Going for a walk
I WAS bitterly disappointed to find that access to my regular walking tracks in the Trevallyn Reserve had been closed.
While I can agree with closing many of the parks areas because walkers go in groups and often stay in shared accommodation, I see no sense in shutting off the areas where local people go for exercise for themselves and their dogs.
My 30-35 minute walk has been providing me with three essentials in this crisis.
Safety from cross infection (I see very few others on my walk and there are no contaminated surfaces to touch).
Healthy exercise where the air is clear and clean.
And a benefit for my mental health from being in solitude amongst trees.
I'm sure I'm not on my own with these thoughts.
Keep the gates closed, but please can we locals still go for our walks?
J. Callan, Trevallyn.
Life is Still Worth Living
I'M almost 86 and am told I have diminished hope of surviving COVID-19.
Something like 7 per cent of my age group don't make it.
But hey, 93 per cent do.
Let's be positive about all this.
And if you have a spare dollar or two, buy shares.
They're dirt cheap at this time.
Then hope you live long enough to see your fortunes grow.
Dick James, Launceston.
HAVING just returned from my daily walk (allowed), with a household member (also allowed), consider this.
I was abused by the moronic driver of a beat up "bomb" for merely being on the street.
The government's messages need to be clear and precise and they are not.
Some exceptions to the "stay at home rule" include:
Bottle shops, hairdressers (still, I passed one open today), getting your car serviced, visiting a friend or relative, grandparents minding grandkids, going to the post office, taking the cat or dog (or I guess, hamster) to the vet, visiting the hardware shop (go Bunnings), volunteering, attending another location if you have a reasonable excuse to do so.
I suggest our politicians check out what the Singaporean authorities have done and then they just might have a clue.
Sue Gul, Newnham.
NOW is the right time to reflect on the blessing of Scott Morrison winning the last 'unwinnable election.'
In the light of the catastrophic floods, followed by the worst bushfires in Australia's history.
Now, with the unprecedented world threat of coronavirus, he has shown 'Churchillian' leadership qualities.
Having sought expert medical and financial advice, and consulted with state premiers, his government has made tough, necessary, considered decisions.
This trifecta of disasters has given the Prime Minister no respite since taking office.
Yet some vultures on public and social media, only want to feed on his corpse.
Is Scott Morrison perfect? No.
Is there a better leader for Australia at this historic time? No.
Clearly, no one on the planet knows the final outcome of the virus, and no one person or country has got all the answers.
Our character is about to be tested, and hopefully it will not be like the greed and selfishness displayed by some at supermarkets.
When this virus is conquered, like others before it has been, remember who gave leadership in our hour of need, and the snipers not at the coal-face.
David Bissett, Somerset.
A considered debate
I HAVE been following the fight to protect the community and environment around Swansea for Cambria.
I'm impressed by community groups that go to extraordinary lengths to put together appeals at great cost to themselves.
Their supply chain cannot compete with unlimited dollars from interested investors, so they often undertake these tasks through a sense of loyalty and community commitment.
It seems the Major Projects Bill takes away any rights to question, clarify or change, even if already decided against through due process, giving total veto powers to one body, leaving decisions open to corruption.
Also being rushed through parliament at a time when no one can effectively get together to argue against it whilst the whole world is in shut down mode, loses any future community support or respect and the world will be witnessing and condemning your actions.
It's unconscionable that a bill like this takes away the rights of any group to challenge contentious projects, and leaves room for massive unmitigated misuse of power. Processes are there so that every box gets ticked, no matter how tiresome.
Without these, ethically challenged decisions would be made in the interest of whoever has the most money or most to gain instead of the reverse.
This bill should be discarded so that thoughtful and considered debate, with enough preparation time, are left to benefit all Tasmanian citizens.
The cut off date for public comment of April 9 is laughable if it wasn't so scary.
Jenni Christie, Mount Lawley.