Proposed changes to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, making it easier to develop commercial facilities and resorts in national parks, puts nature under attack and is bad for local business.
New developments in Sydney Harbour National Park could become a real possibility. The controversial Quarantine Station redevelopment as a resort on North Head was approved under existing laws.
No doubt, greedy developers could push for more harbour-side resorts if they can get the law changed.
Ashfield is overdeveloped, has insufficient open space, ageing, inadequate infrastructure, and is the fourth most densely populated local government area in NSW.
Forced urban density increases on unwilling communities means national park protection and maintenance should be strengthened, not weakened.
The cash-strapped ALP Government, which is in the midst of selling off $300million of its land and assets, should stop being influenced by developers and corporations and focus on protecting national parks, remnant urban open spaces, our natural and built heritage and residential amenity.
Monica Wangmann, independent Ashfield councillor, Ashfield, NSW
Snowy for the public
The insatiable drive to privatise the Snowy hydro scheme has always been with us. However, the climate of Australia has radically changed. An independent study is required to determine what is the best use of the scheme that is, what is best for the Australian people who paid for this scheme and rightfully own it.
It must be remembered that the scheme is primarily about water and, during the last drought, high security water was selling for $3000 per megalitre (approximately the amount of water in an olympic-sized swimming pool).
What we are talking about is billions of dollars. It would be reasonable to consider using the storage areas to hedge against any serious droughts rather than using the water as a cash cow to prop up ailing state governments. The pressure to sell the Snowy hydro comes from the NSW Government, which is desperately short of funds, and from people who recognise that the scheme is arguably the best investment in Australia.
The talk about leasing is more spin. Let's face it, if you lease a car, you can end up owning it. I would also like to see a royal commission with an unlimited brief look at the anomalies that surrounded the last attempt to privatise the scheme.
As a lay person, I find it difficult to accept that the people who are pushing hardest to privatise were the same people who wanted to buy in to a privatised Snowy scheme.
It would seem that the $2.8billion (approximately) that was to be raised from the sale would hardly be enough when you realise that rental storage for 1 megalitre of water could raise $100. I was also concerned that the NSW Government saw fit to destroy records in relation to the attempted privatisation, and it would be interesting to see if all records concerning the initial public offering were also destroyed. Those privateers will not fail the next time the scheme is put on the market. The question for me is who is looking after the public's interest?
Peter Cocker, Jindabyne, NSW
Heavy vehicle rego
The article by Simon Jenkins (''Zone charges for trucks would carry tax nightmare'', July 9, p17) about a proposed new heavy vehicle registration system based on zone charges was accompanied by a photograph of a very large truck (a ''B-triple''). If, instead of being semi-articulated, the second and third trailers were separate, towed trailers, then the vehicle would be classified as a ''road train'', as seen in outback Australia.
And there's the rub. Assuming that the pictured B-triple will be used in bulk line haulage between the mainland capital cities, this is precisely the line-haul traffic which should be placed on our railways. In fact, the whole truck (less the prime mover) could be put on a train, and be hauled more cheaply (and in a more environmentally friendly manner) than by the prime mover. As for St Clair's assertion that these behemoths are safer than conventional semi-trailers, I would beg to differ.
Unless it is carrying hollow styrofoam boxes, a B-triple would have less power-to-weight than a regular semi or a B-double, and its ''sway factor'' would be higher hardly enhancing factors for the vehicle's safety (nor the safety of other road users). If B-triples are encouraged, how long before ''B-quadruples'' are proposed?
Paul E. Bowler, Holder
Email a friend