The claim that University House was constructed with a "nuclear bunker" ("The incredible history of University House at the Australian National University", canberratimes.com.au, May 2) does not survive factual or chronological examination.

The building was first planned in 1947, some two years before the USSR first demonstrated its capability of exploding a nuclear device (late 1949). But Soviet production of a nuclear delivery capability did not begin until late 1951, by which time the construction of University House had begun (1950).

Moreover, this capability only extended to relatively short-range tactical nuclear weapons: it was not until the introduction of inter-continental ballistic missiles in the late 1950s that the USA - rather a good indicator I would have thought - felt the need to construct nuclear-hardened facilities for its own high-ranking government officers and crucial military headquarters.

Given this, to think that Australia, especially "tranquil, 1950s Canberra", might have been on a nuclear target list from the early 1950s (Pine Gap did not become operational until 1970) is fatuous.

Some, clinging to some spectral evidence, may wish to historicise the existence of a "nuclear bunker" at University House. But, paraphrasing Clive James, "to put it bluntly, they have a theory which is proof against any facts".

No time has been wasted in decrying Labor's home equity proposal (Letters, May 3). Fair enough, but at least the idea is before us and can be debated.

I don't recall your correspondents being equally concerned about money-wasting Coalition proposals before they were introduced, such as robodebt, the pork-barreling like car-parks in areas where there were no train stations, or multi-million dollar contracts let without tender.

Come to think of it, there's largely been silence from the same quarters over these issues even after they've come to light.

I trust though the same critics will be carefully assessing probably the most important issue of governance should the Coalition win the election. That is, the agreement between the Liberals and Nationals dividing up the spoils and their conditions for implementation.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. That, in typical Coalition fashion, is a tightly held secret that we the public are told is "private" - never mind that it will have an impact on all of us.

Once again, pots and kettles dear readers, pots and kettles.

P McCracken (Letters, May 2) chides Jim Chalmers for calling our Prime Minister a "pathological liar". Shame on you Jim (and the Deputy Prime Minister along with a number of parliamentary and party colleagues and French President, Macron who, according to reports in the media, have described him in similarly unflattering terms).

In fact some of them seem to go further than Chalmers with accusations of his being a fraud, and a hypocrite as well as a liar.

With the government of which she is a member having failed for more than 20 years to address the demonstrable waste and inefficiency of Canberra's public transport, Greens transport spokeswoman Jo Clay seems to believe a motion in the ACT Legislative Assembly will "get the wheels turning" toward long overdue improvements. ("How to fix the big problem with Canberra's bus system", canberratimes.com.au, April 28).

Under three chief ministers and with three largely ignored highly credentialed reports into Canberra's public transport, the government has presided over falling rates of usage and significantly increased costs. Ms Clay would do well to read the 2010 consultant's report commissioned by the government which found ACTION was spending more than 30 per cent of its $100 million annual budget on waste and inefficiency.

Or, she could peruse Allan Hawke's public service review of 2011 in which he concluded ACTION's industrial relations position was an obstacle to Canberra having a bus system commuters wanted to use. Further reading is the March 2015 M R Cagney report which recommended steps to improve the bus service while saving rate payers about $47 million annually from ACTION's operating budget within about 10 years. This was rejected by the government in late 2015, saying it would renegotiate an enterprise agreement in 2017.

No substantial renegotiation has occurred. Instead, with the introduction of the light rail, many direct bus services were cut, walking distance to many stops increased, access to some stops made more difficult, and most weekend services reduced to a two-hour frequency.

It will take much more than Ms Clay's motion to fix the shambles of Canberra's public transport, to which the Greens have contributed with their demand for light rail.

Where do we join the Progressive Pedantry Party? (Letters, May 3).

Mr Hunter has gotten it right in the grammatical crisis situation we face going forward. Perhaps Eric would consider a merger with the Apostrophe Protection Society which, sadly, is in decline. We all deserve a share of the lead, when the pedants do great, and everyone contributes to us getting the two points on the day.

Of course, we need to come up with a defence to protect us from the grammatical offence that has gotten us so badly into American "english". Long live pedants.

