Affordable housing runs a poor second to top end of town

Shane Wright’s report (“Middle income Australians shut out of housing market”, February 22) leads inevitably to serious questions about the NSW government’s affordable-housing policies. The KPMG analysis, revealing developers are focused on the million-dollar-plus market, seems consistent with recent comments by Urban Taskforce CEO Tom Forrest that development of apartments west of Parramatta isn’t viable, and interest is now only in the city’s higher-yield east and north.

Echoing that, NSW Treasury has been advised that the most feasible area to build apartments is Woollahra, where profits on each unit are about $1.2 million. At the same time, however, the government’s affordable-housing policies are facilitating the demolition of buildings in this area, which have provided relatively affordable housing in studios and one-bedroom units, and enabling developers to replace them with fewer, and mostly larger, multimillion-dollar pads.

The only quid pro quo is including a handful of so-called affordable dwellings in these projects. But “affordable” only means made available at a 20 per cent discount on market rent. The bottom line is these luxury dwellings will still be well out of reach for low- and middle-income earners, while developers will, as they say, be laughing all the way to the bank. Ross Duncan, Potts Point

In Tuesday’s paper, there are four stories that highlight the greatest failings of a series of state and federal governments; a lack of planning. A lack of green space in Wentworth Point, the poor state of rail from Newcastle to Sydney, the lack of housing, and upgrading Richmond Road after building Marsden Park and other suburbs.

Our governments don’t plan. We don’t have a planned level of population growth that links to birth rates and immigration. Such a plan would be coordinated to consider where growth will occur, how people will be housed, the schools and hospitals needed, roads, rail, water etc.

What we actually have is repeated racially based arguments about immigration targets that are not agreed among governments, and the targets are not enforced. Major roads such as the Northern Road / Narellan Road from Penrith to Campbelltown are rebuilt with enormous numbers of traffic lights rather than on and off ramps, and no sign of light rail despite the new airport and surrounding industrial/technology park being on the route. Government-owned public housing is almost non-existent, and we therefore have a rising number of people in insecure housing.

A basic function of government is planning for the long term. Our governments see nothing past the next election. Steven Lee, Faulconbridge

The minister and prime minister were certainly on message on Tuesday, both referring to the metre-by-metre survey to be undertaken for the high-speed rail line (“Fast rail ‘to boost economy by $250b’”, February 24). Let’s hope the geologists do a better job than the M6 and Snowy 2.0 planners. Otherwise, the high-speed train will be buried before it’s even started. Philip Cooney, Wentworth Falls

After 40 years of plans that went nowhere and an increasingly eye-watering cost that may well overrun as badly as many other infrastructure projects, I can’t help thinking “forget it”. Surely, the money could be more effectively and efficiently spent reducing the need for high-speed transport from Newcastle to the CBD? Incentives to create jobs along the coast? Upgrades to public transport in population growth areas? Medical and education services within cooee of where people actually live?
I might also point out that, in the middle of a “cost-of-living crisis”, nobody has yet mentioned the cost of a ticket on the finished product. Sue Hoad, Merewether

Your map of the proposed fast train line from Melbourne to Newcastle suggests a series that you could run, perhaps weekly. For next week, I suggest a recent photograph of the Tasmanian Tiger. Then a photo of the bunyip, and one of the bodies of aliens kept at Area 51 in the US. It could be a successful series. Other readers might submit other subjects. Aidan Moore, Melba (ACT)

Skin checks too costly

I support the proposal in the Herald for an independent body to make decisions on Medicare rebates and pricing (“How GPs plan to end Medicare politics and change bulk billing for good”, February 23). I’ll provide one example of a current Medicare rebate that doesn’t make sense.

Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, and treatment of melanomas and other skin cancers place a massive burden on the health system. Early detection of melanoma and other skin cancers through regular specialist skin examinations is proven to save lives and significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs.

However, the current Medicare rebate for a comprehensive skin check by a dermatologist or specialist is far below the true cost of providing this service. As a result, many patients face substantial out-of-pocket expenses, creating a financial barrier to timely and preventive care. In fact, the Medicare rebate for a specialist undertaking a full-body skin cancer and melanoma check ($42.30) is slightly less than the Medicare rebate for a standard visit to the GP ($43.90).

