Call me cynical but whenever Big Brother gets all caring and pro-active about things like public safety I smell a rat.

Be they politicians, bureaucrats or lobby groups, their natural attitude to public safety is well represented by Craig Ingram's recent labelling of the compulsory wearing of life jackets as nanny government, something best left to the wisdom of the individual and not needful of legislation. I am sure that one hundred and fifty years there was a Craig Ingram equivalent opposing the move to ban child labour.

I can remember just six months ago when Gippsland Ports announced their exclusion zone for Bastion Point and the talk was all of safety. Can that be just six months ago, when the full Bastion Point monstrosity seemed a formality. Hasn't the tide been flowing strongly the other way ever since. Those packed meetings in August, Dale's election and Michael Freshwater's defeat, and now a full recognition by Gippsland Ports that the existing situation at Bastion Point, while not ideal, is viable.

Your Say
Next: Richard W
Previous: Richard W
                              Back To Top


Posted: 3rd January by Richard Wootton

Well, the first issue of The Inlet hit the streets last week. A sad sickly little thing and I fear for its future. Where are all the biting ocean access critiques that the mealy mouthed Mouth failed to print?

As the current Mouth editor I have been made very aware of suggested shortcomings in the Mouth's coverage, I wrote about that most recently here. However the first issue of The Inlet contained nothing that The Mouth would have shunned except perhaps the page 1 Meg Lees tease.

I wanted better from The Inlet. I had always expected it to vanish after a couple of issues, but I had hoped it would be good enough to silence the critics of the Mouth, at least for a while. Judging by this first issue, sadly, those that castigate The Mouth will be able to blame the failure of The Inlet on the grounds of implementation rather than concept.
Your Say
Next: Richard W
Previous: Richard W

The second Holiday Mouth reproduced a draft copy of the strategy plan for Mallacoota recently released by the shire as part of the Coastal Towns Design Network project. PDF copies of the reports are available for download and comment at www.egipps.vic.gov.au (just follow the prompts).

One of the features of this strategy plan is a development envelope for Mallacoota for the next fifteen years. The land on which Mirrabooka House to used stand is outside this envelope. Why?

When we first moved here I just assumed Mirrabooka House was being run down because it was owned by a developer who wanted the house condemned so they could subdivide. So when it burnt down a couple of years ago I expected rapid change but nothing has happened. And now it is has been excluded from development in a plan that will ultimately go to council for ratification. This is the last prime piece of vacant land in Mallacoota so what is the problem. In passing, the Buckland's farm at Sunny Corner is within the envelope.

Why Is This So? Can anyone enlighten me?
Your Say
Previous: Richard W