Letters To The Editor

Click here to comment on this letter.

Pool Options

The Goonellabah Progress Association is amazed at the way the Mayor and his followers have washed their hands of the Memorial Baths, without a sorry to the ratepayers for losing the $500,000 to $600,000 on this project. A considerable amount of money could have saved if phone consultation been made with Taree and Warwick Councils who both have Aquatic Centres which cost between $800,000 and $1 million per year to maintain and repay debts.

This was done without consultation with the citizens of Lismore. Is it any wonder that the ratepayers and community feel that the people making these decisions lack the expertise and management skills to make decisions on a project of this size?

We would like to put forward suggestions to where the pool should be situated.

There are three key issues that need to be taken into consideration when making this decision.

1. Location

a) Other site in Lismore - still with the cost of $6 million, which is still unacceptable.

b) Joint venture with University has merit but distance is too great from the population. Lismore lacks a good public transport system. Who would own the pool?

c) Upgrade Memorial Baths and build new pool at Goonellabah, Council already owns land plus the developer is prepared to give adjacent land at no extra cost if the development goes ahead. Also council has over $1 million in Section 94 Funds ready to be allocated on such a project in Goonellabah. Considering the growth of the area makes this the preferred site.

2. Population

a) Goonellabah's population is on the increase and North, South and East Lismore and surrounding areas population is static. Council needs to address the future of Goonellabah. It cannot be "put on the backburner" forever. Council has a duty to give Goonellabah the facilities it deserves.

3. Cost

a) Our association suggests the upgrade of the Memorial Baths say over three years of a cost of $1 million could be included in the council's yearly budget so no borrowing would be required. Building a pool at Goonellabah would cost approximately $1 million accumulated now and would only have to borrow $2 million. This would free up needed money to be spent on council roads etc. We would also own the Aquatic Centre outright.

We ask the Mayor and his followers to give their careful consideration regarding this matter and look towards where the future of Lismore's population is going to live, now that Lismore Council has approved the expansion of the Lismore Square to double its size. Surely council would have to rethink their approach to the Central Business District.

We urge all citizens to write to Council or Councillors to express their views and concerns.

We need your support.

RW Mackey
Honorary/Secretary
Goonelllabah Progress Association

Click here to comment on this letter.

ALP Stance

I would like to respond to the comments of Ian Causley, published in your paper (Echo, July 11), that Labor is attempting to score cheap political points while veterans are being refused free health care.

The Member for Page should have checked his facts before making such accusations.

Firstly, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is not negotiating new fees because the Government can't decide what its negotiating position is. The Department stated in Senate Estimates on June 4 that it was "exploring some possible approaches" and that "the government has not yet decided what approach we should take in concluding those discussions".

Meanwhile veterans are being refused treatment unless they pay. To my mind the important issue is that veterans receive treatment. And there is no doubt that they are being refused treatment.

It is up to the Government to fix the problem - that is what Governments are supposed to do. Or perhaps the promise of free health care to all Gold Card holders was a "non-core promise"?

Mark Bishop
Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs

Click here to comment on this letter.

Know What I Like

Sorry, but I've been to the Living Treasures 'Art prize' at Lismore Regional Art Gallery to find that a photo had won.

It's like going to an athletic competition to see a 100 metre sprint and discovering that a car has won! It's easy to find interesting looking people and press a button, not so to create with hands and mind a portrait.

Look at Lucien Freud's recent and magnificent portrait of Her Majesty the Queen of England; a painting that has finally given me respect for our royalty.

I don't care how many times you click a button, a photo will never capture essence.

Further proof in my argument can be had by comparing the five portraits of Michael Taylor at the same gallery; four of them are interesting portraits that leave you with a feeling of the person, the other one is a clever photo. There is an art to photography, but there can be no photography in art - it's too clinical.

I'm thinking of starting an art prize in the region where no photos or works derived from photos are allowed - and where the winner will be chosen through the drawing of lots.

Bernard Rooney
Lismore

Click here to comment on this letter.

Wood for Trees

Although I doubt that many readers would have so misunderstood my letter (Echo, July 4) regarding the (relatively minor) tree massacre at Port Douglas, I would like to respond to the parochialism expressed by John Lenor in his reply to me (Echo, July 18).

If, being 1,000 miles from Port Douglas, it matters not one iota to us what trees are felled there; then how little must it matter to us how many trees are burned, wood-chipped, or felled in the Amazon Basin? Or Tasmania for that matter.

