However, burning up capital could present risks for the unwary. For example, any gift or gifts with a total value greater than the allowable amounts ($10,000 per financial year, or $30,000 over five years) are assessed as a deprived asset for five years from the date of gift and are subject to the income deeming provisions.

Further, the eligibility tests for assets and income could change again in future (as they have in the past), particularly if Australia's budgetary situation deteriorates further. What happens if all surplus assessable assets have been used up, and one does not then meet the eligibility tests for the age pension at a future date?

Murray May, Cook

I was surprised to read "Police issue fewer tickets to drivers as trend continues", Sunday Canberra Times, August 21, p12).

My recent experience is that drivers' behaviour in the ACT is worse than ever. I am frequently abused, verbally and by horn and gesture, when I keep to the speed limit or give way to a fellow driver when I could have raced ahead.

Last week's incident took the prize. I was waiting at the Yamba Drive lights to turn into Kitchener Street, Garran. The driver to my left, talking on a mobile phone, looked annoyed when I stared at him. Then, suddenly his passenger opened his door and deposited an empty bottle of Jack Daniel's whiskey and cola on the road in front of me. I know this is what it was as I turned on my warning lights and left my car briefly to pick up the bottle. To leave it there would have endangered other road users.

I would be happier if more infringements were issued, not less.

Timothy Walsh, Garran

Idly perusing the Super Quiz (Sunday CT, August 21, p44), I came upon a howler in Q41: Name the two British commanders who shared in the victory over Napoleon at Waterloo. The answer, Arthur Wellesley and the 1st Duke of Wellington, are the same man. A better question would have been to name the two commanders (Wellington and Blucher), but perhaps I'm just chucking a gumboot.

Bob Gardiner, Isabella Plains

There is a great deal to be said for bringing voting into the computer age. Paul Malone wrote, "To verify the e-vote it would be possible to have a printed back-up." ("Census won't stop Reform", August 21, p19).

This is essentially Venezuela's system, which also uses thumbprint recognition, potentially compromises anonymity.

Protecting our secret ballot must be the prime consideration, over and above data integrity. Once an e-voting enthusiast, I now agree with the old AEC position ("Electoral chief wary of shift to online vote", September 21, 2013, p7). That was the commissioner's take, despite having run computerised elections for union elections and government-certified agreements for years. One simple solution is to employ computer counting rather than computer voting.

Each ballot paper would need to be automatically stamped with a sequential number and the scanning machine ID, batched and retained for verification, if required. In parallel, a single electronic electoral roll could be used to mark off the voters.

Such a dual system would be a lot more efficient in manpower and time than the current one. Admittedly, less efficient than computer voting, but it would be much more secure.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

From the comfort of sitting rooms it is difficult to contemplate the billion-dollar mess represented by Panguna is endlessly replicated all across the globe, mostly in desolate, God-forsaken terrain never seen until explored by mining geologists ("Billion-dollar mess", Sunday CT, August 21, p21).

With the power of mining's lobbying millions, it is unsurprising to learn Rio Tinto "was fully compliant with all regulatory requirements and applicable standards at the time". Doubtless BHP Billiton's San Marco's tailing dam was compliant with standards too, but still resulted in an immediate death toll and inestimable, long-term, environmental and livelihood destruction.

It would have been relatively easy, in a poverty wracked country, to ensure there were "investor-friendly laws", courtesy of compliant politicians. Today, in Australia, mining public relations departments work overtime to "greenwash" projected exploitation, with their respective, ingratiated, toady politicians trotting out trite mantra that such-and-such mine "will be subject to X numbers of the most strictly overseen, enforceable conditions" ever conceived! Immediately operations commence, toxic chemicals contaminate local rivers, water tables are lowered and local fauna and flora are devastated, with monotonous regularity.

While 20,000 Papua New Guineans died in the 1990s civil war, many more would have died from environmental damage wrought to their former food sources – gardens, forests, rivers. In addition, social disruption engendered by forcible relocation would have accounted for many more dead, destruction of communities, destitution, addiction and diseases. The pestilence of mining is endless.

Albert M. White, Queanbeyan

Letters on proposed changes to water charging are flowing in, one saying fixed charges are regressive and a disincentive to economise.

Another says access to water is a basic human right.

No one mentions basic obligations to fund one's own consumption. Every household and business has to have access to water supply. For everyone in Canberra that means pipes and pumps, which must be paid for by someone. That fixed cost is similar for supplying every block, so the same fixed charge should apply whether or not the user chooses to consume a little or a lot.

One can economise by installing tanks, just as one can grow vegetables to lower their food bill. Consumption should incur a variable charge based on the cost of water used, including sterilisation and power for pumping. Cost depends on Icon efficiency, which must be kept under the regulatory microscope, given its monopoly.

The regulator is on the right track even if the figures need fine-tuning. Lastly there is the government. Currently bills do not show the annual ACT utilities tax, charged for pipes to sit in the ground, nor the extraction charge, a euphemism for taxing what falls free from the sky!

With reform, there will always be losers. Low-income earners should be subsidised from general government revenue, not by taxing other water users.

Ross Ramsay, Farrer

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).