OUR elected representatives should do something about high unemployment levels, instead of blaming societies woes on the mind altering chemicals that poor people choose to consume.
— LEON COOPER, St Leonards.
I HAVE made some startling realisations over the past week.
My wife and I have travelled Australia as grey nomads in our camper for the last four years.
Tasmania is our last state to explore and I am shocked that you have managed to keep “The Nut” at Stanley such a secret.
I am positive that the Nut is bigger than its more famous cousin Uluru, which is situated on mainland Australia.
Has anybody thought to get this checked out and measured up?
I worked as a surveyor for 46 years so I trust my judgment when It comes to both sizes and distances.
— HENRY HESLINE, Launceston.
THE present state government should be applauded for its decentralisation policy, which recognises that 50 per cent of Tasmania’s population live across the north.
It is good to see the head of health care based in Launceston and mining activity now based in Burnie.
I would now like to suggest a further department to move out of Hobart.
Agricultural activity is far more extensive across the north of our state and it would be logical for administration of that activity to be based in Launceston where offices at Prospect already exist.
Such a move would be similar to the NSW government moving its agricultural administration from Sydney to Orange to the benefit and applause of all involved.
And the university, seeking to strengthen its northern offerings, could follow by moving its agriculture faculty to Launceston and Burnie, the areas providing the greatest potential for future students.
It could be an interesting exercise to get extensive farmer feedback on this.
— DICK JAMES, Launceston.
FURTHER to the valid points made by David Anderson in (The Examiner, May 5), I would add the following:
I only use one third of the electricity produced by my 3 kW solar panels, the other two thirds go to the grid – for the moment.
Anyone considering the installation of a system with the same capacity as mine should note the following information where, over about four years, the system has produced around 15,000 kW:
OWNER’S RETURN -5000 units used saving (5000 x 27.5 cents)$1375;10,000 units sold @5.5 cents $550;Return to owner$1925.
AURORA’S PROFIT -10,000 units purchased @5.5 cents $550; 10,000 units sold @ 27.5 cents $2750;Profit on sales $2200.
In the more northerly states solar panels remain a viable proposition because the panels run the air conditioning, so practically everything produced is immediately used, with very little fed into the grid.
In Tasmania the reverse situation is in effect.
When the solar panels are working at peak efficiency the energy goes into the grid.
In cold weather, when the system produces little energy, heating is drawn back from the grid.
Fortunately for consumers, there appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel with the arrival of batteries which are currently expensive, but like batteries for electric cars, the price is certain to fall to a point where they become a viable proposition.
— M. CHUGG, Prospect.
IT’S a clever move by the State Liberal Government (as well as both Labor and the Greens) to be seen by the public to reject the Tasmanian Industrial Commission’s recommended 10.5 per cent pay rise for state politicians, knowing full well it will then go before the Legislative Council who in fact last year voted that the commission decide on any future pay rises.
This will make it difficult for the upper house to reject the decision.
I say to the member of the Legislative Council, the proposed $13,000 a year pay rise is way out of line with community expectations.
Had the commission ruled a performance based pay which recommended a 10.5 per cent pay cut, would council members abide by the independent umpires decision then?
— ROBERT LEE, Summerhill.
FOR the benefit of the less informed lets attempt to take a balanced or simplistic view of the current politically charged negative gearing debate.
For no other reason than chance, consider this hypothetical rationale.
You are a married Australian, employed on average basic wages paying modest tax and average house rental.
Your only current vision for financial retirement appears to be your employer superannuation contribution.
Your ambition is simple inasmuch as you desire a modest three bedroom home, regular employment, food for the family, a car and an occasional holiday.
Your current employment is not a regular position and after expenses there is no residual cash.
Alternatively, a friend of yours has permanent, well remunerated employment on a higher tax scale to you.
Your friend is purchasing their home additionally with a negative geared investment property which you rent.
As a result, your tax is subsidising your friend’s home that you rent and enables your friend to pay less tax than you.
Your friends investment home that you rent will, on average, double in value every 12 years whilst as a result of that increase in value your friend will regularly increase your rent.
Because of circumstance your friend could become very wealthy on retirement because of the likes of you, whereby your future is an aged pension in a high cost insecure home.
In conclusion, you should consider, should this Government policy inconsistency continue unchanged, or should you challenge it?
— WALLY REYNOLDS, Perth.
This story Administrator ready to work first appeared on Nanjing Night Net.