As residents of O'Connor we have suffered more than our fair share of reckless scooter riders terrorising our dogs on our walks, as well as the aesthetic of dumped scooters in our street and on our footpaths and nature strips.

It is with some disbelief that I find out there has been no penalty, to date, for riding one of these scooters while intoxicated.

I therefore welcome the announcement that a $3200 fine will apply. However, what is the point of this if it is not going to be policed?

There is a $151 fine for not wearing a helmet, yet seeing one of these riders with a helmet on is the exception rather than the rule.

A while ago it was reported that in the last three years there had not been one fine for a dog being off the leash, in spite of a $150 fine for this. Many, many cautions, but no fines.

Maybe the size of the $3200 windfall to the ACT government will actually make them serious about policing this law.

I am not holding my breath though based on past performance.

Re: "ACT government set to introduce $3200 fines for drink-riding on Neuron, Beam e-scooters" (canberratimes.com.au, December 1, 2021).

Presumably the ACT government is not contending that using a 20 km/h speed limited scooter is as dangerous as driving a two-ton vehicle at up to 100 km/h after consuming one or two standard drinks.

Yet the Transport Minister Chris Steel keeps referring to making it illegal to ride a scooter after drinking. After drinking how much, minister? Are we intending to criminalise travelling at less than average Canberra car park speed limits even if a user is under the 0.05 limit for driving? Surely this would be highly inequitable.

Why the $3,200 fine as well? Is this not significantly more severe than the penalty for low or even mid-range drink driving? Are police also going to be drug testing riders as was suggested recently?

Given the issues with cannabis detection days after use, how many scooter riders are going to be charged as a result of using a scooter up to a week or more after sharing a joint in a city where cannabis use is now legal?

It would seem the minister has a strong desire to punish scooter users whilst also welcoming two private companies to populate our city with the machines.

The real issue is with the rental scooters. I am willing to bet virtually no private scooter owners, of whom I am one, are scooting around whilst intoxicated. Yet we will end up being punished and targeted by police as a result of bad behaviour from people using rental scooters where the lack of ownership seems to lead to a lack of responsibility and reckless behaviour.

If anything we should be banning rental scooters and only allowing private ownership, or at least forcing the rental companies to geo-fence them away from areas with licensed venues.

The Jenkins review has found that almost two thirds of women and almost one quarter of men in Federal Parliament have experienced sexual harassment.

I suggest that the problem is not one of men versus women, but rather of ugly bullies versus all the decent, well-behaved parliamentarians. Think of Andrew Leigh and Penny Wong - hard-working, good-hearted, intelligent people doing their jobs conscientiously. And there are many more like those two.

It's time for changes which include increasing the number of women in parliament and managing the alcohol problem.

A reliance on legal due process is needed to avoid a culture where parliamentarians can imply "do what I want or I'll charge you with harassment".

We should ensure that all parliamentarians are treated with fairness and respect and treat others the same way.

The recently disclosed ACT Labor government's breach of the personal records of 30,000 public servants who are affected by compensation claims for personal injury inflicted in the workplace is absolutely reprehensible.

The initial reticence and reluctance on this issue shown by the incumbent government advantageously aims to legitimise their reputational prestige while continuing to obscure the systemic culture of psychological and emotional abuse so endemic to their workplaces.

This "silence" is a time-worn tactic of all institutions; a deliberate obfuscation of sensitive issues, to avert and deny responsibility and accountability being assumed for the initial release of this data while obscuring the systemic levels of abuse by perpetrators.

Unfortunately, this tactic, motivated by self-interested protective paradigms of power, coercively seeks to divert attention, if not blame, on to those already insidiously traumatised by the system.

Shame keeps violence hidden. Silence obscures the abuse of power.

Can issues of trust, and ideals of moral integrity be justifiably divorced from an ethic of responsibility and duty of care towards all employees; essentially when this conduct is mandated and legitimised, by workplace guidelines?

Does culpability no longer mean what I think it did?

