Labor
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
TONY Griggs (Letters, July 3) suggests that recently announced ALP Bass candidate Ross Hart would not understand "the electorates day to day needs".
Given that Mr Hart was educated in Launceston and has lived and worked here for decades (including senior roles in several local organisations), I expect he is quite familiar with the Northern Tasmanian community.
— CHARLES GREGORY, Lenah Valley.
Marriage
I TOTALLY agree with B.A.Ellis (The Examiner, July 4), I am sure most people don’t begrudge same-sex couples wanting to be recognized but choose their own word for it and fight for it to be legalised that way. Leave marriage out of it.
— D. MARSHALL, Summerhill.
Q&A
I WAS under the impression that we lived in a country where we had freedom of speech.
However, it seems that this does not apply to members of Team Australia.
The Captain is banning his Ministers from appearing on the ABC's Q&A.
Is this a Team of One and if so how does this play out with our notion of free speech?
I wonder if Malcolm Turnbull will have the courage to go against the Captain.
— GLENNIS SLEURINK, Launceston.
Faith
ONE MAY disagree with Claire van Ryn's views as expressed in her Keeping the Faith columns, but she is always respectful of the views of others.
Regrettably this cannot be said of Peter Lloyd's personal attack on her (The Examiner, July 2), with gratuitous references to "black people at the back of the bus" and "okay for heterosexual couples to breed like rabbits".
What?
As the old song says: "You gotta show respect."
— E. M. SMITH, Launceston.
Barnaby
ONE CAN always rely on good old Barnaby Joyce to make some kind of statement that has no real thought process involved at all.
His latest that gay marriage will mark us down as decadent in Asia.
Is his latest offering overlooking the fact that even gay people live in Asia too?
Then what about the world’s biggest trader, the US?
What will happen there, no more US-Asia trade?
As if.
— PETER M. TAYLOR, Midway Point.
Teachers
TEACHERS face jail for reporting suspicions of abuse to children in detention under the Border Force Act that took effect from July 1.
The Act provides criminal penalties, including jail terms of up to two years, for employees who make public the details of conditions in detention centres.
It is mandatory that teachers report such suspicions in all Australian states or they face penalties including the termination of their employment.
The Australian Government is demanding that teachers leave their ethical and mainland legal responsibilities behind when they enter detention centres.
It is simply unconscionable that this is occurring.
— TERRY POLGLASE, Australian Education Union Tasmania Branch president.
Amalgamation
IN HIS letter (The Examiner, July 5) Bill Carney agrees that resource sharing by local councils is a "pretty good idea".
Unfortunately, Mr Carney fails to elaborate on what he means.
Many who argue against amalgamation but are in favour of resource sharing, fail to realise that both can achieve the same end.
Amalgamation means getting rid of many overpaid councillors who get in the way of regional progress.
Maybe it is time for the Local Government Association of Tasmania to explain to us all what resources it advises local councils to share.
— BILL CHUGG, Campbell Town.
LGH
I SYMPATHIZE with Peter Fleming’s frustrations (Letters, June 27) but I can’t agree with the opinions and assumptions in his letter.
Fifteen years was long enough for Labor to build a strong state and viable health system and much of that in the time of successive Federal Budget surplus.
I said to Michael Ferguson, then Federal Member for Bass, that we would always be up against it in Tasmania while opposing parties occupied state and federal governments but I was wrong in the light of our recent past experience of state-federal Labor government.
Put an end to the blame game for good with lasting policy agreements and reforms that meet funding needs and future change.
— DAVID BRIMBLE, Scottsdale.
Marriage act
THE argument against same-sex marriage presented by B.A. Ellis (Letters, July 4) was lacking logic to the point of practically being meaningless.
It would serve B.A. Ellis well to actually acquaint themselves with the Marriage Act.
They would then see it has nothing to do with enabling couples to have children.
In fact, no one needs to be married to have children.
What the Marriage Act does do is give government recognition to a relationship between two consenting adults and that then bestows particular legal entitlements.
Same gender couples are simply seeking that same state recognition and legal entitlements under the Marriage Act, which is easily achieved by simple legislative amendment.
Nobody is ‘taking’ marriage; the legal definition needs a small change to make it more inclusive.
As to B.A. Ellis’ claim that the ‘gay lobby’ (whatever that is) has ‘taken’ particular words is absurd and ignores how language evolves.
Next B.A. Ellis will be saying it is the fault of that ephemeral ‘gay lobby’ for words such as ‘cool’ and ‘wicked’ gaining new meanings.
— GEOFF McLEAN, Launceston.
AFL
WHAT a great gesture by the Geelong Football Club.
Despite the sure knowledge that every point will be crucial to their premiership aspirations, they agreed to a draw and only two premiership points in their scheduled match against the grieving Adelaide Crows after the tragic death of Phil Walsh.
After the seemingly endless flow of stories of drug taking and bad behaviour, this act of decency deserves recognition.
It beats the cliche ridden spin we have come to associate with football clubs and I am sure will do wonders for their membership.
The Adelaide Football Club will always appreciate this demonstration of sportsmanship and, while it may not be enough to let Dangerfield go, it will not be forgotten by them or the wider footy community.
— ROD FENNER, Launceston.
Parents
A SLAP to a disobedient child.
I hope the government are patting themselves on the back now that they have fined another parent for doing what they should be allowed to bring their child into line.
What would have happened if 500 yahoos had turned up at this Facebook invite party with carloads of booze and caused a riot?
The parents would have been held responsible for all the damage that they had nothing to do with because their offspring is allowed, by government protection, to thumb their nose at the authority of their parents.
Where is this world heading?
Police are powerless, parents have lost all control over their families and then they turn around and say why didn't you control your children.
Give parents back the right to chastise their out of control brats.
We of the baby boomer generation never turned out like the kids of the generations following since the abolition of parental control.
— D.PITHAM, Beauty Point.
Marriage and free speech
THE recent comments of Rodney Croome and other activists about the Catholic Church’s right to distribute a booklet on their teaching on marriage in their own Catholic schools constitute a fundamental attack on the freedom of speech of all Tasmanians.
Australia is a country that prides itself on giving everyone a fair go, that lets everyone have their say.
We do not tell people what they can and can’t read and listen to.
All the Catholic Church has done is offer a booklet outlining their position on marriage to parents who have children in their schools.
No one has been forced to read the booklet, it has simply been offered.
The booklet was directed to parents and not students.
Yet the Catholic Church and indeed any church has the right to not only inform parents and students in their schools of the church’s teachings on social and moral issues, but indeed a duty to do so.
In choosing to send their child to a religious school, parents are accepting the fact that schools will teach the tenets of their faith.
Indeed this is the point of religious schools.
How have we come to a situation where individuals are complaining about Catholic schools promoting Catholic teaching?
Isn’t this the point of Catholic schools?
It is perplexing that those who are some of the greatest advocates of tolerance are now intolerant of any view apart from their own.
— MICHAEL POLLEY, Former Speaker of the House of Assembly.