Kangaroo farming a win-win for our health and the environment

He points out that kangaroo meat is high in protein and low in fat.

I have long been an advocate of the commercial culling of kangaroos for their meat, and have found that this meat is very tender and tasty if cooked appropriately.

This means cooking it as quickly as possible, without burning it, to ensure that it remains moist. Being low in fat, it is easily dried out.

Professor Wilson also points out some of the environmental benefits of using kangaroo meat. Production of kangaroo meat generates just 3 per cent of the carbon dioxide generated by beef production. Kangaroos require only 30 per cent of the water needed by cattle farming.

Kangaroos also have far less effect on the physical environment than do cattle. They do not damage the topsoil, trample down the banks of waterways, or destroy the integrity of waterholes the way that cattle do.

Kangaroo harvesting – or farming – has a lot to recommend it.

Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

How shocking to hear on ABC's Four Corners (February 4) that Saudi women landing in Sydney and asking for asylum have been refused entry because they were not accompanied by a male guardian.

It was reported that a similar cry for help was also made to Border Force in Hong Kong and it, too, was denied.

Is this the kind of country we have become under the rule of Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton?

As signatories to the 1956 Refugee Convention, any Australian government is obliged to hear claims for asylum, and to find out that the Saudi women's claim was refused and that they subsequently disappeared from view is chilling, as is the secrecy surrounding these decisions that are supposedly made in our name to "keep us safe".

How dare Border Force refuse any Saudi woman entry because she is not accompanied by a male guardian?

Our obligations under international law are an integral part of our democracy, as is our right to know what government officials do in our name.

I encourage all right-minded Canberrans to write to minister Dutton and demand an explanation for this most appalling action by Border Force.

Otherwise, what abuse of human rights do we next accept?

Margaret Roberts, Narrabundah

M. Flint (Letters, February 4) complains of the cost of staying connected to the gas network while consuming very little gas over summer.

Since M. Flint only used $7.02 worth of gas in a summer quarter it is likely that he or she has solar or electric water heating while using gas for space heating and a cooktop.

This was our situation, too. A year ago we cancelled our gas account. We changed to an induction cooktop and heat-pumps for space heating. Our electricity costs did not change noticeably while we saved the gas consumption charges plus the $312 a year gas supply charge.

Electric heat pumps for space and water heating are cheaper to run than gas per unit of heat output.

Induction cooking is a better experience than gas and our indoor air quality has probably improved. The ACT is close to achieving its 100 per cent renewable electricity target, while gas is a fossil fuel.

Now that efficient electric systems work better, cost less to run and create fewer emissions, there is no reason to keep paying for the gas network.

Peter Campbell, Cook

There has been much discussion recently about whether Australia Day should be celebrated on January 26, the day on which Captain Arthur Phillip landed in Sydney Cove to establish the first British colony on this continent.

Several dates have been put forward.

January 1 is being proffered as the date upon which the six colonies became a Federation in 1901.

While this date may seem appropriate, it is already a public holiday for New Year's Day.

No Australian would countenance giving up a separate public holiday.

When I was young we celebrated being Australians on the last weekend in January, marking the end of the summer holidays and the beginning of the school year.

I don't recall there being any emphasis on it being close to the 26th and Phillip's landing.

The Americans choose to celebrate Thanksgiving on the last Thursday in November, not on a particular date.

Why cannot we Australians make a similar decision and make our time of national celebration on the last weekend in January, thus avoiding any controversy over whether the chosen date may offend some particular group?

Kerin Cox, Bruce

With unintended irony, Paul Cleary ("Miners back an Aboriginal voice – and it's good for business", canberratimes.com.au, February 1) has outlined an argument for rejecting an Aboriginal voice in the constitution.

He writes, "Miners have become big supporters of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples over the past two decades largely because, as profit-maximising entities, it's in their long-term interest to do so".

It's curious that Cleary repeats the mantra "the voice of Aboriginal peoples is not being heard" in response to Aboriginal communities exercising power over mining profitability.

