Again on your pages ("Parliament house fence nears completion", October 10, p.20) Romaldo Giurgola, the principal architect of Parliament House, is said to have "envisaged the lawns of Parliament house as a symbolic opportunity for Australian Citizens to walk above their representatives".
Anyone who knew Aldo would dispute this attribution to him of such a vulgar, and actually anti–democratic, notion.
Aldo expressed in all his dealings the most profound respect for democracy in all its forms.
In an early interview on ABC Radio, Aldo affirmed his primary concept, that the building was placed within the outline of a pre-existing hill and was a part of the larger landscape from which democracy sprang.
In the 1988 film Open House he described the building as nested into the hill.
Aldo wanted Parliament House "symbolically to be a strong building" (though not imposed on top of a hill) but also a "very kind building", a "sort of hill town".
The point of democracy is that we are all on the same level, not one above the other.
At a time when denigration of and sniping at politicians is sadly de rigeur, this hill town (like many hill towns historically) may need defence and fortification. Perhaps it is time to celebrate we still have direct access to Parliament house without, as Aldo pointed out, a step up or down at the entrance.
Chris Bettle, Campbell
Appalling donation
As an Anglican — thankfully not from the Sydney Diocese — I am appalled by the decision of that Diocese to give $1 million to the marriage equality "No" campaign.
The reported reasons are that ... "the consequences of removing gender from the marriage construct will have irreparable consequences for our society, for our freedom of speech, our freedom of conscience and freedom of religion".
Of course, there is no accompanying evidence to support these claims. Doesn't the Archbishop understand that the marriage equality issue essentially relates to civil law? Why has he (and, remember, all the ordained clerics are males in that Diocese) fallen into the trap of falsely conflating this civil issue with attacks on freedom of speech, conscience and religion?
As for "irreparable consequences for our society", where is the evidence this may happen? The many countries that have adopted marriage equality seem to have preserved their moral compass quite well.
They have certainly preserved their ability to exercise freedom of speech, conscience and religion. If the Sydney Diocese wishes to express an opinion on the issue, that needs to be respected, desirably supported with considered reasons. Surely it could have found a better way to spend $1 million — perhaps by enhancing their support for the poor and marginalised.
Keith Croker, Kambah
Unjust lawyer costs
Congratulations to our Magnificent Seven politicians for their contribution to the lawyer-led economic recovery courtesy of the current proceedings before the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.
I attended the hearing on Tuesday last and as well as seven judges and their associates, I counted 10 senior counsel, 16 junior counsel and 21 instructing solicitors. The sound of ticking meters was deafening.
The following cost estimates are probably well out of date, but on a daily basis: 1 chief justice at $1609 = $1609 plus super, expenses and perks; 6 "puisne" justices at $1424 = $8544 plus super, expenses and perks; 10 senior counsel at $5000 = $50,000 plus expenses for travel, lodgings and sustenance; 16 junior counsel at $3000 = $48,000 plus expenses as above; 21 instructing solicitors at $3000 = $63,000 plus expenses as above.
This gives a total of $171,153 per day.
Then add all those extras.
For the three scheduled sitting days, $513,459 plus the aforesaid extras, not to mention preparation and research time charged by supporting professional and clerical staff, court facilities, court staff expenses and sundry other charges run up by the above mentioned worthies.
The final costs must run into several million dollars.
Apart from the costs of providing the basic court and judicial services, can anybody reassure us that the taxpayers will not be asked to foot the rest of the bills?
True justice would be done (and the others encouraged) if each party was ordered to pay his or her own costs.
James Gralton, Garran
Intelligent life
President Trump has challenged Secretary of State Tellerson to an IQ test. It could be a nil-all draw.
Dennis Fitzgerald, Box Hill, Vic
Wein's stein of wine
I've noticed lately that newsreaders and announcers on both television and radio are consistently mispronouncing the name of the movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.
They insist on saying Harvey "Winesteen" instead of the more accurate "Winestine" or the strictly correct Germanic pronunciation "Vinestine".
By the way, seeing that wein (or "vine") means wine, and stein means "stone" or large earthenware beer mug.
Maybe Harvey appreciates an occasional stein of wine (or beer).
Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin
Climate of craziness
"Climate change itself is probably doing good ..."?
Unbelievable!! No, wait! It's Tony A. Believable.
John M. Schmidt, Monash, ACT
America not great
Clearly soccer is also not on the list of American things Donald Trump is making great again.
John Howarth, Weston
Cyber security breach denials smell like political audacity
We learnt this week of a major security breach in a defence contracting company via Dan Tehan's cyber security address to the National Press Club.
The data (according to Mitchell Clarke of the Australian Signals Directorate) related to smart bombs, surveillance and transport aircraft, schematics of more than one navy ship, and even the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.
Neither Cyber Security Special Adviser Alastair MacGibbon nor Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne sees the breach as a national security issue.
Do we interpret this as audacious damage control? Given how tight-lipped and evasive government has been in the past about the national security implications of almost every "on water" aspect of border control, it really does beggar belief that a loss of this size, related in any way at all to front-line weapon systems – one, at least, shared with our major strategic ally – is "not national security".
The growing phalanx of credentialled security experts will likely – at least in public – leave certain aspects of this matter well alone.
This harkens back to the gist of my recent letter about a professional security "cult" that is in the thrall of government (and professional colleagues) in a specialty that relies for its future pay cheques on being deferentially non-irritant.
Ross Kelly, Monash
Vote is vital
The open letter by an impressive collection of Australian intellectuals and holders of high office concerning the need for a full debate in parliament on any action to be taken against North Korea ("Our parliament must decide on a Korean war", October 9, p.13) makes a compelling case.
Surely Malcolm Turnbull would not wish to make a decision to commit Australian forces with no more than the backing of his cabinet, a parliamentary debate being obligatory before committing military forces in most democracies.
It would be reassuring if he would make a statement to that effect.
But if such a debate should become necessary, let it be an informed debate.
In the case of the 2003 war against Iraq there was a debate in the British parliament, but it was ill-informed.
The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was anxious to join forces with the United States, and urged parliament to sanction the war in a long, impassioned speech in which he claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed at short notice.
Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, a fact suspected by the UN inspection team in Iraq amongst others.
A lengthy dossier, subsequently dubbed the 'dodgy dossier' because of the misinformation it contained, was produced just hours before the debate.
Harry Davis, Campbell
CO2 reality
Climate change may or may not be real, I don't know – but one thing I do know is that Australia produces 1.4per cent of world total CO2 emissions.
If every Australian was to die tomorrow, if all industry and commerce was to cease, it wouldn't matter at all, because China alone has a year-on-year increase that exceeds our measly 1.4per cent.
Yet people who should know better, keep saying that "we have to do something".
We are spending billions of dollars to achieve nothing. Our children are being brainwashed about the need to save the Great Barrier Reef.
There is only one atmosphere. Australia is the world's largest coal exporter. It doesn't matter where the coal is burnt.
China is building hundreds of new coal-fired power stations while we sit back and argue about solar and wind.
We are wasting money, destroying our economy and exporting jobs in this insane belief that somehow Australia can make a difference.
John Burns, Hall
NZ looks nice
Given Coriolis acceleration and the regular pattern of eastward drift of sub-equatorial highs over Australia, up until now I have felt OK about staying on in Canberra, notwithstanding the risk that North Korea would target Pine Gap with one of its valuable few nuke-topped ICBMs. Now ("China hawk most likely as Trump's man in Australia", October10, p19), with a US four-star general in command of Russell Hill and Bungendore, I am in fear Yarralumla itself will be the top target for the first southbound nuke out ofPyongyang.
Invercargill, New Zealand begins to look like a better option forresidence.
Lawry Herron, O'Connor
SMS silliness
The latest brain snap of PM Malcolm and his mob is to implement power rationing.
Just send an SMS to airconditioner users to switch off their ACs in return for the bait of a few bucks off the power bill.
Never mind the sweltering summers in brick boxes. How many will "voluntarily" sign up for this latest idea from Canberra's malfunction junction?
Here we are, surrounded by oceans of coal, but no, we can't use it as it just might produce too much carbon.
Tony Abbott recently attacked the global-warmers in his speech in Britain.
He isn't convinced that mankind is influencing the warming of planet Earth. It's time to chuck them all out at the next election.
Just as we need more dams, we need more coal-fired powerplants.
Why should we be starved for power in the midst of plenty?
We've suffered their nonsense for far too long.
Jay Nauss, Glen Aplin, Qld
Fresh face
I heard the Press Club talk by Jennifer Westacott, chief executive officer of the Business Council of Australia.
It was well stacked with the sort of progressive ideas in short supply in this lack-lustre country ruled by feeble, low-quality politicians.
Is such a person as Ms Westacott available to take up the role of prime minister?
She is apolitical and has a bucketful of ideas.
Rhys Stanley, Hall, NSW
What next?
My prediction is that after the "yes" vote gets up, the government will see the writing on the wall and will finally tackle its other major problem — by adopting a clean energy target.
Michael McCarthy, Deakin
TO THE POINT
Rent-seekers hang on
Re "Hawke's huge waste", Letters, October 12.
No Commonwealth government was going to continue the massive subsidies and feather bedding to the ACT that those of us who lived here then enjoyed and now fondly reflect upon.
The ACT self government 'No' vote was a great example of ACT rentseekers trying to hang on to what they had.
Steve Blume, Chapman
Flat earthers
Climate change deniers are the new Flat Earthers.
Glenys Hammer, Narrabundah
Clean, secure energy
Stuart Walkley raises some good questions (Letters, October 11).
We must keep the heat on politicians to try and minimise extreme heat events in the future.
If we can plan and build submarines to defend the population in the future, it should not be beyond the wit of government to act on behalf of its citizens to plan and implement the clean and secure energy systems that this nation requires.
Darryl Fallow, Stirling
Abbott's nonsense
Abbott's London speech conclusively demonstrates there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense.
Thos Puckett, Ashgrove
Same old, same old
Media keep reporting Tony Abbott without realising this has become very boring.
His opinions are known, his desire to destroy Turnbull is known and his views on climate change and same-sex marriage are of limited interest.
I thought it was a principle of journalism that uninteresting news not be reported.
David Lewis, Murrumbateman, NSW
Wait for blackouts
When the blackouts start will the renewable energy apostles continue to lampoon Tony Abbott?
Owen Reid, Dunlop
Asbestos disparity
Hugh Dakin (Letters, October 11) seems to have solved the mystery of the demolition of asbestos-affected residential buildings.
But what I can't come to terms with is the seeming disparity between compulsory residential knock-downs and the treatment of commercial buildings, where clean-ups seem to be the accepted solution.
Brian Smith, Conder
Rail's advantage
Letters complaining of changes to a bus route in Narrabundah illustrate one of the advantages of rail.
The route is unlikely to change.
Peter Campbell, Cook
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 words or less. 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).