Beds a burning question in PM's hospital plan THE Prime… [Derived
Posted on March 9th, 2010 by adminNews Mail Bundaberg, Mar 9, 2010
Beds a burning question in PM’s hospital plan
THE Prime Minister’s rush, rush mentality has stuck its ugly head up again.
First it was getting the insulation in ceilings without proper processes being developed.
This resulted in four deaths, 90 house fires, and tens of thousands of homes owners not sure if their house will be the next to burn while they sleep.
In an attempt to shift the focus from his bungling, he has released his health and hospital plan.
In this he admitted it would take four years before he could inject any new money into the system.
So here he is introducing another level of federal bureaucracy, while keeping state ministers and state bureaucracies, all with no extra money.
It can only mean less money for patient care.
We need to ask ourselves, can we trust someone who couldn’t manage a $2.5 billion scheme to run our hospitals?
Are we prepared to accept health care less than what we have now, before the four years it will take for the new money to get into the scheme?
And how many more beds will his system give us?
Break it down, Paul
IN reply to Paul Neville, NewsMail, March 5, 2010.
Could we have a breakdown of the $444 million sugar assistance package, so as to inform the public the amount given to the growers in the Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme Area to exit the industry with dignity?
To this figure we must add the amount of the value of water entitlements which had already been given to growers and millers in this area.
My estimate of the latter amount is $150 million – the source of this estimate was compiled from the Burnett Basin DROP 2002.
The predominate funding for the infrastructure – dams, impoundments, channels and pump stations – which allowed for these entitlements to be given out, came from federal and state coffers.
We must also add the money paid to commercial fishermen to buy back the fishing licences, which were originally given, not sold to them, and should never have been allowed to be traded.
We now have a substantial amount of money, in anyone’s terms, given to select groups who have been accused over the years of doing environmental damage.
Now having said this, what would you propose in assistance to the people, workers, landholders, farmers, graziers and the like whose land was purchased from the Crown, whether directly or indirectly, and has not been environmentally damaged by them, and was considered by them to be their superannuation?
Through no fault of theirs, they have seen it fall into the government’s red zone remnant vegetation which virtually renders it worthless.
Another bungled fiasco
THE NewsMail of Wednesday, February 24 contained in the “Just Briefly” column a report headed “New land tax”.
Executive director of the Property Council of Australia, Steve Greenwood, was reported as saying the Queensland Government intended to pass legislation that would lead to huge increases in the valuations on properties.
He said the new laws would mean properties would still be taxed on the value of the land but now also taxed on any improvements by the owner.
We ratepayers, who are wary of property rates with land valuations as means to provide councils with their rating income, if not reading this report in your daily newspaper column Madam Editor, would not be any the wiser until hit with the next year’s rating increase.
We would obviously blame the council as so often we do.
To me this is another sneaky Labor State Government addition to the already bungled amalgamation fiasco cost councils are left to burden.
Gone to jelly
I HAVE tried for years in Bundaberg to obtain a gelatine-free jelly.
I walked into Coles last Tuesday and in the health section, there it was.
“Vitarium” raspberry jelly (only flavour). Good on you Coles.
Leave Innes its park
RE: Rezoning foreshore park – Innes Park.
It has been some time since Bundaberg Regional Council CEO suggested rezoning the above park to cater for the boat ramp and volleyball court.
In that time there has been no retraction of the statement. There should have been.
The volleyball court is unimportant, rarely used and the solution is simple.
However, he has been ill-advised and/or has not read the council’s own documentation about the boat ramp.
Boat ramps are an essential and legitimate structure in foreshore parks.
According to the existing council policy “recreational use of foreshore open space only for those purposes which require an ocean- front or river front location”.
That covers swimming and boating.
Therefore it is not necessary to change the zoning of the park to cover the boat ramp.
The impression is given that the council wants to change the zoning to erect a skate facility in the one and only foreshore park that is Innes Park central.
There is ample park space at Elliott Heads and Riverview that has been allotted per the same document to have a skate facility erected there.
So do not rezone the foreshore at Innes Park.
Leave it leafy and attractive as are other foreshore parks so that all ages and families and communities can enjoy its serenity.