Canberra's lost sporting facilities: Part 2

The cost of water argument in my view is not unreasonable. The two tiered structure means that the cost nearly doubles after you use 50kL per 90 days. For a household this could be ok but for a business (especially a water intensive one) 50kL is nothing. $5 for every 1000 litres is the highest water price in the country.

I agree with Charlie, the Water charges are an issue especially for the not for profit sporting groups which are the vast majority of affected cases.

The ACT Government has often waived fess and taxes to property Developers to encourage new building and also gives many grants to various ‘for profit’ business, transport and property groups.

I don’t understand why the Government thinks that hitting sporting clubs and removing sporting grounds and facilities, is a good way to promote healthier lifestyles for the Canberra public.

Fair enough BJ and Charlie.

So I would assume you both would be happy to either:
– pay additional taxes/revenues/rates to Government, if direct subsidies were provided to such groups?
– pay higher water prices for domestic use (say $6 or $7 a litre for the top tier), so to subsidise the rate paid by those community groups.

That’s the end game of providing water to them at lower costs.

As I said, I’m not against government assistance where these groups have taken all reasonable steps to reduce their reliance on potable water – but many have not even attempted to take those steps….. prove that and a reasonable case can be established for support, where all reasonable attempts have been made to reduce as far as possible potable water use.

But tied to that, in my opinions if Clubs and everyone else wants Government subsidies to support their costs, then they should ensure facilities are available to all, when not being used for their core activity. This comment is not aimed at obvious areas where that isn’t easily possible (like Golf Clubs for instance), but sporting groups that want government support for their facilities (such as enclosed ovals), but then want to restrict community access to their facilities when they are not being used. If the community is expected to support their provision of such facilities, a reasonable right of access should be provided in a proper two way street arrangement.

My response to your comment is to give the struggling youth based sporting clubs a subsidy or charge dispensation ahead of public money to property developers or businesses. Then it will be revenue neutral to me and you as a taxpayer.

I agree with you on opening up access to these facilities (and I never said otherwise). I don’t agree however with your thoughts of Charlie, you or I paying extra taxes instead of cutting back subsidies for property developers.

I want a Government who taxes and spends wisely to benefit the health, wellbeing and amenity for the majority of Canberrans, not just the people who help them win elections.

I dont agree with the premise of your argument. I dont think that Icon should get any more money in total, The problem at the moment is that the fixed charge is far, far too low and the charges based on actual usage are too high. There needs to be some sort of shift towards higher standing charges because the money is in the pipes. It is also unfair that their Tier break where it doubles in price for every customer in the ACT is based on only 50kl per 90 days.

Charlie – the ICRC did substantial work just last year to review the tariff structure, and had a draft proposal to do exactly what you suggested (A much higher fixed tariff and lower volumetric tariffs) and certain segments of the community screamed and squealed . Hence it went off the table – it is not a viable approach in at least the short to medium term (though the fixed fee is being increased somewhat over the next few years but not nearly enough to make significant differences to volumetric prices).

In the absence of that approach being accepted as a viable mechanism, if you decide to significantly reduce the volumetric rates for large volumetric water users, then invariably the rest of the users will pay for it through higher prices in some form (most likely higher volumetric charges). I never suggested Icon Water would get more revenue – its simply how the regulatory model works in the ACT.

BJ:
.”I don’t agree however with your thoughts of Charlie, you or I paying extra taxes instead of cutting back subsidies for property developers.
I want a Government who taxes and spends wisely to benefit the health, wellbeing and amenity for the majority of Canberrans, not just the people who help them win elections.”

Your comment goes far beyond my point – I don’t disagree with your suggestion that spending less in some other areas may be preferable. But I wasn’t making judgment in any form of where money is currently spent or not spent – more that is ultimately what governments invariably do in such circumstances… i.e. where they spend more they make up for it with more revenue from somewhere. And we all know what their favourite mechanisms are at the moment.