Letters, September 6, 2023

Rich culture

FOR thousands of years the Aboriginal people of this land lived a complex, integrated culture, which, through ‘skin’ groupings, delegated the ceremonial and physical responsibilities of caring for country.

This skin grouping also determined the rules of marriage and relationship, ensuring that no in-breeding could occur, as well as enabling, in a smooth and orderly fashion, the passing on of ceremonial stories incorporating stories of creation, of proper relationships, as well as tales and the care of the animals and plants which were the source of their livelihood.

Much of this rich, complex culture has disappeared over the past 240-odd years, and the wealth of this country is now in the hands of the miners, the shareholders, and in a trickle-down form, the new-comers to this  land.

Perhaps, as has happened elsewhere across the globe, such a change was inevitable, but why should the naysayers be determined to even deny the original inhabitants a mere mention in the Constitution, and the simple courtesy of a voice providing their point of view?

For some, the winner-takes-all seems to be the only acceptable conclusion.

Bob Innes, Mt Barker

Not an offer

WHEN is an offer not an offer? When it’s designed to be rejected.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what appears to be on the table from Transport Minister Tom Koutsantonis to resolve the funding shortfall for the Amy Gillett Pathway extension (Amy Gillett funding offer, The Courier, August 23).

He must know that requiring the Adelaide Hills Council to take on the ongoing maintenance of the pathway is a non-starter, beyond its means.

Co-contributing the same as the State and Federal Governments – $2.6m – is a big ask for a regional council which bears a crushing burden for road and infrastructure maintenance compared to high-density metropolitan councils.

The last State Government took the Hills for granted because they thought they were a lock-in for their side of the political ledger. The current Government may have noticed the extension is wholly within the Liberal-held electorate of Schubert and calculated there’s little political cost in walking away from Federal funding for the Hills. I recommend our Hills MPs write to the Commonwealth seeking a modest increase in Federal funding to help shame the State Government into putting forward a more reasonable – and genuine – offer.

Michael Cornish, Bridgewater

Fire risk

IN response to T D Wise (The Courier, August 23) I am scratching my head to think of any species other than lumberjacks and mushrooms that inhabit pine forests.

In my first letter I was noting that such a flammable forest on both sides of the freeway at Stirling is a huge concern. Indeed this scenario played out in the 2003 Canberra bushfire which devastated a number of suburbs after exploding out of the neighboring Uriarra pine forest.

I would be very interested to hear the opinion of the CFS and which species we might replant in this area that could actually be habitat and less flammable.

Simon Jones, Stirling

Time for change

PETER Vincent (The Courier, August 23) is presenting a perverse and warped view of the Voice Referendum which cannot go unchallenged.

Firstly, has he actually read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a gift to the Australian people from the First Nations people? It is elegant in its simplicity.

‘We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country’ and ‘we call for the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution’.

The Voice question is simple: ‘Should Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be recognised in the Constitution through a voice to parliament’?

How can this be perceived as ‘accepting racism’? To acknowledge and respect 60,000-plus years of occupation prior to colonisation in the Constitution is not racism. I’ve lived in rural Australia and seen racism and its devastating consequences up close.

It’s ugly and it’s time it changed.

It’s time Australia was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

To quote your words ‘this is not an Australia I have always known’.

Living a life of white privilege means you’ve never experienced discrimination based on your race or the color of your skin and you’ve always had a voice.

A very different one for marginalised people who experience racism daily.

How is it that NZ, the US, Canada and the Scandinavian countries have recognised their First Peoples in a respectful manner, without the faux arguments we are presented, as fact, by the No Campaign? Australia is internationally recognised for its appalling treatment of its First Nations people through its failure to close the gap. When Australia votes ‘yes’ that will be a country I can feel proud of.

Mary Reid, Mt Barker

Free speech threat

Do not take Julia Grant’s Orwellian ‘re-calibration of free speech’ at face value.

Recent governmental re-calibrations include public protest, police ‘protection’ laws and individual privacy and autonomy.

Governments re-calibrated the meaning of coercion, traffic ‘safety’, insurance and banking policies, public housing, building codes, zoning laws, community rights vs developers, public debate and media coverage.

Truth is personal. Facts aren’t.

Human nature is targeted for re-calibration. Is re-calibrating freedom of belief next? Certainly freedom of choice is.

Do we mind governmental recalibration of ‘safety measures’ and ‘fairness’ in housing, rentals, holidays, roads, water, electricity, health services, communication?

Will governments recalibrate profiteering of banks, airlines, insurance and petrol companies and taxation laws? Think again, this ‘recalibrating free speech’.

Is this fascistic proposition pretending to stop the sinister inciting riots, deaths and insurrection on social media?

Is Julia Grant pretending it’s preventing ‘misinformation’ between us while blind-eyeing governmental misinformation, obfuscation and betrayal? Or is it really to prevent debating alternatives to the World Health Organisation’s health policies (some of whose board-members aren’t scientists or doctors, but influential business people enjoying tax-free havens). Not so long ago almost all regional newspapers were shut down.

Ditto the AAP. Follow the theme.

Universally people are suffering fatigue from lies, manipulation, abuse of power and double-speak; endless financial penalties go into public funds which governments then invest in organisations which benefit only shareholders.

For example our billions of dollars into US weaponry coffers.

