If Andrew Barr wants to undertake real reform to the collection of rates, he should do away with basing rates on a percentage of unimproved capital value.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This value is imputed by valuers following markets trends of what recent house buyers (if any) think a house like yours is worth. This is a major factor behind large rate rises, rather than the percentage rate.
In effect the territory government is trying to extract a capital gain from all ratepayers, before that capital gain is realised. At least stamp duty is related to a current property transaction value as committed to by a purchaser, with UCV included in that value.
If we are going to continue the switch from stamp duty to rates then they should be related to concepts likely to make more sense to ratepayers such as ability to pay, and/or your consumption as a citizen of the ACT. Let's put the antiquated UCV concept to rest and have some real reform.
Chris Mobbs, Torrens
Help the victims
I commend the Barr government for the funding for its "Safer Families" policies, but might I make a suggestion?
A reintroduction of the criminal injuries compensation scheme – if only for domestic violence victims – would make a huge difference to the families affected by this scourge. I used to do a lot of CIC claims when they existed and the award of relatively small amounts (the cap was $50,000) made such a difference to women, in particular, who needed to set up new homes, buy new school uniforms, travel away from their homes to seek refuge, a myriad reasons for needing cash. At present, the scheme allows only sexual assault victims and police officers – who, of course, have recourse to workers compensation – to claim general damages.
Jennifer Saunders, Canberra City
The editorial, "Family violence levy a good idea, with provisos" (June 9) was spot-on. That is to say, it is very politically correct initiative.
I believe that it essentially said that one can't really criticise the Safer Families package, a $30 annual levy on all Canberra households, as just a new (law and order) tax because it's to pay for battered women but it really is just another new tax.
Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor
The last proviso in your editorial "provided the government ensures the money goes to the neediest of the support services rather than using it to bulk up an already well-padded bureaucracy" ("Family violence levy a good idea, with provisos", Times2, June 9, p2), could be extended to include "and that it doesn't become just another advertisement campaign. Else, people may rather give their $30 directly to their local crisis centre."
John Rodriguez, Florey
The ACT government is to be applauded for introducing a means of funding the spiralling cost of domestic violence in its budget.
It is puzzling, however, that the method of funding comes from a levy on households, presumably through the rates system, given that we are constantly reminded we live in a "users pay" economy and that a large percentage of households in the ACT rent their homes and apartments.
Are we to believe rates payers are the only members of society committing domestic violence?
P.R. Clark, Isaacs
Fees and levies ...
Rates to rise by an average of 4.5 per cent (20.9 per cent at Pialligo), parking fees up 6 per cent, drivers licences up 5 per cent, when the ABS "All Groups CPI" fell 0.2 per cent this quarter and rose only 1.3 per cent for the 12 months to March 2016.
We'll also be obliged to pay a $30 "Safer families levy" (that's a further 1.4 per cent on my rates notice) and $20 more on the "emergency services levy".
And The Canberra Times calls that a "breather" ("Rates breather ahead of poll", June 8, p1)?
Vic Gibbons, Chifley
... making us poor
The pattern of rate rises over the past several years may be affordable for the army of ACT public servants on high five and nearly six figure salaries, but is plainly unsustainable for workers (like myself) in the retail, hospitality or manual services sectors.
Without even a hint of irony, Canberra will begin losing its true working class to Queanbeyan, Cooma and Goulburn.
Canberra has government by the latte sippers, for the latte sippers. And devil take the hindmost.
Ross Kelly, Monash
Only one winner
Thank you, Brendan Lyon, for the education on contract law (Letters, June 8). Your words come across as little more than opportunistic extortion as the Opposition's position was quite clear long before the Capital Metro contract was signed.
The sweetheart deal with the ACT government means that the winning consortium cannot lose – they get extortionately high annual fees (profit) from the government for supplying a white elephant, or they get an extortionately high penalty fee for the contract's cancellation. Insider trading and other forms of daylight robbery have nothing on this PPH arrangement.
Jeff Carl, Rivett
Working with God
Mike Hutchinson (Letters, June 8) says that the secular state must assert control over religious practices but lumps all religious practices together. The church is not the same as "religious practices". When working properly, the church benefits the people as commanded by God, who is ultimate reality. And there most certainly is "suppression of democratic ideals in subordinating religion to democratic society".
Democracy is still rule by human beings and all democracies ultimately self-destruct because of human corruption and self-aggrandisement. We are well along on this downward path which is the reason for all our current social ills. That's why humanity needs a Saviour.
J. Halgren, Latham
Super nonsense
Paddy Gourley ("Little merit in latest review", The Public Sector Informant, June 7, pp4-5) is right to make light of the latest intellectual blight to descend upon the public service. The review's language alone reveals its lack of authenticity.
