As a result this country has a disappointing history of governments of all persuasions exploiting property schemes to capture votes.

How many times have the governments of the day bombarded first home buyers with schemes to counter investment incentives? These have included, to name just a few, direct grants, stamp duty concessions, land grants, and schemes enticing young people into cashing out their superannuation.

The end result of all the above has been to create a present, and a future, where many young people will never be able to afford their own homes.

It is obvious the government should get out of the housing market, stop giving incentives and grants, and indulging in other crazy schemes that simply push prices up further.

We should return housing to being a utility that we can all have access to by letting the free market set property prices.

Just when you think that the hubris, despotism and secrecy of the former Prime Minister cannot be surpassed, we are now learning that he adorned himself with not one, but at least three additional portfolios; Health, Finance and Resources.

Despite the Governor-General's assurances that these appointments are consistent with section 64 of the Constitution, it was still a flagrant breach of the spirit and intent of Westminster conventions.

The appointments lacked transparency, disregarded Cabinet cooperation and, importantly, breached any semblance of collegiate trust which may have existed. The Machiavellian political motivations and glorification are shameless.

Regarding reports of the antics of a former Prime Minister, I doubt anyone could improve on Pooh Bah's speech in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado.

"It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, but I do it!"

Written 137 years old, but absolutely nails it.

The last time Australia had a Minister for Everything was the Sir Joh period in Queensland when Russ Hinze was the anointed one. That was a disaster too.

Now, after leaving this exalted position, Mr Morrison has said: "Since leaving the job, I haven't engaged in any day-to-day politics".

I always thought that politicians were paid to deal with the day-to-day political issues facing their constituents. Is ScoMo telling us he's given up on another job?

The decision by Hobart City Council to remove the statue of ex-premier and royal surgeon William Crowther reminded me of a salient observation made by ACU Indigenous academic Anthony Dillon, who noted that we are not victims of the past in itself, but rather our view of the past.

To that end, to visually rob tomorrow's decision-makers of their right to truthfully understand their own state and country's history is to actually make them less capable of deciding responsibly about its future.

Statue-toppling is indicative of the modern-day trend of retrospectively attempting to discredit both the motivations and values of people from the past, seeking to expunge their influence or even existence if they do not fit neatly into the modern woke benchmarks of public morality.

Regarding the backdated critiquing of social history, English author C.S. Lewis labelled it "chronological snobbery"; the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is therefore to be discredited and inferior. In our modern age, it is often expressed through the sentiment that if one was alive in the mid-1800s, one would never have thought or behaved the same as other nineteenth-century folk. What a bold affirmation indeed.

History is precisely that: history. None of us own it; rather, we are its beneficiaries.

Seeking to foist a 21st century morality onto social history is not only often arrogant, but also dangerous, as it implies those living in the present who critique the past, must therefore be the ultimate exemplars of righteousness and the final arbiters of truth.

Romaldo Giurgola's Parliament House's architecture has been described as "sublime orthodoxy" - a "landscape solution", respecting the symmetry, functions, and built forms envisaged by Griffin for the hilltop site; and expressing itself in readily understood forms, with references to related antiquity and Australian iconography.

In contrast, the use of City Hill and Commonwealth Avenue for the Civic to Capital Hill section of ACT light rail stage 2 (Civic to Woden), has been described as "constipated amateurism" - misunderstanding, disrespecting, and exploiting, in misguided, knee-jerk ways, those massively important National Triangle elements, and their carefully thought out development, following Griffin.

The nation would lose the important engineering, landscape, and urban design heritage of City Hill, notably, important inward and outward vistas, in the name of "land value capture"; the massively important cultural landscape of Commonwealth Avenue; and the iconic bifurcation of its bridge, matching its Kings Avenue counterpart. And there's an expensive cringing requirement for no overhead power lines.

The Prime Minister needs to impose an immediate moratorium on this project, to examine and adopt, an alternative route for the Civic to Capital Hill section, via say, briefly, Edinburgh Avenue, ANU, Acton Peninsula, Griffin's missing third lake crossing, and Flynn Drive - with sensible overhead power lines.

