Letters, July 5, 2023

Tree loss

I was heartened to read in The Courier (Push for more tree canopy, May 10) about the recommendation from the National Growth Areas Alliance coming out of its National Congress, which was held recently at Hahndorf.

It was agreed that there was a need for better mandates for tree canopy and sustainable house design in developments around the country.

It is sadly evident from some of the recent development on the outskirts of Mt Barker what poor planning, ugly and inappropriate housing designs and a lack of green spaces result in.

But it is not just new developments that are creating environmental and social disasters. There is a growing problem in existing established areas, with trees being cut down to accommodate building extensions, urban infill and new constructions.

Two years ago I moved to Balhannah, which has a reputation for being an attractive small, green and leafy township. The street I moved to had beautiful established trees on the verge and in gardens – people have commented that ‘it feels like driving into a park’.

Within two years, in the immediate neighborhood of three short streets, 14 mature healthy trees have been felled in order to build new and bigger houses, or because they were judged as growing too close to a house or, in one case, because they dented a fence.

Four healthy and mature trees in just one property were cut down to accommodate a huge boat shed.

The most recent has been a large, healthy paperbark Malaleuca, at least 30–40 years old.

The houses on my street have very little architectural merit – the only thing that makes the street attractive is the trees. Without them, it is plain suburbia.

It takes only simple observation to recognise that the most attractive streets are those with trees and greenery. What happened to all the education and awareness-raising about the environmental and health benefits of trees? Many studies have shown that green, healthy environments nurture sound mental health and a sense of wellbeing.

Trees absorb carbon dioxide and provide shade, especially in urban environments, which lowers temperatures and reduces the need for air-conditioning in summer.

I urge councils to consider developing a policy similar to that of the Unley Council, which actively encourages landowners to replant in cases of urban infill and to plant trees that offset any loss of greenery.

I also urge individual landowners to consider the damage they are doing when cutting trees down – don’t complain when leaves fall on your lawns or dent your fences.

Instead, celebrate the beauty that our trees contribute to our landscape and gardens. Or perhaps consider that there are suburbs outside of the Hills that can offer an alternative lifestyle if you don’t like trees.

Winnie Pelz, Balhannah

In this together

For some of us the impact of both Covid-19 and the Cudlee Creek fires is still very much at the forefront of our minds.

That experience taught me the tremendous compassion that we have for one another.

It engendered a spirit of togetherness that enriched our lives.

We learnt that in a crisis we lean on each other.

Be it the simple act of asking someone if they were OK or by volunteering our skills and expertise to help the community get back on its feet.

The lessons I learnt from that experience has motivated me to vote Yes to the Voice.

The Voice enshrines in the Constitution a principle that does not just apply to Indigenous Australians but applies to all of us.

That principle concerns the importance of ensuring that when decisions are made that impact on our lives, governments take proper account of our voices.

Even during that summer of fires and Covid, not all voices were heard.

It was clear that the arithmetic of democracy applied even in disasters.

If you are a member of a minority group, it is difficult to get your voice heard.

The various minority groups in our communities: those geographically isolated, the homeless, the disabled and the young are just some of the minority groups who are silenced by the ruthless application of the democratic calculus.

They are Australia’s silent voices.

Indigenous Australians are also represented in all these groups.

But they are doubly disadvantaged – their Aboriginality serves to further silence them.

The fact that there are silent voices makes a mockery of the idea that ‘we are all in this together’.

However, the Cudlee Creek fires and Covid demonstrated that this is not the way our community thinks and behaves.

The spontaneous outpouring of support for those in need demonstrated that we recognise that we are all in this together.

I am voting Yes to the Voice because we are all in this together.

For too long, policymakers have been able to ignore the various silent voices.

Indigenous Australians are represented in all the various diverse groups that are so often ignored.

The collateral benefit of the Voice is that the various silent voices will also be heard.

The Voice will sharpen our understanding of the complexities associated with living in a socially and culturally diverse society.

It might not solve these problems but it will ensure that they are neither ignored nor neglected.

John Töns, Lenswood

Good value?

For $6m we will get just three bus loads worth of extra parking at Crafers.

That’s $70,000 per bay, including driveways, some lights and drainage and equates to $2800 per square metre.

Is this good value?

We could build a nice house at that rate, and all the State Government is giving us is a car park.

Can’t it get the Department for Infrastructure and Transport out there to spread a bit of quarry rubble?

The rubble car park at Aldgate seems to work perfectly fine.

