“The ACT government still kicks and screams while continuing to fail the Ngambri people,” says letter writer CLINTON WHITE. 

SO the courts have dragged the ACT government kicking and screaming to apologise to the Ngambri people for failing, over the past two decades, to acknowledge their role in the history of Canberra and the region. 

Other institutions, such as the Commonwealth Parliament and the ANU have, so why not the ACT government?

Even so, the ACT government still kicks and screams while continuing to fail the Ngambri people. Its “interim Indigenous Protocol” does not even name the Ngambri people, merely calling them “other people or families with connection to the ACT and region”. 

Why even have an “interim” one, when the courts have so roundly scolded the wayward ACT government?

Not good enough, Mr Barr! What an insult!

Clinton White, Parrearra, Queensland

Chief minister tests the ‘Peter Principle’

REGARDING the “Keeping up the ACT” cartoon depicting Andrew Barr big-noting himself around the world (CN April 27). I was unaware that he was doing this, but it reminded me of the “Peter Principle”, that people are promoted to their level of incompetence. 

I can’t imagine him rising in the world to any higher level than that of chief minister of a minor city in a minor country. 

Stewart Bath, via email

Taxis hanging out for airport jobs

HAS anyone tried getting a taxi lately? 

Recently, after I’d done my food shopping at Woden Plaza, I phoned for a taxi from a rank in Weston and waited. 

I was not issued with a reference number. I turned around and a man with a white cane proceeded to call for a ride for himself. A taxi appeared for me after 20 minutes, and said he couldn’t take my fare. He had another job, but said he would return. I waited. The man’s taxi arrived but not after he had called again. 

I was relieved to see “my” taxi return after another 20 minutes. No other taxis appeared. Interestingly, the taxi driver told me that there were three cars in the area all waiting for a job to go to the airport!

 Jenny Holmes, Weston

Rethink the tram and fix failing services

MAX Flint (Letters, CN April 27) points out that the Liberal Party in Canberra is opposed to the proposed Stage 2B of light rail from Commonwealth Park to Woden. 

According to shadow transport minister Jeremy Hanson, the problems of Stage 2B light rail to Woden are:

1. It will cost $3 billion to build.
2. It would cause traffic chaos to Woden.
3. It will take twice as long (compared to the current bus route to Woden).
4. R4 bus services to Woden from the city will be cancelled.
5. High rise apartments along the route will be built.
6. $400 million from health was cut to help pay for the tram.

The government needs to rethink its investment and fix ailing services across Canberra such as spending more on hospital beds, frontline police and fixing roads.

Anton Rusanov, via email

Kangaroos not the problem, never were

WITH Canberra’s grassland earless dragon now classified as critically endangered, it’s time to stop the annual territory sanctioned slaughter in the name of conservation. 

For the last 15 years, kangaroos have been persecuted on the reserves, in part to protect the grassland earless dragon and other species like the golden sun moth and perunga grasshopper. 

Kangaroos are not the problem and never were. Never-ending development, unchecked weeds and grazing livestock all impact far more on the environment and endangered grasslands than soft-footed natives.

As someone who has opposed the cull since it started, I continue to engage in respectful and ongoing dialogue with respective environment ministers. 

I agree with the current environment minister who has said: “We are in the middle of an extinction crisis and we have a responsibility to protect our ecosystem and the native wildlife that we’re so lucky to have here in Canberra.”

Never a truer word spoken, but that logic has to apply equally to protect all native wildlife intertwined in the ecosystem. 

Instead of killing kangaroos in the name of conservation, perhaps we could do the right thing and protect nature by adopting a preservation philosophy instead. 

Chris Doyle, Gordon

Bureaucrats with shovels might have a better idea 

MY fantasy is that the bureaucrats working for the ACT’s Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate are non-literate, thereby replacing their keyboards with shovels and doing some much needed weeding in the southside’s totally neglected nature reserves. 

At the same time, while weeding, they could also get a more accurate count of the number of kangaroos.

Julie Lindner, Farrer

The problem is it’s a matter of pride

IN response to Michael Moore’s column “God save their gracious king – he’s not ours” (CN April 27).

Like it or not, we are not yet a “republic” so King Charles lll is still our king. When the people in the UK asked what do Australians think of King Charles lll, they were more than likely asking a general rhetorical question on the feelings of people in general. 

For Michael to believe they were expecting him to answer for all Australians is a little far-fetched.

If Australia needs to separate itself from the UK because it is mature enough to stand on its own feet, then we have a problem. 

Likewise, when people have said leaving the Commonwealth would give us more pride in ourselves. 

I believe if we cannot have pride in ourselves whilst being part of the Commonwealth, we have a major problem. 

Vi Evans via email

‘Undemocratic’ approach to the referendum

AMONG a great deal of factual information and opinion about the Voice and coming referendum, I have read in detail Noel Pearson’s recent submission to the Joint Select Committee of the referendum for the Voice. 

Like virtually all cases one reads for the “Yes” vote on the Voice, it boils down to being “the right thing to do”, that “there is nothing to see here” in respect of the Voice being justiciable, as well as being completely devoid of facts, rather than assertions, to support the “Yes” case.

The Referendum Working Group and Mr Pearson have made it abundantly clear to the prime minister and Labor government, that the goal all along for the Voice has been to make representation to both parliament and the executive on any matter affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) peoples and not just on matters affecting only them – and they would not be denied. 

The PM has even said it would be a brave government to deny the Voice. Then one must consider the cringeworthy, secretive and undemocratic approach to the referendum by the PM, in depending on the “vibe” of it all and ask oneself, “Why?”

