Asset sales that invite the private sector to purchase income-earning entities from state and territory governments provide short-term cash injections, but compromise longer-term income streams. This "asset recycling scheme" is expected to bring $40billion in new infrastructure spending across the country.

If the federal government instead undertook reform of superannuation tax concessions, removing concessions for the top 10per cent of income earners, it would find $40billion in just three to four years, and continue to receive this income into the future, whilst state and territory governments also would keep income-earning assets.

We could concurrently reduce wealth inequality (which is growing in Australia and has been shown around the world to reduce a nation's long-term prosperity) and improve government budget bottom lines. Voters have rejected selling public assets in several elections. Voters should get behind tax reform as the better long-term fiscal strategy for our nation.

Susan Helyar, director, ACT Council of Social Service

Unfortunately, Wednesday's editorial ("The keys to lifting the economic gloom", Times2, February 4, p2) does not place enough weight on the medium to long term. The editorial concludes, to paraphrase, that major stimulation of the sort provided by light rail or a convention centre will be needed to offset slowing economic growth in other parts of the ACT economy.

Short-term economic growth can be boosted through more construction. However, that does not mean the construction will help secure the ACT's future. The latter requires the costs and benefits of construction over the life of the project to be analysed and put into the public arena for information and discussion.

Unless that occurs, the public is entitled to be sceptical about whether decision makers really are addressing the current thorny predicament or whether they are hoping to get to the next ACT election without better informing and levelling with voters.

B. Paine, Red Hill

Colliss Parrett (Letters, February 3) berates senators for "frustrating every move to relieve Australia's public debt" and urges them to follow Lee Kuan Yew's example in Singapore.

Tony Abbott please take note: our gross debt to GDP ratio is around 27per cent, whereas Singapore's is around 110per cent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List—of—countries—by—public—debt).

Please drop your misleading debt and deficit mantra and starting spending to appease your devotees. Check the list. Very few countries have a lower debt ratio than we do; even the prudent Swiss are at 40per cent and the Germans at 69per cent. I don't think you'd like to live in the majority of countries with a lower debt ratio than ours.

Mike Stracey, Fraser

Please, Colliss Parrett (Letters, February 3) say what you will about Lee Kuan Yew, but not in the same breath as the words "democratic society".

Roger Terry, Kingston

Edith Jensen (Letters, February 3) suggests that those keen on saving the two young men on death row in Bali have no sympathy for those who may have been harmed by the drugs they were trying to import. I am one of those who hope that these two young men are saved and, indeed, that all men and women who are on death row, wherever they are, are saved, too.

I feel this way, because I do not believe any one of us has the right to take away another's life. I also believe that there is research that shows that executing convicted prisoners is no more of a deterrent than locking them up. So what reason could there possibly be to do it?

Terrifying these young men, devastating their friends and families, and killing them after holding out hope that if they worked hard to change their ways they may be granted a reprieve seems to me to be a form of torture that does not belong in 2015.

And yes, I have sympathy for all the parents and families and young people affected by drugs. I wish there was not a trade in drugs, I wish we could all keep our children safe from all harm.

But I don't think killing Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran will achieve that goal. I am interested, too, that Ms Jensen suggests that if people are stupid enough to ignore Indonesian laws they deserve to be killed. Does that mean that she thinks it is all right for the "clever" drug lords who dupe these couriers to get away with it?

Fiona Allan, Ngunnawal

I can try and answer the question posed by Edith Jensen (Letters, February 3). It is because the prospect of a government killing people is utterly barbaric and abhorrent, besides which the death penalty has been shown not to act as a deterrent to stop people from committing crimes. No one is saying these people should not be punished.

There are many ways people can be appropriately punished short of killing them.Obviously, Ms Jensen does not share the feeling of personal distress many people have whenever they hear of a human life being extinguished. Unlawful killings are terrible, but so are so-called lawful ones – they demean us all and cheapen all human life.

Sue Schreiner, Red Hill

So Prince Charles put great trust in predatory paedophile Jimmy Saville ("Charles panicked on eve of his doomed marriage to Diana", February 4, p7). This comes on top of the fact that his brother Prince Andrew knew all about the under-age sex escapades of his long-time friend Jeremy Epstein. And this on top of the well-documented facts in the death of Princess Diana, which show that she was petrified before her death that she was to be killed either in a car or helicopter accident in an operation that would be authorised by her father-in-law, Prince Philip, knight of the Australian realm.

