“As a result of the new development, when viewed from Anzac Parade and Parliament House, the war memorial seems to have grown clearly visible wings!” bemoans letter writer MARK DAWES. 

For more than 80 years the Australian War Memorial has stood solemnly and symbolically at one end of Canberra’s key axis, with Parliament House appropriately at the other end.

The memorial has always been seen uninterrupted by any other structure and beautifully and peacefully having Mt Ainslie as its backdrop.

Well, no more!

Now, as a result of the new development, when viewed from Anzac Parade and Parliament House, it seems to have grown clearly visible wings! 

These are a result of enclosing the space between the memorial building and the new large technology (and rather innocuous  modern-looking) building at the rear of the memorial. This white structure interrupts the memorial’s interpretation and its relationship with Mt Ainslie, and this is a big shame!

Mark Dawes, via email

Wildlife toll a failure of town planning

Concerned at seeing dead wildlife on Canberra’s roads, this year I started to record the number of dead kangaroos and wallabies that I have removed from the road or reported for pick up.

By mid-May, the number was already up to 15.

These animals have died due to car strikes on roads such as Caswell Drive, Gundaroo Drive and Gungahlin Drive.

These are major arterial roads with fast-moving traffic that cuts through the animals’ habitat with no provision for them.

This is a clear failure of town planning in a city that is known as being the bush capital.

The ACT government has neglected to require property developers to make allowances for wildlife, such as overpasses and wildlife corridors.

Neglecting to protect our unique wildlife is a failure of our duty of care to the creatures we share the planet with.

Rebecca Marks, via email

Australia must embrace far-reaching reform

Every Australian should take seriously Tim Walshaw’s warning about unchecked money printing and borrowing (letters, CN May 22).

With gross national debt set to hit $1 trillion in 2025-26, Paul Keating’s warning of a “banana republic” may yet prove prophetic.

Australia’s recent slide to 102nd out of 133 in the Economic Complexity Index – the lowest among all OECD countries – paints a troubling picture. 

It reveals an economy that is poorly diversified, heavily reliant on raw exports, encumbered with an over-heated housing market and an immigration policy designed to stave off recession.

Put simply, we’re spending beyond our means while being left behind globally. The current cost-of-living pressures and our declining standard of living are fast becoming the new “normal”. 

Australia must embrace far-reaching reform and diversification now – or face more painful adjustments in the near future.

Ryka Moore, Spence

Where might you want your tax spent?

Tim Walshaw’s letter (CN May 22) reminded me that about half a century ago a fellow student told me that one of the European countries had operated/was operating a taxation system that included an opportunity for taxpayers to direct some of the income tax they paid to publicly identified activities, which they personally supported. 

Recently, the new mayor of Yass seemed to be suggesting something similar in respect of rates paid by landholders in the shire.

At levels of government above local government level, there are significant sources of revenue other than direct from the bank balances of residents.

Therefore, it might be reasonable to provide that all of the income tax payments made by individuals be made subject to allocation, on the basis of the wishes of the people making the payments.

The limiting of expenditure to the amount of income available, is consistent with how I used to think prudent economics worked. It also fulfils significant democratic principles, such as a link between taxation and representation. It provides direct and timely advice to those determining where the money is to be spent, as to where the people who are actually paying the money would like to see their money spent.

Allowing as much as 5 per cent of a taxpayer’s contribution to be directed would mean that an extensive list of potential destinations for the funding could be established, to which taxpayers could choose to suggest distribution of various parts of their tax payments.

The reliable secrecy of information submitted to the tax office, would provide each year a secret ballot voting opportunity on public spending priorities.

This could help to overcome the problem of party political agendas overriding the willingness and ability of the community to fund the private agendas of those groups and their backers.

Lawrie Nock via email

Infrastructure vulnerable to cyber attack

Ray Peck (letters, CN May 22) quotes AEMO that “system needs can be met by a combination of synchronous inertia and synthetic inertia response on the power system”. 

This indicates that AEMO is still unsure what can be achieved by synthetic inertia technology.

In any case, synthetic inertia technology will always bring serious vulnerability to our critical national infrastructure through various forms of cyber-attack.

 John L Smith, Farrer

Blame Hare-Clark for the mess we’re in

Our Hare-Clark representational voting system needs to be retired to history. 

