This is because recruitment processes for acting positions are often far less rigorous than they are for substantive appointments. The risks are consequently higher that an inferior candidate might be favoured for the acting position. Even short term acting appointments, sometimes made quickly and with minimal or even no selection process, can often turn into extended or regularly repeated appointments of the same person. The appointee may grow into the role with time and experience and even perform well, but this does not prove they were the best candidate at the time of initial selection, or that they should be appointed substantively without others having the opportunity to compete via a full recruitment process.

Even under the current system, those acting long term in substantive positions they are applying for have a massive advantage over other candidates who may be better suited, but have had less opportunity to demonstrate that suitability. It's not unreasonable that they should be required to justify their claim to the permanent job. Better still, rotate these acting opportunities amongst all suitable applicants of similar ability, so they can all compete for the substantive position on a level playing field.

Re: "APS recruitment 'drawn-out', 'flawed', Thodey review told" (July 19, p4): I know that Canberra has its public service jobs, federal and local government, and some private enterprise companies as well. When I was growing up, I knew the requirement to enter the public service was a leaving school certificate which subsequently is a university degree now.

Now, I have two university degrees and I'm about to embark on a third degree. Before I left the public service to do my first university degree, I had the old level security clearance which was "protected" and then when I finished my first degree, I got the equivalent of the "protected clearance" which is "baseline" clearance now.

Now, I cannot get a job without security clearance NV1 and I cannot get a NV1 unless I have a job. What is a little more interesting here is I have a unique disability. When people do the recruitment and hear or see the word "disability" they turn off the idea. In the public service terms there is a part of the recruitment process called "recruit ability", where if a person has a disability, they can use the "recruit ability". It's like saying, "thanks for applying for the role but, since you have a disability, we don't want you."

Terry Werner questions the new ACT road rules which permit people to cycle over zebra crossings without dismounting (Letters, July 22). Mr Werner states that these laws bring no significant benefit.

The simple fact is that they make cycling safer and more convenient. It is safer because it introduces regulations that require people to slow their bikes to 10 km/h on approaching crossings, and it is certainly more convenient than the rider having to stop, dismount, and push a bike over the pedestrian crossing and then remount every time their path is crossed by a road.

Why should we worry about the convenience of people who ride a bike? Because we desperately need to get people out of cars, and taking up active travel. The federal government has recognised that Australia is facing an obesity epidemic, and two months ago the ACT Legislative Assembly declared that we are in a state of climate emergency.

For the sake of our own health and for that of our environment we need to make cycling the safest and most convenient transport option available.

Terry Werner says that there is "no significant benefit" in allowing cyclists to ride across pedestrian crossings. As someone who uses a bicycle to commute, as well as for recreational riding, I should like to dispute this. Since the introduction of laws allowing me to ride across these crossings without stopping, my travelling time has been significantly reduced. The diversion of motorists' attention to cyclists and away from mobile phone texting, cigarette lighting, and watching for speed cameras is quite a small price to pay, in my opinion.

Many of today's problems with Iran stem from the United States and United Kingdom engineering the overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh government in 1953 to safeguard their oil revenues. That overthrow led to the installation of the pro-Western Shah who ruled Iran from 1954 to 1979, expending much of the country's wealth on American arms in the process.

The Shah's regime was overthrown by the anti-Western Islamic revolution in 1979, during which the US embassy in Tehran was occupied for over a year.

Iran has little reason to be fond of the US or UK, but in recent years has become more moderate politically and prepared to become a more cooperative international citizen. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration seems to have been doing its best to provoke Iran into taking intemperate military action that could be used as an excuse for further US actions against Iran.

The recent British seizure of an Iranian oil tanker in the Mediterranean was unnecessarily provocative and has unsurprisingly been met with a tit-for-tat response in the Strait of Hormuz. It seems obvious that Western interests would be better served by working with Iran rather than against it. By contrast, we work closely with Iran's unsavoury regional adversary, Saudi Arabia - a country that brought us 15 of the 19 September 11 attack hijackers, many of the suicide bombers against Coalition forces in Iraq, has an appalling internal and external human rights record, and whose ongoing support for radical Islam spawned the Islamist extremist problems suffered by the West over the past 20 years.

Need one say more?

