THE importance of cleanliness is indisputable as it attracts tourism money and a sense of civic pride.
Consequently, keeping our city of Launceston clean is necessary.
Is our city clean? If your answer is a resounding no, then you need to speak up.
READ MORE: Detectives refocus on Mayfield murder case
Everybody is applauding the new directorial signage installed around Launceston of late and the new hanging gardens of Babylon appearing under the timber canopies in the city mall.
Business colleagues and I are astounded that our refuse bins aren't being washed and disinfected, and graffiti tagging around our city still has not been removed.
If landlords don't cooperate then, the council must take action.
Graffiti has appeared on heritage laneways, walls, throughout the Quadrant Mall, at a major intersection opposite the technical college and in our only traffic tunnel.
People do pollute the environment either intentionally or unintentionally. It is definite that no one likes walking in a dirty, graffiti-consumed city. It is annoying and frustrating for retail businesses and local residents. Keeping our city clean can't be that difficult.
If the City of Launceston wishes to win awards and attract more businesses, major sport and cultural events, then the above must be seriously addressed.
WITH legislative council elections taking place in a little over a month, there will no doubt be a lot of issues about Independents and party members.
It is said that the upper house has now morphed into a party house. It was always an independent house until 1915 when James McDonald, Labor, won a seat.
Since then, Labor has been the most successful party in the upper house.
For several decades the Liberals did not endorse Legislative Council candidates preferring it to be independent.
This had to obviously change if the council was to be balanced. Accordingly, the libs fielded a candidate in 1966.
IN OTHER NEWS:
So for those who will cry that the upper house should be independent, I wholeheartedly agree.
Alas, that will not happen, so the best that we can hope for is a balance of party members to at least give a liberal government a chance to get the legislation that they were voted on passed.
NINETY per cent of the winners of the Glover Prize have been male.
Considering this art prize has only existed since 2004, the organisers can't make the excuse that blatant sexism is a historical problem. I want to know how and why, in the 21st century, you can have an art prize that women basically shouldn't even bother to enter. When you look at other significant art prizes around Australia, women are very well represented in the finalists and winners.
This art prize is an embarrassment.
WOULD The Examiner please publish the names of the politicians who voted against the proposal to raise the legal age for nicotine smoking to 21 in Tasmania.?
I can then write those names down to remind myself to never vote for any of those people again.
One of our representatives stated that she detests smoking but would not vote for the bill because implementation would be costly and difficult.
The costly argument is arrant nonsense as smoking costs the community millions in health costs every year as addicted Tasmanians fall prey to all manner of sickness and early death from the effects of nicotine.
And if politicians think it is reasonable that they refuse to do something because it is too hard, then we certainly need to get rid of them and replace them with a new breed of capable people.
The loss of profit of businesses that sell this nasty product to young and vulnerable people in the 18 to 21 age group is their other excuse. If politicians are so wedded to business and profit that they are prepared to put those outcomes ahead of the health of our young citizens, then again, we need to sweep them aside at the next opportunity.
And why would they listen to the lobbyists advocating profit above health and not listen to every health organisation in the country that supported the bill?
IN THE same House, the same people, on the same day, voted the worthy Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation into law but defeated a worthy amendment to legislation to save lives by increasing the legal purchase of smoking products by people aged under 21 years.
How hypocritical of our legislators and when the amendment had the support of a survey of 78 per cent of Tasmanians, the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Cancer Council.
Apparently, it would have been "costly and difficult to implement", particularly hard on small business.
The government's development of a youth prevention package targeting students from Grade 6 onwards has demonstrably failed and clearly is not enough effort to reduce Tasmania's unacceptably high smoking rates. The cost to our health budget is obvious. Our politicians are clearly incapable of producing effective legislation or amending that which gets proposed to advance the cause. We need action now.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.