The Mayor should respond
I refer to the Mount Isa City Council's CEO Letter to the Editor (March 16) in reply to Danielle Slade's very sensible and well-presented response to the Councils new water charges.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
We the public of Mount Isa did not vote for the CEO or any Council staff, the majority of people voted for the Mayor and the six Councillors.
The Council CEO and the senior staff do not make council policy or decisions, our elected Mayor and Councillors do, that is when they are not travelling the length and breadth of our state and nation.
When a ratepayer submits a letter to the Editor on Council policy it should be answered by the well paid Mayor and/or Councillors.
By forcing the senior staff to respond to political issues in the media it places them in a very difficult position.
Following a local council election they could be perceived by some people in the incoming council as being the political tool of the former mayor and her councillors and an incoming mayor may have some concerns about senior staff being active in council politics even though that person has obviously been forced into that position by the Mayor.
Maybe even a question of loyalty to the new mayor and councillors could be thought of.
No Madam Mayor, it is your job to justify the policies of your Council.
You and your Councillors made those decisions.
You have a duty to go before the public and defend them.
That is not the function of the CEO or senior staff.
I realise that it is almost impossible to defend these new charges but they came from you and the Councillors.
Now you have the courage of your convictions and defend them.
Don't force senior council staff to do the dirty work.
Kendall Santillan, Mount Isa
ISIS Brides
Our PM is parrotting a line invented by John Howard -- Australians who joined ISIS should just be abandoned by Australia. That's what Howard and Abbott did about David Hicks, until even the Americans could no longer find a reason to keep him in prison. The same was applied to Australian men who fought for ISIS. Today, it's the turn of Australian women who married ISIS fighters. They're Australian citizens yet we should just wash our hands of them.
But that's not the approach we took with George Pell. We went to considerable lengths to persuade him to face our justice.
It's not the approach we take with refugees who come by boat. They are not Australian citizens, but we go to considerable expense to lock them away on Manus and Nauru. When a Labor government wanted to give these people away to Malaysia, the Liberals joined with the Greens to make sure they were kept within our grasp, so that we could look after them.
If they need medical treatment we go to considerable expense to fly them from islands in the Pacific to the Indian. And if the hospital there gets overcrowded, well, there is always Antarctica.
Washing our hands is not the approach we take with refugees who come here by plane. Our government lets lets them stay, 60,000 a year. A few weeks ago, we made a fuss about one who was arrested in Thailand. We went to considerable lengths and expense to get him back here.
So just what is the big danger, or problem, or whatever, with Australian citizens who joined ISIS? It has long been illegal for Australians to become mercenaries, so there is ample action we can take once we get these Australian citizens within the reach of our courts. But under Liberal governments, Australia is a silly, childish, frightened little country which ties itself up in contradictions and then just can't think of what to do.
Grant Agnew, Coopers Plains
