Pet bonds do not provide equitable access for everyone

Research by the University of South Australia into the impact of tenancy laws identified that pet bonds fail to remove the barrier to housing for vulnerable members of society with lower incomes.

Many tenant advocacy groups are against the concept of a pet bond as it increases the upfront cost of entering leases which places a greater burden upon those that can least afford it. This is of particular significance to victims of domestic violence. It can also be argued that the potential damage from an animal is arguably already covered under the initial bond.

If tenants are required to pay an additional pet bond, this may push previously achievable housing out of reach.

While a pet bond may provide one potential solution to allowing tenants to keep their beloved pets, it is not a silver bullet. If this policy is to be implemented, then measures must be taken to ensure that the negative effects upon lower income and vulnerable Tasmanians are managed.

Jan Davis, Perth

MOST of us have lists of the goals or targets we aspire to achieve, whether these are in five years, one year, or even daily. We know we might not manage to tick them all off, but the aim is always there. Just having them tends to concentrate the mind and help keep us on track. Governments need targets too, as occurred in 2015 when 196 countries signed off on a climate agreement in Paris. One of those countries was Australia. They all committed to achieving targets that would see global emissions reduced to net zero by 2030. It was a roadmap that involved targets and goals, and allowed industries, businesses and developers to have the confidence to invest in and expand renewable energy projects considered crucial to achieve those targets. Liberal leader Peter Dutton now appears prepared to jeopardise these goals. By refusing to adhere to such targets should he win next year's election he appears willing to put at risk Australia's international reputation. He also risks our economic future as a reputable and reliable country in which to invest and do business. Mr Dutton's answer to how a Coalition government aims to achieve the reduction in emissions that are crucial in maintaining climate stability is resurrecting the nuclear energy idea. Nuclear energy remains divisive for very good reasons. It's socially divisive, incredibly costly and the facilities would take decades to build. That's time we simply don't have. There is also the matter of their significant water usage and the still unresolved disposal of nuclear waste. With no targets, a decision that seriously risks Australia's economic and environmental future, and an extremely risky alternate 'plan'. Why would any Australian voter concerned for the future of their children, grandchildren or the future of the planet vote for him or the Liberal Party?

Anne Layton-Bennett, Swan Bay

HOW very splendid was it to read about our Queen Mary of Denmark remaining true to her roots photographed recently wearing a fabulous floral dress by an Australian Fashion designer-sister duo Nicky & Simone Zimmermann.

And just last week while shopping in Launceston city I spotted a Tasmanian blended tea especially named in her honour. Great to see small businesses and people with vision, individuals stepping up.

Bruce Webb, Launceston

I WOULD like an explanation of why the Government is looking for a new site for the Ashley Youth Detention Centre when it's the administration that is outmoded. In these times of austerity cuts I don't understand why the current centre can't be updated, renovated and extended on its current site. All the money proposed to be spent on a new centre could then be profitably ploughed into programmes and practices that would benefit the youth who find themselves there.

When I last went past it there appeared to be ample excess land at the current site to come up with some really innovative and progressive alterations; room even for a basketball court or gymnasium. Am I missing something really obvious or is it the intellectual capacity of our government that is to be questioned? I won't even go into their apparent enthusiasm to spend millions on a building for games.

Louise James, West Launceston