Fiona Phillips has never shied away from any debate, she has always made herself available wherever possible. She's a fighter, not just for some, but for ALL.

Was her absence due to being sick, or for some family reason? Who knows. I'm sure it must have been a very important reason, otherwise she would have been there. She would never run from a fight, that's for sure.

If her absence is of such concern, maybe B. Cumberland could provide us with the answer. If it were a candidate from another party, would it be questioned?.....I think not.

Running for parliament is a job application. Employers would not employ a candidate who consistently fails to attend job interviews and answer questions of concern to the employer.

Why should we, the employers of our parliamentarians, be asked to employ Fiona Phillips in the seat of Gilmore when she has refused to attend every job interview in the form of public forums?

Phillips was the only major candidate who didn't turn up to the Paul Murray "Pub Test" on Sky to be questioned by voters. She refused to be interviewed on Shoalhaven Community Radio. She refused to take part in the Marriage Equality for Gilmore campaign or engage with local indigenous groups.

Why is Mrs Phillips avoiding being questioned by voters? How can we trust somebody to be our Federal member of parliament when she will only deal with people who don't challenge her?

It may also be her own Party keeping Mrs Phillips away from interviews. As stated by The New Daily, 'even unelected candidates can be withdrawn from media scrutiny if they are considered to be too much of a risk'. If that is indeed the case, and Labor considers Phillips to be too much of a risk, how can the people of Gilmore possibly risk voting for her?

Until Fiona Phillips answers the questions we, the employers, deserve to have answered, she does not deserve to get the job.

G. Kolomeitz, Gerroa

Urbis, the current Shaolin Temple Foundation's consultants, are rewriting the recent history of the Shoalhaven/Shaolin relationship when they claim 'there have been a lot of false starts on the Temple previously.' (SCR 30.5.18) No there haven't. There were none.

The Shaolin development has hung around, getting financially smellier, for twelve years because, as they recently confessed, the Shaolin monks are an impecunious Buddhist Order entirely dependent on donations.

Despite this, in 2009, they were to be accepted for assessment by the NSW Department of Planning because, as advised by then Minister Pru Goward, 'a proponents financial bona fides are not a relevant consideration when addressing a development application.' Turns out they should be.

It also turns out that, in 2009, the Shaolin Temple project had an assessed capital value of $360 million. It remains as ambitious now as was then and just as financially unaccountable.

Because I made a submission to Shaolin's original exhibited plan I can make another. But it's the broader questions that need answering. Should any foreign investor be allowed a quarter of a century to play what seems to be an inordinately wide open planning system and would an Australian investment get away with it in China or indeed just about anywhere else in the world?

Meanwhile, welcome to Mugsville, Australia. Shaolin's approval lapses in early September this year.