Fatcats versus the workhorses
RUNNING THE STATE
WHY would our state leaders support local government amalgamations when they have successfully transferred a whole range of important leadership functions to us over the past few decades. Responsibilities versus resources or perhaps it should read fat- cats vs workhorses. Gone are the days of the three Rs, rates, roads and rubbish, being the focus of our communities, welcome to a new world of extensive expectation and ever- expanding responsibilities.
Local government serves well as a fall guy or excuse for shortcomings, we are also good for navigating the mother ship, when it suits. The grassroots tier is closest to the people and should be driving many of these aspects, but we must also provide a huge range of infrastructure we are not adequately resourced for, including community plans, regional development, tourism, economic and social advancement, waste and natural resources, community education, environment programs, building, town planning and development.
Let’s not forget the array of regulatory provisions overseen on behalf of other levels of government such as emergency and human services, health support, transport, safety, engineering, recreation and culture. One could argue this expansion has not been balanced by growth in funding and furthermore Australia’s federal structure under current leadership facilitates cost- shifting to local government and our most vulnerable communities. Kelly Sims
Glenorchy City Council alderman
HELLO, UNITED KINGDOM
TASMANIAN Hospitality Association chief executive Steve Old should look and learn from the current situation in the United Kingdom (“pubs make stand on vertical imbibing,” Mercury, November 3).
Boris Johnson, in his haste to lift the lockdown and save hospitality jobs for the summer and the lead- up to Christmas, reduced social distancing from two meters to one. Needless to say, the daily infection rate has now doubled and the UK is about to enter another four- week lockdown.
I understand and empathise with the economic and mental impact that restrictions are having on the hospitality venues. However, Mr Old’s argument “that with our borders open and summer nearly upon us, business is calling the state’s harsh vertical drinking ban be scrapped” is absurd and smacks of complacency. He should be proactively reinforcing the mandated health messages. Tasmania has to date been relatively spared of COVID. We all should be mindful of this, especially now as our border is open.
Lee- Anne Spinks
Bellerive
UNDERSTAND SHORT- STAY
REGARDING the report on short- stay accommodation, Labor spokeswomen Alison Standen said “Labor’s long- held position is that there ought to be consideration of a pause on new short- stay permits in entire dwellings where the rental market is particularly tight” (“Call for pause on housing permits,” Mercury, November 2). Small Business Minister Sarah Courtney said it was not the time to further regulate businesses.
Meeting housing needs improves health, education and ultimately productivity. Is Minister Courtney’s response consistent with putting Tasmania last in the Commonwealth in education, adult literacy and numeracy, morbidity and state product per resident ( 20 per cent behind Australia as a whole) and first in health damaging substance use? Is the response consistent with government- funded residential market support described by colleague Building and Construction Minister Elise Archer (“Backing our tenants and landlords,” Talking Point)? Is it consistent with then human services minister Jacqui Petrusma’s acknowledgment of the relationship between a person’s health and housing? How many approved short- stay properties are owned by Tasmanian registered businesses anyway? How many owners are bona fide Tasmanian residents? Housing is complex and short- stay accommodation is operating in a vacuum. Does government have the courage to seek to understand how the market operates and impact on the community? Political catchcries are not research, answers or relief for displaced tenants and disrupted residential neighbourhoods. Don Snodgrass
West Hobart
PAYING MY WAY
FURTHER to the land tax hikes, payment options shown on notices now appear to be restricted to internet options and contacting Service Tasmania. Unlike previous years there is apparently no option to mail a cheque or money order. Nor is there any option shown as to whom non- internet payments may be made to. For several years there has been apparently no option to pay at a local post office despite notices including a barcode that can be scanned there.
On checking with the friendly staff at North Hobart Post Office, I found my cheque was acceptable and I was able to pay by the due date, thus avoiding the risk of being charged interest at the questionable rate of 8.10 per cent plus a possible 25 per cent penalty rate. Non- payment may also result in legal action, including a caveat on one’s property. It would be helpful if the state government could ensure all payment options are shown on notices.