Bridget McKenzie has criticised Cathy McGowan (‘Nat attack’, The Border Mail, February 14) in relation to her vote on the medevac bill, claiming that she was following the wishes of a few “left-leaning Voices of Indi members” instead of her constituents.
I can assure readers that before the vote Cathy was seeking the views of her constituents. I responded and Cathy had the courtesy to let me know the outcome.
There were more than 700 expressions of support for medical evacuation and 13 correspondents who were against the legislation. Thank God for members like Cathy who represent their constituents instead of blindly following the party ideology.
Bruce Key, Wodonga
Article raises question
Regarding a Victorian woman’s story (The Border Mail, January 30) of her abortion, the matter shows how Victorian Premier Andrews, in legalising abortion, has made the procedure much easier and more common and the article in question may cause more women to follow suit.
The article quotes her as saying: “she is ‘just human’ like many others who choose to have an abortion”. The question follows: Is the aborted baby not human, too?
Also, and I quote: “I am very confident in the decision that I made and it is my right to choose what’s best for me – there’s no right or wrong.” That raises another question: What if our decisions affect another?
NSW voters need to remind our legislators that legalising abortion in NSW can only result in more abortions with potential harm to women and deaths of the unborn.
Darcy Maybon, Turvey Park
Another Saturday Border Mail and another confused ramble from David Everist (On the Wallaby).
This time he deals with the issue of dams and outlines a number of reasons why dams should not be seen as the solution to rural drought woes. I agree with his central premise but his writing retains the recurring prejudice against the left that taints most of what he writes.
For example in one sweeping statement he declares, “the ALP and the Greens have a no-dam policy” although where he gets this from is a mystery. The NSW ALP opposes the raising of one dam in Sydney’s water catchment by 14 metres (Warragamba) because it would flood 50sq km of world heritage national park. The Victorian ALP have also suggested the imposition of what they call “reasonable use limits” on farms dams. Does that sound like “no dams”?
The Greens only policy position on dams is that they want investment in large-scale water infrastructure such as dams to only happen after lower cost and lower impact options have been fully developed. This is more like good economic management than a “no dam” policy.
Having misrepresented the position of the two political parties he dislikes, Mr Everist’s argument improves considerably as he articulates a number of good reasons why dams are in fact not a solution to anything much.
He lightly touches on the main argument against dams; (that they are not cost effective) but he makes the additional point that they cause widespread and persistent environmental damage. This is exactly what the Greens have been saying for years.