Canberra Times Letters to the Editor: The politics of envy

In three years, it has moved 100,000 people away from welfare-reliance.

Into this cautiously optimistic picture sails Anglicare's Kasy Chambers ("We take from the poor to give to the rich", April 10, p17) and her thinly disguised politics of envy.

Kasy derides the fact that "Tim and Michelle" receive tax concessions for:

● Operating a small business (and presumably providing work for others);

● Providing for their own retirement through superannuation and investments;

● Easing the burden on public healthcare by holding private health insurance;

● Helping secure their children's futures through quality education.

Far from accepting government handouts, "Tim and Michelle" are merely being allowed to retain more of the income they work to earn.

Instead of implementing or supporting measures designed to lift people out of the welfare-induced poverty cycle, Anglicare and other charities seem content to build empires on the back of the misery of others while loudly criticising welfare reform.

Far be it from them to criticise constructive solutions.

Michael and Christine O'Loughlin, Griffith

I heard that China intends to build a naval base in the south-west Pacific. Terrible. Perhaps not. There's a precedent.

England set up a naval base there in 1788. It's been a success.

Where did England get the manpower to build it? Easy. It just transported some dissidents from a British minority culture.

Were there enough? Not originally, but then England transported more female dissidents, and the workforce multiplied like rabbits.

What about resources? No problem. There were more resources than the natives could use, so the English just took them. There were even enough resources to sell in Blighty to finance the project. Everyone became rich — except the natives, of course.

Did building take long? It's not finished yet, but it's been going for only a bit over 200 years. The Chinese will be faster: they're efficient, and don't just muddle through.

Is anyone complaining about the Chinese proposal? Yes. The current CEO of the English project doesn't like the threat to his hegemony. He has warned the Chinese, and threatened to stop supplying them with baby formula.

How will the Chinese react? Sensibly. They will point out the CEO's hypocrisy. They will also explain that their project is all about jobs and growth; this will win him over. Also, as a former investment banker he will quickly realise the magnificent cost-benefit of the scheme.

I'm now convinced the Chinese project, benefiting from lessons learned from the English experience, will be AOK.

Bob Salmond, Melba

I am pleased to see new Agriculture Minister Littleproud is upset at the appalling images taken on a live sheep export ship to the Middle East late in 2017. But unfortunately these images are not surprising as they have been repeated at least annually for at least the past 15 years.

I also strongly support the minister's call for an external review including his own department's handing of the trade. Remember it was his predecessor Barnaby Joyce who oversaw the disgraceful 2016 sacking of senior vet Dr Lyn Simpson for bringing to light major animal welfare failings in live export trade.

She was told the industry could not work with her. There are two problems with the live animal export trade for human consumption. The first is that there is no feasible economic way of exporting large volumes of animals from Australia by sea without causing serious animal welfare issues. They should be humanely killed here and their carcasses exported.

The second is that the industry has apparently captured the departmental officials responsible for regulating the trade. This industry capture has included previous Labor and Coalition ministers.

Both the government and the opposition need to look at beginning the immediate phase-out of all live animal exports for human consumption, with a view to completing it within three years.

NZ successfully banned live animal exports for human consumption in 2003.

Roger Clement, Googong, NSW

I believe H. Ronald (Letters, April 11) unreasonably insulted Mr Rattenbury on the basis of what he said in the article, "NEG just not good enough" (April 9, p18).

It seems Ronald does not understand the dynamics of providing exactly the right amount of electricity at the right frequency 24/7. A key point is that conventional coal-based systems have to maintain a "spinning reserve" of capacity to cope with spikes in electricity demand.

Coal-fuelled steam turbines take hours to speed up from nothing, and this is a 24/7 overhead cost in the production of electricity using coal.

Renewable electricity technologies (solar and wind) will cost increasingly less than "not so dirty" modern coal-based electricity in the future but they will need to be supported by either pumped hydro or batteries or a high level of excess capacity to realise the availability figures typically associated with coal.

