COVID PROTECTION FACTUAL?
THE perception that the Liberals have done well protecting us from COVID-19 is not supported by the facts.
According to the Australian Government Department of Health, Tasmania, per capita, has had the second-highest number of infections and the second-highest number of deaths in Australia.
The poor state of our hospital system and Gutwein's initial head-in-the-sand approach allowed just two Ruby Princess patients to spread the virus-like wildfire.
Thankfully, we don't have an international airport, which would have made our figures even worse. The pandemic is far from over, and with the continued decline of our hospitals, increasing waiting lists, and a snail pace vaccination roll-out, god help us if we face another surge of cases.
Phil Aulich, Primrose Sands.
DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
THE anti-protest laws before parliament shoot the messenger without reading the message. Protesters are specifically targeting the unethical native forest logging industry, which is destroying Australia's forest ecologies. It is ironic that laws are being tightened to prevent protesting, while the native forest logging industry only exists because it has been made exempt from environmental laws. Nineteen ecologies have been listed in Australia as threatened, including Tasmania's Gondawanic forests.
Native forest logging is contributing to the climate crisis and Australia's world-leading rate of extinctions.
Humans of conscience will ignore bad laws and follow their consciences, as humans of conscience have always done throughout history. Repressive laws will not stop them. The native forest logging industry is secretive and misrepresents itself as "sustainable". Nothing could be further from the truth. Ethical businesses have nothing to fear.
Steve Saunders, West Launceston.
LET'S GET ON WITH BUILDING
I CANNOT let the opinion piece written by Ivan Dean, Independent Windermere MLC (The Examiner, March 26), go unanswered. To the best of my knowledge, the City of Launceston appointed an independent expert to examine all aspects of the DA, which recommended that the development be approved. This all started in June 2019.
The majority of the councillors voted against the development, so the proponents appealed to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (RMPAT), where they were successful.
Some fail to remember or just ignore the fact that the site was a manufacturing site that was dirty, noisy and had truck movements.
I attended a meeting conducted by the group who opposed the waste processing centre on March 2, which Mr Dean also attended with approximate 25 other interested people.
At this meeting, I suggested that it could be beneficial if the organisers and Mr Dean meet with the proponents of the waste centre as talking face to face has the potential to deliver a win-win outcome.
I have offered to facilitate a meeting on at least three occasions.
To answer the question does the RMPAT have the authority to approve changes to DAs? Yes I believe they do.
It is time to get on with it.
Bob Salt, Launceston.
LIBERALS WORRIED ABOUT LYONS
LYONS is an electorate sprawling across 11 municipalities, including the Meander Valley, a large portion of the East Coast and extending down to the Derwent Valley.
Yet four out of six of the pre-selected Liberal candidates are from Meander Valley.
The government has gone deafeningly quiet on the prison for a good reason.
This stacking is further evidence that the party is worried about the inevitable backlash and does not want any protest vote to be visible.
More candidates fielded means more votes to balance out the predicted backlash.
While we are proud that our community has sent the message that we will be heard on this at the polls, we apologise to all the other municipalities in the Lyons electorate.
Your region has missed out on being proportionately represented in Lyons because of this government's ineptitude.
Gina Poulton, Westbury.
HOLIER THAN THOU
WE SEEM to be having a spate of accusations, many delved up from years past, levelled at various members of the community. It seems that no matter how slight your sin was and how long ago it happened, you are now to be held to account.
But for what gainful purpose?
I would contend that none of us is sinless, that we have all perpetrated misdemeanours at some time. I've cast my mind back to temporary liaisons that may have occurred sometime in my distant past.
Were they all consensual, or did I commit aggression? How would I answer an accusation resurrected from the past? The unwise, offensive words one may have used in moments of anger or thoughtless response are now to condemn one? Should I now be condemned for calling someone, for example, "a silly b***" or a "lying cow" when I made the comments to only one person?
Should it be aired to the public at large?
Comments made privately should not later be treated as public comments.
Politicians, ever eager to score points against their opponents, are the main culprits in this accusative game.
Anything to tarnish the image of an opposite person.
Never do these people consider a further adage, "There but for the grace of God go I".
I believe we, as the public at large, should let our politicians know that we are sick of their silly accusations.
We elected them to do a job, to govern us wisely, to try to make our society a better one and that petty recriminations merely sicken us and do damage to their images.