This system should never have been given oxygen because it’s nonsense designed to get the drover’s dog into politics and is only beneficial to schemers.

It’s time for a no-holds-barred debate. My belief is we should get rid of it, but others will oppose it as our government plunges further and deeper into chaos and debt. The unavoidable fact is it’s the root cause of our problems. 

John Lawrence via email

How much has ‘idiotic’ dog park cost taxpayers?

As a long-term Gordon resident and dog owner, I am seeking some clarity from Chief Minster Andrew Barr as to why a new dog park has mysteriously appeared in our suburb.

Most people in this area live in larger houses on larger blocks and hence have bigger dogs, which need more space to run and exercise.

The current dog park is perfect for this, while the new park, 10 times smaller, is clearly designed for “handbag dogs”.

Could Mr Barr explain what public consultation took place before this idiotic idea was approved and how much has it cost taxpayers?

Most importantly, what is going to happen to the old dog park? On this question and lacking answers from Mr Barr, I suggest the following two words: property development.

And could part of the deal be that, in exchange for this prime piece of real estate, views of the Brindabellas, short distance to the Murrumbidgee corridor, that a dog park will be built right alongside the tiny and hurriedly built apartments and townhouses where residents can exercise their tiny dogs?

Yes, Mr Barr, of course this is all just conjecture, so perhaps you would like to enlighten us with the truth, or will we have to wait again for yet another FOI?

Declan Mcgrath, Gordon

Catch up and look at the facts

In response to Rod Smith (letters, CN May 22): it would seem that he is not keeping up with recent events. 

Firstly, a substantial win for the ALP in the recent federal election saw the Liberal/Nationals exposed without serious policies. In particular, energy, renewables and the fantasy of nuclear power coming online in 2040! 

Secondly, Rod bangs on about reliable coal and gas and raises the prospect of blackouts and the “ruination of what little manufacturing industry we have left”. Of course, he does not provide any evidence for this dramatic statement. Its sounds straight from Sky After Dark! 

This week there was further mention of old coal-fired power stations in NSW regularly going offline, needing maintenance. Hardly reliable!

Rod goes on to say that there was no rational discussion by the Coalition about its nuclear policy; I wonder why?

Finally, he says that Labor continually lied using inflated costs from pro-renewables groups stacked with Labor stooges. I assume he is referring to the CSIRO and people such as Matt Kean, the former NSW Liberal treasurer?

When will people like Rod and his ilk catch up and look at the facts, evidence and reality? 

John Sherborne, via email

Wood heating should be thing of the past

Darryl Johnston reminds us of the high health costs of wood heaters (letters, CN May 29). 

A Medical Journal of Australia article in 2023 showed that the estimated annual number of deaths in the ACT attributable to wood heater PM2.5 particulate pollution is similar to that attributed to the extreme smoke of the 2019–20 Black Summer bushfires.

I recall air purifiers became popular during the Black Summer bushfires to help cope with the smoke, but I notice in a large hardware store (you can guess), one can still buy air polluting wood heaters and also air purifiers. What a ludicrous situation!

The ACT often has relatively clean air, so why significantly pollute it in the cooler months with wood smoke from wood heaters? A minority of the population in both Canberra and Sydney (about 1 in 10 people) is responsible for the very large health costs.

In Canberra the annual health cost is in the order of $100 million to $300 million (depending on severity of the winter), and in Greater Sydney the annual health cost linked to the use of wood heaters is estimated to be $2046 million.

There are clearly much better heating methods that enable the air to remain clean, which most people already use. Wood-based heating in urban environments should be a thing of the past by now.

Murray May, Cook

Unsuitable, ideological, intermittent electricity

It is interesting that many other correspondents (Rod Smith, William Ginn, letters, CN May 22) understand that intermittent, weather-dependent electricity is unsuitable for a modern economy.

Unfortunately, the ideologues in government, including Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious to that. It is still true, as Robert Louis Stevenson said 200 years ago: “Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary.”

And there are groupies at AEMO and CSIRO who jump on the gravy train to support this engineering foolhardiness.

Whilst beggars remain at every shopping centre entrance during the cost-of-living crisis, Australia does not need to spend money propping up the Chinese solar panel industry. Australia has domestic uranium resources to ensure a reliable electricity supply, which can use all the existing grid infrastructure at no extra cost. 

Anthony Horden, Jamison Centre