After an ABC 7.30 program this week, Ken Henry for prime minister. And out with the careerist, evidence-averse, unctuous, second-rate party hacks (on both sides) who we suffer ad nauseam.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Whether or not one agrees on all details of what Dr Henry suggests, at least he speaks clearly on economic subjects and realities that our politicians rigorously ignore. Australians deserve leaders who articulate and pursue an imaginative strategic vision for the social and economic wellbeing and development of the country; who demonstrate honesty and a little grace in political debate; who are not hostage to the past or to ideology, and thus are able to admit mistakes; who resort less often to excuses and obfuscations that are transparently manure; who deal with problems as they are instead of wasting time attributing ''fault'' to previous administrations; who give us First World infrastructure, a realistic welfare net, a charter of rights and stop the more outrageous tax advantages for certain industries and wealthy individuals; and who put less effort into self-righteousness, more into original thought on behalf of the country rather than their parties. Sadly, few seem capable of this.
We can anticipate the reaction. ''Dr Henry is a private citizen … etc etc.'' In other words, ignore the substance, dismiss it by implying that the bearer lacks some magic status that would render his message valid. Get a grip.
Chris Whyte, Higgins
Art for Brandis' sake
Why doesn't federal Arts Minister George Brandis just cut to the chase and tell the Australia Council not to fund any artist who voted ALP or Greens at the past election? This would have the triple benefit of setting clear standards and guidelines, and of giving Senator Brandis what he wants - the defeat and humiliation of the enemy (in this case opinionated artists with left-wing sympathies). Finally, it would make it clearer to the High Court that what he is threatening to do is in direct violation of the constitutional right to freedom of political communication, let alone his precious, much vaunted common law right to ''freedom of speech''. Bring it on, Brandis.
Marion Barker, O'Connor
More power to Vlad
Simon Corbell's announcement of an auction to contract two companies to power 80,000 Canberra homes with wind energy originating in the Canberra region is cause for further concern to myself and many of my neighbours who are grappling with the prospect of 100 x 170m wind turbines stretching down the Goulburn/Braidwood Road from Tarago to Manar. Already we feel challenged by the power of the foreign-owned company and the layers of government involved in this development including state, local council and federal. Now we have the ACT government thrown in for good measure.
One thing I guess we can be grateful for is that, according to Simon Corbell on Adam Shirley's program on ABC 666, 20 per cent of the assessment of the winning companies will depend on community consultation. Consultation by EPYC, the Spanish/Iranian company developing the Jupiter wind farm, ranges from non-existent to patchy. A visit to the Palerang Council by an EPYC representative left councillors little more informed.
My property is within the limits of the complex boundaries and my living area view will be, I understand, populated by 11 wind turbines (according to Goulburn MP Pru Goward, the height of Australia Tower in Sydney) within a couple of kilometres. It's difficult to know quite how many kilometres as the company has not contacted me.
With his aspirations to annex the amenity of neighbouring parts of NSW, Mr Corbell apparently imagines himself the Vladimir Putin of the southern highlands. The real Vlad may have succeeded, the wannabe won't.
Jane Keany, Mt Fairy, via Braidwood, NSW
Simon Corbell appears at the very best to be expressing a latent desire for purchasing wind energy (''80,000 homes on with the wind'', March 12, p1). At worst, it is a cynical exercise to save an inefficient industry that has relied on federal government legislation and large subsidies to survive.
Over 100 wind turbines began operation just outside the ACT in 2009. I am sure the developers were busy networking in the area years before and since, but the ACT government didn't seem so pressed to negotiate any purchasing agreements. Now the Renewable Energy Target scheme is under review and the supposedly ''cheap'' side of wind energy is coming under the spotlight, the industry seems more threatened, and suddenly councils in Sydney, like Canterbury, are starting to propose purchase agreements with wind developers. Is this rush for purchasing agreements because wind developers need new markets or because figures such as the Canterbury mayor and Simon Corbell are blindly driven to pursue any kind of ''renewable'' energy no matter whether it makes economic sense or what harm is inflicted on affected communities?
George Papadopoulos, Yass, NSW
Upper Lachlan Shire mayor John Shaw says that wind farms proliferating in the ACT region are dividing the community, farmer against farmer, and so on. Another obvious recent example of this is King Island, Tasmania. This is par for the course - industrial wind energy is a conflict-creator and community-divider par excellence. In this case, the ACT is effectively outsourcing the conflict generation to the region surrounding it. Anyone in doubt about the conflict-creating side of large industrial wind energy should follow the news section at the Wind Watch website (www.wind-watch.org), where reports from other countries, of conflict and related issues such as noise problems, are regularly added.
Murray May, Cook
For whose benefit?
John Dwyer's penultimate paragraph (''A road to better healthcare'', Times2, March 13, p4) sets out a number of very sensible ways to improve our heath system. He could have also referred to the personal expenditure we make to health funds. The efficiency of this costly, large industry, which provides no medical procedure to anyone, needs examination.
