another "just war"?

If we do have to send our troops into harms' way in the future, they deserve the best we can afford to give them.

He also ignores the fact that the AWM is both museum and memorial. Including weapons and displays in the museum section is essential. If a few manufacturers care to donate towards the maintenance of those displays, well great.

This is common practice in museums around the world.

I don't think anyone, Brendan Nelson included, has ever proposed "commercialisation" of the memorial part of the building as Mr Newton suggests.

While Mr Newton quotes the potential offence to a veteran in a wheelchair, I would counter with the image of a returned soldier telling his son that he came home because of that Bushmaster personnel carrier over there.

Those vehicles saved many lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and were designed and made here in Australia.

They are testament to our local industry and have a rightful place in the museum, along with a plaque saying who made them.

K. MacMillan, O'Malley

I refer to the articles by Jack Waterford, ("Enough war memorials", November 3, Forum p1), Douglas Newton ("AWM is no place for merchants of death", November 7, p17), Mark Toogood ("One veterans view of the AWM redevelopment", November 11, p17), and the many letter-writers who are concerned at the spending of half a billion dollars to revamp the Australian War Memorial.

I believe it is obscene to even contemplate such an expenditure to provide further space for Newton's "Merchants of death" to advertise their wares. The AWM is no place for these arms dealers to even be mentioned let alone receive their money.

The Australian War Memorial was originally established as a "Commonwealth memorial of Australians who have died on or as a result of active service". This primary objective must be kept in mind. The undermining of the main building, altering the landscape, and the destruction of the recently completed, award-winning Anzac Hall is utterly over the top. I hope and trust the community will fully support the Australian Institute of Architects in trying to save this building.

The monies proposed for this project should be redirected to helping returned veterans and the additional galleries, when required, should be strictly utilitarian as is befitting a memorial.

Murray Upton, Belconnen

Congratulations to Jack Waterford for his fine article ("Enough War Memorials", November 3, Forum p1) following the announcement the government plans to spend half a billion dollars on the Australian War Memorial.

While the memorial wants to tell stories about all wars, one has to ask whether it needs such a vast sum of money to do so. I am sure every national cultural institution would welcome a fraction of the amount of money the memorial is to receive.

It seems very much like a pre-emptive strike by the memorial given there is a parliamentary committee currently inquiring into Canberra's national institutions.

A wide range of institutions, both existing and proposed, are needed to tell the story of how Australia has become the country she is today.

P. Creaser, McKellar

Henry Reynolds has always been a fine historian but I was particularly struck by his eloquence last week in "Memorial should include 'Frontier Wars"' (November 6, p8). His translation of the Australian War Memorial's implied message to Indigenous Australians is "Your war dead do not belong in the national pantheon. Go away and find somewhere else to take them in". Brendan Nelson is rightly keen to commemorate the significant role of Indigenous soldiers in World Wars I and II but has resisted all pleas to commemorate the Frontier Wars. Until this omission is rectified, the AWM will never be the "soul of the nation", as he regularly suggests. His and his predecessors' claims about the AWM's charter not allowing such recognition is a convenient excuse. Ways can be found. It wouldn't take a great deal of the AWM's recently acquired $500million. New Zealand's war memorial recognised the Maori Wars decades ago.

Geoff Page, Narrabundah

'Tis the season of weekend school fetes, and an expensive threat stalks the festivities.

The usual dangers of the annual fete are posed by the sausage sizzle, sunburn and mislaying the kids. Beware a new risk you face if you park your car near the school. True to its motto "Access Canberra", ACT road transport sees this as a chance to access your wallet.

At the Weetangera school fete on Sunday, dozens of cars parked around the school got parking tickets. The community getting together to celebrate? Bah! Humbug! Helping the local school? Nah, $120 a car for the Scrooge.

Targeting school fetes is a low act. This is a mean-spirited enforcing of the rules.

Graeme Dobell, Nicholls

Phil Cheney (Letters, November 13) has a point about the lack of car parking anywhere near Manuka Oval. However, his comparison with the parking situation at the Melbourne Cricket Ground is not really a valid one.

The MCG can be reached by train to Flinders Street Station and Line 70 tram (fare $5), leaving only a short walk to the ground. Large numbers of cricket fans use this option. Similarly, large numbers of cricket watchers use public transport to get to the Sydney Cricket Ground.

If Mr Cheney were right about the section of Canberra Avenue near Manuka Oval being earmarked as a light rail corridor, many people could also use public transport to get to that cricket ground. Sadly, however, Mr Cheney is not right on that point.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

Your November 13 editorial, "Assessing the Barr government's hits and misses", failed to ask when, how, and at what cost ACT Labor expects to "tick off" on its most important transport election pledge: "to increas[e] the public transport share of all work trips to 10.5per cent by 2016 and 16per cent by 2026." The Labor-Greens government is spending $2 billion on annual operating subsidies and on light rail stage one. Even so, it will need luck to achieve 10.5per cent even by 2021. The next 2 billion, including a circuitous stage two of light rail, will provide very little of the increase that is needed for the 2026 target. Meanwhile, the government spends nothing on transit lanes that would not only increase bus patronage but would also reduce congestion and emissions by encouraging Canberrans to continue to travel as car passengers rather than as car drivers.

