Tennis star's behaviour unacceptable

He cannot be allowed to continue with his actions, especially the latest one of spitting towards the chair umpire. At a previous tournament he carried on over not having a white towel. He seems to have some issues he needs to address.

If it didn't mean losing prize money, it would be good to see players on the circuit refusing to play against him and umpires not officiating at matches.

Something needs to be done.

Brendan Nelson has undoubtedly made some quite imaginative and positive changes at the Australian War Memorial during his tenure.

However his churlish dismissal of those who strenuously oppose the profligacy of his proposal to divert half a billion dollars of tax payer funds, is arrogant in the extreme.

His chief argument appears to be that he's manufacturing a spiritual home for returned service personnel. I suggest that if those same service personnel were actually asked, they'd prefer the same half billion dollars used to provide practical health care, assistance and resettlement, over an ever expanding museum any day.

I very much doubt they would opt for for Brendan's Temple plan.

Warwick Davis (Letters, August 13) may be right about, "lawyering up" but most know it's best to stay out of court. That's because legal costs are in another world and it is hard to stop the legal process once started.

I understand that the record for the longest case was for decades. The value of the estate concerned was consumed in lawyers fees.

The real problem is that politicians and public servants are too risk averse. The public servants serve the politician and the politician wants to get re-elected. All this not helped by never ending so called, "efficiency dividends", and the silly idea of "builder selected" private certification.

How come I can read every piece of legislation for every State and most case law for free, yet if I want to check an Australian standard on some building matter, I'll likely not find a single copy in the local library or on the net.

As Scomo might say, "how hard is it to set some simple rules in place that make common failures, the builders problem, and cost to solve, with no more argument". I'd also suggest that, like in some countries, automatic litigation and administrative costs should also be added if the basics are disputed.

Elizabeth Blackmore (Letters, August 13) takes issue with those who spurn the physical display of affection on the footy field.

I have two issues with the constant hugging that goes on. Firstly, the hugging is prompted by every little thing. Kicking goals, taking marks etc (I watch AFL) is what the players are supposed to do. That's their job.

To be rewarded each and every time they do what they are supposed to do overstates the achievement.

What bureaucrat would expect a hug every time he or she successfully completed a memo?

Of course, there are miraculous goals and miraculous marks, and these should be acknowledged at the time, as something extraordinarily skilled or courageous, as the case may be.

Secondly, celebrations throughout a game are premature. The task is to win a game. The ultimate goal is to win a grand final. Celebrating at each and every little step on the way is meaningless because the job is not done until the final siren.

Once the job is done, of course players should celebrate.

I refer to the apparent emphasis being placed on robo debt recovery by Centrelink and suggest that some resources could be also be invested in service delivery for clients by the government instead.

I waited for three months to attend a job seeker interview required to utilise the Vision Australia's employment services through the Disability employment network as I have a low vision disability.

I completed an online inquiry form with Centrelink requesting an interview which was never responded to.

I also completed an application for Family Tax Benefit for the 2017/18 year but with the data matching information already available to the Government at least two months earlier (filed tax returns) it should have been paid irrespective of my application I would have assumed.

The concept of digital citizenship should place an equal or greater mutual obligation on the government given it has greater resources with which to respond.

Why Jon Stanhope carries on about Norfolk Island and its need for the same democratic rights as everyone else is beyond me.

They have them; this community of about 2000 people has a shire council and representation in the Australian parliament. Its residents vote in the electorate of Bean.

Until recently they had far more autonomy than this; virtually the powers of a state. Both Jon Stanhope and David Smith would know there have been several inquiries into, and reviews of, the island's administration.

All of these identified governance issues and it was revealed the Norfolk Island government was almost bankrupt.

The present arrangements came about in 2010 when the Norfolk Island government sought a Federal bailout.

No one would suggest we turn Braidwood into a state. Why should we do that for Norfolk Island?

New Labor MP Patrick Gorman wants parliament to sit outside Canberra. Apart from the huge expense, what else is silly about the idea.

It would make no difference to the state of democracy. The very few who are interested in parliamentary proceedings can already watch them on TV. The Federal parliament rarely sits, especially at this time of year, and most proceedings such as question time are meaningless.

Surely Mr Gorman has some more important agenda items.

What about getting Labor to pressure the government to actually do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving the planet.

Terry George (Letters, August 3) rides a high horse in supporting the rights of cyclists on pedestrian crossings.

Unfortunately he seems not to have heard of the other word relating to those who demand rights; responsibility.

It is the responsibility of anyone exercising a right to do so in such a way that those who must give way can do so reasonably. Anyone tempted not to do so should remember the words on a tombstone; "Here lies the body of poor old Joe; he was right, dead right, as he went along but he is just as dead as if he were wrong".

Pedestrian crossings were established to give pedestrians a safe way to cross a busy road. They were never meant to be used by people travelling faster than a walking pace. They should not be placed where visibility is restricted.

The question is whether or not there should be an absolute right of way. Perhaps this should be changed to being a priority and being subject to reasonable caution by those claiming a right.

Those who visit France note that pedestrians catch an oncoming driver's eye before stepping out on the crossing . This works for both parties.

I should like to thank Terry George (Letters, August 3) for his excellent letter on the mutual obligations of cyclists and motorists.

As regards Bruce Shepherd's letter (Letters, July 26) suggesting I might get more exercise by dismounting from my bicycle and pushing it than by riding across a pedestrian crossing, I am riding to go somewhere. The exercise I get is simply a side benefit.

Bruce could derive more exercise benefit by getting out of his car and pushing it across pedestrian crossings (when they are clear of pedestrians and cyclists of course).

You couldn't have been more succinct in your editorial "We can't ignore Hong Kong protests" (canberratimes.com.au, August 3). And, we shouldn't as former Hong Kong chief executive Emily Lau has repeatedly implored us in her many television interviews since the beginning of the public protest.

The people of Hong Kong are standing up to protect their cherished democratic rights and freedoms which are under threat from encroachment by the totalitarian Chinese state.

Democracy is under siege in Hong Kong.

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 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).

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