How can he repeat the fantasy claim that "the voice" will enable Aboriginal people "to articulate the policies needed to bring about positive change" when, like the rest of us, Aboriginal people have a variety of opinions on these complex problems?

How could constitutional privilege alter this fact?

He repeats a bold prediction that "the voice" will "enrich Australia rather than divide it".

I suspect the opposite will be the case; less divisive would be the removal of existing ethnic and religious discrimination in our foundation document.

Peter Robinson, Ainslie

With multiple Murray-Darling fish kills, serving Liberal members refusing to stand for re-election, and strong independent candidates standing against government ministers, it is beginning to look like political climate change.

The former Country Party/National Party's old-time mantra of: "One sheep, one vote", is likely in the current climate to be re-imagined as 'One dead fish, one less vote', or 'One more fish kill, one less minister'.

G. Dalrymple, Earlwood, NSW

We cannot wait for another action-delaying inquiry into aged care. We need action now.

There are many older people suffering from serious neglect right now. Issues identified by the ABC showing shocking neglect call for action by government now.

We got instant action on live cattle exports. Why not for those suffering in aged care?

A plethora of earlier inquiries have identified the problems. Bob Elliston (Letters, January 28), an aged care-registered nurse, summed up key causes of our aged care crises.

He claimed insufficient funding, not enough money paid to workers and too much of the funding going to the profiteers, were the main issues.

We need an increase in funding, a legislated minimum number of carers to residents ratio, salary levels that attract and retain carers, regulated percentage allocation of government payments for staff funding and mandated skills levels for workers in the industry.

A large number of us are either currently using aged care services ourselves or seeing our parents, grandparents or friends accessing those services.

For those of you who think you have no interest in the standard of aged care, your turn will come, if you are lucky to live that long. You do have an interest in fixing this now.

The royal commission inquiry is a delaying tactic.

It is illustrative, of the lack of real concern in the community, that the major political parties have not published policies on aged care.

It is not all about the economy. It is also about caring for people who need our help. We need to call for action now. Previously people who had ACAT assessments could get home care packages, often keeping them from needing residential aged care.

Now there is rationing of these packages, and people are having to wait much longer to access home care, this can ultimately put further demands on the more costly residential aged care.

Our older people need our help now. Their suffering can't wait until after another inquiry and a federal election with no policies to even address the issues.

Gina Pinkas, Aranda

If Chris Bowen truly believes refundable franking credits and the capital gains tax "discount" are "welfare for the wealthy" he is not fit to be treasurer in a possible future Labor government.

While Labor's negative gearing policy is fair, well targeted on encouraging new rental dwellings, and grandfathered to minimise unintended consequences, Labor's franking credits and capital gains tax discount policies are naked cash grabs.

As Professor Kevin Davies has previously noted (as quoted by Simon Cowan in "Unfair attack on refunds", The Canberra Times, Saturday February 2, page 10) "imputation makes company tax an investor withholding tax – where companies prepay tax on behalf of shareholders – in much the same way that employees withhold PAYG tax from employees."

Any excess tax should be refunded. And the so-called CGT (capital gains tax) "discount" method is a fraud by the government and ATO on taxpayers. The only "discount" is to taxpayers who dispose of an asset after 12 months and within a few years which is not behaviour any government should want to encourage.

For example, under the so-called CGT "discount" method an asset purchased for $1000 in 2007 and sold for $1250 in 2018 would attract tax on $125 (50 per cent of $250) even though the $250 was all inflation according to the CPI rates published by the ATO. Labor policy would require tax on $187.50 (75 per cent of $250) for the same asset sale.

Labor, if elected in 2019, should abolish the CGT "discount" method (introduced by the Howard government from September 21, 1999) and restore the indexation method introduced by the Hawke/Keating government from September 20, 1985.