Was the Abbott knighthood bestowed on Philip meant to cover up all this stench? And what are the real motives of the ACM – Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy – that would have us remain tied to this anachronistic family?

Chris Williams, Griffith

Norfolk Islanders are entitled to be puzzled and alarmed by the contention of the Abbott government (Senate Community References Committee report: Bridging our growing divide: Inequality in Australia) that the only way to achieve prosperity and greater income equality is to move away from welfare and allow wealth to "trickle down" by making the super-rich even richer, in the counter-intuitive belief that they will create jobs, which will then provide incomes, which in turn will address inequality.

To highlight the bizarre nature of this situation, the federal government is arguing just the opposite in the change agenda they are forcing on Norfolk Island. They have proudly proclaimed that in Norfolk it is welfare payments that will drive a new economic boom.

Leaving aside the suspect and incomplete maths underlying this, they have largely ignored the negative impacts of new taxes. They are hiding from the Norfolk people any evidence their dodgy "fact" sheets are a bluff, by still battling in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to overturn a ruling by the information commissioner that they should release the full 2006 report which detailed the devastating effects on the Norfolk Island economy of the tax and regulatory burdens involved in the federal takeover now proposed.

Perhaps this is just a blatant example of Orwellian thinking implying some Australians are more equal than others.

It is actually a worse syndrome, developed into a Machiavellian strategy by a duplicitous Prime Minister. This government is making an art form of situational ethics – that is, changing their story depending on the target audience.

For the big end of town, it is about lower taxes, higher profits and tax-free perks. For welfare recipients, it is a cruel mirage of future prosperity through trickle-down job creation. For Norfolk Islanders, it is about an economic recovery brought about by pension payments on the back of lots of new taxes.

Unfortunately, the government is delivering only for the first category – the very rich.

Brett Sanderson, Norfolk Island

I listened to the address by the Prime Minister at the National Press Club on Monday. I wonder if some of those who loudly demand his resignation and clearly want to see Bill Shorten and his party in Government again, also listened to what he said. Abbott reminded us that we as a nation are borrowing $1 billion dollars a month just to pay the interest on the debt the former Labor government ran up. Do we really want to return to the chaos of Labor, remembering that Bill Shorten, the man who would now be Prime Minister, was deeply involved in that chaos? If federal Labor returns to power what will Shorten do about that monthly billion-dollar bill just to pay the interest on the Labor debt? Surely these questions are more important than the froth and bubble over a few knighthoods? Let us get our priorities clear.

Robert Willson, Deakin

In answering questions after his speech to the National Press Club on Monday, the Prime Minister referred to what he called "inter-generational theft". He said it was a mission of his Government, and that he owed it to future Australians, to tackle this issue. The PM even talked about a "social compact" between the dead, the living and the yet to be born. "We will not break that trust", he said.

While he was referring to debt, he could just as easily have been talking about climate change. Unfortunately, I don't think the PM appreciates irony.

Rob Ewin, Campbell

In his appearance at the National Press Club, our future former Prime Minister invoked the idea of "intergenerational theft". That is, the current generation is stealing from our kids and grandkids by not accepting the Budget measures.

I doubt that many want to saddle coming generations with excess debt. However, the pain of balancing the Budget does not have to fall on those least able to bear it. It should fall on miners when they make super profits, on companies that avoid paying tax in this country, on polluters, and on individuals not paying their fair share.

This is intra-generational theft.

John Payne, Kambah

In 2009, at the hands of the Coalition's climate change denialists, Malcolm Turnbull lost the Liberal leadership to Tony Abbott by one vote. Imagine how different the past five years would have been had Turnbull prevailed.

Kevin Rudd may never have gone to water on the "great moral challenge of our time", we might have achieved world-leading climate and environmental policies, we might now have a workable and effective federal budget. The clock would not have been turned back. Knighthoods would rest in the past. So much has turned on that one vote.

In 1999 George W Bush controversially seized the US presidency with a handful of votes. How utterly different would be the history of the 21st century had Al Gore won. Would the Iraq debacle, with its ongoing legacy, ever have happened? Would there have been a global financial crisis? So much, too, has turned on that handful of votes.

