Change the rules on pork
IS it any wonder we have learned not to trust our politicians? If the head of the public service can say no rule was broken in the sports grants scandal, then it’s high time the rules were changed so a minister can no longer blatantly ignore the recommendations of a committee to shamelessly make party politics the criterion in fund allocation. To give thousands of dollars to a rugby club for a women’s changing room when it has no female members and refuse a much higher priority grant to a women’s club with no changing room, or to give grants to clubs where requests are made six months after the closing date in preference to high priority ones which obey the rules, beggars belief.
The Prime Minister did himself no service in his pathetic attempt to justify the political rorting. If politicians are to regain respect from those who elected them, then ethical considerations must be given a high priority in making and obeying rules.
John Sale Battery Point
Cheating at the polls?
GIVEN the Auditor-General found 330 of the 684 sports awards, or 73 per cent, had not been recommended by Sport Australia, and wrongly given to marginal seats in the Coalition’s favour, it seems the Coalition cheated to win the 2019 election.
And given the Coalition won by only two seats, is it possible that if the sports awards had been made on the merit assessments of Sport Australia, that Labor could have won the last election?
This possibility should be investigated by the Senate inquiry or by a royal commission. And if the numbers suggest a Labor win is indeed possible, should not a fresh election be called?
John Biggs Sandy Bay
DPIPWE job description
THE State Government’s advertisement for a new head of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment is missing something. The ad fails to mention a key function of the role will be to continue to aid and abet the sell-off of public land in national parks and world heritage areas. Silly me! Of course, this is not to be mentioned as it’s all to continue behind closed doors so the landowners, the people of Tasmania, know as little as possible.
Phil Easton Kingston Beach
Halls Island lease
THE furore over the price of the lease for Halls Island has missed the key point — that there is a lease at all! One of the stated aims of the State Government’s Expressions of Interest process is to enable the proponent to enter lease and licence negotiations. The Tasmanian National Parks Association does not agree with the concept of leasing public world heritage land to a private developer but if you are going to do so, some preliminary discussion about the likely conditions of a future lease is reasonable.
Documents recently released under Freedom of Information show the main lease was signed in January 2018, well before any of the three main assessment processes — by state, federal and local government — were completed. The lease is the only mechanism available to the PWS to impose conditions on the proponent. It makes a mockery of subsequent assessment processes to issue it before these are completed.
Nicholas Sawyer Tasmanian National Parks Association
Forest practices
WERE a professional forester to critique the comments of a learned lawyer on matters of judicial process, I would be inclined to dismiss it as lacking expertise in the relevant field. I am sure Roland Browne would agree. Yet he comments in emotive terms (Talking Point, February 9) on the measured statements of Shawn Britton, the professional forester (Talking Point, February 5). Not versed in jurisprudence or silviculture, I try to take an objective view, but Mr Browne loses me when he states that the planned careful harvesting of selected mature trees “damages forests” and perpetuates “a long tradition of forest industry propaganda”. He uses the exact propaganda he condemns. From a layman’s perspective, statements such as “the logging industry has been causing widespread damage to Tasmanian forests for well over 50 years” do not appear logical. I accept his view that the expansion of agriculture has led to forest destruction, and I would not limit that to 50 years. Tasmania was founded on whaling and timber, and if logging has been destructive, why do we have the highest proportion of forest of any state? Could it be forest workers and administrators had respect for their resource and saw the need to sustain it as vital?
I am not advocating a continuation of clearfelling. I would hope for the benefit of young people that all forests be carefully assessed and that sensitive logging of selected mature trees becomes the norm, and that harvested timber is used in carbon retaining products.
Tim Payne Mt Stuart