For a detailed up-to-date paper, discussing both the “Yes” and “No” cases for the referendum, see “Uluru Statement from the Heart–Update April 2023” on my website alogstyudcentre.com.au/media

Max Flint, principal, Australian Logistics Study Centre

Unspecified claims and no specifics

CONGRATULATIONS to ACT federal member, Andrew Leigh for an excellent Voice opinion (CN May 3). 

However, I have much less faith in several letters in the same edition, namely from Frank Reade, Vi Evans and Mario Stivala. I’ll point to just a couple of instances. 

I’d like to know how anyone makes an argument that “threats and deceits” are being put by “Yes” supporters when all the evidence (Google it, mate) points to misinformation and scare tactics being the campaign themes of the “No” side from the opposition down. 

There are unspecified claims the “expert” opposition is just as widespread and credible, eg, an “equally impressive list”, as the expert supporters. These broad brush assertions are matched with, “both the legal fraternity and the indigenous community are hopelessly divided” (sic). Once again, no specifics, especially concerning the pejorative adjective.

Finally, yet another niggle over the dollar costs of the referendum (again, largely speculation). I’m eagerly awaiting similar outcries from the same sources when we find out how much federal taxpayers will be up for with the new Tasmanian football stadium. 

Eric Hunter, Cook 

Barry needed Edna for more than just an income

AT the back of the April 27 edition of “CityNews” was a lengthy obituary for the late, great Barry Humphries.

Author Don Woolford is to be congratulated for this journey through Barry’s remarkable life; lived passionately with artistry, controversy, high achievement, addiction, four wives and four children.

But it was one sentence in particular that made my spine tingle, when Humphries was reported as saying: “When Edna’s on stage I sometimes get that rather spooky thing where Edna speaks something that I couldn’t have written”. 

This insight made me revisit my undergraduate study of psychology, and the potentially (and speculatively) complex ecosystem of stardom, alter egos and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).

Now I am not suggesting Barry – or anyone else mentioned – met the diagnostic criteria for DID; but I will suggest there are fleeting, jarring, and inexplicably brilliant creative moments when it becomes plausible to ponder that deeply inhabiting a showbiz alter ego has the strong whiff of actual dissociation about it.

The “character” at such times is no longer an affectation of theatrical whimsy, but has now taken charge as a durable and resourceful person. As Humphries himself said, it’s a “spooky thing”.

There’s a lofty roll call of superstars whose greatness seems to have its roots in something more complicated and more profound than merely “playing a part”.

The Little Tramp (Chaplin), Ziggy Stardust (Bowie), The Gloved One (Michael Jackson), and Dame Edna; these were not “roles” being played as much as they were the psychological vehicles that took the performer very far from themselves.

It’s not at all surprising that some viewers actually thought Dame Edna was “real”; so authentic and consistent was the performance. Not for one second was there ever a risk of Humphries breaking out of character. And it was the Edna performances that gave us the Himalayan heights of Barry’s artistry.

Edna had to be an alter ego; having emerged nearly 65 years ago from the young actor as arguably a necessary outlet for his flamboyance, sharp intellect and frustrated disdain for society’s manners and ordinariness.

I think Humphries needed Edna for more than just an income. And that worked out well for us, too.

Ross Kelly, Monash

Kicking the nuclear can down the road

IAN Pilsner (Letters, CN April 27) and others assert the necessity of nuclear energy for Australia’s future while the majority – in my view, at least – assert that renewable resources will be more than sufficient. Much is made by those opposed to nuclear power at the cost of nuclear power stations and not the least being enormous blow-outs in their construction cost and time. 

However, perhaps none of this really matters if we come at the issues from a different angle. I take here a hypothetical as follows:

Assume a prime minister was to announce tomorrow that Australia would construct one large Nuclear Power Station (NPS) but without any costings or any other details. 

Public debate on the issue should be good for a minimum of 12 months along with the drafting and passing (if possible) of enabling legislation to cover financing, operational issues, and the like. Call it three years, so far. 

Then we have to find a site with features of maybe 10,000 hectares (safety margin); away from the coast (no Fukushima possibility); reliable water supply (ie near a river); and close to a major city (dormitory purposes for the many thousands of construction workers). 

This step would require a formally appointed inquiry to investigate potential sites placed somewhere between Brisbane and Melbourne. 

An Inquiry has to take submissions from the public and industry and eventually to make a recommendation. This recommendation then has to be adopted by the Commonwealth and the relevant state after further debate. 

I may be cynical, but while a majority may well be in favour of nuclear energy no-one will want to be next to a NPS and indeed all will have compelling reasons why it should be constructed elsewhere. 

Then occurs much vigorous debate in Parliament and with the public ignoring a possible change in government along the way. 

However, kicking the can down the road – standard practice – would require a new inquiry to be conducted with an outcome I would not foretell. 

But all up I would say eight years have passed without a shovel of soil being turned.

Now, to doubters for the propensity of delay in regard to nuclear matters: there is still no agreement as to disposal arrangements even for low-level radioactive waste produced in Australia. 

This continuous storage of waste without resolution as to location has been going on for perhaps 60 years or more. For example, as happens with waste from the Lucas Heights nuclear medicine facility south of Sydney. Indeed, if the Lucas Heights facility did not exist there is no way it could be built today.

Last, the ambitious nuclear submarine program will likely absorb all qualified personnel in Australia leaving no-one for the NPS construction or operation. But that’s another issue.

Stephen Yorke, Yarralumla