Leon Arundell, Downer

With the annual operating cost of Canberra's public transport projected to about double in 10 years, with little if any patronage increase, ACT ratepayers are certainly entitled to condemn the government's mismanagement of this important service.

In 2012, ACTION's operating cost was about $120million. It is projected to increase to $186million by 2022. By then, the annual operating cost of the 12-kilometre light rail is projected to be $63.5million. That is about half the cost of operating the entire ACTION fleet in 2012. The combined annual operating cost of tram and bus will then be $249.5million. This does not include capital costs.

The folly of light rail and the government's effective rejection of the highly credentialled MRCagney report are two major contributors to this rapidly escalating cost and inefficiency of the service. The report recommended steps to reduce ACTION's annual operating budget by about $47million within 10 years. Instead, the government said then it was developing a fare strategy for consultation in 2016 and it would consider fare options including distance-based fares. It also said it would renegotiate an enterprise agreement in 2017. Neither has occurred. This despite the MRCagney report highlighting the enterprise agreement contains specific clauses that give rise to and/or maintain less efficient practices within ACTION.

In 2010, a consultant's report commissioned by the government found ACTION was spending more than 30per cent of its $100million annual operating budget on waste and inefficiency.

Clearly, nothing has changed, and this government has no will to require change, preferring instead to double our rates.

With the proposed bus routes to coincide with the introduction of the tram, many more passengers will be required to make one or two changes to complete their journeys, giving even less incentive to use Australia's most expensive public transport.

Graham Downie, O'Connor

Curious about the soothing statements on the Canberra bus website commencing 2019, I compared our present, well-liked 25 bus route to the replacement 65 bus route. To my absolute horror most of Weston has been expunged from the new route in favour of an early and totally unjust, unneeded turnoff to Coolemon Court. I can't wait for the howls of protest from the young, the old, the movement impaired and non-car owners at this totally stupid and unthinking change. If this is the pattern for Canberra bus services as a whole then bus management has taken a giant step backward.

Before they hack out many bus stops in McInnes and Hilder streets I suggest that a dose of reality is needed. In that sense I hope that the minister responsible steps in and says, "Hands off."

If on the other hand this is a government initiative then it should be ashamed, and I will remember it next local election.

Inevitably, if the change goes ahead, this licensed driver will use his car in favour of our lost bus stop, and so will hundreds more Weston car owners presumably.

Bob McDonnell, Weston

I admit I do not understand the Cash for Cans system. However, I do know that there is a drop-off centre at the Vinnies shop just uphill from Belconnen Mall. I'm a volunteer there two days a week and I have never seen a queue of people waiting to use the facility. I cannot understand why P. O'Connor (Letters, November 10) is contemplating putting his recyclables in the red top bin just because he (or she) does not know who will get money if s/he puts them in the recycling. What does it matter? What does matter is that redeemable junk is not going to landfill. We only have one planet, and it is up to all of us to look after it.

Barbara Fisher, Cook

FREE THE FELINES

When birdlife in Gungahlin has been eliminated by drone attacks (Letters, various, November 13) will the pet cats be freed from their cages?

Ian Douglas, Jerrabomberra

DON'T MAKE IT SO

The brouhaha over drones illustrates one of the great false assumptions of the modern era, that because a technological development makes it is possible to do something it is therefore a good idea to do it.

Roger Quarterman, Campbell

EXCISING THE OPTION

Is a robot tax or excise duty being applied to Project Wing drones?

On taxing robots, Bill Gates says, "If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you'd think we'd tax the robot at a similar level."

Matt Ford, Crookwell, NSW

LAZY ... AND DEAF

Obesity is our greatest health hazard at present.

Sitting around getting your breakfast and lunch delivered by an outrageously loud drone can only exacerbate the problem.

It is the height of indolence.

And you may also acquire a hearing deficit from constant exposure to excessively loud noise.

Robyn McIntyre, Bonython

TEAMMATES TO BE LOSERS

Why does ex-prime minister Turnbull seem more credible after he loses the job?

His list of "teammates" should be congratulated for their contribution to the Labor victory next year.

Dennis Fitzgerald, Box Hill, Vic

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Bring back the carbon tax.

It has proved to be the most effective way of reducing emissions, and brings money in rather than out. It is a pity that Julia Gillard cannot be brought back also, as Opposition Leader Bill Shorten lacks conviction in his presentation.

Glenys Hammer, Narrabundah

MENTIONED IN DISPATCHES

It is a pity Bec Cody does not understand the history of World WarI, or she might refrain from denigrating the name of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig.

My father was a veteran of that war and I never heard him or his mates badmouthing Haig.

Cody should realise Canberra is Australia's national capital and not just the home of Canberrans.

Lieutenant-Colonel Miles Farmer (ret), Forrest Lake, Qld

SMART? BARR NONE

I have just realised our Chief Minister, Andrew Barr, is not as silly as he appears.

When things are going a bit tough on him or his ministers in regards to rates, roads, rubbish, trams and infrastructure, out steps Bec Cody to take the focus off him with some misguided carry on, the latest being her push of hurtful places and street names ("Push for review of 'hurtful' place names", October 29, p2).

J. R. Ryan, Phillip

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).