WHERE does Sue Hickey get the idea that she would be well placed in a ministerial position? Why does she call Will Hodgman's leadership weak? Where did Sue Hickey have a leadership role as that of a minister?

Firstly, Ms Hickey needs to show that she can be trusted, and to this time I have seen no sign of that.

Secondly, I would say Hodgman's decision not to give her a ministry is a sign of strong leadership, not weakening to a whining, troublesome Speaker. In a TV interview, she said she had been a leader? Where?

A mayoral position is not a leadership role, but a position for ceremonial and a chair for council meetings.

There is a vast difference in being a mayor, and being a minister of a portfolio in state governance. Ms Hickey would not only serve Tasmanians well but also herself, and disappear from politics altogether.

The self-belief and arrogance of a junior member of a political party is unbelievable.

I WISH Speaker Sue Hickey would note the following: "A champion team will always defeat a team of champions".

MICHAEL has done a fantastic job as health minister, the most difficult portfolio, over a number of years. The consistent attacks by Labor and the Greens is a disgrace.

They and the speaker who allowed the no-confidence motions should be called to account. Our health system is not an easy fix with a state population of just over 500,000 people and a diminishing revenue strain.

Health affects us all so a bipartisan approach involving both parties but not involving self scented unionists may improve the situation. There are too many administration people in health and not enough at the coal face.

Hopefully, those mentioned above embrace this suggestion or allow the new minister to get on with the job without continued harassment. Congratulations.

BE careful what you wish for.

Does the freedom to practice religion include practising Islam in the West?

Does freedom of expression include drag queen shows to schoolchildren?

Who will decide just what is a religion or what is free speech?

The very same people who say boys will be girls or that taxpayer-funded abortion at any time and for any reason is health care or that children can freely access internet porn?

Fools see not that this is where the popular cultural obsession is heading.

After all, a government empowered to guarantee your rights is certainly powerful enough to take them away.

POTENTIAL patients in the Launceston and Hobart hospitals, this could happen to you. The NWRH and the people of Braddon have once again been betrayed by no less than four fearless local politicians and the Health Minister.

It is not OK and anyone who knows the present rehab section must be appalled.

Piece by piece this wonderful regional hospital is being stripped.

Soon we will be left with only a helipad and car park. Stop this rot.

WHAT a precious delight the Tasmanian Artisan Shop in George Street Launceston is.

The owners are not making big profits but have the satisfaction that they are showing the most unique most innovative work in Tasmania.

Superior to what is exhibited at the UTAS School of Arts at Inveresk these days.

SO amendments to the abalone management plan have been put out for the submission process.

The main changes proposed include: reducing the recreational bag limit from 10 to five abalone per day, reducing the possession limit from 20 to 10 abalone, introducing a boat limit of 15 abalones.

All this despite admissions that recreational divers take only around 1 to 2 per cent of the total allowable catch quota.

Is this so those with already lucrative markets within the commercial sector can get richer at our expense due to outside influences brought about by Chinese Free Trade Agreement? Yet again we see our government putting profits for a few over that of Tasmanian recreational fishing families.

This is a shared resource is it not?

Abalone, crayfish, what's next?

THE Hands Off our Gorge"movement should be reminded that "our" means many more than their 150 protestors against the proposal for the Launceston Skyway project.

Rather than try to stifle a project before its details are known, let's have a rational debate about the advantages and problems this development may involve.

And let's hope City of Launceston council listens to somewhat more of greater Launceston's residents than 150 when making its decision on a development application.