Is the ACT government's recent breach of very sensitive data a mere blip in the news cycle? Is personal responsibility a linguistic fantasy of a bygone era? Are truth and trust in institutions or politicians a mere fallacy?

Speak up people, collectively we have power. We have a responsibility to demand change.

Re: "ACT Policing to move reporting online for property crimes" (canberratimes.com.au, December 2).

If our home is burgled the chief police officer tells us we should firstly self-assess the possibility of forensic evidence and then go online and self report the crime - presuming, of course, our computer, laptop or mobile phone hasn't been stolen.

Should we also conduct door-knock canvassing of the neighbourhood?

Really? His disingenuous comparison between policing and online banking does little to inspire confidence in the AFP's concept of modern community policing.

The development of a new interchange and CIT to increase the vibrancy of the town centre (Callam Street in Woden closed as part of new CIT precinct, canberratimes.com.au, November 29) can be seen as independent of the decision to extend light rail to Woden.

The government is yet to justify the extension and demonstrate it is superior to alternatives including bus rapid transit.

It needs to reassure the community it is not spending hundreds of millions of dollars more than is necessary to deliver city shaping and effective transport on the inter-town public transport route to Woden.

It is not sufficient to say the government has a mandate as it was government policy at the last election. The government would have been re-elected if light rail had not been part of its policy platform, given the social conservatism of the Liberals. Also, we weren't told of the high cost of the project or the disruption it would cause.

In the interests of transparency and accountability the government should release its analysis, if it exists, and if it does not, defer the project and undertake an independent assessment.

One of the Jenkins report's many recommendations is to set targets for female employment (and promotion) in Parliament House. Ms Jenkins has got be joking if she thinks the Liberal Party will strive for this. Isn't their mantra concerning women "merit not quotas"?

It's yet another distraction when the current Liberals suggest Labor also has anti-female situations. Brittany Higgins worked for the Liberal Party. She was allegedly abused by another Liberal staffer. It was Linda Reynolds, a Liberal minister, who returned Brittany to the scene of the alleged crime to interrogate her.

Mr Tudge has stepped aside while allegations are investigated by an "independent" review run by the PM's department. Independent? Come on public servants, have some self-respect. You are all better than this. Act in accordance with your values.

Another season of summer fruit that I won't buy has begun. Why won't I buy any of it? Because it is unripe, rock-hard, and therefore tasteless. In fact, I have not bought any in years. All this for ease of handling?

Gail Allen (Letters, December 2) tells us that the PM "smirked quietly" during a presentation of the Jenkins report. This led me to ponder the difference between a smirk and a smile. I decided it was purely subjective - if you like someone they smile, if you don't they smirk.

I am sure some in the ABC are now celebrating after apparently having finally claimed Christian Porter's scalp last Thursday.

If Roger Bacon (Letters, December 1) and his mates think that Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt are the answer, then they quite clearly do not understand the question.

Tanya Plibersek said she felt sad and sorry about the Jenkins report. She looked exhausted, as I imagine every woman in Australia feels with her.

Why not have the budget in an election year as the climax of a four-month election campaign. The incumbents could use it as part of their politicking and if they lost they would have set the agenda for the first year of the new term. It would also make fixed terms de rigueur.

Its been common knowledge for some time but now its official; the lunatics are running the asylum in the ACT.

While we should applaud Mike Dallwitz's defence of the comma (Letters, December 1), he is in error in arguing that Ian Warden was wrong to omit that punctuation mark. In the passage Mike selected the "and" conjunctions did the job and the meaning was perfectly clear.

Hey Albo, why a 43 percent cut in emissions by 2030? Why not 42? Isn't that the answer to life, the universe and everything? (See The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

Please have a care. A full page photo of Craig Kelly is more than I can handle at breakfast. I nearly choked on my Weeties.

Jack Waterford (December 4) got it right saying "It is time that the powers of the legislature were used to bring some of the ever-increasing powers of executive government to heel".

In Australia we vote for our representatives to make the laws and govern, not to delegate that responsibility to a PM with a self appointed executive, acting like a king or a US president.