IT seems to me that a $200 million upgrade of UTAS Stadium is excessive to the extreme. Who will benefit?
AFL is losing attraction as a new generation will emerge. They are not interested in footy. Soon the 60 and 70-year-olds will be too old to go to York Park, and the Premier is barking up the wrong tree by using extortion to get a Tasmanian AFL team.
A small minority want this team. And to what cost? Are taxpayers going to foot the bill? There will be no corporate body that will back it.
Jan Gustafsson, West Launceston.
BILL WILL INCREASE MISERY
THE Industrial Relations Omnibus Bill seems to be trying to increase misery in the community, by allowing for lower wages and a more insecure work environment.
The Bill wants to have part-time workers not receive overtime rates of pay when they work overtime, and for any job able to be defined as casual. Workers would be able to be put under pressure by employers to accept enterprise agreements where they have worse conditions and their wages cut to below the award, as the Bill would override the Better Off Overall Test.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said to the Business Council of Australia "the test for approval of agreements should focus on substance not technicalities".
The anti-worker features of the Bill are important "technicalities".
People are already saying that the Bill seems like WorkChoices Number Two.
Removing job security and cutting wages will not be better for workers or the economy.
Neil Smith, Howrah.
NO ONE WANTS THE PRISON
WENDY Fitch claims that the majority of Westbury people welcome the prison (The Examiner, February 13).
In our more than 40 years of living here, we have met people who moved to Westbury for a variety of reasons; because of its history, its tourism and business potential, its peaceful beauty and of course its once friendly, warm and united community.
I can honestly say I have never met anyone who said they moved here hoping that one day it would become a prison town.
Heather Donaldson, Westbury.
CONVERSION PRACTICES INQUIRY
I NOTE Mr Rodney Croome's assurance ("Trauma from gay practice" The Examiner, February 6) that "faith communities have nothing to fear from a ban on conversion practices". Given there is not even a proposed conversion law in Tasmania as yet, his assurance seems rather baseless.
He backs up his assurance with the assertion that "Legislation will not stop a priest preaching about sin" (correct, that is, after all, his common-law right).
Mr Croome goes on to spruik the Victorian lead. However, under their new legislation a priest who then, at the parishioner's request, supports them with a prayer to live in obedience to God's will, could be found guilty of conversion practice (yes, prayer is specifically mentioned in the legislation).
The priest could face up to 10 years in prison, fined up to $200,000 and be required to undergo re-education.
Nothing to fear? I suggest all Tasmanians insist on a more balanced outcome of our current inquiry.
Roelf Groenewold, Legana.
LETTERS by James Ingles (The Examiner, February 4) and Denis Francis (The Examiner, February 8) seem a bit off-beam regarding the issues with the upper estuary.
Ian Kidd was not referring to the Invermay/city flood levees, but those which have isolated the natural North-Esk tidal flats from the spring tide range the and have thus diminished the tidal flushing mechanism (regime) which naturally kept the channel at a good size. The natural tidal flats were actually a critical part of the natural regime that performed much of the continuous maintenance. As for dams, I am not sure what he is referring to, but he is just plain wrong to assert that "It's negative thinking to think you can resolve the problem."
The "mud" per se is not the problem; it is a natural part of the estuary regime just as is "dirt" in your backyard. The actual problem is the accumulation of "mud'' in places where it never used to accumulate historically and which is down to human interventions in the past done without consideration. It is hardly negative thinking to understand what has happened and why then propose solutions given that understanding. That sort of thinking is the basis for human progress, making our way through history, albeit with the odd blunder.
M Seward, Port Fairy.
WHY oh why is it that when scientists and experts enunciate about Kanamaluka/Tamar Estuary degradation they always completely ignore the "elephant in the room" which is the loss of South Esk River flows brought about by the construction of Trevallyn Dam in 1955 (The Examiner, February 14). Dr Rebecca Kelly says, "It's a big tower and if you take one thing out the whole thing can fall over", and if there is one thing typical of this it is the virtual elimination of South Esk tributary river flows taken to feed Trevallyn power station yet it never even rates a mention.
Dr Kelly also refers to invertebrates that live within the estuary mudflats yet fails to mention the appalling 58 per cent (yes 58 per cent) reduction in Cataract Gorge macro-invertebrates in the over 60 years since Trevallyn Dam was commissioned.
In fact, according to Hydro Tasmania's own scientific reports, the entire ecosystem (not only macro-invertebrates) of the Cataract Gorge has changed in that time, mainly due to the lack of water flows.
Surely it couldn't be that Hydro Tasmania has an undue and significant influence on organisations such as NRM North and the City of Launceston Council? Surely that isn't the case.