CAREFUL WHAT YOU VOTE FOR
I would encourage the ratepayers and citizens of this city to be very careful when it comes to the popular election of our mayor.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
If you work at the Wagga Base Hospital, you know what is going on there.
If you work at the Wagga Police Station, you know what is going on there.
And if you are a councillor, you know what is going on there.
When a mayor is elected by our councillors, they can remove him or her if that person is not working hard for the best interests of our city.
To lock a mayor in for a term of four years could end up being a terrible mistake. If he or she does not perform, the city is stuck with them for four years. How do we get rid of them? We don't vote for a popular premier or prime minister. That is because it is essential that the leader has the support of the majority of the government.
Popular election could see us end up with a mayor who doesn't have the support of the majority of councillors. We would have friction there before we start. Haven't we had enough of that?
Self-interest has won every race since the dawn of time. A person who has a lot of money could run for mayor and spend thousands of dollars on publicity and advertising but may not be worth two bob.
A wealthy person could also back a candidate for mayor so they can be controlled once they are elected.
Yet someone who would make a terrific mayor may miss out because they don't have the resources for an elaborate mayoral campaign.
If you are thinking of voting for the popular election of our mayor, please think twice.
Terry Ahern, Wagga
COVID DECISION MAKES NO SENSE
I'm amused by the decision to no longer list venues of concern ("Complex issue to balance", The Daily Advertiser, November 12).
How can one not list "venues of concern"?
By definition, does that mean they are no longer of concern?
If so to whom? Definitely not the Department of Health, which is swaying to businesses that might be concerned?
In the story, Murrumbidgee Local Health District CEO Jill Ludford was paraphrased as saying the decision was "better for businesses that will no longer have to face the fallout of being listed as an exposure site".
Would the venues of concern, that are not of concern, be of concern to the public by any chance?
So the government's response to public concern at COVID-related timely data is not to supply the data? So we won't educate the public in how to respond more appropriately, we will just withhold the information?
Is it any wonder that social fake news fills the gap?
Name and address supplied
READ MORE LETTERS:
'SCARY' FACTS EMPHASISE NEED
Of Australia's population of approximately 25.5 million, 5.1 million are aged 15 years or younger. That leaves 20.4 million aged 16 years and over.
If the plan is to vaccinate 90 per cent of these, that equates to approximately 18.4 million. So this would leave approximately 2 million aged over 15 years unvaccinated.
Even if we get to 95 per cent, it would still leave 1 million unvaccinated. Scary numbers. Get vaccinated folks!
Sam McDade, Wodonga
HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.