Australia’s world-leading skin-cancer rates should be matched by world-leading investment in prevention and early diagnosis. A substantial Medicare rebate would encourage regular specialist checks, reduce delayed presentations, and ultimately lower mortality while saving public-health expenditure in the long term. David Pitney, Pymble

Time to flush the royals

Some have contrasted the UK response to ex-Prince Andrew’s behaviour, with the US response to Trump’s behaviour, and concluded that we are lucky to have the monarchy rather than a republic (“Albanese tells UK: We would dump Andrew from royal line of succession”, smh.com.au, February 24).

Andrew was a member of “our” royal family, and eighth in line to be king of Australia. Why weren’t we asked what we thought about his behaviour? We have neither the UK system nor the US system. The monarchy does not protect us from constitutional crises, as was proven by Sir John Kerr. Why pretend we need a foreign king, the remnant of an ancient feudal system with no relevance to current Australia, to keep us secure?

Our awkward clinging to the British royal family, which fortunately declines to interfere in the decisions of our government, is therefore useless. They must always represent the interests of Britain ahead of our interests. We should let them go, be our own country, keep our perfectly functional system with a governor-general (or president, or any other title we wish) as titular and ceremonial head of state to represent us where appropriate, and let King Charles get on with looking after Britain. Jennifer Katauskas, Turramurra

It saddens me that considering all the grief and embarrassment Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has brought to his family, he seems to be devoid of any integrity and dignity to just resign his right to succession and be done with it. It is highly unlikely that ascending the throne is ever going to happen. Of the seven ahead of him in the line, five are still of school age with long lives of their own ahead of them, not to mention the fact that they have yet to reach an age of providing their own little lines of succession. Brian Collins, Cronulla

While I’m sure the majority of Australians support our PM’s decision to eliminate Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from being eighth in line to be our king, I was surprised to learn that Prince Harry remains fifth in line. Perhaps it’s time to get rid of both of these non-working royals at the same time. David Boyd, Bondi Beach

Why just ex-prince, the eighth in line to the throne? Better to propose dumping everyone in that line to hasten the removal of an offensively undemocratic monarchy’s grip on Australia’s governance system. Geoffrey Briot, Stanmore

Beware banning books

In an age when people are financially stressed and time-poor, charlatans and snake-oil salesmen abound. It is vital not to allow them and their ilk to restrict access to factual information by a modern version of book burning (“NSW fighting wave of attempted US-style book bans”, February 24). Greg Baker, Fitzroy Falls

Dutton’s dinosaurs back

Isn’t it wonderful to see one of Dutton’s dinosaurs back in charge (“John Howard used nostalgia successfully as a political weapon. Angus Taylor will find it tougher”, February 24)? The party of lower taxes gave us the highest-spending, highest-taxing government in recent memory. They helped create the housing crisis with the capital gains discount, the removal of the reasonable benefit limit on superannuation contributions so now 5 per cent of super funds get half the tax benefits, the payout of $295 billion of windfall mining taxes in tax cuts that pumped the housing market, the superannuation rule change that allowed borrowing in SMSFs and thousands of rich companies paying only 15 per cent tax because they are owned by super funds.

They also created the two-speed investor classes: mainly old rich people who pay almost no tax and thus get billions in company tax refunds through franking credit payments versus the younger workers who pay tax on their investments. The young people who are the victims of the Liberal governments would be fools to vote for these people. Last time around they demonstrated that they are not fools. Alan Stanley, Upper Corindi

Angus Taylor’s vision for the Liberal Party that he wants to lead is smaller government, fewer taxes, fewer government interventions and so on and so on. The moment there are floods and fires and general disasters, the cry (usually from his lot) is always “why isn’t the government doing something?” Where does the money to fund assistance in those situations come from Angus? PAYG taxpayers of course; they don’t have clever tax avoidance accountants.

