I would like to express my extreme disappointment at the dismal quality of Wodonga’s footpaths, especially street kerbs. As I now have to use a mobility scooter, many places are inaccessible as kerbs are much too steep to steer off safely and can cause me (and others) to tip over. And roads are much too dangerous as cars generally don't like to give way or share the roads.
Rather than waste money on pointless “art deco”, Wodonga Council needs to invest in upgrading footpaths and make it more disability friendly.
Siobhan C Horsfall, Wodonga
You've done it again
In regard to Peter Macleod-Miller's letter (‘An assault on our values’, February 11), sorry Peter but you have done it again. I guess The Border Mail must cling desperately to any meaningful column centimetre dialogue but, surely swallowing an encyclopaediathesaurus and reeling off a Lithographic sermon, is of little use to their flock.
Fortunately I speak fluent Peter Macleod-Miller and offer this translation: Dr Karen Phelps is working hard as an Independent MP dealing with the asylum seeker evacuation bill. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are not. They therefore, will likely lose the upcoming election, because they are not listening to the underestimated 'fair-go' attitude of the electorate. Meanwhile, our local MPs and religious organisations continue to wipe their hands clean regarding the importance of this issue. Maybe a Royal Commission could offer a solution.
David 'Postie' Norman, Yackandandah
The South Australian Royal Commission Report included numerous references to CSIRO including positive acknowledgement of our scientific contribution into Murray-Darling Basin decision-making spanning over a decade. However as reported in The Land and The Border Mail, the report also levelled criticisms at CSIRO research integrity and made allegations of secrecy. CSIRO flatly rejects this criticism.
I have previously rejected the Royal Commission’s assertion that CSIRO’s scientific integrity was compromised and its independence undermined when I wrote to the Commissioner in November and, as this was repeated in last week’s report I again reject this criticism for the benefit of your readers. CSIRO stands behind the quality and integrity of the research conducted by our scientists, and the integrity of the review and approval processes that took place prior to the delivery and the public release of the reports in question.
CSIRO does not accept the report’s statements that CSIRO acted in secrecy in its provision of research to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. As is usual practice in contracted research and development, the terms of engagement, and release of reports, were agreed with the MDBA at the time that work was conducted. CSIRO reports to the MDBA were made publicly available at the time, as have CSIRO submissions to a number of federal inquiries regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. CSIRO’s submission to the SA Royal Commission is also publicly available.
As the national science agency, CSIRO is committed to providing quality science and work with stakeholders to inform the management of the Murray Darling Basin.