Commenting on Your views: on park lands opinions and more

It’s called democracy, Warren Jones. Taxpayers have a very big stake in the WCH issue, and a right to debate it.

None of us yet knows whether the state can afford this monumental new hospital. The Government has acknowledged that the currently quoted cost of $3.2-3.3 billion is an estimate, to be confirmed after further work in 2023.

That process, together with the recent significant increases in the cost of government borrowings generally, may well produce a “final” cost that is significantly or even dramatically higher than the current estimate, calling into question whether the project should proceed in its current form, or whether it needs to be scaled back.

We should all have a better idea of the state’s ability to afford this and other major projects after the mid-year budget review, due shortly. I imagine few will be surprised by bad news on the interest payments front. – Stephen Trenowden 

Of course Warren Jones doesn’t want ongoing discussion about the WCH site. Like many ultracrepidarians, he doesn’t like it when people challenge his opinion.

The Thebarton Police Barracks is not the only site where the WCH can be sited and to claim so is misleading and vexatious. It is pure scaremongering to suggest that there is any relationship between preservation of heritage and the ability to construct a new hospital. The two have no direct logical or causal relationship of any kind, excepting the one created by the current site proposed for the development.

The claim that the WHC will have an insubstantial impact on the park lands is also outside Warren’s expertise. An opinion regarding the impact of the development on the Barracks site should have been sought from the Department for Environment and Water by the SA Government prior to the site being announced. That would have met the requirements for due diligence in the site review process.

I would also challenge the assertion that the Minister for the Environment ratified the site selection. Given the lack of a DEW representative on the WCH Site Review and the lack of courtesy shown to the Heritage Council, who were not given prior notice of the preferred section prior to the public announcement, it would be fair to assume that the Minister for the Environment was afforded little opportunity to object. And once the announcement was made, a Minister or public servant is not permitted to speak against a government position. They are effectively silenced.

It is also incorrect to claim that there will be an increase in the area of park lands available. The 30,000sqm announced by the Government are already park lands. They are currently being used as car parking and builders’ yards, and their remediation as public park land should occur regardless of the WHC site location.

As Warren is well aware, the current WCH hospital will result in a net loss of park lands. He acknowledges this in his comment. The fact that this section of park land is not well maintained does not exclude it from the national listing, or preclude its remediation.

It would be better if Warren refrained from expressing dogmatic opinions about matters that he has no professional training in. Warren, as an Emeritus Professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health, can speak with authority on medical matters – obstetrics in particular. His expert knowledge regarding heritage, planning and the built environment is clearly limited and he should leave these matters to the appropriate professionals. – Nicolette Di Lernia

Commenting on the story: Record SA exports led by grain and metals

It is a shame that the figures released by the SA Government and by your report fail to mention the state’s education export record which stood at $1.4 billion in 2021, putting it second only to copper at $1.6bn.

Exports constitute more than stuff we dig up and stuff we grow. They also include the products of thinking, teaching, learning and research, all of which are sustainable into the long-term future, unlike some of our mining activities. I think a mindset change is required. – Alistair McCulloch

Commenting on the story: Grain giant flags rail return to Eyre Peninsula

As a visitor to Eyre Peninsula as often as we can get there, this proposal is exciting to see.

To have the availability of rail travel around the peninsula would be a real boost to residents and visitors alike, and the ability to have another option of travel to the rest of the state, especially to hospital and specialist appointments in Adelaide would be well received.

As well, the removal of grain freight trucks and semi-trailers along these routes from inland grain storage to seaports would be a huge benefit in safety and wear and tear on country roads not designed to carry the amount of transport seen in the past three cropping seasons.

It really is a no-brainer, but my question is: who will pay for the damage done to the roads in the interim?  Surely Viterra must bear some responsibility for this? – Kaye Johnson

Part of me is excited at the principle of having rail return to the EP. The connection to Whyalla also makes sense to me, as then it connects the rest of the interstate network.

Assuming the lease is returned, ARTC could be contracted to manage the extension, thus allowing any rail operator to use it, not just the leaseholder.

The pessimist in me sees the lines to Apamurra, Loxton and Pinnaroo previously used by Viterra and Aurizon rusting away, despite already being standard gauge with similar opportunities. Yet absolutely no interest being paid by Viterra and Aurizon in restoring the services along all three lines, and now all in a worse state given the length of time they have been suspended. – Samuel Wittwer

At last! There is some hope that Eyre Peninsula rail is being taken seriously, with the proposal to convert to standard gauge and connect to the national system.

A hundred years late, but better late than never. As for denials about the Transport Department ‘burying’ pro-rail reports: they have been citing the ‘Eyre Peninsula Transport Study’ of 2018 as their guiding document. I wrote to the minister more than 12 months ago pointing out fundamental flaws in that anti-rail document, but have heard nothing since. A case of the department ignoring an inconvenient truth? – David Inkster

I am in full support of this proposal to return to rail and have it upgraded to standard scale. It makes sense in every way. I would like to see a petition that all of EP residents and business owners could respond to in this initiative. – Paul Kidney