The future is already with us in that the new battery in SA has already been used thousands of times to support the grid as a whole and is performing well. The situation is now emerging, even if arguable, that renewable energy with supporting technologies, are both cheaper and likely more reliable than coal as a system.

Trevor McPherson, Aranda

The US lied about Iraq. It also lied about Libya. Now it is lying about Syria. Who would believe anything the US said, with the exception of the Australian government?

Rex Williams, Ainslie

Hooray! The ACT has established a deposit-refund scheme on drink containers.

We are told that in order to ensure success: "[D]esignated collection point[s]" must be many, convenient, and located where people gather regularly, e.g., shops that sell the containers, postal shops, community centres, ACT Government ShopFronts ... Using "social enterprise organisations ... as collection points" provides an easy opportunity to share with others more in need.

The "slight [price] increase" must be virtually invisible to the consumer, other than the 10-cent-per-bottle deposit, which would be neutralised upon container return. The pricing model described raises questions for me.

Collection points must be much "cleaner" and "self-contained" than the photo-op-image at the Carousel. What's shown begs for litter, rubbish, and abuse.

One "good idea" I've seen overseas: Locations to leave bottles neatly for homeless people to collect and claim deposit.

I expect the deposit-refund scheme to have hiccoughs upon initial roll-out, as all new schemes do. I eagerly await the scheme's expansion to include wine, milk, cordial, etc containers. And now — I embrace this long-overdue opportunity ... a habit I learned growing up in midwest America.

Judy Bamberger, O'Connor

I believe your editorial on the ACT container deposit scheme ("Is recycling a feel good exercise", April 11, p.17) has serious errors and misconceptions.

To judge a new scheme by its first month of operation is wrong. No such scheme in the world achieved its ultimate objectives in the first month.

Admittedly the NSW effort did not have enough time for the rollout of initial infrastructure but that won't be repeated in the ACT.

As for the closure (in reality relocation) of reverse vending machines in some towns, these too are lessons being learnt quickly about a new scheme and technology not previously seen in NSW.

Your claim that the recent China ban on contaminated recyclate will also negatively impact the scheme is simply wrong. The operators are having no problem selling the material collected, because it is not contaminated.

To judge the bottle return program by a narrow interpretation of what is cost effective is to deny the benefits from cleaning up the environment, new income for charities and increased jobs.

The ACT government undertook a detailed benefit/cost study and the results were positive. The ACT community will no doubt embrace the scheme, just as is increasingly the case in NSW where over 219 million bottles and cans (excluding kerbside recovery) have been returned in just over four months.

Jeff Angel, Total Environment Centre convenor and director, Boomerang Alliance, Surry Hills, Sydney

It would be hard to imagine a more disturbing account of Canberra's planning laws and administration than that outlined by Dr Jenny Stewart (Letters, April 9).

Surely there must be another side to her story. I trust the Minister for Planning and Land Management (Mr Gentleman) will provide the community with an explanation of the sequence of events described by Dr Stewart's letter — an explanation that also passes the "pub test". If not, surely the Legislative Assembly must accept responsibility and amend the planning laws to prevent the "gaming" of these laws on such important matters from ever recurring again. Desirably, these laws should be amended further to strengthen the role played by the administration's professional planners and to dilute the scope for ministerial discretion to interfere in the planning process.

Ian Cochran, Lyons

Your headline writer has a very different interpretation of "saving the day" than I: (Letters, April 7, Dennis Chapman).

His Qantas flight cancelled, he managed to secure tickets to Sydney with Virgin, at the price-gouged fare of $1116 for two economy seats.

Virgin sells these for between $152 and $370 on a normal Friday. That's not a rescue: that is taking advantage of someone's misfortune!

I and two colleagues were once offered a taxi to collect us from our homes, deliver us to our meeting in an outer Sydney suburb near Warwick Farm and return in much less time and a cheaper alternative than flying.

I wonder what a taxi would have cost that Friday. Airlines have a lot learn about the supposed service they provide. For them, and the airport's management, I think it is more bush than capital.

