Show public holiday absurdity
SO we have just had a public holiday for the Launceston Show that didn't happen, the same thing will happen in Hobart in two weeks. Can anyone else besides me see the absurdity in this?
There are a lot of businesses that did not open today resulting in the loss of wages for casual staff who cannot afford to lose money, especially at this time.
I was hoping that our State Government might use this opportunity to look into these unnecessary public holidays in our state but no, the minister responsible for this portfolio states and I quote "Attorney-General Elise Archer confirmed on Thursday that after a review, the government will not make any significant changes to local public holidays, including show day holidays, at this time."
What a cop out.
I would expect this sort of response from the Labor Party as they are beholding to the unions. So we will continue to have three public holidays that are for one half of the state only and a public holiday at Easter only for public sector workers. No wonder this state is the laughing stock of Australia.
Peter Wilson, Newstead.
'Time drivers took responsibility'
I READ with interest the Patenna Road intersection is labelled as dangerous.
When are we going to accept that as drivers we need to take responsibility for our actions? There is a good line of sight, what more do you want.
Roads are only as safe as the drivers that are on them, and being a regular commuter from Longford to Launceston the drivers I see are the reason for the accidents, not the road.
Mark Hardy, Longford.
Potato fiasco backflip brewing
NEWS of a review into the government's potato imports decision (The Examiner, October 8) shows they now know that they should never have made that decision without consulting the local farmers first.
I note that the decision to grant the import permit now rests on the shoulders of DPIPWE chief plant health manager Andrew Bishop, that's another way of passing the buck. If Primary Industries Minister Guy Barnett was doing his job properly he would have consulted the potato growers first.
If the permit is cancelled, I bet there will not be an apology given to the farmers.
They will just call it a backflip. Politicians' consciences just go out the window once they are elected.
Allan Salter, Ravenswood.
'Isn't this corporate blackmail?'
I HAVE an issue with the City of Launceston council.
It is in regards to a parking infringement and asked for it to be heard in court, the answer from them was that if I didn't pay up I could lose either my drivers licence or my car registration, which in my opinion smacks of corporate blackmail?
At 82 years of age, it is many years since receiving such which was once handled by the delivery of a warrant to appear in court in regards to such, and although it is only $110 which I can afford, this is a matter of conscience, as to what is blatantly right and wrong. Individuals should never be at the mercy of the establishment, as whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The council refused to consider my valid reason to have parked where I figured was appropriate given the circumstances.
Don Davey, South Launceston.
Time to reintroduce raking
ADAM Holmes' article "Flooding a fact of Life" (The Examiner, October 8) is true but there are known ways to lessen the risk.
Launceston sits at the confluence of two major rivers which when they flood, represent a significant threat to the low lying areas of the city. Government combined to fund levees designed to high levels of protection, but the mayor is quoted as saying that even with that, the levees are not a guarantee against flood.
The most authoritative report on Launceston's flood risk was carried out by the University of NSW Water Laboratory under the direction of Professor DN Foster.
The report warned that to do nothing about sediment is not an option and the report gives details of the outcomes of no action such as silting up of channels, growing mud banks, a loss of sporting and recreational activity and a significant increase in flood risk.
When the incoming salt tide meets the freshwater rivers, natural sedimentation occurs in the Yacht Basin, Seaport and Home Strait, depositing around 100,000m3 (cubic metres) each year.
If Launceston had not been settled and the confluence of the rivers was a simple beauty spot it could be left to do what it likes.
However, it is the site today of a significant Australian city and home to many thousands.
Life and property are at risk from flooding and the city waterfront is an important recreational and hospitality centre.
The answer is simple: remove the sediment and there are only two feasible methods, dredging or raking.
A dredging campaign was carried out in 2008-09 it cost $4 million and failed to even keep up with the natural accretion.
A five-year raking campaign was carried out from 2013 to 2018 which on later survey was 900 per cent more efficient than natural flushing and 5 per cent the cost of dredging.
A Tamar Lake solution is possible but would cost about $400 million.
Those are the only options.
When considering Jim Collier's risk reduction suggestions, The Examiner quoted a review which found "that sediment raking and prop washing did not achieve the prime goal of net loss of sediment from the upper estuary".
That is not correct and ignores the only fact that matters - that by bathymetric survey, the five years of raking significantly reduced the sediments choking the Yacht Basin, Seaport and Home Strait.
Raking was a success and should be reintroduced.