In his article on the light rail proposal ("Rail supporters miss mark", Times2, June 12, p1) David Hughes compares the proposal's benefit-cost ratio unfavourably with the London Crossrail BCR. What he didn't mention is that the two BCRs are not comparable – the London proposal used a discount rate for future costs and benefits of 3.5per cent a year (in accordance with UK Treasury guidelines), while the Capital Metro Business Case uses 7 per cent.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
This difference in discount rate makes a huge difference in measuring net benefits (in present-day terms) of the proposals over the coming decades. The 7 per cent rate means net benefits of the light rail in 20years are valued at about a quarter of their value now, which is completely unrealistic, and weighted heavily against the proposal. As I pointed out on April 23, this use of 7percent is contrary to authoritative 2005 guidelines from the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, and UK Treasury advice. The Capital Metro Business Case should be redone using the British rate, if not much lower, given economic circumstances now. David Hughes' article just underlines this need.
Paul Pollard, O'Connor
Rail white elephant
Patrick O'Hara (Letters, June 12) shows the same mentality of many of the Irish developers and land owners whose "far sightedness" resulted in the Irish economy falling into chaos and ruin during the GFC. They also thought they were "improving quality of life" and "looking to the future". And what a disaster it turned out to be.
Mr O'Hara, like so many other supporters of light rail where the cost/benefits are yet to be properly examined, shows scant regard for our children and future residents who will have to pay the increased taxes and charges that will accompany this latest ACT white elephant.
Ric Hingee, Duffy
Bending the rules
The article, "Deakin residents fear flood of development" (June 8, p3), together with your editorial, "Residents' thinking blinkered" (Forum, June 13, p7), make interesting reading but don't tell the full story with respect to the Deakin Residents Association's involvement in the recent Gawler Crescent townhouse redevelopment proposal.
Your readership should be aware that access to ACAT is an acknowledged part of the overall planning process, and that the DRA submission was not a win/lose proposition. The DRA was never "four square" against development as your editorial asserts, but in fact supported most elements of the proposal as now approved and which replaces two existing residences.
Through community action, successive proposals have been modified from 15 one and two-beddies, to the current proposal with seven three-bedroom townhouses, including a modest separation between the two buildings facing Gawler Crescent, and retention of a landscape tree near the frontage.
Our key concern has been to ensure that the various planning rules are adhered to, and this has now mostly been achieved.
We believe that proponents of developments would be better served in having meaningful consultation with community groups before committing expensive resources to proposals which seek to bend the rules, andthen having to defend them when affected residents seek tohave the rules applied fairly.
Peter Wurfel, president, Deakin Residents' Association
NSW freeloaders
Another day, another bunch of whining NSW residents complaining about the ACT taxpayer not doing enough for them.
This time, it's Murrumbateman parents complaining that there is no school out there for their kids and they might not be able to get into ACT schools ("Hard lesson for parents waiting for a school", June 14, p1). These people contribute nothing to the ACT finances. They pay no rates or taxes, yet they use our roads, schools, hospitals and libraries daily.
They moved to Murrumbateman in the full knowledge that there is no school. They assumed the ACT taxpayer would provide education for their kids, but now that is looking doubtful, these people are complaining. Again.
How much of my ACT taxes are used to pay for these freeloaders?
Terry McDonald, Curtin
Revenue raising?
What a breakthrough: Andrew Barr finally seeing the folly of his ways ("Barr shifts stance on stamp duty abolition", June 16, p1). It appears that he is either abandoning the new system (which would be good news), or it's a political stunt for next year's election. The big question is have the changes to date been revenue neutral as claimed by Barr? The Chief Minister must substantiate these claims. If he cannot, as we believe is the case, then the whole process has been about revenue raising. If Barr cannot substantiate his claims then it's all been one big lie and he should resign.
Peter Jansen, Ratepayers Association of the ACT
Land tax hike
Dear tenant, You might be aware that rental properties are subject to an extra tax that is not levied on owner-occupied properties.
Over the past decade, this so-called "land tax" has increased three-fold. In the past year alone, it has increased by 61 per cent on the property you occupy. Accordingly, I must increase your rent henceforth.
Yours sincerely,
R.I. Boxall, Hawker
Naming alternative
While we all respect and support Jessica Enders' rightful pride in and concern for her family name and her grandmother's legacy (Letters, June 16), Jane Goffman's well-intentioned comments are being misconstrued.