The term "reality distortion field" applies to those who will not accept facts that are contrary to their views. They come to their beliefs often by repetition of their mantra, and certainly by failing to consider they could be wrong.

This is demonstrated by those who tediously portray renewables as the answer - and the only answer - to meeting our future energy needs.

This ignores evidence renewables cannot provide reliable baseload power or generate the high temperatures needed for steel, concrete and glass making. There are also limits on the availability of the rare earth minerals needed for the billions of solar panels and back-up batteries that would be required to power the whole world.

It also ignores the fact all economies will suffer massive economic hits, affecting the funding of desirable social outcomes such as education, health and welfare, if they must rewire their existing electricity infrastructure for renewables.

The only way to meet our future energy needs is through a mixture of different power sources. Some of these, such as hydro-electricity, are location dependent. In other places hydrogen and small module nuclear plants might be used.

The possibility of a breakthrough in nuclear fusion cannot be ruled out.

In the meantime, as we are seeing in Europe, the world will continue to use existing fossil fuels and, in many major developed countries, nuclear power in conjunction with renewables.

Why? Because wind and solar can't do the job on their own. That is just a dream.

MLA Jo Clay's support for recycling to create a circular economy is worthy of endorsement ("Soap from fat? Art from plastic? Circular economy thriving ahead of waste strategy", canberratimes.com.au, August 13).

It is, however, tinkering at the edges. What is needed is to replace our current priority on economic growth with a "well-being economy" in which environmental protection, education, health, and reducing poverty and inequality are prioritised, as espoused by Jonathan Miller ("Are we beyond limits to economic growth", Fuzzy Logic, August 14).

While worthy, recycling will never be enough to save the planet. We are already using the resources of the equivalent of 1.75 planets, and it would be four if the world lived like Australians. We need to scale back to a steady state economy which can be every bit as vibrant and dynamic - but just not growing.

Then, some "de-growth" will be in order while we get back within our ecological limits. If human populations continue to grow, however, there will be less to go around on a per capita basis. Stabilising and then slowly reducing - by voluntary means - human population growth is integral to achieving genuine sustainability.

The real ScoMo: "I don't hold a hose mate. I look after the flock by holding multiple ministerial portfolios. I don't do day-to-day politics either; I just collect the money and benefits."

Well ScoMo certainly took "captain's picks" to a whole new level.

Whoever said that ScoMo "only had one job" certainly got that wrong.

When Morrison often declared that "that's not my job" maybe he was being either very honest or just plain confused.

The secret nature of the former PM's multiple ministerial commissions contradicts the doctrine of responsible government that is presupposed within the Constitution. Under that doctrine, the ministry is subject to the scrutiny of the lower house, preventing the exercise of absolute power.

You can bet your boots that if anything had gone wrong in any of the supernumerary portfolios Morrison took upon himself he would have ensured the original incumbent took the wrap.

It's ironic that one of Scott Morrison's best decisions - to scuttle the controversial Pep11 drilling project off the NSW coast - was made as the secret second Resources Minister. If this is now overturned for legal reasons investment certainty and emissions will take another hit.

Secret ministers, secret police, secret charges, secret courts, secret trials. It is beginning to look a lot like (insert your own choice of country).

In the wake of revelations of his secret appointments to at least three duplicate ministerial portfolios former PM said "since leaving the job [as Prime Minister] I haven't engaged in any day-to-day politics". If this is so he should immediately resign from parliament and stop defrauding the electors of Cook and the Australian taxpayers.

As the role of a federal government minister traditionally attracts an additional salary payment my question is did Scott Morrison award himself more money for his extra three [plus] ministries?

There is one problem with the views summarised in Mary Barker's letter (Letters, August 14). The Biloela family are not refugees. Their case has gone before, I think, seven courts and tribunals, all of which have found they are economic migrants who entered Australia illegally. There are millions of people around the world who would like to emulate them. Where do we now draw the line?