And, where does the money for those enormous grants for the wealthy private schools come from? Mostly the PAYG workers, of course. Adrianne Hannan, Bowral

They’ve surfaced. The Coalition, deafly silent on matters climate and energy since laying Ley to political rest, start squawking about a carbon tariff (“Hypocritical”: Coalition slams Labor on climate tariffs while seeking Trump reprieve”, February 24). Note it’s primarily the Nationals, those fresh-air loving rural denizens who don’t seem to actually want fresh air. Those familiar voices, David Littleproud and Kevin Hogan, emerging to build on their handy work of forcing the Liberals to trash 2050 emissions reduction efforts.

Sussan Ley must be feeling good about that one, coerced then dumped. Here’s conservative heaven, rubbish anything climate in tandem with the word “tax”. Aren’t we getting sick of this hollow, negative, retrograde, parrot-like drivel? The stuff of perennial losers. Brian Jones, Leura

Right China move

Imagine my delight to read Lisa Visentin (“Farewell Singapore, ni hao Beijing as China opens up its doors again”, February 21). The reason is that like her, I am more convinced than ever of the importance of the China story.

China is now the world’s technological, manufacturing and infrastructure superpower. We have much to learn from it. We are also, whether we like it or not, living in China’s hemisphere and our destiny is increasingly tied to China’s rise as a superpower to rival the US.

During a trip to China last November, I realised that one way the Chinese Communist Party sticks to its side of the social compact with its citizens is to provide the best infrastructure in the world for them to use. Even a poor farmer who one day is knee-deep in mud can the next day ride a train at 350kph, alight at a modern station, jump on an electric bus gliding below dizzying skyscrapers and high-density housing blocks, to meet his daughter at a dazzling shopping centre and enjoy a delicious banquet lunch.

A good standard of living is not just about multiple TV subscriptions, buying a new car every two years, or living in a McMansion. It is more about the quality of public infrastructure, something our governments and leaders would do well to take note of. Harry Creamer, Port Macquarie

Ukraine tripwire

With Russia’s grinding war in Ukraine reaching its fourth anniversary, David Crowe offers the main reason why this unwinnable war has proven to be so intractable: Ukraine cannot trust America to come to its defence (“Four years on, Ukraine is under more pressure than ever. So is Russia”, February 24).

But the main reason why America cannot be trusted is that it cannot afford to enter into a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia. Otherwise, this proxy war in Ukraine could easily morph into a tripwire that ignites a nuclear catastrophe between these two nuclear powers. From a historical perspective, ever since America’s atomic bombing of Hiroshima, every major conventional war has since ended in a stalemate. Think of Korea, Vietnam and now Ukraine. Think also of what could similarly transpire if a US-China war was fought over Taiwan. Indeed, the war in Ukraine could prove to be not only the last vestige of a pre-Hiroshima world, but the last nail in the coffin of having war as an option for dispute resolution between the world’s nuclear powers and their proxies. Vincent Zankin, Rivett (ACT)

I was disheartened to read that loopholes still exist in Australia’s sanctions against Russia – providing billions of dollars to the Kremlin. Without doubt, that money contributes to Russia’s war chest against Ukraine and funds other of Putin’s imperialistic strategies. As an Australian without any Ukrainian ties but with unalloyed disgust at Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, I add my voice to all others urging our government to act quickly to close those loopholes. That said, has four bloody years not been enough time to manage that? Marie Del Monte, Ashfield

Bring them here

Never did I think the Labor Party, both federal and state, would be running its own version of “children overboard”. Denying the right to return home to 11 Australian women and 23 children in the face of the potential closure of the poverty-stricken Al-Roj camp defies comprehension. Bring them here, attend to their medical, dental and educational needs and prevent the inevitable radicalisation of children left without hope in Syria.
Jenny Forster, Manly

In his letter Bill Bowman wrote “Nor do we penalise children who are in difficult situation through no possible fault of their own” (Letters, February 24).

We are still locking up Indigenous children as young as 10 years old, coming from poor conditions, imposed by our society. When will our governments cease locking up children and improve their lives with education, compassion and follow through with the famous statement “no child will live in poverty”. Time to bring home the ISIS women and their children. Brian McDonald, Willoughby

To submit a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.