DEFENCE Minister David Johnston’s $300 a head for a meal amounts to approximately one month’s groceries for a pensioner.

— KEN WHEELER, St Helens.

University

I WISH somebody would write and explain the radical proposed changes to Tasmania’s University Education sector (my beloved university) that have appeared suddenly, seemingly from nowhere.

In simple language, that a mere Bachelor of Arts can comprehend, please.

I thought I would do some research, so consulted Hobsons ”The Good Universities Guide 2015.

UTAS gets five stars (the top) for: research intensivity, socioeconomic equity and student retention.

It gets four stars for: student demand, research grants, teaching quality and staff-student ratios.

With all this going for it, why are we even contemplating change for change sake?

— MALCOLM SCOTT, Newstead.

Business owners

MOVING to live in Tasmania again, and purchasing what was a seasonal business, we would like to make comment on the genuine feeling of support and guidance we have received from local suppliers, service providers and customers.

We hit the ground running and were assisted by the good nature and sharing of contacts and knowledge of local networks and businesses, we are very grateful for this support during our start up.

— ALLAN AND MEGAN LOURIE, Ben Lomond Alpine Hotel.

Amalgamations

IT'S disappointing to see the negativity being portrayed around amalgamations.

There is a need for the local government sector to be as fiscally responsible as the state and federal government.

The fact that so many of our local governments are running on continual deficits that haven't been adequately addressed is alarming.

The local government sector shouldn't be a continual burden on the nation's bank account.

Amalgamations are a viable solution to look at larger-scale operations and efficiencies in service delivery.

Not only this, but it would serve to prevent constituents living in Launceston from gaining different access to vital services like garbage collection.

The idea of mergers isn't a "grab for power and dominance" (Letters, December 6).

Rather it's a chance for individuals to live and work in one local government electorate, have the same services as the person just down the street, and have a local government that isn't draining funds away from our economy.

— JOEY CRAWFORD, Launceston.

Amalgamations

THE letter from Teresa Healy (Examiner, December 6) on council amalgamations was spot on.

Nowhere in Australia have amalgamations ever resulted in reduced rates, so why should Tasmania be any different.

For example, if the Tamar Valley councils were merged, all we will notice will be reduced representation, reduced services and loss of local identity unless we live in Launceston.

Following forced amalgamations in Queensland a few years ago, four Sunshine Coast councils have just de-amalgamated for exactly these reasons.

The push for council mergers is only coming from sections of government, large city councils such as Hobart and Launceston, plus vested interest business groups.

There is little call for mergers outside of these groups - perhaps the average non city ratepayer realises they would be no better off but will certainly pay more.

However, the large and relatively inefficient city councils need to take a hard look at their motives.

Perhaps the LCC only want to take over the higher rating suburbs of Prospect and Riverside to prop up their own financial position having made poor business decisions such as Launceston Aquatic.

Interestingly both Meander Valley and West Tamar councils are financially sustainable and relatively efficient in their present form.

Local Government is the level of government closest to the people and change, if it is indeed necessary, should only come from within and never be imposed by a higher level of government.

— JANINE HOWARD, Riverside.

Duck Reach

MAY I suggest the $30 million earmarked for transfer from the Hydro to Forestry Tasmania be used to re-establish Duck Reach as a working power generator.

This would have multiple advantages.

Firstly, it would provide employment, especially if it were set up as a tourist venture.

Considering the historical significance of the site, it could incorporate a Hydro museum.

There must be tons of old Hydro stuff about that could be displayed.

Secondly, it would feed power into the grid.

Thirdly, it would increase the flow of water through the lower reaches of the South Esk, thereby increasing the attractiveness of this section and the flushing of the silt from the Tamar.

Win, win, win.

Surely, this is a better use of taxpayers money.

— DAVID BOARDER, Launceston.

Father Xmas

WHAT next? Firstly we had some lady telling us not to buy gender orientated toys for Xmas as it will lead to domestic violence, now we are being told not to let children to sit on Father Christmas's knees.

t that the said gentleman won't, apparently, be seen in the streets of Launceston distributing largesse and joy and it seems there are some people who just don't want us to be joyful at this festive season.

It really is political correctness gone to the pot and a little bit of meanness added.

— GLENNIS SLEURINK, Launceston.

Speak up to act

POLITICIANS and developers love describing National Parks and World Heritage Areas as ‘‘locked up’’.

I can go into any of these areas, but there are many ‘‘developed’’ areas where I would be excluded as a trespasser.

The reality is that less than 1 per cent of marine areas for instance are protected.

People power nonetheless can prevent more incursions into previously protected areas.

For instance, more than 675,000 supporters demanded protection from oil drilling in Africa’s oldest national park, Virunga.

Total later pledged to stop exploring for oil there, and in any other World Heritage site globally.

The moral of this is, don’t imagine that one voice will have no impact.

There are thousands of other ‘‘one voices’’ out there that will save these areas.

Don’t be afraid to speak out.

— BILL CARNEY, Riverside.

Taxpayers

THE government constantly complains that we can't afford our public service and savings must be made.

Yet whilst they are cutting our teaching workforce for example, they are happy to pour taxpayer money, some $30 million into Forestry Tasmania.

It seems that education appeals less to the government than logging trees.

For many Tasmanians, forestry has achieved sacred cow status, it must be funded by government regardless of the fact that it has no economic future.

If it did have a future, then why did Gunns go bankrupt? And why doesn't business support it?

Today big entrepreneurs are not queuing up to invest in Tasmanian forestry.

So the solution for the government is that taxpayer funding will need to be used instead.

I don't remember that being a Liberal promise at the last election.

I don't have a problem with government support for industrial growth, but surely it makes sense to do so in areas of real economic potential such as tourism, particularly where they could be linked to major issues of concern, such as youth unemployment in the Launceston region.

Industry is entitled to community support if it is economically sound.

But if that is not the case as eventually happened with the textile industry in Launceston, then those enterprises need to give way to others with better prospects.

Turning failed industries into sacred cows, which must be supported by the taxpayer at all costs is doomed to fail.

Perhaps this is a case where the state Liberals should heed the advice of their federal counterparts.

— JOHN PERKINS, Riverside.