She said clearly that her fears were for "the lack of fitting dignity it would confer on the Enders family" if signage was vandalised. Given that the street that is proposed to be named in honour of Hanna Enders runs east/west and would require a sign at either end, the most benign, but undignified, mischievous relabelling should be apparent to Gina Pinkas and her grandsons (Letters, June 16).
The Dickson Residents Group suggests, as a better alternative, that the corner park next to the Majura Community Centre be named in honour of Hanna Enders and that a playground be located there.
I'm sorry that the civic pride of the Dickson Residents Group has been misinterpreted as a slighting of a respected former resident when the exact opposite was intended.
Felix MacNeill, deputy convener, Dickson Residents Group
Let the market rule, then we could just pay to get rid of our problems
Paying off people smugglers opens up a vast new realm in the creative use of taxpayers' money for "market solutions" to perceived political problems.
Will we next be paying off Islamic State, to justify growing our military budget for permanent, pointless wars – and also offload some of our disgruntled adolescents? Should we slip drug smugglers a wad of cash to reduce the supply of nightclub ecstasy and up the corporate value of their business? Should the government keep unruly bikers in line by shouting them each a new Harley? The cost could easily be met from the budget for bullet-proof ministerial limos, as ministers would have an honour guard of Hells Angels.
We could pay wind farms not to farm, coal miners to demolish the Great Barrier Reef even faster, and industrial food manufacturers to increase consumer demand for imported cancer and obesity treatments. Best of all, we could pay young Australians not to get a degree. This would free universities to profit from high-fee foreign students, while ensuring steady growth in the LNP vote.
Let the market rule!
Julian Cribb, Franklin
How much longer must the people of Australia tolerate the immoral, incompetent and inadequate Coalition government? The Coalition is prepared to act immorally, and quite likely illegally, in its relentless "stop the boats" agenda.
It is disgusting that the Prime Minister is prepared to stop people smuggling "by hook or by crook", in the process destroying his personal moral compass and that of Australia, as well.
This same government plays up "national security" issues for political gain, most recently with its overreach on denial of citizenship rights, possibly in an unconstitutional way.
Democratic principles and functional separation of the legislature and judiciary are under attack. Add to this a neo-liberal economic ideology that increases inequality; the government's resistance to effective climate-change policies; captivation by sectional interests; and cuts to basic national services such as health and education.
Overall, the Coalition has an appalling report card, proving it is unsuited to represent Australia, either nationally or on the world stage.
Keith Croker, Kambah
Unfair to Labor
I am totally sick of the media and its various commentators, the latest being Jack Waterford ("Stevens puts it directly: economy in trouble", Forum, June13, p1), in part blaming Labor for every thing that is wrong with the country's economy and most other things.
Let's be clear. Under Labor, the economy was performing at a high level. It was Labor that ensured Australia came through unscathed from the global financial crisis. The Abbott government is well and truly stuffing the economy. It is crippling opportunities for the economy to grow, such as trying to kill the renewable energy industry, and cut research funding to the bone. All Labor is doing through its opposition to some budget measures is trying to protect poorer members of our society – this used to be the Australian way.
Rod Holesgrove, O'Connor
Playing with numbers
Gareth Hutchens ("How NATSEM's work was smeared", BusinessDay, June12, p12) describes how the government outplayed Labor to dampen the effect of figures showing how the budget hits low- and middle-income earners, trashing NATSEM's research in the process . This is not the first time NATSEM has worn a black eye over commissioned research.
In 2014, the Daily Telegraph asked NATSEM to dissect households by comparing total income tax paid with total welfare payments received. The results were then spun in the Murdoch press — just before the budget – to suggest half our households pay no net tax, ignoring the fact that these predominantly lower income households are disproportionately high payers of indirect taxes, such as the GST.
Paul Feldman, Macquarie
Stuck in the past
It is unfortunate Tony Abbott's feet of clay are firmly stuck in the fossil-fuelled 19th century, neglecting well-established scientific warnings about increasing anthropogenic global warming, and the urgent need for mitigation.
Like the conclusion of Shakespeare's lyric The Seven Ages of Man, ignorant "business as usual" by the present government will accelerate the demise of the seventh stage of what Frank Niele's book Energy: Engine of Evolution describes as our Carbocultural Regime ("Abbott at odds with the world on wind power", Forum, June 13, p5).
As a major contributor to this regime, Australia is better placed than most countries in terms of brainpower and natural resources to reverse this destructive process and establish a Counter-carbocultural Regime, recommended by the G7 Summit, through a cluster of clean low-carbon renewable energy applications, which are now economicaly competitive with fossil fuels. They include not only wind power, but also solar thermal energy, photovoltaics, geothermal energy, wave and tidal power, storing surplus energy in lithium or metal batteries or ammonia, to ensure a 24/7 supply.
