LETTERS: Increase punishment for using phone while driving

DEATH comes in many and various ways but why should it occur due to negligence of a driver?

Some drivers still don't get the message. Picture: monkeybusinessimages

Increase penalties

DEATH comes in many and various ways but why should it occur due to negligence of a driver?

It is against the law to hold and use a mobile phone while in control of a vehicle.

Why should someone die due to this negligence?

I have been travelling from home to Bundaberg Hospital via Bourbong St for three weeks and within that short time I have witnessed more than 10 drivers at lights and more operating phones while driving.

It is about time the government and the law got serious about this action of stupidity.

Raise the penalty to $1000 for first offence, $2000 for second offence and then loss of licence for third

The law should be set that to use a phone a driver must pull from the road and switch off the vehicle motor.

Only changes to the laws will save lives.

ROB BAUER

Bundaberg

Is sky the limit?

BUNDABERG Regional Council is in the process of assessing the proposed nine-storey Jewel development.

We have a town plan that is so new the ink is still wet.

The residents of Bargara believed this new plan limited development to five storeys between Nielson Park and the Basin.

How then is it possible that a developer can submit a nine-storey highrise application for a site in the middle of that precinct?

Is there a loophole in the town plan that permits this?

Is the plan a waste of ratepayer money - a toothless tiger?

No reasonable person would accept that a developer would spend the vast sum of money to prepare and submit an application for a development that effectively doubles the building height limit unless he was confident of success.

There have been meetings with the council. Has the council advised the applicant that an application for such a dramatic change would not be considered at the outset?

The council has requested more information from the applicant.

Why would the council do this if it wasn't giving credibility to the application?

What more information could you possibly want to support the fact that nine storeys is vastly higher than the five-storey limit?

If there is a flaw in the town plan and the council rejects the application as it must, are we the ratepayers then liable to pay for the appeals and litigation that are sure to follow?

The council determined that the application was code assessable rather than impact assessable. Why?

Code assessable means that there is no public notification period so residents are denied the opportunity to provide comment.

Why has the council chosen to assess the application away from scrutiny by residents and the state agency?

The bottom line is that we have an application that dramatically changes the new town plan, has been accepted by the council and will be assessed away from public and state scrutiny.

What happened to transparency in government?

If the council approves this nine-storey development or even softens the five-storey limit marginally, then the thin end of the wedge has been firmly lodged and then watch out Bargara, Burnett Heads and Elliott Heads as the sky will be the limit.

The amenity of our unique area will be destroyed and turtles will be able to navigate by the light off the high rise up to 20km out to sea.

BRIAN REYNOLDS

Bargara

People will pay

THE downright hide of Turnbull and his team as they try to convince voters that they can do anything positive about power prices.

Having sold power generation and distribution to private enterprise for short-term gain, Liberal and National politicians must surely know they cannot control what these private corporations now charge customers.

Realising now that these assets are essential services and contribute to business costs and cost of living for residents is too late.

Short of reversing the privatisation and nationalising this industry again, which is anathema to their political agenda, Turnbull and his mates can only continue with their rhetoric, as most people understand that the current government is hostage to the whims of the private owners, and that we will continue to pay the price for this political folly.

MAX TANZER

Elliott Heads

Sugar survey

IT'S NO secret that sugary drinks are harmful to our health. But to help Queenslanders reduce their intake of sugary drinks and influence policies around this, we want to hear from locals about the issue.

This month Cancer Council Queensland and Heart Foundation launched an Everyday Health Survey on sugar-sweetened beverages, aiming to identify consumer habits, determine understanding of the health impacts of sugary drinks, and assess support for proposed regulations to reduce consumption of these products.

The findings will enable organisations to develop new campaigns and advocate for regulations that will positively impact the health of Queenslanders.

I encourage people to speak out and have their say on the future of sugary drinks.

Sugar-sweetened beverages are a major source of sugar in the Australian diet - yet we know that these beverages have little or no nutritional value, provide excess energy, and lead to weight gain.

Although many factors influence obesity, research indicates sugary drinks play a significant role in driving up rates - which is an established risk factor for chronic diseases, including cancer.

It's our priority to combat this weighty issue, and advocate for changes in our community including marketing restrictions and a 20 per cent levy on sugary drinks.

If you live in Queensland and are 18 and over, don't miss out on having your say.

Complete the survey at www.cancerqld.org.au/every dayhealthsurvey by Tuesday July 31.

CHRIS McMILLAN

Chief executive officer

Cancer Council Queensland