Mike Pezzullo's stance undermines democratic traditions

The latter operates better when policy formulation, administration, including the police, and compliance, including the judiciary, occur under the eyes of the public.

The only exception is when this is materially contrary to the national interest.

The secretary, and some of the ministers, seem to prefer where some or all the above operate without wide scrutiny, and perhaps in secret.

This is very concerning; even more so when history strongly suggests the "security apparatus" can stray beyond its legislated boundaries, including in response to signals from government.

The Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne argued in circles on radio the other day on how he would simultaneously not break the Confessional Seal and yet support the mandatory reporting of child sexual predators to authorities.

The Archbishop no doubt has serious and immovable reservations on recent moves on abortion law reform in NSW (I would certainly share similar views in many cases beyond 22 weeks gestation).

Does this mean the Archbishop regards the rights of a fetus, and the Church's need to rigidly support same, as being superior to those of a sexually abused child or others who potentially may be further abused in the absence of reporting?

Further, the Archbishop's views again demonstrate the Catholic Church's obsession with antiquated dogma and process and Canon Law and further accelerates its rush to irrelevance to the majority of people and its influence in modern debate on conscience issues.

Andrew Barr should hang his head in shame! Infrastructure Australia's audit of our city's roads ("Canberra's worst roads" August 13, p1) not only demonstrates how bad they are currently but expects some of those currently being "improved" to get worse rather than better.

The cause of this crisis is plain to see.

The Barr government's persistent refusal to produce a proper Master Plan for Canberra is the primary cause. This, together with the government's failure to initially build roads capable of carrying the necessary traffic, and their inability to carry out any roadworks within budget or in a timely manner, has sealed the Canberra commuter's fate.

It would have been far more economical for the ACT government to have built William Slim, Gundaroo, and Horse Park Drives properly in the first place. And it will be far more economical in the future if Barr scraps all further expenditure on the nonsensical Woden Tram and puts that money into roads that will aid all Canberran commuters.

Infrastructure Australia recently declared that which every Australian citizen already knew: that "patch up but never catch up" infrastructure cannot and will not keep up with our immigration-fed population growth.

Unsurprisingly, IA's proposed solution to our population crisis is to throw more taxpayers' dollars at it.

That this makes no economic sense escaped them.

Remarkably, not a moment's thought was given to the idea Australia might reduce immigration to sustainable levels (say 65,000 per annum) as a near and long term solution.

The response of our major parties was as predictable.

Morrison has declared there would be no reduction in immigration beyond that announced earlier in the year.

Albanese called for a "mature debate" on immigration but, in the same breath, claimed the problem surrounding immigration is not numbers but policy. So, one wondered what there was to debate!

Morrison and Albanese are both firmly hitched to the regional solution wagon (Morrison's congestion busting BS); Albanese refers to it as decentralisation.

There are no sound economic or social reasons for maintaining our extraordinary rate of population growth; there are endless environmental reasons for curtailing it.

That this curtailment will not likely occur, short of a national plebiscite, is largely explained by the $40 billion dollar annual infrastructure spend needed to limit the decline that this "growth forever" agenda is certain to bring with it.

Our "greed and growth" merchants will never let this windfall slip through their grubby little fingers.

It is impossible to overstate the folly of the path we are taking.

Re Doug Hurst (Letters, August 19).

I too could arguably be an "old bloke" but I care about the future for my children and grandchildren and a sustainable lifestyle for all. I also accept the science of global warming just as all of humanity accepts the other findings of science as they go about their daily lives.

Mr Hurst seems to direct his ire at the Greens but the dangerous future of climate change is accepted by virtually all of the world's climate scientists and world leaders in a wide range of fora.

Pursuing a sustainable future protects the planet for future generations and provides a vast range of employment possibilities and a good life for our children and grandchildren.

It's Saturday night, close to 10 pm and cold. So, was it really necessary for Transport Canberra to re-site bus stops for the express service R4 to Tuggeranong from the previous sensible interchange corner where the old 300 express services stopped. Now the R4 stops on Marcus Clark drive and/or in front of the chemist in the Jolimont block (a stop that seems to work infrequently, with even the drivers uncertain whether there is a stop there or not) meaning a long walk in the cold for passengers to the stop across from the Assembly.

Added to this stupidity, on Saturday night the interchange was blocked off, forcing bus services to go around the corner.

Passengers hurrying to get on the R4 saw it sail past, stop at the Assembly bus shelter and sail off into the night, leaving them to wait another 35 freezing minutes or so for the next R4.

The new bus system is a mess and proves the utter incompetence of this government. We're not asking for transport to Mars, just Woden.

The government claims it wants to help people who wish to live at home as long as possible and to minimise the impact on the health system.

However; there is at least a 12 month wait for Level 4 home care packages. People with terminal illnesses are among those who require Level 4 packages.

To be deemed "terminal", a person is considered by medical professionals to be not likely to live more that 12 months from diagnosis so those diagnosed with a terminal illness are extremely unlikely to given access to Level 4 package services before they die.

Without the home services and equipment that these people require to stay in their homes, they are going to:

- be much more reliant on hospital services;

- have to pay for necessary medical equipment for their home (which is beyond the reach of many who are already facing significant medical care costs); and

- be forced to visit medical professionals for simple procedures (which is extremely traumatic for someone suffering significant pain), rather than having someone visit them in their home.

I have been through this experience with my father.

He was diagnosed with a terminal illness but actually lived for 15 months after his diagnosis.

Despite being assessed as requiring a Level 4 package upon diagnosis, he never received access to a Level 4 package before he died.

Reading "PM's laser focus on APS" (August 19, p1) it occurred to me Mr Morrison should do remedial English expression.

To quote Scott: "I want the the APS to have a laser-like focus on serving these quiet Australians... Those you don't meet with and never hear from".

It would occur to most of us that if the APS never met them and never heard from them they would have difficulty in dealing with their concerns. He then went on to say that their voices often got drowned out.

It would seem to the average literate person that if someone never spoke up it would not be possible for them to be drowned out. No wonder Scott got up the noses of the South Pacific leaders. The combination of condescension, great white fatherism and lack of literacy must have been infuriating.

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.