Levy to fund disability scheme: good news and bad

The Gillard government should introduce a levy to fund its proposed disability scheme and Australians and the Parliament should support it. While the budget needs to be well managed, there is surely a more compelling reason: it's a matter of justice.

Like most Australians, I have never had to take special measures, sometimes extraordinary measures, to care for disabled family members. It is reasonable and overdue for the wider community to share the load and contribute more to the substantial care that a smaller number of Australians need.

Yes, there are many working voluntarily to offer assistance and governments have long provided substantial resources, but so much more is obviously needed. There's only one decision for a compassionate nation.

Bill Wood, O'Connor

So, Tim Colebatch (''Cutting tax breaks risks voters' wrath'', canberratimes .com.au, May 1) would have us believe that the federal government can't cut existing tax breaks, in order to help put its fiscal house in order, without being cast out of office. There are a couple of problems with Tim's thesis. In the first instance, it isn't necessary to remove all tax breaks in order to rein-in their staggering cost to the public purse.

Targeting high-income earners on the superannuation front is an example. On the other hand, removing negative gearing as a ''class'' of middle-class welfare or outlawing the use of trusts for tax minimisation purposes would only negatively affect a relative minority, while benefiting the majority.

That's why the suggestion of increasing the Medicare levy or GST is so dumb, simply because it will alienate more voters, without impacting on the pampered minority. More to the point, if the government is in as much trouble as the media pundits and talking-heads would have us believe, why wouldn't a bit of good old-fashioned class warfare benefit the public purse and the government's electoral prospects?

John Richardson, Wallagoot, NSW

Stranded assets

A few weeks ago, the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics and the Carbon Tracker Initiative released a report called ''Unburnable carbon 2013'' (www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble). This report documents the extent to which financial markets have overvalued the oil, coal and gas reserves of fossil fuel companies, based on the premise that as much as four-fifths of this carbon must remain in the ground if we are to limit global warming to 2 degrees.

Fossil fuel companies operating in Australia receive tax breaks for exploration in the form of accelerated depreciation worth more than $1 billion a year. Given the financial risks posed by the carbon ''bubble'' this report has identified, why is the federal government continuing to direct increasingly scarce public funds to encourage exploration for fossil fuel reserves that are likely to become stranded assets?

Ben Elliston, Hawker

Labor in deficit

Saying the Howard government should have done more to help avert our current budget crisis needs to be kept in perspective.

In 1996 the Coalition inherited from Labor a budget in deep deficit and a Commonwealth debt of nearly $100 billion. By making tough decisions, they set about restoring the surplus and repaying that debt. They reformed the tax system, replacing many inefficient taxes with the GST. They reformed the waterfront, sold Telstra and created the Future Fund. Over time, unemployment dropped to 4 per cent. All groups of Australians became wealthier.

And Labor's support for reform during this period? Zero. They opposed it all. In fact, the hapless Kim Beazley came within a whisker of winning the 1998 election while opposing the GST.

So, in the context of what they achieved for the nation's finances, the Coalition shines brightly compared to the current hopeless Labor government.

Ian Morison, Forrest

More representation not always better in a voting system

In his article ''Size matters when big parties are favoured over small'' (April 29, p9) Malcolm Mackerras overlooks one of the shortcomings of the Hare-Clark voting system. This is the fact that it ignores area representation.

I accept his argument that a seven-member seat would more accurately represent voter support for political parties compared to five-member seats. However, this has to be seen against the background that the great majority of voters do not belong to political parties. Thus they have to accept the policies put in front of them when they might only agree with some of them. This criticism also applies to rank-and-file party members who may have no say in policy making.

Party ideology and loyalty are less important in state and territory than in federal elections because the states and territories are mostly concerned with service delivery. What matters in state and territory elections is how voters perceive the service they are getting.

Also the idea of area representation is heavily ingrained in Australian voters who like to be able to contact their ''local member'' whenever they want to. Under Hare-Clark there are no local members because MLAs have responsibility over a large area with other MLAs sharing the seat. Voters therefore have to make a decision about who to contact only to be told that the matter being raised is the responsibility of someone else.

In my experience, voters in Brindabella and Ginninderra with five members each have been better served than voters in Molonglo with seven members.

Bob Sutherland, Holder

Malcolm Mackerras' article isn't easy to understand, but he seems to favour a Legislative Assembly where the number of seats held by any party is proportionate to the percentage of votes they received.

