An open letter to councillors
IN view of the overwhelming response to the recent petition to scrap Our Place, I am encouraged to make a few relevant comments in the hope that councillors might reconsider their previous decision to go ahead.
It is recognised that, as elected members of the council, you are expected to make decisions on behalf of the community, but when a decision is made which is in conflict with the community expectations, it is incumbent on the decision makers to reconsider.
Although an effort was made by council to consult with the community on one occasion, which was poorly attended, it should not necessarily conclude that no-one cares, and maybe further attempts to inform the community with details of what was planned might have realised a different response.
And, when it was announced that the steam locomotive could be relocated, it created an instant response to which 3109 plus signatures signed a petition against the proposal. The locomotive is not the only concern. The concept of a modern building of 840 square metres to house the information centre, the art gallery, an Aboriginal activity area, and the admittance office to the Pioneer Settlement, is of great concern over the intrusion to the visual experience of the visitor, the isolation of the PS Gem from the settlement, and the reduced area for activation.
It is important to note that visitors do not come to see a new building — they come to see the historic settlement, and I fear that aspect is being ignored.
Many adverse comments have been received regarding the relocation of the information centre and why there is a need for another art gallery. Does the future art gallery cater for the expansion of Aboriginal art? Perhaps a rigorous debate with all affected parties may reveal a different perception of our needs.
In your deliberations, it would be wise to remember that the Pioneer Settlement was established by local donations of finance and labour for the benefit of the community and some of those people are still here and passionately support its continuance as a community-owned icon.
I am concerned that a modern building inside the settlement does not complement the theme of the attraction.
If this concept goes ahead, I urge all councillors to consider an appropriate alternative location.
David Quayle,
Swan Hill
What is our city coming to?
THERE is a standover element in the management at the Pioneer Settlement that is ordering our group of loyal volunteers to keep silent about any activities at the settlement, but the rumour mill is running hot in spite of these draconian activities by some areas of management.
Questions arise from the following:
& Are we disposing of the steam engine to create a space for a monolithic type of modern building?
& Are we fencing off the PS Gem? If so, the public needs to be consulted and informed as to the need for this to happen.
& What is the financial situation regarding the settlement? In fact, a full financial statement regarding the operation of council should be published as soon as possible.
Already 3000 locals have petitioned the council.
The basis of their concerns is based on the evidence of possible clandestine management practices being prevalent in the “jewel in the crown” and our finest tourist destination.
Of those 3000 petitioners, there needs to be an elected committee of five courageous citizens who will meet with council and find answers that are satisfactory and create an atmosphere of transparency where further discussion can satisfactorily be discussed for the betterment of our community.
Bill Croft,
Swan Hill
One too many
THE annual toll was one less than the previous year, when 25 workers died as a result of workplace incidents.
WorkSafe chief executive Colin Radford said a single workplace death was one too many.
“These are not numbers, these are people — fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, siblings, colleagues, team mates and community members,” Mr Radford said.
“Out of respect for those we have lost and their families, it is time we said enough. It is time to take strong and decisive action.
“There is simply no excuse for cutting corners when it comes to workplace safety.”
Mr Radford said a failure to properly address major safety risks was a common reason for many of the horrific, but preventable incidents.
Nine of the fatalities involved some form of moving machinery or heavy vehicles, which were the most dangerous hazards in Victorian workplaces.
“The risks associated with moving machinery such as tractors, headers, trucks, mobile cranes and scissor lifts are well known so there is simply no excuse for ignoring them,” Mr Radford said.
“All employers must take time to properly assess workplace health and safety risks and plan how to eliminate or manage them, because failing to do so can be fatal.”
There were six deaths on farms in 2019, making them once again the most dangerous workplaces in the state. Another five deaths occurred on constructions sites.
Two of the on farm deaths involved children, aged two and three years old, who died in incidents involving machinery last year.
“Every year the same industries feature prominently in workplace deaths, which is not good enough,” Mr Radford said.
“From July, new workplace manslaughter laws will come into force. So employers are on notice to take their health and safety obligations seriously or risk jail if your negligence causes a workers death.
“If you show a reckless indifference to human life, you will face the full force of these new laws.”
An uncompromising media campaign warning employers of the tough financial penalties and jail terms they face under the new workplace manslaughter laws was launched this week.
Colin Radford,
WorkSafe chief executive
