Bill frustration
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I share Andrew McPherson’s frustration in attempting to have his electricity account amended to show the true cost of the current carbon tax, rather than a politically fabricated and exaggerated estimate (BDN, 26/7).
“We’re committed to managing the impact of the carbon price on customer bills fairly, with care and in compliance with the law, using a bundled price that incorporates the increased cost of energy,” exclaimed the indignant, but anonymous tape recording from Origin Energy, speaking in tongues.
Could this be the same company whose idea of fairness is to permit its wholly-owned subsidiary, Country Energy, to charge its customers in Cooma, Narooma, Batemans Bay, Griffith, Dubbo, Tamworth and Bega 32 per cent more for electricity than its parent charges our country cousins in Nowra, Wollongong, Goulburn, Bowral and Orange?
Once upon a time, the State Government-owned electricity sector existed to provide an “essential service”.
Successive governments of all persuasions betrayed taxpayers by converting that service into a major extortion racket, whereby its private sector licensees now gouge such gigantic profits from the franchise that they can afford to pay the NSW Government a dividend in excess of $1billion annually, or nearly $150 for every man, woman and child in the state.
To help keep consumers confused and their con running smoothly, our politicians created a faux consumer protection agency called EWON, on whose board conveniently sits representatives of the electricity providers.
They also created an “independent” pricing regulator called IPART, whose job it is to justify every price increase that the industry asks for, while allowing the politicians to claim that they aren’t responsible.
And consumers aren’t even promises steak knives anymore.
John Richardson
Wallagoot
Ironic timing
How ironic that in the same edition of the BDN there is a feature on National Tree Day, noting how the planting and caring for native trees and shrubs improves the environment in which we live, in total antithesis there is also an article titled "Littleton gum trees to get the chop" (26/7).
The BVSC does not seem to be on the same page.
How many years behind are they?
Who was the professional arborist that advised that two trees “presented considerable safety and risk concerns”?
It is bad enough that our greatest assets - the native forests - are at constant risk, but to then denude our civic areas is totally perplexing.
Even if advanced five-metre trees are planted as replacements, it will be 30 years before the amenity is restored.
No chance for me to enjoy as I'll be gone by then.
Perhaps there is another town in the Bega Valley that can become an amenity-rich commercial centre.
Karen O'Clery
Tanja
Risk rubbish
The gum trees in Littleton Gardens are well established and provide fantastic shade and amenity in the area.
The council's proposal to cut them down because of the risk they pose is utter rubbish.
The risk can also be ameliorated by simply viewing the trees from time to time and cutting off those limbs that are of concern.
The council also has a number of larger trees at the front of the council chambers.
If the trees in Littleton Gardens are hazardous, why not also the trees in front of the council?
Large well-established trees are what our parks and gardens need.
Instead we have a council that is so obsessed with red tape and risk aversion that it will undermine the beauty and amenity of the Bega township in order to satisfy its own needs.
Far better to cut back on the waste and mismanagement within this council than remove much-needed trees in Littleton Gardens.
Adam Bonner
Brogo
Pave paradise
The magnificent, mature eucalypt trees in Littleton Gardens are the living, breathing heart of our town and one of the most appealing things about the centre of our town.
They speak to us of our history, our natural resources and the value of beauty.
They embody dignity and serenity.
Birds flock to them, citizens dream in their shade, children clamber on their flanks.
The council will destroy these giants under the banner of “public safety”, but most have been assessed as only being half way through their expected safe lifespan.
The majority of reasons, gleaned from the council's report, suggest they are to be removed in favour of undisturbed kerbs and gutters, green lawn and avoiding the problem of dropping bark and gumnuts.
But it's ok.
They will be replaced with exotic deciduous trees that will spend their winters looking as cheerful as skeletons, drop fruit that is a trip hazard and are described as being steadily superceded by superior ornamental pears by horticulturalists.
Did I mention they struggle in warm conditions and compacted soils?
This was never part of the original plan for our gardens - the plan the community was consulted on.
Don't it always seem to go, that we won't know what we've lost till it's gone.
Jo Dodds
Bega
Valuable assets
How ironic it is that the council’s decision to remove the large gum trees in Littleton Gardens is announced in the BDN National Tree Day edition (BDN, 26/7).
Once again the council would prefer to liquidate valuable community assets rather than maintain them in a timely and responsible manner.
Despite ratepayers’ and residents’ wishes to retain the trees – expressed during the “consultation” process – and despite Ted Dexter’s plan specifying retention of these trees, someone at the council wants them gone.
Why?
We all pay rates so that community assets are correctly and promptly maintained and improved.
Career bureaucrats don’t get gold stars for maintaining existing assets well.
They get gold stars for knocking down and rebuilding major projects regardless of necessity.
Ratepayers should not be paying for building the CVs of council bureaucrats.
Nor should our asset base be degraded in the name of “progress”.
