PAUL Costigan’s article on the serious threat posed by delivery drones to suburban ambience is excellent (“Residents’ screams lost against noisy drones”, CN, December 19). 

Their high-pitched, invasive noise was the number one issue repeatedly emphasised in submissions to the ACT Legislative Assembly inquiry on delivery drones. 

The ACT is in the process of developing a wellbeing index. It doesn’t take a lot of insight to work out that delivery drones are quality-of-life destroyers, no matter what marketing spin Wing serves up about so-called quieter drones, which are way over community noise standards. 

Canberrans are already having to deal with factors such as heat stress from a changing climate. The addition of screeching drones from above is the last thing residents need. 

It is in no way “innovative” as government ministers would have people believe, but ludicrous in the extreme as far as wellbeing is concerned. 

Murray May, Cook 

Too little, too late

I WAS recently given a flyer from Bec Cody and Chris Steel, Labor Assembly members for Murrumbidgee, in which they promised the ACT government will work with Canberra’s communities to crack down on developers who break the rules and “dodgy builders”. 

Well, too little, too late – their government has turned a pleasant, liveable city into a hot, messy construction site and the expensive, unnecessary rubbish that they pile on to try and make us think they’re doing something, rubs it in even more.

We’re waiting for October’s election, Bec and Chris.

Christina Faulk, Swinger Hill

Keep lawyers out of divorce

ON August 1, 1974, the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, rose to give his Second Reading speech regarding the Family Law Bill 1974. 

He said: “The main purpose of the Bill is to eliminate as far as possible the high costs, the delays and indignities experienced by so many parties to divorce proceedings under the existing Matrimonial Causes Act.

He then added: “These provide for more simple procedures, require courts to proceed without undue formality”.

Unfortunately, Senator Murphy failed dismally in his endeavours.

Our current family law and child support systems destroy lives and increases suicide rates. 

The court system, rather than being a simple procedure, promotes an adversarial system that may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in each case. 

At the same time, family members are alienated from other members of the families. 

For example, one part of our community, that is significantly affected, includes those personnel in our defence force. These personnel return from overseas commitments to find that they have lost their families. As a result of the subsequent family law and child support issues, suicide rates in our defence forces increase out of proportion to their numbers. 

Rather than stopping delays, a court case in the Family Court can last as long as two to three years before it is heard. As a result, children often do not see one parent during this period and this then becomes the status quo after the proceedings have been determined. 

At the same time, the costs escalate out of control. 

The solution is obvious. We need to revert to the principles espoused by Senator Murphy. This includes the setting up of an informal tribunal, without lawyers, to carry out divorce proceedings.

John Flanagan, secretary, Fairness In Child Support, Thirroul, NSW

A time will come…

I NOTE Colliss Parrett’s comment to my response to his first correspondence in the CityNews in December.

Colliss argues that before we cut our greenhouse emissions, India and China have to cut theirs first. That’s putting the cart before the horse.

Australia is the largest exporter of fossil fuels such as coal and LNG in the world. 

These form the largest share of our national income. We are also a wealthy, developed economy with a high standard of living compared to India and China and with enormous scope for developing renewable energy sources. 

Australia has the capacity and technical know how to develop these resources, but lacking government incentives, declines to do so. The time will come when these countries, having developed their renewable energy abilities, which they are rapidly doing now, will no longer need our fossil fuels. What happens to our economy then?

I don’t become angry when someone attacks my work and findings, as they are based on cold, hard observations, deductions and conclusions based on the evidence and physics not emotional denial of an inconvenient truth. 

Gavin O’Brien, Southside Weather Watch, Gilmore