Such measures would increase, rather than reduce, employment and export opportunities. But they would require an imaginative, wise and visionary government to implement them.
Bryan Furnass, Hughes
The scariest thing about our PM's outburst on wind power ("PM's tilt at wind farms exposes stance on RET", June 12, p4) is the glimpse it provides into Tony Abbott's policy-making mind. To determine a position on wind power, all he had to do was look at a wind turbine, decide it was ugly and noisy, then talk to (well-known wind power opponent) Alan Jones to confirm he was right.
Why bother with Senate inquiries or scientific study if this is how decisions are made? If the reports with the long words are too hard for Mr Abbott, might I suggest he Google "wind power China" and "wind power United States". For the illiterate, there are impressive images of thousands of wind turbines among productive agricultural land. It appears our Chinese and American cousins have been able to cope with the noise and ugliness.
Mike Reddy, Lyons
Let's heat up debate over old wood fires
How appropriate was the full page ad in The Canberra Times (June 15, p8) seeking Senate support to prevent the burning of our native forests, as we suffer the effects of winter wood smoke intrusion into our homes from our neighbours' fires.
Many enjoying their radiant heat don't know how to manage the correct combustion of their wood, as evident by the acrid smoke pouring out of their chimneys. Fortunately, new houses are banned from having wood fires; let's extend it to older houses now.
Norman Lee, Weston
Less empowered
There is nothing like having a reliable and helpful electricity provider. We received a letter from ActewAGL in early June advising our electricity would be interrupted from 8.30am to 4pm on Saturday, June 13. So we rescheduled our activities and planned to be out for the day as, like most people, our house requires electricity for most things to operate.
Still at home after the specified 8.30am we waited for the electricity to go off. Just before 9am we rang the inquiries line and were told, "Your interruption has been postponed ... No sir, it isn't our practice to advise customers when an interruption is cancelled. My apologies for any inconvenience."
Need I say anything else?
John R. Baker, Griffith
Making waves
Ray Edmonson (Letters, June 15) says Tony Abbott is emulating 11th century English King Canute by "commanding the waves of climate science to cease their pounding" . This, unfortunately, is another occasion on which the good king has been verballed. Canute was actually demonstrating to his obsequious courtiers he had no power to stop the waves and they should therefore stop their praise that he could do anything he wanted. That's the lesson Abbott should learn.
Eric Hunter, Cook
TO THE POINT
USER-PAYS ALL THE WAY
I live in O'Connor and ride my pushbike to work at Hall. I will never use a Gunghalin-Civic light rail, so why do I have to pay for it? Let's impose a user-pays levy on Gunghalin residents instead.
Stephen Barnett, O'Connor
NOT GEORGE OR BILL
Imagine being a US citizen in the forthcoming presidential election campaign and having to differentiate between the candidates. It will be difficult, as the two main candidates are saying "I am not George" or "I am not Bill".
Luke Lake, Kambah
SCAREMONGERING
John Rodriguez (Letters, June 13) believes same-sex marriage will result in an ageing and underpopulated world with a majority of single-child families; he thinks our preoccupation with love and equality will override our sense of charity and compassion. So there you have it: same-sex marriage will lead to a society devoid of charity and compassion. And you thought not having a good enough job to buy a house away from harmful windmills was your worst fear.
Warwick Bradly, Weston
HOLE IN THE BOAT
The Prime Minister claims to have "stopped the boats". If the government is now having to pay them to go away, surely that means they are still coming?
Chris Fowler, Bywong, NSW
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Marie Coleman's declaration (Letters, June 13) that she would rather live next to a wind farm than a coal mine demonstrates the dangers of simplistic binary thinking. A parallel example might be: given the choice of execution by hanging or lethal injection, I would much rather choose the lethal injection. How about considering solar technologies, geothermal, and wave power, rather than ruining the Australian rural landscape with huge, noisy wind turbines.
Murray May, Cook
PUSH-OFF FOR PUSHERS
Will the Abbott government now stop prosecuting drug traffickers? They could save time and money by using Customs to pay them to take their drugs to Indonesia instead of Australia.
Tony Judge, Woolgoolga , NSW
ABBOTT AT THE READY
Why should taxpayers bother about maintaining the legal apparatus of state? Our Prime Minister knows what is evil, and he is prepared to deal with it, by hook or by crook. His crew of cabinet ministers stand by ready to assist. What could we possibly have to worry about?
K. L. Calvert, Downer
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).
