The Church, as an institution, functions like any other institution.

It institutionalised all those in it, the governors and the governed.

It is a power structure to control, not liberate. Institutions by their nature are conservative, reactionary and authoritarian.

This leads to corruption, the formation of elites, a failure to communicate (as distinct from laying down the law), and the disempowerment of those governed.

Just like the political system.

Therefore an institution will attract and keep those who accept this kind of structure.

Those who disengage are said to have left the Church, but for many it's a case of the Church having left them.

Those who immerse themselves in the gospel and their relationship with Jesus find the silence of the clergy on social issues, such as employment, incompatible with an active engagement with life. The Church is like a wreck of a car trying to negotiate a washed out bush track.

Many people have decided it's better to walk. There's no disgrace in abandoning a model that doesn't work and can't be fixed.

I have been wondering what happened to my Coles food catalogue recently so I phoned up only to be told they have stopped delivery Australia wide.

The lady I spoke to wasn't totally sure why, but I thought it could be environmental.

What a load of rubbish, the reason is the same as stopping free bags and then charging an extortionate price for the new bags, which take longer to biodegrade while tossing out a few toxins. The reason is more profit, well I hope this backfires hugely on these greedy CEOs who instigated the idea and move to Woolworths, IGA and any other market. I will be one who moves on.

AT THE senate inquiry into issues facing diaspora communities in Australia Eric Abetz went way off line asking Australian born citizens of Chinese descent appearing at the inquiry to unconditionally condemn the Chinese communist Party dictatorship.

Osmond Chiu, a research fellow at Per Capita, said he did not support the CCP or its actions and Yun Jiang condemned the Chinese government's human rights abuses.

Mr Abetz replied with the old accusation to being called out on racism - that it is a nasty allegation to avoid and sidestep (condemning the heinous CCP dictatorship).

Both men did as Mr Abetz proclaimed that the CCP dictatorship demands condemnation.

IT'S a pretty easy fix if the new traffic lights don't work in this area.

Yeah, build a Bunnings at Legana, but how about building the bridge from Mowbray to Riverside? Common sense really.

PREMIER Peter Gutwein has previously criticised land tax and promised to abolish it. However, today, the tax not only continues to be imposed but has dramatically increased. Land tax stems from medieval days when wealth was related to the privileged few who owned land, yet now it is the majority who own property. What makes land tax more insidious is that it discriminates between different investor groups. Take two families who have $350,000 each to invest. One buys shares and pays tax on dividends and tax on any profit when selling.

The second family buys an investment rental property. They too pay tax on rentals (dividends) and any profit at the time of sale, yet they are made to pay a holding tax (land tax) whilst owning the investment.

Peter Gutwein dodges the real issue when he states that property owners should be pleased with rising property values.

Would he support a holding tax on shares or collectables such as artworks when they rise in value and are continued to be held as an investment?

WITH exponential increases in housing due to low-interest rates and high demand in the state recently, Tasmania has a very real possibility of replicating a Noosa Heads or Byron Bay syndrome, where local residents are priced out of the market.

PEOPLE are rightly complaining about ridiculously high land tax.

I suspect we also need to brace ourselves for the introduction of death duties again, as we had back in the 19602. It was decided back then that this was such an unfair tax which could strip someone of not only their home but also their livelihood, that the tax was dropped. Consider an older farming couple. The husband dies of a heart attack.

The death duties on a farm using the present rates of land tax would be so high that the widow has no option but to sell the farm. She not only loses her home but also loses her ability to make an income due to such an unfair tax. She then becomes a welfare recipient providing she is of retirement age.

I support the notion of capacity to pay, but such a scenario is a gross overreach.

People need to realise that the government cannot give anything to anyone that they haven't first taken from someone else, so they need to take responsibility for themselves, and perhaps reign in their expectations.