Judging by his (admittedly somewhat hysterical) letter, Mr Lenor is more concerned with his "view" - a good barbecue and a baseball game - than the long-term health and well-being of the Earth and its inhabitants. He feels that 90 per cent of Lismorites would feel the same. He is probably right. The rate of tree clearing in Lismore, including the CBD, goes on unabated, tree preservation orders notwithstanding. Lismore Base Hospital seems keen to remove every palm, and every established tree fern around its perimeter.

Mr Lenor belives that my letters take up space, which would otherwise be occupied by "intelligent letters". I leave such judgements to the Editor. But if pointing out a new potentially dangerous environmental threat is not an act of intelligence then I don't know what is. I repeat from last time, Nature must be protected from the fear and greed fuelling the public liability insurance circus; wherever that may be manifested.

I am not going to respond to his ad hominem "argument", if it can be called that, but state for the record that I have never hugged a tree in my life (as I am now ashamed to admit).

The name Dara does not mean tree-hugger in any of the languages in which it is commonplace. I might also point out that my letter did not speak of a fear of falling coconuts, but a fear of rising stupidity.

Dara Tatray
Lismore

Click here to comment on this letter.

Blame Game

It is positively sickening to hear Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock waffling on about it being asylum seekers' own fault if they're imprisoned for lengthy periods because they insist on appealing against decisions of the Department of Immigration or the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Well, in case you're in the minority who still entertain any doubt about just how fair decisions of the RRT might be, consider why it would be that any government would feel it necessary to introduce legislation of the kind described in the following quote by Dr Mary Crock (Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney) and Ben Saul (PhD candidate in International Law at the University of Oxford) in their recent book "Future Seekers: Refugees and the Law in Australia":

"In 1994 Parliament changed the law to narrow the grounds on which the Federal Court could provide a remedy for "unlawful" migration decisions. It removed the ability of the Federal Court to intervene even if a decision:

• breached the common law rules of natural justice;
• was so unreasonable that it could have been made by no reasonable person;
• was made in bad faith;
• appeared to be biased;
• was made taking irrelevant considerations into account or was made without taking relevant considerations into account; or
• constituted an abuse of power."

This is clearly a system specifically designed to refuse as many refugee applications as possible, not to fairly assess them. It was introduced under Labor and continues to be used by the Coalition.

Remember this next time you hear a sanctimonious Phillip Ruddock accusing asylum seekers and their children of 'rorting the system'.

Cloud
Kyogle

Click here to comment on this letter.

Non-Users Pay!

Seventy thousand "minimum ratepayers" statewide pay their local Rural Lands Protection Board some $3.5 million each year. Of this figure, the Tweed/Lismore board gets some $275,000 from its 5,500 "minimum ratepayers".

This is a staggering 65% of Tweed/Lismore's total take!

One wonders if this picture is repeated for all of the 70,000!

Now in a media release (June 24) the State Conference of RLP Boards tells of a resolution to "conduct a review of how the minimum ratepayers are serviced". One wonders how much the review aim is to do a public relations cover up of the facts above and, how much to change the base of rating.

What do the "minimum ratepayers" get for their money? Most would tell you "nothing" and some might tell you "very little". Personally, I'm with those who say "nothing" and I believe there are many, many more like me.

It is my view that many minimum ratepayers use their land only as dwelling sites. They are not in agriculture, but bought land which once was "agricultural". Tweed/Lismore and a number of other board areas where denser settlement has happened will be this way.

Other minimum ratepayers tell me they have trouble getting any help with feral animals. The Board says they are in a built up area and therefore not permitted to use baits. That leaves the minimum ratepayer fuming, with nowhere to turn.

This is background to the media release; which I quote: "the draft strategy would focus on addressing many of the key issues minimum ratepayers have expressed to the board." and "An education and communication plan is pivotal to the success of the strategy" as means to reducing the number of complaints they receive from minimum ratepayers".

On the other hand Tweed/Lismore Board owns a building worth $1 million. Is this money the Board should have spent on its work? Have the ratepayers missed out?

Laurie Stubbs
Rosebank

Click here to comment on this letter.

Letters View

In responding to W Nelson's letter (Echo, May 16), I would say that before writing a letter to our newspapers I always think carefully about whether what I have to say is of value.

