One solution could be to reward those travellers who are fully vaccinated by allowing them to home quarantine.

Of course they must test negative to COVID before boarding the Spirit of Tasmania and they must go directly to their home and quarantine for 14 days and test negative again in the meantime. They could also be required to pay a substantial bond which they would forfeit if they breach the quarantine rules.

READ MORE: Labor's Bastian Seidel announces resignation

A state government-mandated sign could be put up at the entrance to their residence stating that the occupants are in quarantine.

Yes, that would rely on people doing the right thing, but if they have already been vaccinated and tested that would surely indicate that they want to comply with whatever rules are in place.

The obvious alternative is for travellers to break the rules by entering Tasmania without a G2G pass, get fined, do their 14 days quarantine and then be allowed home.

The current rules seem to favour the lawbreakers. Hardly fair.

WHEN negativity and belligerent behaviour is rife in many retail stores, it is a delight being served at the checkout of the George Town Woolworths Supermarket. Despite the rudeness of some customers, the staff are always very cheerful and helpful.

Well done George Town for maintaining a safe and pleasant shopping environment.

IN response to the federal government's handling of this debacle, I would like to suggest that forthwith we utilise the relatively advanced project management skills of a grade 6 primary school, class of your choice to manage such events.

And to test and improve these same skills within the federal government the task I recommend would be raffling meat trays at their nearest RSL club, ably assisted by the lying rodent who, along with his two amigos instigated this two-decade disaster.

IN the article, "TasWater defends chief executive salary despite backlash" (The Examiner, August 21) it was reported that I had received a 20 per cent pay increase over the last four years. This is not true.

At TasWater we work out salaries and increases on the total remuneration package, rather than the base salary. In part, this is to avoid some of the anomalies that can occur when someone opts to change their superannuation rate, which is what I did in that period making my base salary higher but not affecting my total remuneration. Payroll has provided the change in my remuneration over the last four years inclusive of the last year in which I voluntarily elected not to take an increase due to COVID.

READ MORE: White's ultimatum to David O'Byrne

When calculated up to June this year, my total increase over the last four years equates to 10 per cent or an average of 2.5 per cent per year. I understand the person quoted in the article was using figures provided in the annual reports, but this does not include last year's figures nor when I opted not to take an increase due to COVID. I hope this provides clarity and removes any concerns.

I READ with interest some letters regarding an AFL team in Tasmania.

One letter being headed "Pigheaded Premier".

Peter Gutwein can say what he wants to say on my behalf in regard to a Tasmanian football team.

I congratulate him on having the stomach to stand up to a manager of AFL in McLachlan who seems to think he controls the beliefs and whims of many Australians.

RELATED: Tasmania to host AFL finals for first-time ever

Well done Mr Gutwein.

In the letter I read, I see a sentence to "all the footy fans", I am not one.

Why do so many people think that all Australians follow the overpaid, overrated, windbags kicking a bag of wind that gets an ankle turn or good bump and get laid off on megabucks when we are supposed to sit and feel sorry for their demise?

As you can see by my scribings, I would sooner go fishing, shooting, driving, or probably cooking than watch and pay for a team that is not going to cut the mustard but still cost Tasmanian taxpayers probably millions. Stick to your guns Premier.

DALE Newman's letter (The Examiner, August 22) suggests we are being unfairly and undemocratically denied freedom of choice in the multi-governmental COVID-19 responses.

That point of view seems to have only gotten "fashionable" after being raised overseas and on social media.

It seems folk with this belief have conveniently forgotten other "freedoms" already lost in the interests of maintaining public health and safety.

Are we yet to see public demonstrations against restrictions against wearing of seatbelts, drink and drug driving, smoking within public buildings, and the carrying of firearms in public?

The various laws related to these matters may place limits on how we as individuals act but they do so in the interests of maintaining community safety and welfare.

As individuals and as a society we are safer as well as the better for them.