It seems clear that once again councillors are prepared to ignore the views of residents and ratepayers.

While council has agreed to consult with the community about its decision to relocate the clock tower, it has nevertheless already taken the decision that the historic monument will be moved.

The community will recall that, after expending substantial effort and cost, council adopted the Spiire Bega CBD Landscape Master Plan less than a year ago.

The Spiire master plan was adopted by council after significant community consultation and, as was reported in this newspaper, staff advised council at the time that “in the last round of public consultations there had been a number of comments and submissions made regarding keeping the clock tower in its place, and Spiire also recommended not to move it”.

Spiire not only recommended that the clock tower should remain in place, but that council should “enhance and celebrate the clock tower heritage landmark and its setting in the streetscape through intersection modifications”.

While some in the community might like to see the clock tower relocated, the Bega Valley Shire Residents and Ratepayers Association (BVSRRA) believes the majority would rather see this historic icon restored, working properly and remaining in its rightful pride of place, just as the landscape master plan unanimously adopted by the current council said it should.

Given that council’s decision was taken on the back of incorrect advice and is contrary to the community’s wishes, as well as the adopted recommendations contained in the Spiire landscape master plan, the BVSRRA believes the council should reverse its decision and simply get on with the job of implementing the master plan without further delay.

Once again Australia’s immigration system is under the spotlight in the Supreme Court.

The country has been condemned internationally for its treatment of asylum seekers and successive governments have dug themselves deeper into a hole from which neither side of politics dares to back track.

Let’s leave aside the emotional arguments around our system and concentrate on the practical.

Last financial year it cost just over $2billion to keep a relatively small group of asylum seekers locked up in detention centres and recently we’ve seen a report that the Immigration Department’s budget for the year has blown out by $1billion. 

Both sides of politics assure us off-shore processing of asylum seekers is necessary to put a stop to the crime of people smuggling and to prevent would-be asylum seekers from drowning at sea.

Let’s agree that people smuggling is a crime and that the $2billion a year we’re spending on off shore processing is aimed at fighting this crime.

Please don’t tell me that for considerably less than $2billion a year we couldn’t track down and deal with the group of criminals behind people smuggling.

I understand New Zealand has indicated it would be willing to resettle at least some of the asylum seekers now held in Australian detention camps.  

Take up the offer and, for no other reason than sound economic management, close the camps.

We have a government that says that we can’t afford the last two years of the Gonski reforms to education, but we can spend $2billion a year keeping a handful of people who’ve done nothing wrong locked up.

Where are the priorities?