Is there an ACT Government in recent memory which could not be accused of squandering taxpayers' money?
Ric Hingee (Letters, August 23) is correct to point out the skewed priorities of the Stanhope Government, but Kate Carnell was judged guilty of similar fiascos in relation to the futsal slab, the Bruce Stadium grass, and the insensitivity and ultimate disaster of turning the destruction of a community building into a circus.
What Hingee has not pointed out, however, is the culture of waste that is evident in too many departments. ACT public servants are making decisions which are probably not known by the relevant ministers.
It would be interesting to get the explanation, for example, for the Department of Education's directive to dump thousands of dollars' worth of good, functional and in some cases relatively new equipment from schools that are being refurbished. Presumably it couldn't be bothered to even call for expressions of interest from other schools, charities or community organisations.
N. Hawthorne, Chapman
Having read Megan Doherty's Forum column on minor parties for the ACT election, (''White knights for a round table'', August 23, pB5) I have to say that if that is what their policies are, then God help us. Some said they will reopen some schools. Why? The kids and staff are settled into other schools and no need to disrupt them again.
They all say that they will look into and plan for this and that. Ban needle exchange in the new jail (pigs will fly), turn Quamby into a reform school, (that's what we have built the new jail for), properly consult the community, restore the appearance of Canberra (nothing wrong with it at present), plan for an ageing population (Quamby's lookin' good), redress homelessness in Canberra (maybe provide heaters in waste bins), prevent waste of public money (how can Helen Cross do this?) And policies to reduce the impact of climate change (so, no power stations/oil refineries/factories/cars/electricity usage/disposable nappies/Glad Wrap/no flushing toilets/etc.)
The Greens' Meredith Hunter will ''emphasise practical ways to address climate change''. Some will provide more funding for health and education, along with improving housing affordability for owners. Val Jeffery wants to ''develop regional alliances'' (we have those already) and increase availability of bulk-billing doctors. What I am looking for in the elections is for any party to really state what they will do and give it to the people. No ''we will look into this and that''. If they want our vote, give us assurances.
Wal Glennon, Duffy
More nanny state?
As deaths and health costs from Australian obesity soar (Heavy burden: fat bill hits $58b'', August 22, p1) we're forced to confront what freedom means.
The rationales for laws on smoking, seatbelts, etc, demand we act now to prevent access to high-fat and high-carb foods by overweight people. State-controlled diet and lifestyle has surely arrived. Doctor-endorsed licences to buy potatoes, cakes or beer. Chubby models banned from catwalks. Free gyms. Compulsory school exercise; parents fined for fat child abuse.
If we don't, we reveal laws banning those earlier, less deadly/costly self-harms, to be astounding hypocrisy. We expose them as infringements on our fundamental right to make decisions about our own lives and deaths.
We acknowledge the need for each of us to acquire life's basic skills, best encouraged by allowing individual accountability for the consequences of individual action.
We'd constrain the nanny state.
Tom Waring, Ainslie
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff