Who controls Launceston’s CBD?
IN REGARDS to a letter from Lionel Morrel (The Examiner, August 26), it is a well-written article of which begs the question who controls the city environment and business growth.
The City of Launceston council may have some controls, yet we see the stupidity and millions of dollars go into moving the university onto the swamp from a perfect location worth millions.
We must recall the proposal of the Big W move into Launceston; there was uproar with little said about Harvey Norman entry or Dan Murphy’s, fact being as an aging population the CoLis looking up the barrel of where do rates come from.
All Tasmanian councils are in the same boat as the large industry moves on to the mainland and small business outside of retail, waking up to their savings of working from home and downsizing the old business premises. Small electrical companies have no option to compete or get out as has happened in southern locations.
We are not a regulated society like some Northern Hemisphere countries; this means capitalism is reaching the end of its tether and big dogs wipe out little dogs and keep their workers on bread line hours as casuals who lose family time 24/7, only a monopoly game plan.
Hobart is in the same boat where you avoid shopping at all costs as parking cost two arms and a fine take your body.
The mark-up of Asian goods primarily electrical is in the two or three hundred per cent, just watch the profit reports.
Mike Grey, Exeter.
In other news:
Planting something toxic will bite
THERE is an old adage that goes “As you sow, so shall you reap”. Very seldom do we see it play out as it did in State Parliament during the week ending August 21. The Greens leader must have planted something really toxic to have it come back to bite so painfully. Stunts are never a credible alternative for good government, but I doubt that will affect her mindset if another opportunity arises
D Palmer, Newnham.
Answers on cat needed urgently
I APPLAUD the contents of Jim Collier’s letter (The Examiner, August 18) that the containment of pet cats. Not so the article by Primary Industries Minister Guy Barnett.
Jim Collier states a survey conducted in 2019 determined 67 per cent of cat owners, 83 per cent of non-cat owners supported compulsory confinement. It would be beneficial if the Minister made known how his figures compare. If the statistics stated are accurate or proven, why are the wishes of so many ratepayers and others ignored? An answer is appropriate. I own and often occupy a property in Newstead, and know too well how pet cats can cause stress by scaring away or killing native birds who used to frequent my well-kept garden. Answers please, Mr Barnett.
Audrey Holloway, Flinders Island.
Prison visits via Zoom
TO THE government’s point about high-risk prisoners being able to see their families more easily, I recently saw an interview with the head of prisons who said in this pandemic; it was way more beneficial to have a Zoom communication. This way the dads or mums, or both, could be shown around the house and even into the kid’s bedrooms etc.
Marjorie Burrows, Westbury.
Euthanasia – about cost control?
THOSE with a terminal illness have expensive health care needs.
Some euthanasia advocates argue that those in the final stages of a terminal illness are no longer in a position to contribute economically. Hence, while their continued existence may be personally meaningful to those who love them, from an economic perspective, they are all cost and no benefit.
Philip Nitschke, Australia’s most prominent euthanasia proponent, has promoted its economic benefits in his book Killing Me Softly. Euthanasia is being pushed from an ideological standpoint. If it’s legalised, there is potential for it to be driven by bureaucrats as the ultimate cost control measure.
Maree Triffett, Lenah Valley.
Missing the point
CELIA McCausland’s letter (The Examiner, August 24) on Mike Gaffney’s bill, misses the point altogether, it is not depression that euthanasia is about, but for people whose quality of life is zero, such as the many hundreds of patients in aged care homes with dementia. It is for those people such as my wife, who has no quality of life but is merely a shell gradually losing any memory of the life she and I had.
In the beginning, my wife said she wanted to die, yet ignorant people such as Senator Abetz, Celia and Jo Brown believe they have the right to tell me that we cannot choose our right to die. It is devastating for me to visit my wife every day, seeing her eaten away by this terrible disease and not being able to allow her to die gracefully. I pray that this bill will pass so the many dementia patients can be allowed to die with dignity.
John Edelsten, Legana.
Follow the golden thread
BEFORE choices, the beginning and end of the debate are how do we protect grandma from their relatives. Throughout the web of the criminal law, one Golden Thread should always be seen that protects the innocent; particularly if life and death count. John Sankey, Lord Justice of Appeal UK, also gave his name to the Sankey Declaration of the Rights of Man, 1940 UK, which grew into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN 1948. Most countries have banned or had moratoriums on capital punishment.
They accept that no matter how they bind the law with regulations, they can never guarantee the golden thread for the innocent. The golden thread is broken. So with euthanasia, the law is bound about with regulations, and yet an innocent may die. Just one, and the golden thread is broken. Who in their right mind would wish that?