Logically, then, he should favour a voting system in the Assembly where the value of a party's votes on any matter is also proportionate to that party's percentage of votes in the last election. Hopefully, such a system would do away with the ridiculous situation we have at present, where the Greens' vote in the Assembly through its sole representative, Shane Rattenbury, even though the Greens received only 11 per cent of the votes at the last election, has more weight than the Labor or Liberal votes to the extent that the minority party, the Greens, holds the balance of power! That's not democracy.

R.S. Gilbert, Braddon

Confused debate

The campaign for ''marriage equality'' must ultimately be futile because the concept is built around a contradiction.

Even legislation would not alter the fact that each of us, whichever side we may take in this confused debate, is the child of a mother and a father.

The male-female relationship is fundamental to our existence. It should be recognised in a way that is distinct from other kinds of relationship. Marriage is the institution that has done this across races, cultures and millennia. It should be allowed to continue to do so.

Peter Thwaites, Scullin

We need landlords

The aversion that Penleigh Boyd has towards landlords (Letters, April 24) is misplaced.

If landlords stopped investing and sold their houses and flats (to owner-occupiers), thousands of tenants would be evicted. Rents would rise on the remaining rental stock.

In 1985, Labor's Paul Keating had a similar distaste for landlords. He stopped them claiming a deduction (from their income) for the interest incurred in buying a rental property. Landlords and new investors fled. Tenants were evicted. Rents went though the roof. Keating back-pedalled. Tenants (not landlords) benefit from interest deductions.

In 2013, the main reason young people can't buy, and old people won't sell homes is sky-high property taxes.

Apart from mining boom towns, the worst place to buy or rent a home is Canberra. The ACT government has a monopoly on land lease supply for housing.

As well as imposing costly environmental laws (plus rates, stamp duty and land tax), the monopoly chokes lease supply to maximise its profits.

Voting changes nothing. Labor, Liberal and Greens MLAs are addicted to monopoly price gouging.

Hence thousands of workers commute from NSW where home prices and rents are more affordable than in Moscow by the Molonglo.

Graham Macafee, Latham

A date with history

The front-page story ''Flight path no problem for these ground birds (April 29, p1)) says an 1825 homestead stands on the house block known as Majura House.

The year 1825 refers to James Ainslie's arrival at Pialligo to take possession of land granted to Robert Campbell. Campbell brought people from Scotland and they settled on small blocks, including in the Majura Valley. Majura House is believed to stand on one of those blocks and to have been built, not in 1825, but between 1846 and 1860, for Alfred Mayo and his family.

I understand that the first homestead built in Canberra was the one erected for J.J.Moore in 1824 on Acton Peninsula, and later known as Acton House (demolished to make way for the first hospital in Canberra).

Barrie Virtue, Jerrabomberra

Anzac debate

I am uncertain whether the critics of Jack Waterford's article on Anzac Day (''Nelson flying wrong flags'', Forum, April 27, p1) read it carefully. Their emotional reaction to his insightful analysis of the transformation of Anzac Day into a religious festival provides support for his argument and evidence for the ''sacred'' character that it is assuming.

I am glad to see someone start a public debate about the way Australian history is increasingly and misleadingly being viewed through a mythologised account of Anzac Day.

Doug Hynd, Stirling

And justice for all

Greg O'Regan (Letters, April 26) says I want readers to feel guilty about our sympathy for the victims of the Boston bombings, and questions whether I appreciate our free and tolerant society. How on earth he concluded that from my suggestion (Letters, April 23) that proper legal processes are essential, no matter how strong the initial evidence against a suspect appears, is anyone's guess. The devastation and grief of the people of Boston, like the grief of people whose freedom has been horribly violated anywhere, is not an excuse for anything less.

Dr Sue Wareham, vice-president, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia)

Drugs discipline

The federal government may be paying too much for commonly used statin drugs (''Cholesterol-busting drug gives government $260m headache'', April 29, p2), but what about giving greater consideration to why statins are used in the first place?

The benefits have been greatly oversold, and the side effects appear to be much more common than industry interests would have you believe. One commonly hears about muscle pain and weakness, called statin myopathy. Research studies have also shown that the chances of nerve damage increase with statin use over time. In my mother's case, she developed neuropathy in her feet after taking statins for several years.

Statins are not the wonder drugs they are marketed as.

The financial savings for the government could be much more substantial if it adopted a more informed critique of pharmaceutical approaches, and if consumers also became better informed on the risks of statins and the other options available.

