Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Environment

Please answer

Can someone ask the Government the following:

As the paid agent of the public in the matter of public health, does the government accept full responsibility for assuring the quality of drinking water for the public …

OR

… does the government believe that the public should prove that the water is unsafe before the government takes action?

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Paul

    March 10, 2005 at 10:06 am

    Both True? I disagree.

    But I realise that, in saying this Mike, you seem to have spotted the contradiction: the mismatch between the government’s words and actions. Or perhaps expressed more clearly, the contradiction between the reasonable public expectation that the government will take steps to ensure our health and safety – versus- the reality that they appear to have failed in this duty.

    Has the government really failed to take adequate steps to assure the safety of drinking water? Yes, it appears to have failed. Recent reports in the Mercury, Examiner and ABC suggest that little or no records of types and quantities of chemicals have been maintained, and until recently, little or no monitoring of the quality of water has been routinely undertaken. This is NOT an outcome of considered and effective government policies designed to ensure the health and wellbeing of Tasmanians.

    Should some Tasmanians have to employ scientists or suffer sickness, pain and possibly death in order to prove to the government that is failing to assure we all have safe drinking water? It seems a slow, costly and undesirable way to run a government … especially for the people who might wind up paying and suffering, I am sure.

    I think the subtext of “Informed Decoder’s” question is whether the government can change to become proactive and do the one of the jobs we pay and elect it to do (ie effectively assure safe drinking water and environment) – OR- whether our government is more interested in “spin”, the appearance of effectiveness, and only responding when public opinion demands it.

    I think “Informed Decoder’s” question raises some interesting issues and is well worth asking Mr Lennon and Co.

  2. Russell Vandenbergh

    March 10, 2005 at 7:32 am

    Brilliant, so descriptive in so few words, so powerful; when one pauses to consider.

    It has always been, eg, preventative health funding, verses multi million $ corps, money marketing and econ rats.

    Who then, keeps gov agencies (even local) accountability to the community? It has always been a nonsense to claim local councils are not party politically driven or, that governments are benign to their customers.

    How do we make the wheel squeakier? By being civil! Education?

    Notwithstanding, as our predilection is for comfort and the least pain, people close their eyes and minds; at great risk. Glad I haven’t any kids in the district, although it seems like the whole of Tas is, to a degree poisened and more vulnerable. We watch the tourism with increasing incredulity. ‘Thats no longer true’.

    Political scientists should attempt an answer. Please advise.

    Cheers for now

  3. Mike Bleaney

    March 9, 2005 at 12:43 pm

    Unfortunately, both of these statements are true!
    QED in St Helens.

Leave a Reply

To Top