With three weeks to go until the election it's absolutely clear that some rules and guidelines need to change. All elections should be publicly funded. At the moment it's legal for one person to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence an election. That's an obscenity. Most political parties and independents accept donations which have to be made public but it was made clear recently that over a third of donations to political parties are kept secret.

They could be from anybody. Why do people donate money to political parties? It's not because they're warm, fuzzy, generous people. They want and expect something for their donation.

Another change is urgently needed to make "truth in advertising" apply to election campaigns. How can Advance Australia get away with their grubby signs which completely misrepresent David Pocock as a member of the Greens and suggest a vote for Labor is a vote for Xi Jinping. What next, vote Labor and they'll come around and steal your dog?

Political parties should not be able to make up or cherry pick statistics? "Under Labor inflation has averaged 300 per cent and a bag of Twisties cost $47.50". That's no more absurd than some of the ads being peddled with impressive graphs.

Katy Gallagher's announcement "Labor to purge $3b APS consultants bill" (canberratimes.com.au, April 28) could well be an own goal unless she can show conclusively how $3 billion would be saved.

First, the consultants have to be replaced with at least the same number of public servants but probably many more, given relative productivities. Second, cost overheads for public servants are about 150 per cent more than the salary bill.

Third, one must ask which voters is the policy aimed at. It cannot be Canberrans most of whom the party already owns. Is it aspiring public servants outside Canberra? Fourth, how many voters in the rest of Australia will look kindly on more public servants in Canberra?

Zed has been campaigning mainly on local government issues rather than those relevant to a federal senator and the nation. He rarely talks about the big issues that matter at this election such as climate change.

It is as if he wants to be in the ACT MLA again. However announcements like selling CSIRO land without tender, money for sports facilities and rejecting truth in political advertising shows he fits in well with his federal team.

Thanks to Matt Canavan for drawing our attention to the climate debate.

How could we forget Australia's dismal performance at last year's COP 26? Our country ranked last out of 193 UN Member States for climate action in 2021's Sustainable Development Report. Recently, our global ranking on climate action fell again, from 35 to 52 out of 76 countries.

But the federal government is once more under pressure from the Nationals to sideline Australia's emissions targets.

Scott Morrison will need plenty of wallpaper and glue to paper over the cracks in the Coalition on climate policy. A good supply of gap-filler will also be required. A quick trip to Bunnings may be in order.

Just heard an Aussie expat who has been living in Shanghai for the last five years dumping on DFAT for failing to break him out of the lockdown. Really? You make choices, you live with the consequences.

What will the US and NATO do when they run out of Ukrainians to fight Russia?

The flaw in Zed Seselja's argument the ACT population needs him, as a Liberal senator, to represent their views is that on so many issues he hasn't represented their views.

If inept Albo can threaten to wipe off ScoMo in the coming election imagine if the Opposition Leader was just more skilled or charismatic. What could happen then?

If the "nuclear bunker" under University House let in water how was it ever going to stop nuclear fallout ?

Some have let their imaginations run riot in your report on the "nuclear bunker" under University House ("There's nothing quite like a house with a Cold War bunker", canberratimes.com.au, May 2). The photograph of two ANU employees in the so-called nuclear bunker shows them standing beside what appears to be a boarded-up window with an air vent above it: hardly the stuff of effective nuclear shelters.

To those who put up the "smear" corflutes; I suspect you've moved David Pocock to the top of many ballot sheets. As for the man you apparently tried to assist, there's a lot to be said for voting alphabetically.

Whilst many people are wailing and gnashing their teeth over Solomon Islands' dealings with the PRC why has nobody mentioned the giant panda in the room? In 2015, the Port of Darwin was leased out for 99 years to the PRC. I certainly see this as a potential security threat.

Mario Stivala opines (Letters, 27 April) that "Gillard and her [minority] government turned out to be an absolute disaster". Give me more "disasters" like the NDIS and Gonski plus all the other productive legislation she introduced.

The national intelligence director Andrew Shearer told a reporter in India this week Australian intelligence agencies were aware for a long time of China's increasing interest in the South Pacific. I'm sure this is the case. The failure is with our politicians, particularly successive LNP governments, who have dropped the ball in the Pacific over the last 10 years.

A government body deciding truth in an election campaign? What a double-plus good idea.

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.