Far worse is an article further on in The Informant on the nation's retirement policy by Professor Podger ("The missing link in super policy", pp8-9) – another specimen of blithe, axiomatic and incomplete reasoning very damaging to the public interest if taken up.
Podger's piece read like a diligent student essay for "public policy from four decades past – objectives, and prescription for government intervention and compulsion".
Podger pines for predictability: "our top priority should be to deliver pensions that look like the ones in the old public sector schemes". He offers that view not ever having assessed the risks and costs. Our analysis of the risks shows that the current super system is unsustainable and inevitably will disintegrate – Treasury's own modelling demonstrates that too.
As if it's not bad enough forcing people to pay into a dodgy super system, Podger now wants what's left of people's savings on retirement to be forced into the hands of insurance companies, ie, more fees for annuities with no guarantee.
His logic repeats the insurance industry spiel that "pooling funds leads to more efficient management of risks". But not all risks, which is why we find insurance companies going belly up, especially with annuities. Investment risk is the elephant in the room, Yet it is unstudied and ignored by policy wonks.
For those of Professor Podger's students looking for education: visit the Tax Policy Journal 2016.
Mike Gilligan, Risk Research International, Gundaroo, NSW
In his review of the APS workforce management contestability review, Paddy Gourley commented on misunderstanding by the review's author, Sandra McPhee, of the meaning of "agility", which means nimble or quick-moving.
While there are some who would say the APS is already agile, having many decades' experience serving ministers and their offices by jumping through hoops, dropping tasks and springing into action, making leaps of faith, treading carefully, changing horses in mid-stream and bending over backwards, I was interested in her use of the word in the following statement: "The government has clearly set out its agenda for a smaller, more agile government".
The review is jam-packed with the weasel words, jargon and obfuscatory language the APS is trying to rid itself of through the Plain Language movement. I recommend Ms McPhee read Don Watson's Death Sentence: the Decay of Public Language. If the language she uses and the poor understanding of management of the report are anything to go by, and I can see why good government is going down the gurgler.
Dallas Stow, O'Connor
Dredging risks
Jeyakumar Janakaraj (Letters, June 8) makes several claims about the proposed Carmichael coal mine that cannot go unchallenged.
First, he writes that material dredged from the Abbot Point port facility (which Adani now owns) will be "used" on shore. The problem is that the dredging stirs up a lot of fine sediment, including silt and, more importantly, mud, which can be carried by sea currents for tens, or even hundreds of kilometres, depending on current speed. The parts of the Great Barrier Reef closest to Abbot Point, in the direction sea currents would take them, are between 50 kilometres east and 125 kilometres east-south-east. The fringing reefs of the Whitsunday Islands, 70-120 kilometres to the south-east, are even more in the firing line.
As outlined in publicly available maps, the proposed Carmichael mine will cut across the Carmichael River. It's also very close to the Belyando River, a major tributary of the Burdekin River, relied on by primary producers. And it may also interfere with groundwater resources in the surrounding region.
Finally, the "thousands" of jobs that Adani claims will be created are reported to be between 1075 during construction and 3800 in the operational phase.
Dr Douglas E. Mackenzie, Deakin
GRUNTING ON OUTER
The one grateful advantage for tennis enthusiasts following the two-year ban on Sharapova will be the lack of grunting, screaming and other miscellaneous noises in tennis matches. There is a tennis god, after all, so turn up the volume again. We've all suffered long enough.
Alan McNeil, Weetangera
ARL INCONSISTENCY
The Australian Rugby League judiciary must be joking. To take the decision to suspend Jack Wighton for making contact with an official while choosing not to proceed with an apparent instance of stomping by another player, to me, simply beggars belief. Where's the consistency?
Andrew Rowe, Florey
RENEWABLES PUZZLE
There are many questions one could put to A.R. Taylor (Letters, June 9) but one stands out. If renewables really are cheaper than coal overall why do they still need massive subsidies both here and overseas?
H. Ronald, Jerrabomberra, NSW
LUCKY FOR SOME
Kirsten Lawson's article ("LDA chief made call on Glebe Park land", June 8, p1) made me wonder about how lucky the former owners of Glebe Park must have been for the government to purchase their property for four times more than it was worth. Not so lucky Aranda ratepayers have to pay rates levied on the basis of similarly ridiculous valuations.
Bruce Taggart, Aranda
TARRED WITH SAME BRUSH
I understand our Attorney-General may introduce anti-consorting laws to control outlaw bikie gangs.
Perhaps he will use the same legal template as the one that now criminalises our peaceful one-hour weekly prayer vigils in Civic near the abortion facility there.
John Popplewell, Hackett
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).