Thinking twice about giving my books to Lifeline

THE other morning, I dropped off a number of books at Lifeline’s Mitchell Depot as I am an avid supporter of all the work it undertakes for those in need and the community generally.

Included in the books were some dating back to the ‘60s titled “ A Man’s World” (four volumes), which obviously reflected those times.

As a teenager growing up on a farm, in a small country community, I did not have access to the extensive information, communication, media, internet, Facebook, systems, etcetera that young people have access to today. One had to make do with what was available to find out what life and the real world was all about.

These books covered subjects such as economics, business, finance, personal development and life’s challenges. When I dropped off the books the attendant quickly took them inside as if they were “dangerous” and then returned to inform me that they had been binned as they were not appropriate for the development of today’s males or words to that effect. I was left speechless.

I was unaware that Lifeline has a policy of censorship of books whose titles are not “politically correct”. Are their “customers” being shielded from such horrendous titles to protect them from the emotional damage that would eventuate?

One faceless person, at Mitchell, decided, in the best interest of humanity, to censor and bin books that I had kept for more than 50 years, without so much as a discussion, let alone return them to me.

I found this somewhat disturbing, particularly when free speech is always promulgated in our society or have I been living on another planet?

The books, conservative in content, merely reflected the era in which they were published and whereas out of date as the Bible is, to some present-day readers.

Leaving aside their curiosity value, they could have been useful in researching just how much society’s norms have changed since the ‘60s. Incidentally, I can’t recall the words, “political correctness” being used in those books.

Should I now think twice about donating books with “politically incorrect” titles to Lifeline for fear that they will be binned by a “faceless” individual in the bowels of Lifeline?

Anthony Senti, Kaleen

The tram v housing, health and high debt

JACK Kershaw (Letters, CN February 16), in his quest for an alternative route for the light rail extension to Woden, argues the “optics” and “permanence of trams makes them appealing and reassuring” and, without evidence, suggests this “can justify the cost over time”.

Jack needs to consider the opportunity cost of the tram. In the context of unmet needs in social housing and health, high debt, inadequate city maintenance, the need to increase the use of public transport by increasing the coverage and frequency of the bus network and to electrify the bus fleet, to proceed with the extension would be obscene, when more cost effective bus-based alternatives are available.

Jack also suggests his alternate route, including a yacht-friendly lake crossing, would be assisted by “due substantial financial assistance from the Commonwealth”.

It would be egregious if the project, not supported by the Productivity Commission or Infrastructure Australia, received Commonwealth funding when severe unmet needs exist in many areas including housing, health and in indigenous communities.

Mike Quirk, Garran

It’s logical to stick with road transport

I AGREE with Jack Kershaw (Letters, CN February 14) that current plans for public transport between Civic and Woden don’t service enough national attractions; and critically, are mired in major planning, heritage, cultural-landscape, aesthetic, engineering, traffic, time and cost problems, mostly unresolvable.

The current plan is to increase public transport travel time, between Civic and Woden, from less than 20 minutes to more than 27 minutes. That will probably result in fewer people using public transport, and consequently more people driving cars.

On Canberra’s roads the average car trip causes less emissions than the average public transport trip.

The “optics” and permanence of roads make them appealing and reassuring, and can justify the cost, over time. However, road “land-value-capture” property development needs to be carried out more sensitively.

Users testify that roads are popular and operating well; and it’s now surely logical to continue with the citywide system, sensitively and expeditiously, for long-term benefit.

Leon Arundell, Downer

Sorry saga now seems hauntingly familiar

IN his column “When leaders veer off into a strange universe” (CN, February 16) Paul Costigan expressed puzzlement as to how former prime minister Scott Morrison could have been allowed to take a Coalition government down the road to ruin.

Members of that government cannot credibly claim that they were not told, nor warned, about Morrison’s record in working with government.

In 1998, Morrison was appointed director of the NZ Office of Tourism and Sport. Within weeks, he had quietly arranged the removal of the chairman, deputy chair and chief executive of the NZ Tourism Board, who received almost $NZ1 million in secret payouts.

An auditor-general’s report subsequently found that Morrison had exceeded his remit: the minister for tourism was forced to resign, and prime minister Jenny Shipley’s conservative government was defeated by Labour in 1999. Morrison left abruptly in 2000 with a year left on his contract.

In 2004, Morrison was appointed managing director of Tourism Australia, and spent $180 million on the now infamous “So, where the bloody hell are ya” campaign. This expenditure was allegedly never authorised by the minister, Fran Bailey. Morrison was promptly sacked.

How much of this sorry saga now seems hauntingly familiar?

Dr Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

Give the Reserve Bank the GST lever

A MORE equal method of managing inflation may be to curb consumption by giving the Reserve Bank a discretion to increase and decrease (as required) the GST above the current 10 per cent. Government would then have the funds to compensate those on lower incomes. It may also be prudent to exempt food and medicine.

Peter Norton-Baker, via email