LETTERS
The Age
Friday November 27, 2009
First and foremost, scheme is a fraudIN THE next few days the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will undoubtedly pass into law. But what is this scheme? First and foremost it is a fraud. It is cunningly designed not to reduce pollution. Treasury modelling has shown that Australia will maintain its carbon emissions levels until at least 2035. This shameful reality will be hidden by buying indulgences from overseas.We will continue to generate electricity by burning brown coal, will double our coal exports from the Hunter Valley and even try to develop schemes to export Victoria's brown coal so someone else gets the blame for burning it.Initiatives like Solar Schools and the Household Solar Rebate will be prematurely shut down because they're too successful. We won't be able to increase support for these popular and effective programs because we will be using our taxes to compensate the fossil fuel-based industries that greedily chose to continue investing in pollution in spite of 20 years of warnings.So, congratulations, Kevin and Malcolm. You've given the impression you're "doing something" about climate change with the pretence of "ambitious" targets. And while everyone's been distracted by the huffing and puffing, you've got what you wanted, boasting rights to a hollow scheme that won't do anything to upset the fossil fuel lobbyists pulling your strings.Ross Garnaut said climate change was a "diabolical" problem. Between you, you've forged a diabolical solution.Steve Meacher, ToolangiWhat does it mean?WHAT does CPRS mean? Is it "Compensation for Polluters and Rewards Status quo"; or "Condemning People to Resources Stupidity". It certainly doesn't mean "Caring Policies Requiring Strength" or "Care for People and Restoring Sanity".Noel Will, Ormond, Victoria.Carers worth moreI, TOO, have worked in the community sector for 20 years ("Low-paid care workers no better off than clients", The Age, 25/11). I have never had paid maternity leave or long-service leave. I, too, have been exposed to unsafe workplaces. My partner now works in the private sector because otherwise we can't afford to have two children and a mortgage.My wages have been progressively eroded by lack of government funding. We are tertiary qualified professionals, but because we do "care work", aka "women's work", state and federal governments have got away with devaluing our work. It's time to fund equal work with equal pay.Anne Muldowney, FootscrayFostering pressureONE aspect of the debate on child protection that was not mentioned (Focus, 26/11) is that of voluntary foster carers, of which there is a decreasing pool.Concurrently, the availability of carers is compromised by more children staying in care longer, while the complexities of the children's needs and behaviours often require more intensive one-on-one fostering.This creates a situation where it can be difficult to find a foster family in an emergency and matching children with carers becomes a luxury. Heavy reliance on family members of the child (kinship care) can be problematic on occasions and needs intensive support.Foster care is not sustainable without heavy investment in recruitment and retention of all workers and caregivers needed to cope with those children already in the system, let alone those to come.Helen Falconer, LilydaleWelfare a rightWHAT a self-righteous bunch the leaders of the ALP have proved to be. Not content with demeaning Aboriginal people through the Northern Territory intervention, the ALP now proposes to discriminate against other groups by quarantining the welfare payments of single parents and the unemployed. The rationale appears to be to teach them to spend "responsibly" the pittance they receive.How about the irresponsible spending of government and the irresponsible spending of individuals on expensive, fuel-guzzling cars?And what's all this going to cost to administer? Is this the American way of food stamps for the unemployed, making it embarrassing for people to spend them at the store? Will they be limited to taking their basic card to large supermarkets rather than local markets, where vegetables are often cheaper?Above all this appears to be a return to the 19th-century idea of the undeserving poor. Perhaps we need to think again about welfare not being charity but as social security given as a right to citizens who need it.Sue Leigh, North FitzroyCynical manoeuvreTHE St Vincent de Paul Society condemns the move to extend compulsory income management. The people we assist are struggling on inadequate levels of Centrelink benefits. Instead of tackling this problem the Government has chosen to subject welfare recipients to further measures of control, which does nothing for people's dignity.This is a cynical manoeuvre. To get around the Racial Discrimination Act it is going down the US path of close supervision of people doing it tough.It is sad to see a government that claims to be committed to a path of social inclusion indulging in such a coercive and controlling approach. To suggest that exemptions will be available if recipients can demonstrate responsible behaviour indicates that the Government assumes welfare recipients are guilty until proven innocent. Concealing racial discrimination leads the Government into the equally dangerous waters of class discrimination.John Falzon, national CEO, St Vincent de Paul, Deakin, ACTFederalism to blameA FUNDAMENTAL problem for the international education industry is Australia's federal system of government. While state governments have traditionally looked after curriculum approvals and compliance, in many areas they have no legal or constitutional powers.It is corporations law €” the sole responsibility of the Federal Government €” that permits a Cayman Islands-registered company to operate as a private education provider in Australia.The State Government and some large private education providers have advocated a key change to corporations law. This would introduce a trust fund requirement on all businesses that take tuition fees from students. We are waiting for the Federal Government's response.Phillip Honeywood, marketing manager, Cambridge International College, MelbourneCrisis avertedMY MUM suffers from dementia and we had a fright yesterday when we discovered she'd disappeared. A call to our local police triggered a call to Southern Cross Station where the security department found her on the security footage, alerted Ben, who talked with Simon, then spoke with Matt, the train conductor, who identified Mum and ensured she was safely passed to Woodend station master. She was found in under 30 minutes! Thanks, V/Line and the police.Glen Currie, HawthornOffensive notionPETER Warburton (Letters, 26/11) believes marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples because they can procreate. Does he believe infertile heterosexuals should be forbidden marriage also? If he is offended by this connotation, then perhaps he now knows how loving, gay couples feel.Tim Watson, Blackburn NorthWe need reasonsTHE British inquiry into the reasons for their involvement in Iraq will throw some light on Australian involvement, but for the sake of Australian democracy and future decision making we need our own inquiry.John Howard took Australia to war, without debate, without the assent of parliament and on the basis of misinformation. Did he know that the reason he gave for going to war €” the existence of weapons of mass destruction €” was incorrect?We need to establish the facts surrounding that decision and curb the powers of the Prime Minister. Parliament needs to be given the power to decide if we should go to war.Senior figures in the Opposition need to be cleared of any suggestion that they were a party to improper decision-making if they are to be considered for high office.Bruce Haigh, Mudgee, NSWCut tax breaksPERHAPS, Ric Battellino (The Age, 26/11), the reason for the decline in first home ownership is more financial than anything else. It's only since the reintroduction of negative gearing and the halving of capital gains tax that Australia has experienced unprecedented increases in house prices. These tax breaks, worth billions annually, perfectly suit the interests of real estate investors and speculators (who already own a home). But they have created record unaffordability for first home buyers.John Mason, South Melbourne
© 2009 The Age