We need more co-operation, not more members

'Before we spend big on 10 more politicians, let's test whether working together – not simply adding more people – solves the problem Moore has identified,' says letter writer NICK SMITH of Rivett. Political columnist Michael Moore ('We need more local politicians, and here's why', CN August 27) is right that our MLAs are stretched too thin to properly connect with constituents – but wrong about the fix. More seats won't change 'how' the Assembly works; it will just spread the same combative, portfolio-siloed culture across more people, at greater cost, and not until 2032. We should look instead at democracies that have actually solved this problem. Switzerland's Federal Council shares executive power across parties by design. Nordic parliaments treat cross-party negotiation as routine, not exceptional. Our NZ neighbour also provides an example. The common thread isn't headcount – it's structure that rewards co-operation over turf-guarding. The ACT is already well placed to do this. Our Hare-Clark system regularly produces power-sharing arrangements, and the current minority government shows opposition and crossbench members chairing most committees. Rather than growing the chamber, formalise that co-operation: stronger cross-party committees with real resourcing, shared casework staffing, and dedicated, protected time for community engagement separate from ministerial duties. Before we spend big on 10 more politicians, let's test whether working together — not simply adding more people — solves the problem Moore has identified. Nick Smith, Rivett (AI was used to help write this letter) Local council deserves serious consideration Columnist Michael Moore's defence of the ACT's current system of government ('We need more local politicians, and here's why', CN August 27) overlooks a fundamental question: is Canberra really getting value for the expensive political structure imposed upon it? MP David Smith's suggestion of a genuine local council deserves serious consideration. Canberra is a city, albeit one with unique responsibilities as Australia's national capital. Yet we maintain 25 MLAs, ministerial offices and a substantial territory bureaucracy to perform many functions that comparable cities manage through local government. Increasing MLAs to 35 would add additional costs to ratepayers for no advantage and trying to compare our small territory to Tasmania is also a no brainer. The two have nothing in common? What makes this particularly troubling is that Canberrans were given two opportunities to reject self-government, and did so. Nevertheless, the Hawke Government proceeded to impose the present system upon us. If democracy means respecting the wishes of the people, that history should not simply be forgotten. This is not an argument for returning Canberra's administration to distant federal bureaucrats. Rather, it is time to ask whether a professional, accountable local council, working alongside the Commonwealth on national-capital responsibilities, could deliver better services and greater financial discipline. After nearly four decades of self-government, surely the system is mature enough to be independently reviewed. Michael Moore may believe the present arrangement is worth preserving, but Canberrans should be entitled to ask whether there is a better – and less costly – way to govern their city. Errol Good, Macgregor Why should we suffer the eye-watering debt? We need to seriously examine efficiency in local government and value for dollars spent. The constituent has every right to make public comments when government throws economic principles/practices out of the window and then gives scant regard to sound financial management and planning. The opposition, who are supposed to be our gatekeepers and protectors, present as try-hards, seemingly floundering . What is the purpose of this government and why should we suffer the eye-watering debt and infrastructure that's been unceremoniously foisted upon us? It's an obscenity! John Lawrence via email Whose interests One Nation is serving? There has been much comment about what constitutes Australian values. The values that bind Australians are clearly outlined in the Department of Home Affairs' Australian Values Statement. They include respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, race, or national or ethnic origin; a 'fair go' for all that includes mutual respect, tolerance; compassion for those in need and equality of opportunity for all and English as the national language. One Nation's execrable values are evident: 'We're being swamped by Asians', 'indigenous Australians get privileged treatment', 'there's no such thing as a good Muslim' and in Hanson's support of the amoral Trump and Netanyahu regimes. Its dishonest and divisive message that immigration was the cause of the cost-of-living crisis is at odds with the evidence indicating a covid hangover, Trump's tariff and middle-east misadventure playing possibly greater roles. The perception by some that Labor lacks authenticity, a consequence of Albanese's small-target pragmatism, would change if the principles of social justice, fairness, inclusion and equality were applied to its policies. If it did there would be increased taxes on the extremely wealthy