The following letter sent to us has been forwarded to The Advertiser & other newspapers for publication, as well as TV channels (other than Channel Nine as Google gave a warning that it’s site may harm your computer, which may have been a temporary aberration attributable to hackers, detected malware or a virus):
Letter to The Editor
30 December 2009
I challenge you, Premier Rann, Treasurer Foley, Attorney General Atkinson, Minister Hill & Ministers Maywald & Gago to a debate on national television. The only condition I seek is the full protection of Parliamentary Privilege; not that I intend to disclose anything but facts & my opinion of them.
I wish to debate you all on the following issues within South Australia:
* Water policy & the River Murray, including related taxation;
* Desalination vs Storm water recycling & purification & expansion of existing water storage facilities with reverse pumping back to the Murray in times of overflow;
* The impact of desalination on power use (see rail electrification below) & the coastal environment;
* The missed opportunity at the recent Premier’s conference to put water use of our river Murray water (being used by the eastern states to grow rice & cotton) on the table as a priority;
* TOD’s;
* The proposed light Rail system & public transport in general;
* The impact of rail electrification on CO2 emissions & potential blackouts to households during peak electric power use periods (see desalination above);
* Revocation of Community land at St Clair & the Barossa;
* Councils increasingly ignoring their constituents on issues like land revocation, Chelsea Cinema, Cheltenham Racecourse and other local issues;
* State Government & Councils refusal to ban “donations” from developers – we the taxpayers & ratepayers donate far more in the way of taxes, duties, GST & rates, allegedly resulting in South Australia being the highest taxed state in Australia;
* State Government’s position in declining a need for an Independent Commission Against Corruption in this State, which refusal allegedly has the strong support of Councils like the City of Charles Sturt;
* Freedom of speech, Internet censoring & media reporting in general, from a State perspective;
* The proposals for the former Mitsubishi site & the former Clipsal site;
* Mental Health facilities in this state and the impact of the Glenside redevelopment on our capacity to care for the mentally ill. Included in this would be reference to existing government policy to relocate the mentally ill to within the community (mostly in substandard facilities like cheap pubs and community housing) without allegedly the provision of proper care and rehabilitation activities;
* The alleged singling out of “bikies” as an illegal group, noting the vast majority of crime in this state appears to emanate from other sources;
* The proposed “Marj” (Royal Adelaide Hospital) redevelopment;
* The proposed redevelopment of Adelaide Oval;
* Government’s previous push to close Country Hospitals in favour of 4 “Super Hospitals”;
* The state of our City & Country roads – e.g. Goodwood Road, South Road & roads to the mid-north, when fines, registrations & taxes are purportedly allocated for such purposes;
* The financial position of this State; recalling that Treasurer Foley previously advised at the height of the Global Financial Crisis that SA had suffered financial losses. I have witnessed nothing subsequent to this than ad nauseum grandiose announcements on how you, our State Government, will spend our money in the billions. Is the money there or will we see increased taxes akin the water rate rises to pay for a desalination plant nobody wants (or needs)?;
* Treasurer Foley’s plan to import skilled labor from the Phillipines as opposed to increasing re-training & education facilities for the unemployed and those who have lost their jobs during the GFC;
* The ability for a labor dominated Council like the City of Charles Sturt to command the protection at their meetings numbering in the 10′s of Police Officers, at least 2 paddywagons & 6 police cars + 2 designated Police Negotiators & then lock out all but 30 or so selected ratepayers to public meetings;
I could go on but guess you all get the idea. Hell, I’ll even let you bring along the alleged 130+ taxpayer funded media staff contingent under your command to back you all up. Hey, why not bring along our City of Charles Sturt Mayor Harold Anderson & Councilor Sykes (who allegedly works for Mr Atkinson) for good measure?
I have never been a Politician, a lawyer or held community office. I am a self funded retiree with some experience in the finance industry. I will stand totally alone in a debate with you all. Will you all stand accountable & debate only one? If you do not, I can only accept that you all fear only one thing – the truth.
Mark Walker
West Lakes
The logical thing to do, Mr Walker, is for you to stand for Parliament in your local area (State District of Lee) at the general election that is less than 80 days away. This will test whether there is any support for your ideas and hatreds and whether your neighbours have enough confidence in you to vote for you as their representative and whether they share your hatred and contempt for the Australian Labor Party. (By the way, Mr Paul Sykes is employed by State Veterans Affairs. He is employed under the Public Sector Management Act, like most public servants. He is not a Ministerial staffer, as you allege.)
I rather doubt that any of the television networks would be interested in carrying a debate between Ministers and Shadow Ministers let alone Ministers and one self-selected South Australian voter among one million voters. You mention national television. I am curious why you think that T.V. viewers in other States would want to tune in to you holding forth about South Australian and Charles Sturt local government topics.
I am happy to debate with you about some of the things you mentioned – those that I am competent to discuss and that are in my portfolio or pertain to my electorate – but neither you nor I can command an audience for such a debate. I don’t think anyone would be really keen to give you (or anyone) privilege to defame other people you or they don’t like (e.g. call them corrupt or paedophiles).
I replied to this letter two days ago. What are the grounds for your censoring my reply ?
Corrupt or Paedophiles????? – Whoa – where did that one come from Mr Atkinson? Please re-read my letter as I did not make any such bizarre accusations of any of you! All I’d like is the opportunity to discuss the real issues in this State, and I think it would be relevant to all in Australia because the rest of Australia (well at least the eastern States) are sucking our river Murray dry and may be very interested in the allegation we are the highest taxed State in Australia! Methinks there may be reluctance to move to our state if this information is indeed true and is made public across Australia.
Of course I did not expect you to accept my offer of a debate – I have absolutely no right to Parliamentary Privilege as I have not been elected a member of Parliament – and have no such aspirations.
My poor attempt at being ironical merely sought to raise some of the key issues in one letter, so the people of this State could hopefully visualise a snapshot of one voter’s thoughts and make up their own mind, rather than read or see a fragmented story by story representation as currently shown in the media.
As for Mr Sykes, I made no allegation that he was a Ministerial staffer. I merely conveyed an allegation that he worked for/with you, made by others. I apologise if the allegation was incorrect and withdraw the comment accordingly.
I am happy to discuss the issues I raised in my letter in here if you so wish, and thank you for taking the time to comment on my submission.
Mark Walker
I guess we will have to leave it up to the media to decide what is worthwhile viewing and what is not. I think you have raised some excellent issues Mark, definitely worthy of some discussion and meaningful debate. Good on you for talking about the things that are important to you!!
Why is it that Mark Walker’s attack on me and my colleagues is on the top of page one of the website and my reply to it is hidden away under the Letters to the Editor tab ? If you look at the way Kirsten Alexander and her group operate, you will see that unfairness and censorship are central to their tactics. They cannot operate fairly and in the open.
Hi Michael. The structure of the site is the same as any WordPress site (please use Google). The relevant article is the feature – any comments relating to the article appear below in the sequence they are posted. There is nothing unfair about it at all – and by the way – just who is attacking who? You seem to be doing a very proficient job at it while not respecting the freedom of others to express their own opinions. Labor does NOT own SA and I have a right to have my say!
p.s. Maybe Mr Rann can “negotiate” another 170 Gigalitres of water that was already ours?