Bruce Porter, Palmerston

The arguments against federal Labor's policy of removing non-refundable imputation credits for some "taxpayers" should be treated with a big grain of salt.

Self-managed superannuation funds paying a pension and their beneficiaries are reportedly claiming nearly all of the refundable imputation credits paid out by the budget, thereby delivering completely tax-free income – including a refund of company tax. The result: zero net tax on the income stream received by the beneficiaries – even with an income in the millions! SMSFs are essentially no more than the latest, most tax-preferred, investment of choice for the financially well-off.

Good for the investors and their advisers, but certainly not for the budget, what it funds and people who have to pay more tax to pay for the refunds.

Allowing this to continue would continue to undermine fairness – which we do at our risk (look at Brexit and Trump, where the community appears irretrievably divided).

The Coalition and investors, having (respectively) created and (legally) piled into this tax dodge, now want voters to believe there will be a financial calamity if it is removed. This is essentially a re-run of the hysterical "tax scare" that occurs prior to nearly every federal election – for example, the Rudd government's mining tax (as it turned out the companies were making pots of money — but they still managed to gut the tax) and the introduction by the Coalition of the GST.

I suggest that people who can afford to should contribute to the budget – including because it is fair and as a contribution towards avoiding the pitfalls of a divided community.

Bruce Paine, Red Hill

There are still many people in Manus and Nauru with medical conditions who have been there over five years. Let the doctors decide, not the Immigration Minister.

Dr Sue Cory, Edge Hill, Qld

In 1968 petrol in Canberra was around five cents per gallon more expensive than Sydney. Now, in 2019, it is around 20-25 cents per litre dearer. One gallon equals about 4.5 litres. Five cents times 4.5 equals 22.5 cents. The rate of gouge has remained remarkably steady over 50 years.

Brian Bell, Isabella Plains

RATES AGENDA?

Re C. Hales' (Letters, February 6) concerns about their rates notice. Seriously? Ratepayers might make a decision on options for paying their rates obligation by glancing only at one small section of a not very complex two-page rates notice? I suspect the attack on the new form design and the ANU researchers is a proxy for antagonism about having to pay the rates.

Steve Blume, Chapman

SIGNALLING UNHAPPINESS

The best signal to use for the tram or "lie rail" is not the controversial "T" light. It should be a pair of burning pants.

Fred Pilcher, Kaleen

KEEP U.S. AT BAY

If I were a Mexican I might well welcome Trump building a border wall. After all, the US has a long history of land grabs (deposing the native Hawaiian government, invading Mexico, island grabbing in the Caribbean) so a strong barrier might well prove an obstacle to further incursions. And Canada might like to encourage it to build one too.

Dallas Stow, O'Connor

POWERING ON

Will the increasing emphasis upon the use of electric vehicles place occupants of electric utility vehicles in danger of being "electric-uted"?

Peter Baskett, Murrumbateman

CONSERVATIVE CLASH

In previous elections, many questions have been asked whether the ACT could possibly not elect a conservative senator. With the rise of the moderate conservative independents in other electorates, I wonder whether such a candidate will surface here? If one does, then the very conservative Senator Seselja will have a contest on his hands.

Kim Fitzgerald, Deakin

LIKE MINDS

How appropriate the next federal election, a contest between the unspeakable and the uneatable, is being held in the Chinese lunar year of the pig. Oink. Oink.

N. Ellis, Belconnen

MINISTER NO-SHOW

The piece by Peter FitzSimons on Melissa Price being nowhere to be seen during an environmental crisis is to be commended. ("Minister MIA", canberratimes.com.au, February 3). The claim she is missing in action is inaccurate because she has taken no action. It is time for Scott Morrison to say "where the hell are you?"

Robyn Lewis, Raglan

YASS IN NEED OF AID

I recall an advertisement on television for an NGO that raises funds to provide clean drinking water for the residents of Third World countries. Might I suggest that the residents of Yass seek them out for some assistance.

G. McAlpine, Griffith

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).