It is unlikely to factor into the thinking of the ''best friend Medicare ever had'' but each of us can assess the magnitude of the redirection of our health dollar. Firstly, consider the cost of the well-staffed shop front of the fund you support when you next visit your shopping centre. Secondly, find out if your fund is a ''for profit'' or ''not for profit'' fund. Why would anyone redirect their health dollar to a ''for profit'' fund is difficult to understand.
It is not difficult to move from one fund to another at the present time but may be made more difficult in the future when Medibank Private is sold to a ''for profit'' fund - the most likely outcome - or floated on the market..
Our natural inclination to stick to what we have should not stop a careful analysis of our contribution to the non-medical component of our health expenditure. There is ample information on the net to do so.
Steve Thomas, Yarralumla
Wall-to-wall wrong
Dale Fletcher (Letters, March 12) is either entirely ignorant or entirely dishonest in his assertion that ABC Radio (by which, from context, he means 666 Canberra) is ''wall-to-wall female presenters''. Of the four Canberra-based daytime programs, two, not three, are presented by women. They account for four hours of that 11½ hour period. Wall-to-wall?
Taking the 24-hour programming (the rest comes from outside of Canberra), only one female-presented hour is added to those four, with The World Today. So, five hours out of 24, is that what Fletcher means by wall-to-wall? As for the unsupported accusation of ''flogging their feminist agendas'', I invite Fletcher to offer one example of a story from the past week from each of the two female presenters to support his case - and in the process illustrating what on earth he means by the phrase. I am of course assuming, despite the evidence above, that he has actually been listening in order to make his assertions.
Ian Fraser, Duffy
To be expected
Well said, Jenna Price (''Government's belittling of ABC the worst action of all'', canberratimes.com.au, March 12). The Abbott government's attacks on the ABC are shamefully ideological and part of a born-to-rule, conservative culture that has always accepted supportive stories as fair comment and rejected critical stories as left-wing bias.
Ian McFarlane, Wallaga Lake, NSW
Lights out, please
Shane Rattenbury declares that ''Northbourne Avenue is the most congested road in Canberra, with an average peak hour speed of about 20km/h'' (Letters, March 11) He further states that ''Light rail seeks to tackle this problem''.
Between London Circuit and Mouat/Antill Streets, there are 10 sets of traffic lights (including one pedestrian-activated set), in a distance of under four kilometres. All bar the pedestrian lights control four-way intersections, most with separate ''turn left'' arrows. So, it is more than possible that these 10 sets of lights have a deleterious and cumulative effect upon the speed of traffic along this section of Northbourne Avenue during peak hour.
Might I suggest a cheaper and faster approach to tackle this problem that does not involve the purchase of a white elephant? Delete, say, three of the four-way intersections - by blocking the crossing of Northbourne Avenue and removing the lights altogether. I nominate (1) Gould Street/Eloura Street; (2) Rudd Street/Bunda Street; and (3) Condamine Street/Ipima Street intersections. Yes, this might require some Turner-to-Braddon journeys to be replanned - a small price to pay for increased flow along Northbourne Avenue.
Paul E.Bowler, Holder
Quiet success
Thanks to the interest generated by Meredith Clisby's July 25, 2013 article, (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/residents-seal-deal-over-cheapaschips-road-works-noise-20130724-2qjux.html) and follow-up action by Territory and Municipal Services Minister Shane Rattenbury, the city-bound lanes of Bowen Drive were resealed on March 7. The effect is a quieter environment, both for Barton residents and those driving along Bowen Drive. Many thanks, Canberra Times and Mr Rattenbury.
Ian Pearson, Barton
IN BRIEF
RAISING QUESTIONS
Dale Fletcher (Letters, March 12) please answer: A. Are you the Prime Minister's pseudonym; or B. Did the Prime Minister draft your letter? If Dale Fletcher is your orthonym and YOU drafted the letter: C. Does your collar aggravate your already inflamed neck?
Mal Peck, Red Hill
RIGHT TO BE AGGRIEVED
Clive Hamilton (Letters, March 11) would have us believe that the solar farm spoiling Jennifer Howlett's lifestyle and enjoyment of a glass of wine is about saving the planet, and that she and her whingeing ilk need to harden up. Solar farms are not about altruism but about making some landowner a fair bit of money. Mrs Howlett has every right to feel aggrieved about the effect on her lifestyle, particularly if she was not consulted beforehand.
Alex Wallensky, Broulee, NSW
HELLO POSSUMS
Michael Jordan (Letters, March 8) is correct about possums in North Canberra. I am about to have possum No. 10 removed from inside my roof cavity. This has only been the past year's worth. With no one able to find the entry-exit point for the possums, I am forced to endure noise each evening and morning, and can't do anything about it. The next step is finding a way of recording inside the roof, then blocking access. I love possums, but just not inside my home.
C. Carey, Dickson
SUPPORT FOR UNION JACK
There is talk again of removing the Union Jack from the Australian flag, but I think people are not aware the Union Jack consists of three Christian crosses: Scotland's cross of St Andrew, Ireland's cross of St Patrick and England's cross of St George. Why would people want to remove these symbols from the Australian flag?
Penelope Upward, O'Connor