David Featherston, Bywong, NSW

The price of general admission to watch a game of footy at the MCG and Docklands, for which you get a comfortable seat, is $25. At this weekend's GWS v Fremantle game, the price of general admission is $24, for which you get no seat other than the grass. The cheapest seats, at $30, are sitting with the cheer squads behind the goals. The next cheapest seats, of which supply is very limited, are $40.

At the other end of the spectrum, the most expensive seats at the MCG are $75, at Docklands $65, at Adelaide $75, at the Gabba $61, and at Hobart $78, while at Manuka a seat in the Bradman Stand costs $85 and even the "upper wing" is $80.

How is it that Manuka Oval, a glorified country town ground, can charge more for a seat than world-class stadiums such as the MCG, Docklands, the Gabba and the Adelaide Oval?

Doug Foskett, Griffith

Australians are among the most sceptical in the world about the future of driverless cars, according to the Canberra Times, April 6, page 12. Things might change if we resurrected the British Red Flag Act in force around the time the first cars were terrifying horses, cattle and pedestrians. That provided that a guard with a red flag must walk "not less than 60 yards in front of the vehicle while it is in motion" to warn riders and drivers of horses it was approaching.

The Act wasn't repealed until 1896.

It would be about the only safeguard that would persuade me to ride in a driverless car. Some 16 per cent of Australians agree, as do one-in-four of those over 50 years. (And Leunig too, judging by his Sunday Times cartoon of April 8.)

Geof Murray, Ngunnawal

Oh Percival Vere of Dickson (Letters, April 11), you could have asked me as to why I have tattoos – I would have answered because I love them; and why am I on Facebook – because I love connecting with friends. Simple really – love is the answer.

Jan Gulliver, Lyneham

OLD CULTURE SOLDIERS ON

We can soon expect a regurgitation, particularly by politicians, of the characteristics of Australians who fought in the First and Second World Wars. These characteristics, under the flood of multicultures, are now virtually non-existent. To try and maintain harmony in what was once a very harmonious population, the politicians will again stand on their soapboxes spouting about them.

Dick Ashby, Numurkah

CHINA BASE NO DIFFERENT

The US has military bases in the Pacific and globally, so why not China?

Rod Matthews, Fairfield, Vic

FOLAU'S HATE SPEECH

The Australian Catholic University's Kevin Donnelly writes people should stop attacking Israel Folau because it's stifling free speech. He's wrong. Homophobia is not free speech; it's hate speech, plain and simple. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and particularly offensive to LGBTQI people, their friends and families.

Lucy Walken, Tuggeranong

POLES APART ON ART

I think that Pamela Collett should rethink what art is; art comes in all forms and yes jewels are art. I can't afford Blue Poles so is that not art?

Janice Skelton, Kaleen

ROAD TO INSPIRATION

A recent visit to Canberra (where I lived for 37 years) caused me to write this poem.

Poor Northbourne Avenue, deconstructed,

And in its place a tram to be conducted!?

No more the splendid view

Of tree-lined avenue,

They've mucked it.

Dorothy Filshie, Port Macquarie, NSW

MISSILE MADNESS IN SYRIA

Syria's suspected chemical attack killed at least 40 people. If Trump responds with missiles, how many will they kill? 400? 4000? 40,000?

Michael McCarthy, Deakin

POWER SHIFT FOR JOYCE

If the current federal Coalition wants to keep the Liddell coal power station operating, it has been suggested by Rory McElligott (Letters, April 6) that it be moved to Armidale in Barnaby Joyce's electorate. As part of such a move perhaps a name change from Armidale to Armididdell would be appropriate.

Ted Tregillgas, Flynn

HAVEN AT THE WHARF

In the early '70s Vila, as capital of the New Hebrides, was a tax haven, perhaps the wharf is a symbol of an attacks haven.

Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook, NSW

JOIN PARTY ON NEW NAME

I'm rather attracted to Ex-NXT as an alternative name for a certain Liberal-leaning centre party now that its leader has nicked off into oblivion.

Nigel Thompson, Queanbeyan East, NSW

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).