Twitter comments seen as voice of chief executive

Helen Anstis is fully entitled to hold and publicise her personal political opinions (Anstis defends Twitter political messages, Gaz 7/6). However, it’s naïve to think that urging a vote for the McMillan challenger, in the supposed best interests of the shire, won’t be construed as the voice of its chief executive.

Ms Anstis has at the very least risked compromising her office.

It also strikes me as naïve to advocate voting thus for that reason. If Mr Buckingham is elected as our member, and his party to government, he will be new on the block, one such among many, with minimal influence. In opposition, his influence would be even less.

Three years hence, McMillan as a marginal electorate might attract more promises of largesse from both sides of politics, promises that one side will not be able to keep, in opposition, and which the other side will at best deliver in part, going on form of governments of all persuasions.

There may be good reasons to vote for, or preference, Mr Buckingham, but the short or medium term self-interest of our shire is surely not one of them.

Indeed, what ought to be encouraged is not pork-barrel politics, but believable commitments from both major parties to allocate all public resources even-handedly, meaning in accordance with clear, just and fair criteria, and priorities determined by the overall public interest. John Hart Warragul

What a wonderful evening we had in the beautifully refurbished West Gippsland Arts Centre.

But what a terrible decision to do away with the middle aisle.

Is it greed? Just a few more dollars for the committee of management?

Now many folk endure the discomfort of not being able to access the aisles quickly when necessary.

Surely the comfort of patrons should key objective. be the

J. Peterson Drouin Senator Joe Bullock feeling compelled to resign from parliament.

Do we want an Australia in which Christian beliefs and practices are considered evil? We already have this to some extent - especially here in Victoria under our Labor Government. For example: You can be arrested if you pray on a street within 150 yards of an abortion clinic.

Do we want an Australia in which our children do not belong to their parents but to the state? We already have this to some extent. For example: compulsory vaccination of children whose families are in the lower income bracket and wish to receive a certain tax benefit.

Or, in Victoria under our Labor Government, a mandatory Orwellian-named Safe Schools Coalition Australia program, which normalises homosexuality and promotes a radical Marxist gender ideology in schools.

Do we want an Australia in which the family - the basic unit of society - is finally destroyed?

This is the kind of Australia which the Labor Party, the Greens and a majority of Liberals are offering us. Janet Cowden Neerim South