The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The price is too low for H2O > Comments

The price is too low for H2O : Comments

By Teri Etchells, published 30/11/2006

Malcolm Turnbull is right: we should be paying more for our water.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I don't agree. We elect politicians to provide the infrastructure to cope with an increasing population. To prevent politicians from suffering shock, our population is reasonably predicted by government agencies expert in that area. Is it asking too much to require politicians to read those projections and adopt plans that will cope with an increasing population?

How cheeky of our pollies to ask us to pay more. They have failed to deliver ample clean drinking water to the people of Australia yet they turn on us and blame us. What a hide.

Politicians should be reminded that they aren't there to ride around in nice gleaming Qantas jets. They are there to provide services for the people.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 30 November 2006 9:02:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is a complete fabrication, more commonly called a “pack of lies”

Taking the following phrase

“At the moment, prices are so low that these projects only happen if government is willing to fund particular initiatives. “

So, are we paying too little for water?

I refer you to http://www.bracksed.com/articles/2006/09/23-1950-6144.html

“Bracks went back to the old annual increase and then jacked up dividends from water from $265 million last year to a forecast $304 million this year in the May budget. They have now increased it again for 2002-03 by an unspecified amount in the latest budget update. Ripping almost $400 million in profits out of water industry"

And

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20803191-601,00.html

"They are paying massive dividends and tax payments to their state and local government owners.
"I have no objections to water companies making profits or indeed paying dividends, but I do object to the state government owners of these water companies managing them for cash, restraining demand through restrictions so that expensive investment in new water supplies can be postponed.''

What is the source of the dividends which were misappropriated form the Victorian state owned water companies – it was the excess of rates charged to metropolitan users over the costs of supplying them with water.

Where did the money come form – well iut was the money set aside by depreciation charges which was not reinvested into water management assets.

How could this be if we are paying too little for water?

I have worked in commerce for 40 years. My understanding of the commercial cycle tells me, if a company is paying dividends, according to the accounting standards, a company must have retained earnings and some form of positive cash flow.

In common terms is a cash-cow.

What a perversion of morality and common sense is it that submits water companies to being raped by state governments of their financial resilience through special dividends and at the same time it is claimed we are paying too little for water?
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 30 November 2006 9:25:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SBS had a show, I think it was called 'Liquid Gold'.

Basically it was about how the belief was that the private sector could produce safe drinking water for the worlds poor.

It involved the private sector building and controlling a water supply system and then profiting from the proceeds.

In Australia water is a public assest, not a private business.

The SBS show, showed the failure of privatising H20.

Privatising H2O would be like suddenly putting tolls along the hume and princess highways, the money goes straight into the pockets of Australia's rich and elite.

Goods, especally food suddenly become more expensive, if we are lucky wages increase to meet the new prices and a spiral of inflation occurs.

Basically it is legalising 'Highway robbery' as the worlds elite think of new and inventive ways making money from the public purse. Some State governments have failed dismally in protecting it's citizens from exploitation by Australia's rich and influential people.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 30 November 2006 9:26:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure, waterboards should have invested dividends back into infrastructure, and not have it hidden in general revenue, but whether the government gets their money from GST, stamp duty or any other source, we all pay for what we use in the end, directly or indirectly to pay for hospitals, schools, roads etc that we all want. We all vote for the government that we feel gives us the most, so the money has to come from somewhere. It's just that all governments like to manipulate the tax system so that it appears that they are giving us something for nothing. There's no free lunch.
Posted by snake, Thursday, 30 November 2006 10:45:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm Turnbull’s “solution” is just another attempt to take our eye of the fact that Australian politicians have been grossly incompetent, acting like thieves in taking money from water authorities to help their credit ratings instead of putting it back into infrastructure, and sitting on their padded bums because drought - nothing new in Australia – has generally hit only a small percentage of the population. The same old election-to-election mentality rules, with each of the major political no-hopers keeping their fingers crossed that it will be the other side that gets caught. Unfortunately for all of them, the federal Coalition looks bad, and the state Labor governments have been caught out too. All of the bastards should pay. Now that all Australians are affected, maybe they will be made to pay at the polls. It’s a good chance to get rid of the rusted on career politicians and replace them with people with brains and loyalty to Australia and the people.

Water might be too cheap, but it is absurd to up the price when there is little to be had. And the deadhead politicians of all colours have had plenty of time to store water – rainwater in good years, water running out to sea, storm water, sea water desalination and many other ways.

But no. They have been too stupidly self-interested to do that, and cities like Adelaide have only 30% of the storage capacity needed. Without the River Murray, Adelaide would become a ghost town.

Price, like every other whacko idea coming from the real villains of the uncessarry water crises, is just another bleat to keep the heat of them.

Let’s not allow them get away with it any more. If they did increase the price, they would bandicoot the extra money in the same way they do now, continuing to sit on their bums, making little old pensioners hand water one of the few pleasures they have left, in the middle of the night, with a bucket!
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 30 November 2006 10:57:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The price of water should definately go up as there becomes less and less. This will provide incentives for everyone to use less water. Of course because water is so cheap now, it would have to go up quite significantly. The price could for example be based on remaining dam capacity. So if it was full the price could be at a low price while near empty it could be much higher.

For example, I know you can get a 5600l tank for about $500. This tank full of water would probably hold about $5 worth of water. From this it would take about 100 fills to make it pay for itself. The payback period of the tank would be several decades at least at the most optimistic circumstances. A tank allows you to manage your own water supply though. The other thing about tanks is that they scale as the community grows (if everyone puts in a tank).

One final point. Do you want to leave the supply of water to people who have proven that they are incapable of managing the supply of water?
Posted by geoff_, Thursday, 30 November 2006 11:53:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy