Open assessments to scrutiny

ENVIRONMENT and Parks Minister Elise Archer announced that a proposal for a guided walk to South East Cape in the Southwest National Park and Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area had proceeded to licensing stage ( Mercury, October 15). The assessment process for proposals under the Government’s Expressions of Interest for Tourism Opportunities in National Parks has been opaque. The minister says the proposal will utilise an “existing walking track to South East Cape”. But once the so-called “track” departs from the South Coast Track, it barely exists. An essentially new track will need to be constructed at considerable cost. The proposed new section lies almost entirely within the wilderness zone defined in the management plan for the TWWHA finalised last year. The intent of the wilderness zone is to “retain a challenging unmodified natural setting”. The zoning also restricts the site of a hut to the narrow recreation zone corridor on the South Coast Track. This is likely to be a major constraint on finding a location. This proposal is likely to require a change to the management plan, and this requires public consultation and involvement of the Commonwealth Government. Representations during the review of the management plan demonstrated concern over tourism developments and wilderness. The minister would be well advised to seek public comment and ensure all aspects of the assessment are made available for scrutiny.

Abilities of a ninja

TOMORROW is International Volunteer Managers Day, and I will join others in thanking those who manage volunteers across Tasmania. But here’s the conundrum, they can be hard to find because not everyone is called a “manager of volunteers”. They can have titles including supervisor, ambassador, convener or coordinator. Some are president, chairperson, officer or assistant. At the end of the day, they’re looking after a group of individuals volunteering their time willingly to help our community. In doing so, they display the patience of a saint, the multi-tasking abilities of a ninja, and the conflict resolution skills of a school teacher. So look past the title to find the elusive volunteer manager among your family, friends and colleagues, and thank them for all they do. and depression and continue to battle with them. The opening sentence has the potential to affect so many young men. To undermine a growing problem in young males, and put it down to lack of leadership and “prince boofhead syndrome” is appalling. It is also a damaging idea that “boys should be brought up by men”. Of course, it is essential to have positive male role models, but leadership can come from anywhere. This article furthers the “boys will be boys” idea it seeks to dispel and does more harm than good. The statements have hurt me and have the potential to exacerbate others’ issues through perpetuating the dated ideals other parts of the article seeks to condemn.

Family red herring

I PLEAD with every Australian who loves this beautiful land to wake up from this madness. The issue of raising children in the same-sex marriage debate is largely irrelevant to the question we are voting on. Having children is not contingent upon marriage and what wisdom can “No” proponents bring to bear where a marriage does not produce children? The emphasis on family make-up is a red herring as children are raised in a variety of circumstances. What is critical is the quality of the love and attention they receive. This may be one loving responsible adult but my guess is that, for most, it would be more. It is not apparent to me how we can make sweeping generalisations about the superiority of a particular family make-up over another. To do so, ignores the quality of the love and care. It would surely be most offensive to suggest LGBTQI folks’ love and protection for children in their care may be inferior. Raising children is a complex issue that needs more than superficial consideration. It strikes me, on this particular issue, groups like the Australian Christian Lobby are insensitive to feelings other than their own.

Equal rights already

AFTER six weeks of the same-sex marriage survey, I’ve yet to hear a valid argument from the Yes side. Its campaign seems to hang from the “marriage equality” slogan. But everyone has equal rights to marry, as defined, and de facto couples, regardless of sex or sexuality, have equal legal rights to married couples. We must not take identity politics to the extreme of re-defining marriage just to make it more to the liking of same-sex couples comprising less than 1 per cent of the population likely to take advantage of the change. This would change the definition for millions of Australians who have entered into marriage in good faith on the time-honoured understanding of what marriage is. If what same-sex couples really want is standing and respect, then those things must be earned, they cannot be achieved by changing the law to assert that a samesex partnership is the same as a marriage when the difference is glaringly obvious.