It is simply ridiculous to call kangaroos an invasive species

As the commissioner for sustainability and the environment what is she doing about the real threats to our environment, which include the uncontrolled and unregulated clearing of native forests, urban development, toxic chemical spraying and devastating fires (due to climate change)?

Instead of addressing these important issues she wrote an article in The Canberra Times that states it is kangaroos that are a major threat to our ecosystems and native species.

What about the ongoing impact Australia wide on wildlife and ecosystems caused by broadacre farming? Why isn't she doing anything about this? I can't believe she is the commissioner for sustainability and the environment and her whole letter vilifies kangaroos.

It is not only upsetting and infuriating, it is simply not true.

Her role is to protect and sustain the natural environment. The only way this can be done is to protect and respect our native animals, which includes kangaroos.

The inclusion of kangaroos as an invasive species in the ACT government's State of the Environment Report is shocking because of what it tells us about the ACT government itself: that is that this government is so complacent it thinks it can get away with such a preposterous assertion.

Kangaroos and their direct ancestors have been providing keystone ecological services in almost every corner of the Australian continent for millions of years.

Every aspect of their biology is perfectly adapted to Australian conditions, and essential to the wellbeing of the plants and other animals that share their environment: their teeth and grazing behaviour, their breeding biology, their fur, their feet, their locomotion.

The government's annual slaughter has never been based on science. It has never been anything but a sustained and carefully managed con job.

If it were possible to have an exact antithesis of an invasive species in Australia, it would have to be the kangaroo.

In his letter "Kangaroos Ain't Wallabies" (March 27) John Coochey is drinking from the same kool-aid as the ACT government if he believes Canberra's kangaroos have increased in numbers.

Firstly, urbanisation, vehicle crashes and annual shooting have devastated kangaroo and wallaby numbers.

Secondly, foxes (here through no fault of their own) have replaced dingoes as the main kangaroo and wallaby predator.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that kangaroo grazing has ever caused any suffering whatsoever to any member of any other species, including wallabies.

In fact, kangaroos do not overgraze. They graze exactly according to the available food supply, and their populations rapidly decline when the food supply declines.

They stop breeding, and they range more widely, long before they are at risk of starving.

So the US has approved more bombs and jets for Israel and President Biden has acknowledged "the pain being felt" by many Americans over the war in Gaza and over the US support for Israel and its military offensive.

Is that the way to acknowledge the pain being felt by the long oppressed and suffering people of Palestine who are now subjected to relentless bombardment by Israel with bombs supplied by the US?

Can someone please help make sense out of this US support for Israel notwithstanding the case of genocide against Israel pending in the ICJ?

I read the article "Hindering a sustainable future" (April 1) from the Coalition for Conservation.

It read as an anti-renewable energy, pro-nuclear article. So written by a conservation group?

Googling the group I found it is headed by a former Nationals MP, Larry Anthony, and appears to be a front for pushing LNP policies.

Now I have no problem in them doing this, but not in a deceitful way.

Perhaps the first part of their name, "coalition", should have put me wise.

A genuine conservation group they are not. Please guys, be honest.

One unusual feature of the current debate on our energy future is that the Coalition is supporting nuclear energy, a form of generation that requires strict government intervention and controls. Labor is supporting wind and solar, with many smaller competing suppliers keeping prices low.

Any large company investing in nuclear power in Australia will demand the same limits on liability as apply in countries with nuclear plants. In the United States this is provided through the Atomic Energy Act 1954 (commonly known as the Price-Anderson Act). It caps the damages from any one nuclear accident at $US 18.963 million.

Respect for private property was once considered the cornerstone of free enterprise.

The two poster children of nuclear energy are France,the country that generates the most electricity from nuclear, and Finland, the country with the greatest proportion of nuclear power in its grid.

The Tax to GDP ratio in France is 46.1 per cent, the highest in the world. In Finland it is 43 per cent. The current Tax to GDP ratio in Australia is 29.6 per cent.

The much higher rates of taxation in France and Finland are not just a result of nuclear power, but it is certain that nuclear would mean much higher taxes for all Australians.

PM Albanese has promised $1 billion to subsidise the creation of a solar panel manufacturing capability in the Hunter Valley.

Given that there is no way Australia could ever manufacture such panels cheaper than China and it is extremely unlikely that this Labor government would slap a balancing tariff on Chinese imports (already over 80 per cent of panel consumption) Australian home owners will opt for the cheapest panels on the market.

This means the only way this venture could succeed would be through substantial taxpayer subsidies forever.

I remember when taxpayers were subsidising Holdens and Falcons to the tune of over $5000 per vehicle. That was before the plug was pulled on the industry in favour of imports.

In the article "What Canberra's newest town centre could look like" (April 1) Simon Tennent is reported to have said it "would be silly" not to consider a light rail extension (into Molonglo) in the future. The Suburban Land Agency should not be considering, let alone planning, a backward technological step.

As Ken Helm (Letters, April 1) points out, trams have long been established in inner Melbourne, and are used by millions each year. Inner Melbourne has a much higher population density than suburban Canberra, and is mostly flat - ideal for rail transport.

Extending light rail into Molonglo would involve numerous engineering and construction problems costing billions. Light rail stage 2B is already problematic and expensive enough.

Re "The tranquillity of newsless lives", March 30. Ian Warden's a beauty, isn't he? On the one hand, he wants to be a leftist egalitarian which, in essence, demands a devotion to quantity over quality. It not only gives everyone of age the vote but also considers giving it to those who are even younger. Yet, on the other hand, he wants to bemoan ignorant voters. You can't surf and ski at the same time, Ian.

In the current environment of practising tolerance, inclusion and acceptance and in the context of the proposed religious discrimination policy and legislation, together with the quest for impartiality in the media, the comment made by your reporter, Steve Evans was disturbing ('Strong views in rising Canberra church', March 30).

His article on the Agape Pentecostal Fellowship and its tenets as espoused by Pastor Ikea gave the appearance of these values, but was unfortunately subtly biased.

The comment that Pastor Ikea's views on homosexuality were "even more out of tune with the times" implies that all his, and his Church's beliefs and practices, are obsolete and inconsistent with current social mores.

That maybe so, but it depends on your views. Unfortunately, as the current discussion on religious and other forms of discrimination demonstrates, tolerance can be in short supply.

What we don't need is to add more fuel to the fire with judgemental reporting.

The nuclear industry, with its waste which is toxic for thousands of years, is once more gaining confidence. The smiles said it all when we signed up for lots of nuclear-powered submarines. Happy billionaires equals well-funded political parties. Nuclear waste costs Americans billions every year. The uranium miners get the profits and the taxpayers fund the health and financial burden.

The move to strip Mike Pezzullo of his AO seems unnecessarily mean-spirited and smacks of a Labor witch hunt. Mike worked hard in government over a 36-year period; in the latter years implementing major organisational change sought by his minister, Peter Dutton. His alleged misdemeanours were not unprecedented. Sir Arthur Tange AC CBE was one of the worst offenders during my time in Defence.

Skippy a bush terrorist? Who would have thought?

Mark Sproat (Letters, March 21) says "If we lift the [nuclear] ban the market will decide". He implies that otherwise, "the taxpayers will pay". Technical issues with nuclear aside who pays for the profits demanded by "the market"? Since when did "the market" have the right to decide our future?

Israel's response to Hamas's murder of its citizens is disproportionate. The USA should stop providing armaments to the Netanyahu regime. Supporting Ukraine, to counter Russian aggression, should be the priority.

In giving credit to Albanese for giving another $1 billion of taxpayers' money to boost the Australian solar manufacturing industry Karen Lamb (Letters April 1) provided a brilliant start to April Fools Day.

Marilyn Brocklebank thinks TV cartoons are encouraging bad behaviour in children. I grew up watching Looney Tunes cartoons. At the tender age of 60 I can categorically state I have never once felt the need to drop an anvil on an unsuspecting road runner.

If you want to get the PM to Alice Springs schedule a Taylor Swift concert. He would be on the first available private jet.

Civilian casualties of war. Bakhmut, Chongqing, Dresden, Gaza, Guernica, Hanoi, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Spot the difference.

If the Christian leaders making Easter observations were genuinely committed to their beliefs they would use their authority to prevail on political leaders to eliminate homelessness and inequality, and demand wealth-sharing via progressive taxation.