 Then we can have an art gallery at Stirling with the remaining $5m. Or some housing for the elderly or the homeless. Or something that people will remember in 100 years time.

A car park? How tragic.

Caroline Johnson, Aldgate

Whose voice?

Whose voice has determined that a Kaurna name may be applied to a plot of land near Kersbrook that is being developed for “natural burials” (Natural burials to become an option for Hills residents, The Courier,

June 21)?

Strange that the Peramangk people, who traditionally occupied this section of the Hills, should agree to that.

Strange that they haven’t had a ‘voice’.

But that’s how it usually is.

It is the ‘voice’ of the strong and connected that is heard loudest, as it was at Uluru, as it continues during the ‘Voice’ campaign.

It is not about the underprivileged of our society, as there are many of these of all ethnic origins.

It is not about being heard and recognized in legislation, as there already is a well represented Aboriginal Voice in our Parliament and in legislation, if you should care to read what is already legislated.

There is a strong emphasis on recognizing and protecting Australia’s Aboriginal heritage and culture, more so than for any other culture.

Rather the ‘Voice’ is about politics, the woke politics of the current Federal Government, and the politics of the already enfranchised Aboriginal and neo-Aboriginal urbanites of our large cities.

Let’s forget politics and be thankful of our membership of one of the world’s most successful and peaceful democracies, Australia, due in great part to our Constitution.

Harold Gallasch, Hahndorf

Car analogy

This year we will face an important decision at the proposed Referendum.

Unlike a general election, the decision will need to be considered and decided with the head, not just the heart.

There is no preferential voting, it is either yes or no.

We can’t go back next election and choose something else; this will be a long-term decision.

Not to trivialise the importance of the choice to be made, but I will try and illustrate it using a decision to get a car:

There may be a simple decision to get a car or not.

The majority may choose to get a car and some will not for their own reasons.

Maybe they cannot drive or save enough to buy one, or they use alternative transport means.

Of those who would like to get one, some will accept any car offered to them and others may want a different type.

Just because you would like a different type of car, it does not mean you do not want a car.

There may be legitimate reasons why the car offered is not suitable.

Some might be that the car offered is a small hatchback, but you need six seats and it only has five.

The car offered could be a Ute, but you need it small and will only use it for shopping.

It may be suitable now, but it may need to be different in a few years – a hatchback may be suitable at the moment as you only have three children, but what about the one on the way?

One that may be on-topic now is being offered an electric vehicle.

It may be suitable for someone around Adelaide – but if you are from Andamooka, you may be a bit apprehensive about getting that type.

Of course, you could get it and hope that the appropriate charging facilities will be installed, but we will let you know where and when later (trust me).

Unlike getting a car from a car yard where you could let the salesman know that you do not want that type and  you would like to see another, the Referendum only asks whether you want the proposed change or not.

Being that it is an important issue, this should not be the time that a new proposition related to that issue is put to a vote.

So to summarise: just because you do not want the type of car proposed, you can still choose the option to not have a car and still not be associated with those that do not want a car at all (you are choosing to adopt the proposed change to the Constitution and not the actual issue at the Referendum).

Do not be influenced by any individual (including me), group, association, or organisation.

Make up your own mind.

I am sure there will be more information coming before we need to decide (likely soon after the September payments come into effect, but that’s another story).

Just make sure it is unbiased information and just not opinion or advertising.

Rodney Hawksworth, Callington

Children understand

What a ridiculous assertion Christopher Collins makes (“Too young”, The Courier, June 28) that preschool children are “too young” to celebrate Reconciliation Week.

As someone who regularly teaches preschool children, I am amazed by their knowledge and understanding of many different issues, including Reconciliation.

How dismissive and ageist to suggest that young children cannot comprehend such issues. As for indoctrinating the children, perhaps your correspondent favors the children not learning anything at preschool and getting information from a television show rather than having age-appropriate discussions with their teachers?

The premise of Reconciliation Week is to strengthen relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people for the benefit of all Australians and where better to start that education than with our children?

I love how the children go home, share with their families and continue the discussion. Well done preschools!

Deanne Hanchant-Nichols, Uraidla

Humans please

So Coles says getting rid of staff-manned checkouts will benefit the customers?

Okay, the self checkout is useful for the customer who has just a few small items – what about those of us that have a full trolley, with goods across a large range, especially those customers who are getting on in age? My wife and I are looking for supermarkets that still have humans manning the checkouts, who you can pass the time of day with and get a pleasant smile.

To summarise: I don’t work for Coles.

Clive Bulmer, Forreston