Leo Kennedy’s family still acutely feel the pain of Sergeant Michael Kennedy’s murder. Ned in his own words painted an horrific picture of the policeman’s last moments. He was completely at the mercy of armed bushrangers and pleading for his life, when Ned put a shotgun to his chest and pulled the trigger.

All the publicity given to Ned Kelly keeps the horror alive for the Kennedy family.

It is timely, therefore, that Big Ned and discussion of preserving Ned’s Beveridge birthplace should both be in the news.

Leo has called for Big Ned to be demolished and a statue erected to Glenrowan schoolteacher Thomas Curnow, the true hero of Ned’s plot to wreck a train and slaughter its passengers. Curnow is a deserving hero; Ned is not.

The families of the murdered policemen understandably see Big Ned as an insult to the memory of their forebears, who were doing no more than their policeman’s duty in pursuing the Kelly Gang.

The proprietor of Kate’s Cottage at Glenrowan acknowledges that the idea behind big Ned was to attract tourists to the town. In other words, to act as a honey trap to relieve entranced tourist of their dollars.

At Beveridge a similar proposal, to be funded by a million dollars of taxpayer’s money has been canvassed. A project the local member has praised and said she hopes Beveridge will become a place of national pilgrimage. 

Do we really want Big Ned to continue to stand sentinel over the failed scene of attempted mass murder? Do we want Ned’s birthplace to become a tourist Mecca of national pilgrimage? Should Big Ned stand and Beveridge become a must visit sacred site on the Kelly tourist trail?

A far more deserving public figure of national stature, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, has recently had his boyhood home demolished.

Preserving our national heritage must be accompanied by dignity and respect. Ned Kelly is worthy of neither.

Veronique Janel’s comments in “Push to cut council wages” (The Border Mail, October 21) should be a source of concern for all ratepayers.

The rating structure used by Wodonga Council has been developed using two elements; general rates from households and businesses, plus charges collected to cover the cost of garbage disposal, recycle collection etc.

The money collected for charges is paid directly to the companies that provide these services and cannot be used by the council to cover other costs.

If Ms Janel’s comparisons are recalculated on the basis of money available to council to pay employee costs, the situation becomes more concerning.

General rates in the 2016/17 budget are estimated at $34.1 million, and employee costs at $28.4 million which represents 83 per cent of general rates, as opposed to 67 per cent of total rates. The council therefore has only 17 per cent of general rates to service community requirements and is reliant on loans, parking fines and developer contributions until government grants are obtained to carry out essential works.

The comparison made between neighbouring councils highlights the same issue and while Indigo shire’s $84,621 average cost per employee is lower than Wodonga’s $110,420, Indigo’s total employee costs of $12.1 million consumes 97 per cent of rates.

Employee cost is an important issue which needs more visibility and Wodonga council’s annual plan should be modified to report employee cost expressed as a percentage of general rates, as a performance target for the CEO.