Murray May, Cook

Suicide blame

Your article ''Nurse blamed radio duo for suicide'' (April 29, p3) reported that the unfortunate death of a nurse in Britain might be blamed on a couple of idiots from a Sydney radio station. Their actions were deplorable but the blame lies elsewhere. Issues involving royalty and other VIPs will always attract interest from both the legitimate press and the gutter press that seems so prominent in Britain.

Clearly it is the responsibility of both the palace and any hospital serving royalty to have in place a rigorous protocol designed to protect patients and staff from exactly the kind of intrusion that occurred in this case. Their failing in this regard makes them, not the idiots who made the call, jointly culpable for the consequences.

Charles Smith, Nicholls

Waiting game

Frank O'Shea (''Competition for hospital beds is on for young and old'', April 29, p9) has raised several important and sensitive issues regarding the allocation of hospital beds. However, to think of the issues as just involving who does or does not become an inpatient is to overlook the broader and much bigger question of who gets priority access to general and specialist medical treatment. Perhaps this was the fault of the statistics and the original reporting of the study.

As an outside observer, I note that there seems to be no delay in treating injuries incurred by sportsmen over the weekend, especially the professional ''stars'', first thing on Monday morning. I have no knowledge of how this treatment is arranged so quickly but assume that it is all done by the clubs and through the private medical system. It would be in the interests of professional sporting clubs to make public how their players, who after all are employees, are covered for injuries requiring medical treatment or hospitalisation. The last thing professional sport needs at the moment is another scandal, least of all one that suggests the athletes are triaged for treatment by the health system ahead of others, particularly the elderly.

E.L. Fisher, Kambah

Imbalance of power

For those who missed the item ''Privatised electricity delivers a shocker'' (April 30, p11), the gist of the article - not the pun - is worth repeating. An Australia Institute study showed that under electricity privatisation in Victoria, the number of managers rose 200 per cent, sales staff 500 per cent, and technical staff (the little gremlins who actually produce the stuff) rose 30 per cent. Oh, and the price of electricity more than doubled. So what are the Queensland and NSW governments contemplating? A power selloff. The gift to the private sector that just keeps on giving.

Bronis Dudek, Calwell

To the point

COLES' PETROL PRICE SHAME

On Anzac Day I travelled to Melbourne after having bought a full tank of petrol from a Coles outlet in Canberra at $1.53 per litre. Upon my arrival in Melbourne, I filled up my tank once again at $1.24 a litre. A differential of almost 30¢ per litre. It is unacceptable that Coles should involve itself in gouging the public on such an iconic day. The regulatory authorities seem to be asleep at the wheel.

Rod Barnett, Higgins

SHIFTING ALLIANCES

Heard on telly that Imran Khan is regarded as being too soft on the Taliban. With the West supporting ''al-Qaeda-in-Syria'', Jabat al-Nusra, such pronouncements are simply risible. The US is about to become al-Nusra's formal ally. Funny how things turn out, sometimes. So funny that I frequently find it difficult to suppress a hysterical titter.

S.W. Davey, Torrens

MORE JOIN GST PUSH

Nick Minchin is the latest to join a growing list of people advocating an increase in the GST. Is this part of the softening-up process to allow the opening of floodgates on continual increases in GST? None of these tax-rise advocates contemplate the obvious alternative, namely reducing government spending.

Ric Hingee, Duffy

GET ON WITH THE JOB

John Nethercote's claims that a duly elected government cannot appoint people to posts because an election is coming is a bizarre twist (''PM faces rebuke on job moves'', April 27, p5). Perhaps Ross Peake could have asked him when exactly it is OK for a government to appoint people to posts. Is it six months from an election, 18 or 24?

Peter Harris, Belconnen

EYESORE STILL STANDING

Decades roll on, and the site of the former Caltex service station at Chapman, adjacent to the shopping centre, remains a suburban eyesore.

Does anyone know what is to become of it?

John Milne, Chapman

HOSPITAL BED BATTLE

Frank O'Shea, as usual, is right on the ball (''Competition for hospital beds is on for young and old'', April 29, p9).

As one who has passed what some have picked as a person's use-by date, 85th birthday, I have to say I will have no compunction in accepting hospital care if I need it, any more than young, rich, thick footballers have. I have never spent more than one night in hospital and that was only once. Perhaps I could even say society owes me a rest in hospital. Anyway, that's what I think.

Michael Travis, Cook

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).