Many people in the community ask me almost daily what's going on in Council, and that isn't always evident in the media reporting of council issues. So I write about issues that I know, from what people in the community tell me, are important because they have a significant impact on this community and the people who live here.

I believe very strongly that residents who cannot come to council meetings have a right to be informed about the issues before council, how decisions are made and the potential impact of those decisions on ratepayers and residents. I know that not everyone will be interested in or agree with what I have to say. Nevertheless, the very act of writing letters often encourages healthy debate from which we all learn, myself included.

I take my responsibilities as an individual elected to serve the community seriously. The guarantees I give are: to listen with an open mind and heart to everyone in Lismore; to be fair, honest and open in everything I do as a representative of this community; to fight very hard for this city and its residents; to take advice from people especially the professional staff of Council who are qualified in their fields - in the interests of the whole community; to look after residents' money much more carefully than I look after my own; and to try in my small way to keep people in our community informed about what's happening in Council from my perspective. Isn't that what democracy and the power of the people demands?

Cr Ros Irwin
Lismore

Click here to comment on this letter.

Car-Go Cult

The release of the 32-year old man who will appear on drink driving charges after he struck and killed a woman in Lismore on Friday afternoon leaves me dumbstruck. When it was revealed that he was only released that morning after being arrested for drink driving the previous evening, it makes me even more nervous about venturing onto our roads.

Why is murder okay when you do it with a car? When are we going to stop treating pedestrians and cyclists as non entities, worthy of only cursory treatment by placing 'refuges' in the middle of the road so they can scamper across in between the onslaughts of the 'rightful owners of the road', invulnerable in their steel straight-jackets, drunk on power and speed, (often with alcohol and other drugs thrown into the deadly mix).

I fear the council response to this and other 'incidents' will be to increase the concrete obstacles proliferating on the curbsides, which further endanger the lives of cyclists and force them into the traffic stream, instead of biting the bullet and installing traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. I can only take consolation from the fact that car addicts will tend to die from a plethora of diseases caused by lack of exercise, after suffering depression and poverty brought on by the huge amount of money they squander on the illusion of protection and power. Indeed the meek will inherit the earth... when oil runs out, and pedestrians and cyclists have the roads to ourselves.

Simon Cripps Clark
Lismore

Click here to comment on this letter.

Some Views on the Richmond Valley Referendum

Recent media releases by Councillors Sandra, Humphrey and Cox obviously supported by Cr Mustow clearly indicate to me one of two things:

(A) Either they just don't understand what having wards in local government are for; or

(B) they are more than likely just promoting a self-preservation system for themselves and the ticket system which allows one person to dominate and control council for four years.

All ratepayers and residents of Richmond Valley Council deserve at least a fair chance at equal representation in council. A vote for no wards as they support won't allow this to happen.

Casino has approx 50% of population they therefore have a right to 50% representation not closer to 80% as they suggest.

Come on Sandra, Charlie and Robert give our total community a fair go. Charlie your claim of the majority of councillors supporting a no ward system is definitely misleading, as no vote has ever been taken in council.

I encourage everyone to support the yes for wards and give our total area a fair chance.

Cr Col Sullivan
Mayor of Casino

Click here to comment on this letter.

A reason we need wards is that we're more likely to have councillors who are sensitive to, and more aware of local issues.

As a member of a local group from the old Richmond River Shire experiencing a major problem, I know that only one councillor, Ray Jeffery responded to an invitation to come to a residents‚ meeting.

Cr Frank McKey gave an apology. The other eight choose to ignore residents completely. Thirty-two members of the public attended that meeting.

In the old days councillors tended to look after their own areas. I'm afraid to say now they only look after where the large voter base is or even sadder to say where the camera is. Outlying areas are ignored. We are not the only ones experiencing this problem. The ward system in NSW councils is split approx 50 -50.

Regarding who should vote for the mayor, cast your mind back to "the dummy spit" by two councillors because their little deal backfired and the mayor's job went to Col Sullivan. Imagine if we would of had a popularly elected mayor who did not have the support of the councillors. Remember the councillors have to work with the mayor not the public. Out of 172 councils in NSW only 22 have a popularly elected mayor.

