Letters, June 14, 2023

Environmental activities

I READ with great interest your article in the May 24 on the proposed new gallery at The Cedars in Hahndorf.

I am writing to present, what I hope, is information that paints a more balanced picture of the new development and what has occurred at The Cedars over the last 25 years.

Your newspaper reported that one resident of Mt Barker described ‘the removal of native trees was a “horrible” move’.

Mr Rogers continued ‘you’d think the Hans Heysen Foundation would want to protect native trees on the site – but clearly not’.

We all agree that removing native trees is regrettable, indeed very sad.

But I wish to highlight the planting of over 10,000 trees and shrubs on the property by volunteers from our organisation, Trees Please Incorporated.

Further, the vast majority of these plants were raised from seed collected from native trees present on The Cedars and so are of indisputable provenance and suitability.

Trees Please Incorporated, an environmental charity, has worked closely over many years with members of the Heysen family and, more recently, the Hans Heysen Foundation.

They have supported and encouraged our environmental activities as have numerous private and government organisations, including the Mt Barker Council.

I trust this information gives your readers a wider perspective on the proposed gallery development.

If any of your readers would like to join us in our environmental activities at The Cedars, please contact the undersigned.

Paul Lindon, Secretary - Trees Please Incorporated

More information

I REFER to the current proposed changes to the Constitution.

When we, the general public, do not know what the exact changes or wording of the changes or costs are, how can the Government expect a person to vote yes?

If we have to put our trust in the Government to know what these changes should be, well I am sorry, they will get a no vote from me.

How can one trust any Government or party (Labor, Liberal, Independent or the Greens) as they all manipulate the issue to suit their argument.

I do not trust any of the parties in this area, and I ask why can they not tell all Australians what they want to change and the wording to this change in our Constitution which has served us all for all these years.

All Australians deserve to be told what the actual changes are before they vote on this critical matter.

I ask all Australians to think very hard in regard to this matter and understand what they are voting for and keep asking your politicians what are the exact changes and wording they want to change in the Constitution and its ongoing cost before they are required to vote

The Government has not been able to even provide an estimate of costs and the ongoing costs to our budget for this change to our Constitution.

Is this because they do not know, or are they saying “just trust us”?

David Ellery, Upper Sturt

Right to protest

THE letter from Colin Rogers of Meadows (The Courier, June 7) shows how some people believe that their rights are more important than others.

The changes in the law do not alter your right to protest – it acknowledges that you do not have the right to stop people getting to work, going to hospital or attending appointments.

By all means, stand in Victoria Square with a sandwich board and say what you want, but do not interfere with my life.

If I disagree with someone, I do not obstruct their right to travel and I do not damage their property.

What are you teaching kids – that if you do not get what you want, it’s okay to damage property?

Stopping people from going about their business does not gain any sympathy and, in fact, has the opposite effect.

The new changes still allow you to protest – but not interfere, and I applaud the politicians who supported it.

Jack Eskenazi, Mt Barker

Wrong idea

YOUR correspondent Lorraine Rogers (The Courier, May 31) has the wrong idea about the State Government laws to make demonstrations more expensive.

Think of the emissions from the cars and buses taking lots longer to get through their journey, the number of police cars and ambulances and cranes, and all those reporters and TV camera crews racing to get the pictures.

The Government’s object is to reduce CO2 emissions.

Graeme Inkster, Mt Barker

Better plan

THE “City Centre set to change” article in The Courier June 7 is probably the 10th article about the site since it all started in 2015.

It starts with “The master plan of the $2m Mt. Barker City Centre has been significantly revised”.

$2m would possibly cover the cost of a fence around the site!

According to past articles, Kym Burke Investments (KBI) should have recently paid the council for, and taken possession of the 3130sqm central block of land bringing their total to 9430sqm, if I am not mistaken.

Having undertaken the comprehensive design for the City Centre for the Mt Barker and District Residents’ Association in 2015/16, I have patiently watched the several sad attempts at an alternative concept published over the last eight years.

As a result I am delighted to read that a new solution has been found, which hopefully will have a proper large paved town square surrounded by ecologically sustainable buildings all with natural light, ventilation and views instead of the offering up until now, of a pathetic little grass “town square” on the south side of a whole bunch of buildings overlooking and overshadowing one another.

For the Centre to be a success, the buildings should be designed for activities that attract and serve the public, such as civic offices, shops, a library, a performing arts centre, galleries, law courts, a hotel, professional offices and a branch of one of the universities, in addition to several multistorey apartments and a large under plaza carpark.

Surely with a comprehensive economic analysis and the right presentation this absolutely critical development for SA’s second largest city could be achieved.

Geof Nairn, Verdun

Already represented

OUR governments are speaking out in favor of a voice to Parliament.

From my perspective they are trying to justify a situation which is already strongly entrenched in all Australian governments.

All premiers, appropriate ministers and bureaucrats already have ample input from selected Aboriginal groups, councils and committees, advising on heritage, land, health, education, arts and culture.

Currently before the SA Parliament is the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 which, in brief, states that any ‘Aboriginal object’ – be it a boomerang, shell necklace or art made in the traditional context – needs be viewed by an Aboriginal committee, which then has three months to approve whether the owner can take the item out of the State or offer it for sale.

If the committee wishes to retain any item, it can be compulsorily acquired, for them to do with as they please.

Non-compliance carries penalties of up to $250,000 and two years imprisonment.

Similar legislation is already in effect in Victoria and is being introduced into other states.

The Aboriginal voice is already represented in Parliament.

To say otherwise is political spin.

We are one nation.

Any legislation which treats one sector differently than another is discriminatory and invites a backlash from the other sectors, and this is especially so if set in the Constitution.

How can there be true reconciliation if one very small sector of our great multicultural nation has an uncontested voice over all other sectors?

Harold Gallasch, Hahndorf