I was surprised to read Jack Waterford's characterisation of Lawley House, the former Government hostel in Brisbane Avenue, as a place with monastic cells and refectories.

The bedrooms there in the 1960s were actually quite comfortable. Personally I would not expect a monastic cell to be supplied with heating, a wardrobe, a light armchair and a built-in washbasin with hot and cold running water. Nor did Lawley House have refectories; it had a large dining room, with linen and table service.

I know some government hostels were relatively basic, but Lawley House and some others were in no sense monastic.

Jack Waterford is wrong in suggesting that the Australian Federal Police College building was once the home of the Pine Lodge establishment (casino and brothel) ("AFP needs a strong character, not a cop", Forum, July 20, p28).

The college was formerly Lawley House, a public service hostel run by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. Pine Lodge emerged at the former Barton House, also a hostel owned by the Commonwealth but leased to a manager who ran it with a wider range of residents than the public service. Barton House was on the next block along Brisbane Avenue from Lawley House (now Macquarie Court).

Barton House was sold by the Commonwealth in the 1970s, by way of an astonishingly vague crown lease. It morphed into Pine Lodge, which had accommodation and a restaurant (Roses), as a cover for the casino and brothel operation.

The operator was thought to be a front for one of the colourful Sydney identities of the time. Waterford may well be right that Pine Lodge was heavily patronised by the two police forces. It was certainly true that the one or two police raids on the establishment were conspicuously unsuccessful ("Nothing here, boss!").

Jane Rankine protests that the name of the Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More of Their Money bill was propaganda and that its language was devoid of good manners, taste and education (Letters, July 22). I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'd add "puerile". But then, what can we expect from a crop of politicians led by an ad-man?

Mind you, if the government was to be consistent in applying its new found truth-in-nomenclature policy, the Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018 would be the "Make the Banks Honest" bill. Fat chance on both counts.

Well done to the ACT Government if they can bring in strict licencing for developers operating in the ACT ("Call for licence scheme", July 23, p1). Hardly surprising that the Urban Development Institute of Australia is not in favour, dragging out the old furphy that the scheme will end up costing consumers. Far better that consumers might end up paying a few dollars before they move into their new homes than having to pay out thousands afterwards to correct the developer's shoddy work.

Andrew Barr, please don't let the extra bridges deter you from light rail stage two ("Questions over stage two final costings", July 23, p3). And continue the good work of eliminating buses to universities and hospitals. We southsiders are looking forward to the years of road disruption and the higher rates, but, best of all, taking longer to get to Civic by tram than we do by bus.

So the Greens' feel-good, $1 billion tram, as promised at the last election, gets built more or less on time, but the vital Canberra Hospital expansion promised at the same time is delayed ("Hospital expansion delay", July 22, p1). When are Canberrans going to wake up and get rid of this mob?

In an amazing Houdini act, the ACT government can spend millions each year supporting elite sports and railway white elephants but can't find the pennies necessary to provide school children free travel ("New push to give students free transport", July 23, p3). Yes, our people's party provides the best services money can buy, but no money no service. You'd expect this approach from the a christian conservative party but come on, Mr Barr, give the kids a get-on-the-bus card free.

So Canberra people are ticked off about their rate rise. If I lived in Dunlop, as I did seven years ago, today I would be paying $1800 a year. I live in Yass; I pay $2300 a year. But at least my parks and gardens are maintained.

Andrew Barr's promises about "no cuts" to public services (July 20, p1) are laughable. He is concerned about a privatisation push under the Liberals. Yet developers are having a dream run wrecking Canberra under the current government. A developer at the bottom of Ainslie Avenue has reclaimed public footpath space that makes my walking journey to Civic risky. I am often forced on to the busy road with my wheeler. Services for the community are increasingly being forgotten.

It is not the sniffer dogs or the drug takers that are responsible for deaths at concerts, it is the people who sell the drugs. These despicable creatures do not hesitate to sell their wares to make money or feed their own habits. Even if drugs do not kill, they destroy people's lives once they are addicted, And what is worse, addicts often pass their addiction on to their children, leaving them unable to function in society. They live their lives in a daze, interested only in their next hit.

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attachment. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 186, Fyshwick ACT 2609.

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 (only suburb is published).

To send a letter via the online form, click or touch here.