Sphinx Rock development threat
I am gravely concerned at the Hobart Council proposals for introducing boardwalk and barrier constructions at Sphinx Rock, in the natural and walking track zone of Mt Wellington.
Sphinx Rock is one of the last places that combines reasonable accessibility with naturalness that provides for contemplation in a natural setting.
As such it is a precious and increasingly rare place of deep meaning to many people over many generations, doubtless extending well before the arrival of white man. It should be preserved as such in tact, and not be defiled to the common condition of being just another tourist spot by inappropriate promotion and construction of artificial facilities.
Hobart City Council asks for public input (i.e. endorsement) to their proposals at
http://www.hobartcity.com.au/HCC.198174:STANDARD:1435904068:pc=PC_669 but I urge anyone concerned to make a stand for the preserving of this place in its natural state, and also make submission copies to each of the HCC’s Aldermen.
Michael Lichon
Cascades, Tasmania
………………………………………………
Sick? Take the Statesman instead
You could have knocked me down with a feather yesterday when I found out that Tasmania has over 500 volunteer ambulance officers.
These men and women give their time, skill and effort to ensure that Tasmanians have the best help possible when it is needed most.
In a small state like ours, volunteers make things happen. They should have all the help that can be supplied to them as they sustain our communities.
It saddens me then, that precious funds that these folk should have are converted to materialistic gain by our politicians.
The Premier’s department is selling a “Statesman 2003 model, only driven by a chauffeur, all luxuries including televisions in the headrests.”
Ah, to be in that department….first class all the way….to the beach James, crank up the air, pass me my Latte and hand me the remote…..
Maybe they are selling this luxury to fund the “Ambos”?
Thanks to those volunteers who work against the odds.
Dave Groves
Kayena Tas 7270.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”.
Mahatma Gandhi
…………………………………….
Rumble in the jungle
I lie awake quite a bit these days. I am concerned for my family’s future and good sleep is hard to come by.
In our neck of the woods I listen to the constant rumble from the Longreach wood chip mill, day and night, night and day.
I hear the rattle and clatter of the “Jake brakes” from the endless convoy of timber jinkers as they make their way to feed the mill with Tasmania’s native forest.
3 million tonnes of timber travelling down the road and put through the chipper each year is a lot of noise.
What would it be like with the proposed 5 million tonnes I wonder?
In addition there would be several years of construction noise while they build the proposed colossus.
I pity those families who live even closer to the proposed pulp mill site. I pity those who live near our native forests or on once quiet roads that will become “mobile forest highways”.
Is it right to have this “life” forced upon us?
Dave Groves
Kayena Tas 7270.
………………………………………………
From Hansard, aerial spraying
Tuesday 31 May 2005 – Estimates Committee A (Kons) – Part 2
Primary Industry and Water
Approx 3.35pm …
Mr BOOTH – … Just in regard to the Lyell forestry workers, the inquiry into that incident has been handed over to your department, DPIWE, to look at action against the pilot. Worksafe have pulled the pin on it and handed it over to you, I believe. Will you be prosecuting that pilot? Will you be recommending a suspension of licence, a withdrawal of licence to be able to spray?
Mr KONS – I am advised that there was no breach of the aerial code of conduct.
Mr BOOTH – We have the situation where four forestry workers were sprayed over, a skidder was sprayed, their trucks were sprayed, and a worker was drenched in, I believe, Roundup.
Mr KONS – I will have to get the details for you on that.
Mr BOOTH – And you are saying there was no breach of the code.
Mr HILL – It is to do with drift and spraying over properties that are not supposed to be sprayed. The issue in that case was that the area was legitimately being sprayed. The workers, you could argue, maybe should not have been there or had not been advised, so from that point of view it is not a breach of the aerial sprayer code of conduct. It is a workplace safety issue.
Mr BOOTH – But Workplace Safety have handed the inquiry over to you in that you are the people who are responsible –
Mr HILL – We would have to get advice on that. My understanding is that both agencies investigated the matter, and certainly from our agency’s point of view it was determined that there was no breach of the code but there was a workplace safety issue.
Mr BOOTH – So despite the fact that a worker was drenched on a work site, that is no breach of the code of practice?
Mr KONS – As Mr Hill said, the code of spraying has the parameter of overspray and those sorts of issues in it and in this instance it was not overspray from one property to another, it was on that property.
Mr BOOTH – They sprayed the workers who were working in the field.
Mr HILL – The code does not cover that.
Mr BOOTH – Extraordinary.
Brenda Rosser
West Calder