Former independent MP Tony Windsor once opined that Abbott was not prime ministerial material. Nicholas Stuart ("Abbott out of the question", Times2, February 3, p4) believes Abbott has already left our thinking: we have moved on, and Turnbull is the sensible and obvious replacement. Sensible solutions don't always happen. But Windsor is predicting that a Turnbull government, with Scott Morrison as Treasurer and Julie Bishop as Deputy Leader, is imminent. Bill Shorten will lose his greatest asset, and Labor will be put on its mettle. The only question is how soon will the Liberals bring on the leadership vote?

Ray Edmondson, Kambah

It is time to get rid of Tony Abbott and make his government a one-termer. Any government which wins power on a platform of lies must not be rewarded or this kind of approach will become the norm rather than the exception.

Ric Hingee, Duffy

Malcolm Turnbull as putative prime minister would fail, exposed as a massive hypocrite, if he did not restore tri-partisan support for the Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Trading. Turnbull's support for the RET and ETS would convincingly distinguish him from Abbott by rebooting the major regional infrastructure development that Abbott has halted in its tracks. Turnbull could explain how renewables result in less pollution, cheaper electricity in the medium term and on-going regional jobs. Then it might be believed that he represents a new broom through the Liberal party and he might be electable.

No one else has the statements on record to enable them to purge the Liberals of anti-scientific climate change denial without him/herself being taken for a massive hypocrite.

Peter Campbell, Cook

I once bought an astronomical telescope second hand from an old man in Yarralumla. When asked if he could see the rings of Saturn through it he said: "To tell the truth, I never could find Saturn." I told him it is easy. All the planets travel on the ecliptic and you simply look up the "Sun, Moon & Planets" times published everyday in The Canberra Times to see, for example, when Saturn is rising. Wait an hour or two for the planet to climb above the horizon then point your telescope at the brightest stars in that area to check which one is Saturn.

I have seen all the planets using this technique. Alas, no more. Along with the recent removal of Pluto as a recognised planet in our solar system, The Canberra Times has followed suit with removal of its longstanding publication of planets rise and set times. Sun and Moon times are all we get now. Nevertheless, The Canberra Times still caters for those with celestial interests by its continued publication of horoscopes!

Penleigh Boyd, Reid

PERISH THE THOUGHTS

"Absent-minded", "electronic graffiti"! The inability of the PM to keep his crass thoughts to himself is both stunning and scary. One wonders what gems he unloads on foreign leaders!

Adrian Gibbs, Yarralumla

ARISE SIR ANGE

Oh Tony, if only you'd waited a week. You could have knighted Ange Postecoglou instead of Phil, and we'd all be happy.

Terry Leslie, Curtin

The Catholic Church should never have let Tony Abbott go. He would have been an excellent (married) parish priest.

Bert Castellari, Curtin

If the Australian voter continues its present course, then Australia will have the best of both Italy and Greece: revolving prime ministerships and dead broke.

Bob Edwards, Kambah

DITCH THE HONOURABLE

With the subject of banning "elitist"' titles once again being raised by some politicians, they could demonstrate their commitment to their egalitarian cause by immediately moving to rid the ridiculous and irrelevant "Honourable" title used by MPs of the lower house. What about it, Bill Shorten?

David Hewett-Lacon, Gowrie

TOP-LEVEL MIND GAMES

The British media are suggesting that Novak Djokovic's victory over Andy Murray was largely due to the Serb's ability to dupe Murray into believing he was suffering an injury. Unless and until Murray understands that the game is as much mental as it is physical, then he will never reach his undoubted potential.

Ian De Landelles, Hawker

ABSENTEE POP-UP

What on earth is happening with the much announced pop-up social gathering place on the old futsal site?

It was to be ready for Floriade. Then it was to be ready for the summer time. It's still an empty shell. Hardly a hive of building activity, let alone of social activity!

Marguerite Castello, Griffith

A GREATER THREAT

Is it possible that inept politicians and organised crime are greater threats to Australians than IS? Why are we at war with two countries so distant that many Australians cannot even locate them on a world map? Perhaps we should ask our politicians why we are wasting money on wars that have no purpose other than generating endless further wars and more military expenses. Have we not had enough of war?

Charles J. Krebs, O'Connor

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).