It’s time for councillors to wake up to the importance of following due process in policy development, and directing the general manager according to the interests and values of ratepayers and residents
Save our trees.
Judy Geary
Bega
Shameful proposal
I have just learned of the fate of those majestic Sydney blue gums that have been a drawcard of the Littleton Gardens for as long as I have been a resident of the Bega Valley, over 20 years.
In all that time they have never posed a problem.
Ringing the council and talking with Andrew Slater informed me that SCPA brought the possibility of falling limbs to the attention to the council, while the markets were operating on a very windy day.
He further told me that not many people visited the gardens in part due to this risk.
Due to litigation, the council deemed it fit to have these removed, and of course with the Littleton Square plan being accepted by the majority of interested people, those trees would be replaced others.
(Funny, Googling Manchurian pears, on the Gardening Australia website it states in the opening paragraph “The tree has inherent branch weaknesses, which means that it can fall apart and in a home garden that’s a considerable safety problem”).
Back to the trees, I don’t know when they were planted, but they are a part of Bega’s unique history, provide a function of shade and habitat, are a beautiful aesthetic, and to me, stand tall as the protectors of this community space.
It is going to be a shame if the council go through with this, and shame on those who agreed to this proposal!
I hope people will voice their opposition to stop this wrong direction; nothing is set in concrete.
Dona Eaton
Lochiel
Road’s real killers
Thanks for the informative story, “Animal hazard for local drivers” (BDN, 23/6).
Based on the amount of road-kill on Sapphire Coast Drive, the headline should have read, “Driver hazard for local animals”.
Doug Reckord
Kalaru
Respite respect
I have been spending the last three weeks in respite at Casuarina Hostel in Bega, having had previously a week in a Sydney hospital.
This hostel would, I am sure, surpass anything Club Med is renowned for!
It is run by a very dedicated and caring staff, who not only treat us with respect, but also show a personal kindness to us all.
Each bedroom with ensuite is spacious and attractively furnished, with room heating that is perfect for one’s comfort.
The meals are always varied and enjoyable, while one has a picturesque view of the surrounding countryside and Mumbulla Mountain, seen from the dining room windows.
What more could one wish for, be it a short stay of longer period of time and I feel very privileged and happy to be part of the scene.
Kath Dunham
Tathra
Predictable response
Predictably, the local Greens faction was in full swing with yet another coordinated letter writing campaign (BDN 26/7) against the very sensible renewable energy solution advocated by EPA chairman Barry Buffier.
It was another showcase of Green spin with emotive language such as “industrial scale logging”, “dead koala power”, “cashing out nature”, “destruction of NSW citizens’ rights”, “assault on the forests”, “clear felling”, “government corruption”.
All the usual suspects are there, peddling erroneous claims and ignoring the facts in what can only be seen as an attempt to sway public opinion and shore up the ongoing desertion of Greens voters and the party’s flagging popularity, because it certainly isn't in the interest of forest health.
For 40,000 years man managed Australia’s forests and in just over 200 years they have become sick as trees compete for nutrients in overgrown, wildfire-prone scrub.
Love the sound of bellbirds? They’re feeding on the parasites invading unhealthy trees, so what you’re actually hearing is sick forest.
Many of the healthiest trees are found in logging regrowth and areas that have been industrial thinned.
Previously logged forests in Tasmania were last year identified by environmental groups as “high conservation value” in a prime example of effective forest management carried out by those trained in forest welfare.
Yet our local Greens letter writers would have us believe locking it up and denying effective forest management, and the jobs generated from it, is the best solution.
It’s tantamount to refusing medical help on religious grounds.
If we opened more state forest and national parks to effective management, we might see a restoration of our once great forests, less concentration of timber harvesting in ever-decreasing areas, a strong and profitable Australian timber industry and by-products such as biomass energy to reduce our reliance on brown coal power stations.
Justin Law
Bermagui
Woodchip anomaly
I am the last person who would want to give Eden chip mill general manager Peter Mitchell advice on how to expand his business.
However, Mr Mitchell’s claim (BDN, 26/7) that conservationist fears about the impacts of the proposed change to NSW regulations on burning native forest wood for electricity generation are a “conspiracy theory” and a “furphy” is wrong.
Mr Mitchell has given some reasons (ie cost) why his company would not be interested in collecting debris from the forest floor after logging, but he knows and I know the new draft regulation does not stop there.
The draft regulation published by the Environment Protection Authority would allow energy generation to augment or even replace the woodchipping industry.
It would enable 95 per cent of the wood felled in the Eden region, including whole trees, to be burned.
The executive director of the NSW Forest Products Association, Russ Ainley, has let the cat out of the bag by saying that “the change just fixes an anomaly and [provides] an alternative market for woodchip exports”.
You may not believe me, Mr Mitchell, but you perhaps you will believe Russ Ainley.
Harriett Swift
Bega