Your Views: Going nuclear | Northern exposure | Airline questions | Park lands golf
Responding to Premier announces Frome candidate for next year’s election
The Premier may well find that many in Light have been voting for the candidate rather than the party. – Peter Annear
An absolute disgraceful move. Tony has been an absolute champion for the people of Gawler and this is the thanks he gets from the Labor Government. If Tony goes then so do our votes for Labor. – Helen & Richard Hall
Responding to ‘Major win’ for flyers as Qatar-Virgin deal approved
Isn’t this the same airline that forced women passengers into undignified medical examinations when they found a baby in an airport terminal, and then no real apology? Like giving Attila the Hun the keys to Rome! – Ted Jaeger
Responding to Trump is not trying to appease Putin – he has a vision of a new US-China-Russia order
You might like
It’s more than to win the Great Game against China, we need Russia on our side rather than theirs – read Mackinder – Dr Chris Kirtley
This was written with the assumption that Trump and his cronies have given the situation a lot of thought and analysis. Nothing could be further from the truth. He barely knows where Ukraine is let alone who is responsible for what actions over the past three years. – Bob Sibson
Responding to SA businesses keen on nuclear as energy prices bite
Interesting to read that SA businesses put nuclear second as their option for energy. It shows that they haven’t done their due diligence and read any scientific report regarding nuclear energy in SA but instead believe the LNP’s unfunded theories. No wonder so many fail. – Herman Pouwels
The title is really odd in that electricity prices would be about double with nuclear. All we have to listen to is the quote from AGL CEO about nuclear – Too costly and too slow. – John Boland
Responding to How pokies changed the pub
Stay informed, daily
Prior to May 1992, did the Bannon Labor Government realise that most of the poker machines profit would go to Coles and Woolworths? These conglomerates make excessive amounts of money from groceries and food, petrol and poker machines. A profitable business model, indeed. – Paul Thomas Underwood
Responding to The year-and-a-half-long battle to see Premier Malinauskas’s diary
Good on Rex Patrick for advocating for the public to have some idea about who our Premier is meeting with, and about what. Local governments routinely disclose basic information from the diaries of mayors and CEOs at their monthly meetings; it is strange that the door of secrecy should slam shut in state circles, where the stakes are higher. – Peri Strathearn
Responding to Lord Mayor tees off LIV Golf negotiations
I’m a city ratepayer. I don’t play golf, but I have serious concerns about the proposal, and about the very keen desire by the Lord Mayor to deliver the plan for Labor SA on behalf of her constituents.
Note first that no communication has been sent to any of the city’s ratepayers as the Lord Mayor progresses matters behind closed doors at Town Hall. The course is run as a council business. Ratepayers and budget staff rely on its revenues. At the same time as the secret meetings are being held, she is announcing progressive steps towards a “long-term lease” of the course. Under the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, such leases can last up to 42 years, and if that’s the outcome, the land and its facilities will be effectively a leased, government-run business capitalising on the expansive freedoms of its provisions. These will include the right to publicly close sections of the course any time, via fencing, and periodic development of all types of temporary or permanent facilities and buildings. The lease – if the public ever get to see it – will allow for these matters. A Labor minister, the principal party to the lease, will insist on it.
Mayor Lomax-Smith appears to occupy a curious political position on this multi-million dollar proposal. She claims to “oppose the event” but there is no public record of the transcript of the Monday 24 February secret Town Hall briefing by the Premier, and council staff, to lock elected members into a quick commitment. Her opposition, if ever publicly catalogued, appears to have quickly melted away. However, the Lord Mayor assures InDaily that she has “positions regarding minimum tree loss” when she commented a week earlier she would not accept tree loss. That has slipped very quickly, no doubt since she has seen the new layout plans which feature proposed loss of significant trees as fairways are redesigned. Moreover, she praises the notion of “no permanent fencing”, well knowing that even the car race in Victoria Park also has the same feature, even though for months there is temporary fencing restricting public access. She also says nothing about council’s long-term practice allowing “bump in, bump out” periods for all big park lands events (when fencing is erected to enable those activities). These periods are in addition to the period of the event.
To her reported comments: “proper public consultation in regard to [the concept’s] negotiation stance” The Lord Mayor knows full well that consultation about park lands proposals arises through the Local Government Act 1999. Public consultation is required, but any negative feedback is not required to be afforded any lawful legitimacy by the council (or the government).
Finally, to her closing reported comment: “It’s the best of a tricky situation”. What is tricky about it? The council is the lawful custodian of the land. The Lord Mayor is the presiding officer of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority. She could easily advise the board to simply say “no, keep the event at Grange.” If the proposal progresses to the full Council, she could do the same. The question is – does she represent her city council’ 30,000 constituents, or has she just caved in to the Premier and his ministers within a few days of the LIV announcement? Has she regressed to assuming the power of a Labor minister? – John Bridgland
