they should have never had 1st home or baby bonus.

both distort the natural market, govt intervention invariably proves to be counter productive

mellie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 10:23am:


Notwithstanding that I personally wouldn't go back to nappies and night feeds now that my kids are adolescents (and noting that your kids are about the same age as mine), I would suggest that you look into the option of a swim-spa instead of a pool.

I know it isn't environmentally-friendly (I have ongoing guilt) but my parents donated a hydrotherapy swim-spa for my son who has Spastic Cerebral Palsy. That was 5 years ago but it doesn't seem like it.

It is soooo much more practical than a pool (size, chemicals, heating, covering, cleaning) and it can be instantly craned in and out.

Ours was craned over our two-storey roof and slid under our outdoor covered patio in about half an hour - and switched on by the electrician a couple of hours later. By evening, it was filled and fully operational.

It has an ozone filter thingy and with the Nature 2 stick it only requires 1-2 washing detergent scoops of dry chemicals each time you use it.

They can either be free-standing (as our is) or in-built.  Ours is positioned about 0.5M from the kitchen window - so I can supervise easily and pass refreshments out the window to the kids.

It is like the best possible combination of pool and spa - it has about 48 jets with standing room in one half and a ramp up to 6 seats (of varying height) at the other end. It also has inbuilt coloured lighting and an aromatherapy infuser thingy.

Unfortunately, the comfortable swimming temp is 29.5-31.5C - which is a little unpleasant for those of us who would prefer to use it as a spa. 

With the cover on, it holds the heat fairly well and can heat up in a couple of hours in summer but it requires overnight heating to get to a comfortable temperature in winter (and it will drop 0.5-1C an hour once the cover is off).  When it is going to be in use, we tend to turn the temperature up on Friday evenings and down again on Saturday night or Sunday (except in school holidays - obviously).

We have friends who have an outdoor pool - which is only pleasant to use about 4 months a year but requires some degree of active upkeep and consumes bucketloads of chemicals pretty much year-round.

By contrast, our swim-spa can be used at any time of year and requires much smaller quantities of chemicals and hardly any maintenance at all.  The kids use ours throughout winter - and because it is under cover they're not shivering cold when they get out.

Admittedly, the spa chemicals are expensive to buy but the quality and ease of use is well worth it.  Also, with a double-dose the chlorine sanitiser we can put the lid on and forget about it for weeks at a time because of the Nature 2 stick and ozone filter thingy.

Seriously, if you can afford a swim-spa, I'd suggest that you consider getting one instead of a pool.  I guarantee you that it will get more use than a pool and is far less of a hassle. Oh, and if it becomes a hassle for any reason, you can simply crane it out again and sell it! You can also take it with you if you move - on previous estimates, the crane it will cost $1,000 to $1,500 to remove and replace elsewhere.

BTW, ours holds 5,500 litres water and weighs about 6.5 tons when full and therefore it requires a solid base to prevent warping and cracking - preferably of driveway-grade concrete.  You may also find that you would need an electricity box upgrade - possibly to 3-phase (unless you have solar or gas hot water).

On the plus side, spas use much less water than pools (and the cover limits evaporation). Councils also tend to be less obsessive about water restrictions for re-filling spas than they do about pools.

Anyway, I reckon that a swim-spa is worth considering as a pool alternative - especially since you have a child with special needs!

Bobby. wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 10:31am:


True, but 40 degrees outside rarely means 40 degrees inside - especially not in a new and well-insulated home such as Android had in Melbourne!

Moreover, it is both inappropriate and environmentally irresponsible to heat or cool a home outside the range of normal 'room temperature'. 

In most houses and on most summer days, good ventilation and ceiling fans will suffice to maintain a comfortable room and body temperature - perhaps supplemented by personal fans and/or wet cloths. 

Aircon should be used only on the hottest of days and nights and only then to moderate the temperature - never to create cool to cold conditions.

Similarly, it is not appropriate to heat a house in winter to the point where the occupants can strip down to a single layer of long-sleeved clothing - and certainly not short sleeves or pants!

Temperature moderation is acceptable - but unnatural extremes for the season (and body) can and should be avoided...

Equitist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 10:09am:


And despite being an actual MOTHER yourself you make what is - even by your standards - a stupid and thoroughly irresponsible statement.

Equitist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 11:35am:


sounds liek someone who cant afford heating and cooling.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 11:48am:


Nah, I prefer to heat the swim-spa instead...

Seriously, tho', I personally don't much care for airconditioning - and I actually prefer fans in summer...

Even in the car, I rarely use the A/C because I find it unpleasant...

Equitist wrote on Jan 29^th, 2011 at 11:50am:


I have a normal spa myself which is awesome, but I find it ironic that you can have what is an extremely expensive item that the average family could not afford. It seems your standards and ethics can be 'bought' by personal need. Not saying you are wrong to have it. You clearly need it for your son. But a little more tolerance for those who have expensive items - like air conitioning - for THEIR reasons would be appropriate. and perhaps remembering that the people who pay for virtually your entire existence wouldnt mind a little less abuse.