Appalling cruelty and neglect
IF my pet dog was infested with sarcoptic mange, dying a slow and agonising death over several months in my front yard, in clear view of the public, and I did nothing, I would expect some consequences? The RSPCA and police would certainly intervene, veterinary treatment arranged and I would be charged with animal cruelty offences and be the target of outrage from the public and media.
In contrast, wombats in Tasmania are allowed to suffer the same horrendous death in clear view — on private land, in our national parks and on crown land with little or no intervention from the relevant government department (DPIPWE). Why the difference? Wombats are an iconic and protected native animal, supposedly the “property” of and managed by the state.
Wombats die a slow, cruel death from mange and allowing this is barbaric. DPIPWE will not even attempt to contact land owners when wombats with mange are identified on private land and in clear view from roads. The State Government, relevant minister and DPIPWE must take decisive action and show some leadership and compassion. If treatment is possible, DPIPWE must help co-ordinate and fully support programs currently conducted by volunteer groups or humanely euthanase if treatment is not an option.
Allowing wombats to suffer and spread the mite, as countless currently are across the state, is criminal. Senator Colbeck his place as an advocate for Tasmania. Senator Abetz, if you are not going to support Tasmania in these times of insecurity, why are you in Parliament? Thinking Liberal voters are wondering why you stay when you refuse to stand up for Tasmania. Tasmania is a soft target for terrorism, a stepping stone to the mainland. It is idiocy to think otherwise.
The AFP must be reinstated and Senator Abetz should resign for refusing to do the job for which he was elected and that is to protect Tasmania. At least Senator Duniam is asking for the reinstatement and should be commended for doing so.
I guarantee there was a substantial upgrade in security when the Council of Australian Governments members flew into Hobart last week. Tasmanians deserve the same degree of protection as the rest of Australia. We won’t stand for less.
Humanitarian crisis
THE informative Talking Point article by Peter Jones “Just what we need ... more guns” ( Mercury, June 6) shines a light on the tangled web and often contradictory allegiances in the Middle East. During President Trump’s recent visit to the Middle East, he named Qatar as a rogue nation one day and then a friend the next. The change of heart was followed by a $12 billion deal to supply dozens of F-35 jets.
The stupidity of US foreign policy is exposed when it comes to the sale of $110 billion worth of military hardware sales to Saudi Arabia, a country with the dubious honour of being a leading exporter of terrorism, disseminating its Wahhabi fundamentalist views through Islamic schools at home and abroad. The Australian Government’s allegiance with Saudi Arabia is largely based on its fight against ISIS, but, as Peter Jones points out, the military hardware sold to them by the US, UK and other countries, including, perhaps, Australia, is being used to attack Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East.
Is Australian military hardware sold to Saudi Arabia being used to kill and harm civilians in Yemen? It is possible we will never really know because the Australian Government will not release details of approved military sales, conveniently hiding behind “commercial in confidence” rules and claiming there are strict conditions.
The United Nations confirmed at least 10,000 Yemen civilians have been killed. Indiscriminate Saudi air strikes on hospitals, schools, refugee camps, water and farm infrastructure is causing widespread starvation. Poor sanitation is leading to cholera. Shouldn’t we respond to this humanitarian crisis instead of pouring more fuel on the fire?
Way off the mark
CLEARLY, reader Evan Evans (Letters, June 17) did not attend the community meeting for the Kangaroo Bay development. Had he, he would have heard that not one of his “NIMBY anti-building Daleks” in attendance are actually against the development of this area. The issue residents have, lies in the type of development that has been approved, as well as the process of consultation leading to it. There were many comments about upgrades that have taken place on the boardwalk and the installation of new infrastructure, with council being applauded for these. A development of appropriate scale and design would be welcomed by most reasonable and logical people.