and gas exports; increased assistance for those most in need, greater action on climate change and gambling, increased social housing construction and a fairer GST distribution. In the current deceitful media environment such changes would be met by a frenzied outcry, with One Nation at the forefront. Voters should ask whose interests One Nation is serving. Is it representing or manipulating everyday Australians? Is its real master the top end of town? What solutions does it offer to the challenges facing the nation? Mike Quirk, Garran Columnist treads well-trodden path Attacks by Keith Murdoch on the ABC started in 1932, at its founding. Young Rupert has simply piled on the pressure since. The Murdochs and Packers have had many successes: a blanket ban on news until 1940, when it was shown that Aunty was more spry than KM; a heavy infusion of senior folk from the commercial sector, often with a big axe to grind (Albrechtsen, Buttrose, Marks among others); and, of course, an unending barrage of hate aimed directly at ABC (but less often at commercial outlets). Columnist Robert McMahon ('It's time our unloved Aunty got her mojo back', CN August 27) has simply followed a well-trodden path. A common bullying tactic in the schoolyard is to say 'No-one likes you'. Try telling that to the thousands who turn out when the ABC is under existential threat. They, too, despair at the heavy hand of commercial imperatives; Behind the News and Play School would never have graced our screens otherwise. Show me a prime minister or prominent public figure who welcomes truthful criticism and I'll show you a liar. Commercial media and said figures are generally joined at the hip in efforts to hose down or bury such criticisms. It's also nice work if you can convince the government to concentrate media ownership. Robert McMahon has been able to dig up an unsavoury incident, on his way to 'proving' that the ABC is indeed unloved. Why Hanson had to be mentioned is unclear to me. I am equally bemused that a writer with a PhD, which usually comes with superior literacy, should talk of known adversity (my italics) to the ABC, when clearly he means aversion. At one time, the ABC would have set an example for him to follow. Bob Gardiner, Isabella Plains Glad puerile behaviour was highlighted I'm glad columnist Robert McMahon drew attention to the ABC's puerile Gina Rinehart skit. The subject of this 'work' – true, she's perhaps not universally liked – was violently attacked. But, phew!, it was only 'satire'. That's how Aunty's in-house ombudsperson saw it, anyway. The 'work' was a Rotten Tomatoes zero, yet there was a moment when Aunty's management seemed to be thinking of blowing another hundred grand of taxpayer dollars defending it. Either Aunty's lost the plot, or forgotten where its money comes from. I still like Aunty, but maybe the '8 cents per day' public funding should be recalculated against its actual audience. Or it could be optional. Dick Bauch, Latham Overall, ABC treats people with respect Columnist Robert McMahon is right to chastise the ABC for allowing the Race Around the World segment mocking Gina Rinehart to go to air. Although intended as comedy, it came across to many as rude and insulting. But overall, the ABC treats people with respect and has rigorous, transparent editorial processes. The ABC and SBS are unusual among Australian broadcasters in having an independent ombudsman to investigate complaints against their editorial standards. Two wrongs don't make a right, but Sky News has developed a particularly conspicuous reputation for highly partisan and often inflammatory political commentary, especially in its After Dark programming. ACMA's investigations into TV broadcasters' records show that breaches involving ABC content are a minority of investigations. The ABC is also one of Australia's most consistently awarded journalism organisations, regularly receiving Walkley Awards. Its journalists have won major international honours, including Peabody Awards, while Four Corners and Foreign Correspondent have repeatedly received international recognition. The ABC has not lost its 'mojo', as McMahon claims. It is Rinehart and Hanson's rejection of climate science that has lost credibility. Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Victoria Migrant intake can't be reduced The federal government will not be able to reduce the overall migrant intake to the numbers and mix suggested by some parties, as Australia will not have enough hospitals, aged care and farm workers. The government will try to get close to the budget forecast of 245,000 for 2026-27. At the same time, it should encourage greater land supply, a housing mix that includes more of 'the missing middle' as it has become known in Canberra, and prefab and modular-type housing using partnerships with private manufacturers like that starting in NSW. Everything should be on the table. Even a scheme similar to the UK's Rent a Room, which allows people to let out furnished rooms in their homes, should be explored, with some incentives such as tax rebates. Health and aged-care costs will reduce with a properly housed population. Above all, adequate accommodation is a basic human right. Herman van de Brug, Holt News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.