At State or Federal elections we don't have a choice of leader. The leader is elected by the sitting members of the relevant party. Selecting a leader based on popularity doesn't guarantee that you'll get the best person for the job. In fact you may get someone who is unable to work with the rest of the council. An annually-elected mayor chosen by all councillors is more likely to have the confidence of council than someone chosen on the basis of the largest number of votes. Remember the mayor can be changed annually if selected by councillors whereas we're stuck for four years with a popularly-elected mayor who may be a disaster.

Steve Cselka
Ellangowan

Click here to comment on this letter.

Cr Charlie Cox has a great sense of humour. His letter (Echo, July 17) favouring no wards in Richmond Valley Council is one of the best jokes I've heard recently, paralleled only perhaps by meetings of Council.

Now there's a real joke: sufficient to make a man laugh until he cries and cries and cries.

"Richmond Valley Council is succeeding because it doesn't have wards and the majority of councillors are (sic)opposed to wards" Very funny Charlie. I guess if you measure success by a run down in council cash reserves of $5 million, make arbitrary policy decisions about user-pays which discourage the community from helping itself, fail to take adequate steps to stop council from polluting the environment in which we live at Evans Head with sewage outflow, and charge ratepayers more for the privilege (to name a few successes) then we must be doing well by any standard!

And note the very humorous non sequitur in Charlie's statement. "Council is succeeding because... the majority of councillors are opposed to wards". We're succeeding because councillors are (sic) opposed to wards? Huh?! I guess it's this kind of funny logic that has made Council what it is today.

And the humour continues: "Wards obstruct broad thinking and planning." Funny, I always thought narrow minds and stupidity obstructed thinking and planning, not wards. But then again perhaps our Deputy Mayor knows something we don't. I wonder what else wards do!

And the final coup de grace in the humour department: "I regard the ward system as inadequate, narrow-minded and irrelevant to the times in which we live" Well, that's it then! Because our Deputy humbly regards the ward system as inadequate, etc, therefore it must be so. What a chuckle.

I can hardly wait to hear the Cox and bull story for a popularly-elected mayor. Enough to make us all die laughing no doubt!

Dr Richard Gates
Evans Head

Click here to comment on this letter.

At the upcoming Richmond Valley Council Referendum I urge voters to give consideration to several very important issues relating to whether or not we should have a popularly-elected mayor.

At first glance it seems better for electors to vote for a popularly elected mayor. However, this choice can have significant drawbacks. Remember the person will be elected for four years no matter what. Just look around at neighbouring councils that have popularly-elected mayors who were voted to that position because of particular cause they supported, but then did a 'back-flip'. Those councils are stuck with that person for the full four years, and nothing can be done by councillors or ratepayers.

The problem can be worse if there is continuing conflict between the popularly-elected mayor and the rest of the council. A figurehead mayor opposed by the remainder of council is not good for the council or the community.

When a candidate stands for mayor as well as councillor, and is elected as mayor, all the votes that person got as a councillor are passed on to the second person in that councillor's group. Some people see this as an unfair form of 'double-dipping'. Of course it gives a huge advantage to the political group to which the mayor belongs.

If we had a popularly-elected mayor at our last elections, one political grouping would have had 6 of its group elected. By my reckoning this would have given total control to that group. Debate can easily be stifled in such circumstances and the few 'minority' councillors could have had little input to decision-making.

Cr Ray Jeffery
Evans Head

Click here to comment on this letter.

The letter of Charlie Cox (Echo, July 18) has urged me to write a few facts as I see them.

The continued forward growth may be showing in Casino and Evans Head, where the majority of councillors come from. However, outlying areas have not had the same good fortune.

I would venture to say Cr Cox does not travel the Naughtons Gap road very often. Council is at the moment working on the road, which had a priority listing before amalgamation. The worst parts are not included in the works. An example, "Machine Gun Flat" which has patches on patches.

The outlying areas support Beef Week, Primex and Casino generally. Only a few councillors accept the invitation to attend Bentley Art Prize, a charitable organisation in its 18th year. We appreciate the support of Richmond Valley Council for the Bentley Art Prize, which was originally made available by Richmond River Shire Council.

When Bentley was removed from the list of voting booths because the hall was needed for the art why didn't Council object and suggest the use of the Manifold School?

Give the whole area a chance and vote "yes" for wards and "yes" for council electing the Mayor.

Reg Hartley
Bentley

Click here to comment on this letter.

Use the form below to search through the Northern Rivers Echo Newspaper web site.

Matt's Script Archive