It was with disgust that I read Senator Humphries's comments on the immigration bridge (''Humphries backs monument to migrants'', June 16, p3). He focuses on a few minor points made against the bridge in the Joint Standing Committee report, but ignores the main arguments opposing it.
So I challenge him to stop playing politics and to reply to the following principal objections to this project. They are:
1. The proposed bridge will forever destroy the great vista from Commonwealth Bridge across the lake to the Brindabellas.
2. It would endanger the lives of sailors and severely disadvantage boating activity, which has been a feature of Lake Burley Griffin for the last 45 years.
3. The Heritage Report on the lake recently submitted by experts to the National Capital Authority gives high priority conservation value to both the views and to the continued use of West Basin and Westlake for boating (p.43 C6-1.6 and C6-1.7).
4. Walter Burley Griffin's final plans did not envisage a pedestrian bridge being built to compete with Commonwealth Bridge (p.11 JSC Inquiry into the Immigration Bridge).
5. There is no need for a pedestrian bridge at the proposed location and it would therefore receive little use.
There is no point ruining the lake to build a memorial that will be seldom visited. All kinds of memorials to immigration could be built anywhere it doesn't have to be an ugly, hazardous bridge on Lake Burley Griffin.
John Holland, Dickson
Private priorities
I allowed myself a wry smile at the concern expressed by politicians about the interest rate rise by the Commonwealth Bank.
It's pretty simple, really in private enterprise, companies try to maximise income and minimise expenditure. In this situation, shareholders are more important than customers.
The resulting unfortunate behaviour of private companies (eg, token attempts at customer service) is often a tedious fact of life with which we need to contend.
However, when essential services (eg banking, telecommunications, prisoner transport or health care) are placed in the hands of private companies, whose prime responsibility is to shareholders, the welfare of customers is often jeopardised.
Given how simple the concepts are, I continue to be surprised that politicians continue to express disappointment that companies don't always meet our expectations as long as essential services are privatised, I don't see how things could be otherwise.
Gordon Fyfe, Kambah
Voters' views
I was always under the impression that ACT Legislative Assembly members were elected to represent the views of their constituents, and not just to push their own personal views and opinions in the Assembly. Further, I thought that the election of members was based on each candidate's pre-election platform.
Against that background, if an elected member then comes up with a personal non-pre-election platform, such as same-sex marriage, euthanasia, library and school closures, total ban on fireworks, then surely he (or she) should be required to canvass and confirm the views of their constituents something like a mini survey/referendum and determine the views of the people that they're representing.
In other words, do something fair and positive. Another positive would be to make such a process mandatory. And, of course, we all trust that the Assembly would turn these two positives into a negative, don't we?
M. McGregor, Curtin
Email a friend