I HAVE written to residents on Russell Island in response to questions and concerns raised with me regarding the Russell Island Sporting Complex project.
The residents who contacted me had received a letter from Federal Member for Bowman, Andrew Laming, politicising the Russell Island Sporting Complex project.
An application was submitted by the Redland City Council for funding under Round 2 of the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF2). RDAF is a competitive, merit-based program. The application that was submitted went through an independent assessment process along with more than 100 other applications all hoping to receive some of the $200 million on offer.
Given the very competitive national process, unfortunately the Russell Island Sporting Complex application did not make it through. However, the Labor Government is committed to continuing to support regional Australia and because the government successfully introduced the MRRT, there will be a further three rounds of RDAF still to come.
It is simply not true to say the Labor Government has refused to fund this very worthy project.
Of the successful projects in RDAF2 announced by the end of June, 62 per cent were unsuccessful in the RDAF Round 1. These applicants took onboard the feedback available to them, strengthened their application and were successful.
I encourage Redland City Council to take on board the feedback provided on how to make its application stronger in terms of regional benefit and to resubmit it in one of the next three RAF rounds made possible by the MRRT.
Mr Laming voted against this legislation, which provides the funding mechanism for RDAF projects. Keep this in mind when considering whether he is sincere or playing politics with a community project.
I was able to visit the proposed site for the sporting complex when I visited Russell Island late last year and I understand how important it is to the local community. I am always happy to talk.
Senator Claire Moore, ALP senator for Queensland
Little to do with science
THE carbon tax is a tax intended to reduce Australian's carbon dioxide emissions, similar to, but not the same as, car exhaust fumes, which are carbon monoxide.
It's accepted that Australia produces a little in excess of one per cent of the world's emissions. Some of this is produced naturally; even the air we breathe out contains carbon dioxide.
The federal government's claim is this tax will reduce that emission by five per cent. That's a reduction of five per cent of that one per cent (or 1/20th of one per cent). How much will that reduce the world's emissions, and at what financial cost to struggling families?
During the last election campaign, Prime Minister Gillard promised there would be no carbon tax. Desperate to remain in power, she agreed to the demands of The Greens to gain their support, thus destroying her credibility but gaining the government tax revenue.
If this was truly about carbon reduction, why was an economist employed to provide the basis rather than scientists.
Why is Australia being slugged $23 per tonne when the only other few countries pay $10 a tonne?
With our present economic climate, another tax is the last thing this country needs. It will impact on major industries such as electricity, which in turn means increased costs of living for a country already one of the most expensive.
Do you still think this is about Australia leading the world in carbon reduction?
Our government is happy to mine many millions of tonnes of coal for their taxes and royalties. It is equally as happy to ship it overseas for export dollars, sending it to countries that lack the same interest in emission control. It doesn't care that the coal is going to produce massive carbon emissions in those countries.
Will this tax have any effect on the world carbon emissions? Would this huge expense have been better spent on hospitals, schools, roads and helping those on pensions?
D. Duncan, Cleveland