Traffic congestion and laissez-faire policy
The Ken Henry review of Australia's taxation system is considering recommending the use of "Telematic readers" to deal with the growing problem of traffic congestion in our cities.
Telematic readers have the capacity to collect charges from motorists for travelling on roads and freeways. Charges can be varied depending on time of day, kilometres travelled and the roads used.
But, outside of collecting revenue, there is no clear evidence that technology can be used to solve traffic-congestion problems — problems that can be connected to government planning and policy failures.
Roads are not congested and overused because they are "free" and undertaxed: they are overcrowded and sometimes gridlocked because "laissez faire" thinking on economic growth has dominated public policy.
Consequently, rapid population growth, up to 1700 new arrivals every week in Melbourne, with an aggregate growth of over 500,000 across Australia, per year, when infrastructure and public transport are already inadequate, means that more commuters have little choice but to commute by car.
Allowing the centralisation of major sporting events, business and construction projects, has resulted in sparsely populated regional areas and overcrowded cities.
Laissez-faire thinking in government and business was behind the recent global recession that created massive unemployment. Telematic readers and congestion charges will collect revenue for government, but they cannot solve the underlying problem: governments willing to allow the needs of markets to drive policy in the economy.
John Glazebrook
Endeavour Hills, Vic
Giving polluters a blank cheque
If there is one measure that deserves to be defeated in the Senate, it is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — had the ACCC jurisdiction over the naming of bills, then it would demand that the title be changed as it is grossly misleading.
The bill is little more than a blank cheque for Australian industry to keep polluting. We have a government that is turning the issue of climate change into a cynical public relations exercise.
Should the defeat of the bill be used as a tactical weapon to trigger a double dissolution then the Government could well be in for a nasty shock — there will be a substantial campaign to ensure that, regardless of the outcome in the Lower House, we will want to preserve a Senate that protects the national interest; a Senate that is not simply an echo of the government of the day.
John Tons,
Lenswood, South Australia