InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Reader contributions

Your views: on Lot Fourteen, JobSeeker, wine exports and planning

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on supporting SA’s construction industry, a liveable rate of welfare income, thinking beyond China and planning decisions.

Print article

Commenting on the story: Plans lodged for “iconic flagship” building at Lot Fourteen

Great for South Australia, hope that the majority of all subcontractor are let out to local SA owned and based companies.

In the post-Covid-19 era we need work and income to stay right here to help the state and its population recover. Enough of money and jobs flowing out of this state like a river of prosperity  for the world or other states.

SA Government, please make this a contractual condition to the main contractor  awarded the honour of building lot 14. – Adrian Chaplin

Commenting on the story: Decision on JobSeeker rate expected by December, as Centrelink debt clawback resumes

JobSeeker payments should be at a permanent rate that is conducive with the amount of money the government needs to recoup to be debt free, but not at Newstart rates.

We are all aware that people on lower incomes are the biggest spenders and that needs to be taken into consideration. JobSeeker recipients have the right to their dignity and not just to exist, but to be able to contribute to society like everyone else. – Julie Craven

Commenting on the story: Surging wine exports defy pandemic slump as China sanctions loom

Denmark up a whopping 53%, the UK up 18%, the rest of the EU, despite a 24% drop in the Netherlands, up 16%. Chine up by a tiny 4%. So Australian wine exports are doing very nicely thank you very much!

That China is threatening to impose massive tariffs on our wine will, if the export orientated Australian wine exporters maintain their excellent work, probably have minimal effect. It just goes to show that we do not need to have all our eggs in the one basket and that is what Australia should be working on to scrap. – Robert S McCormick

Commenting on the story: What is SCAP? Inside Adelaide’s powerful planning body

Virtually every decision SCAP makes is contrary to policies in development plan,s even though the new planning legislation requires it not to make decisions which are ‘seriously at variance with policies in  development plans’.  

Lennon’s statement that ”there has to be established rules and order and predictability in determinations made,” is a complete joke given that SCAP regularly makes decisions which are seriously at variance with policies in development plans .

 No other planning agency interstate or overseas that I am familiar with has a level of approvals that comes anywhere near the number that SCAP approves. In addition to this, despite what SCAP claims, it does not consult with government agencies where it knows that agency is likely to recommend refusal of an application (e.g development of an Aldi supermarket straddling the Aldgate Creek in Stirling where it rejected advice that it should consult with the EPA and SA Water about the water pollution problems associated with the development).

It’s to be hoped that the new planning minister will make immediate changes to the membership of SCAP and strengthen the new planning legislation to ensure that future planning decisions which it makes are not seriously at variance with policies in development plans. – Kevin O’Leary

Make a comment View comment guidelines

Make your contribution to independent news

A donation of any size to InDaily goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. South Australia needs more than one voice to guide it forward, and we’d truly appreciate your contribution. Please click below to donate to InDaily.

Donate here
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article