Who’s the arbiter of Government truth-telling? It should be us.

How are we doing so far?

Marguerite Hann-Syme, Bridgewater

Solar input

IF you have been contacted by your power company regarding the installation/change to a smart meter and you have solar power delivered to the grid, bear in mind that the power company has the remote ability to stop your input if, at certain times, they don’t need it.

Those of us who invested in solar some years ago and were rewarded with a 44 cents per kilowatt input by the SA Government will stand to lose a significant amount of money.

You can opt out and stick with your existing meter.

Clive Bulmer, Forreston

Questionable promises

Just recently our well-educated Prime Minister was asked a basic question: what is the price of fuel?

He didn’t know. Then again I doubt he would buy any.

Before last year’s election he was asked what the cash and unemployment rates were and didn’t know.

He has stated the referendum will be on October 14. Is he sure about that?

This same person promised cheap power as well. After September 1 it will be clearer again. Well done PM. Hopefully one term will do you.

Robert Fladrich, Murray Bridge

Helpful resource

LAST week the PM announced the date of the first referendum Australia has held since 1999, so everyone younger than 38 years has never experienced this opportunity before.

It’s a very special thing when Australia gets a chance to have a say.

One or two recent letters to The Courier have illustrated beliefs and theories held by those with the strongest opinions. Beliefs are one thing, but the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has a really good, factual website which includes a disinformation register.

The website advises: ‘The AEC is not responsible for fact-checking claims about the Yes or No case for a referendum, and we do not seek to censor debate in any way.

‘However, when it comes to the referendum process we conduct, we’re the experts and we’re active in defending Australia’s democracy.’

I urge all Courier readers to have a look at this register, which covers some of the more alarming and untrue claims floating around, such as: voting in the referendum is voluntary; the referendum will be rigged because the AEC will ensure a biased vote; even that the Constitution has been invalid since 1973. All these claims are answered calmly and clearly.

It’s a great resource – as is the AEC.

Let’s be kind to each other as we discuss this topic leading up to the day.

And don’t forget to bring some coins for the sausage sizzles!

Myrana Wahlqvist, Mt Barker

Fossil fuels

IN EV uptake, (The Courier, August 23) Daniel Hockin blissfully claims he drove to Melbourne and back totally powered by 100% renewable energy.

I can almost guarantee that his EV was being charged using energy generated by fossil fuel.

For the record SA still generates more than 30% of energy using gas and Victoria’s power comes mainly from coal.

He seems totally oblivious that producing a typical 75-kWh EV battery emits more than seven tons of CO2.

Not to mention that majority wind turbines, solar panels and EVs are made in China, the world’s biggest CO2 emitter.

We dig up the minerals and coal and ship them there to be manufactured into this equipment.

Then they’re shipped back to us again using vast quantities of fossil fuel.

And let’s not forget that the equipment we install today will have to be disposed of and replaced long before reaching our 2050 target.

While destroying our own energy security, China’s emissions are increasing unabated.

Our persistence to achieve net zero locally is having the opposite effect globally, but ignorance is bliss.

K. Stachovic, Meadows

Penny pinching

THE Amy Gillett Pathway is an excellent asset for all South Australians, just as the Riesling Trail is in the Mid-North, and is promoted on the SA Tourism website.

It was frustrating, therefore, to hear that the Labor Government is considering only partly providing the necessary funding to complete it (The Courier, August 23).

The trail has been incomplete for five or more years now and is likely to be a never-ending saga until the State Government commits all of the necessary funding. Our council has only a small budget compared with the money available to the State, which so easily is able to find $100m every time somebody in the suburbs asks for an intersection upgrade and is considering a tunnel that will cost in excess of $15 billion. The pathway is on State land, is a State asset and the relatively tiny amount can easily be afforded by a State Government.

Its current attempt to demand matching funding is nothing but petty penny-pinching.

Lynton Vonow, Lobethal

Bikeway responsibility

IT is with considerable concern that I read in The Courier of August 23 that the Amy Gillett Pathway extension remains threatened, with a $2.6m offer made by the State Government dependent on a matching contribution by Adelaide Hills Council to complete the bikeway.

As a Mt Torrens resident who is also a local GP, I have long been waiting for the completion of this project.

I am appalled that in a climate where exercise is regarded as being the major contributor to good physical and mental health and a panacea for many illnesses including cancer, that our State Government would see fit not to commit any significant funding to this project.

This is especially concerning when the same Government is happy to contribute millions into car racing, car clubs and drag races with the resultant noxious emissions, environmental damage and lack of encouragement for good health.

The matching of the Commonwealth Government contribution, which was $2.6m in 2020, seems alarmingly light some three years later when the project costs have blown out by the State Government’s own calculations.

It is unreasonable to ask the Adelaide Hills Council to contribute that same amount when its budget is insignificant compared with both State and Commonwealth tiers of government.

That it would obviously produce a crippling debt, increasing the council rates for the community, seems wrong when the bikeway is accessible to all South Australians.

The proposed extension is on State Government land and, ultimately, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport has the responsibility to care for and upkeep this corridor.

I see the measly contribution offered as insulting to the legacy of Amy Gillett and a violation of the promise made by past Premier Mike Rann.

Dr Sheree Hunt, Mt Torrens