Letter writer RON EDGECOMBE, of Evatt, is critical of the ACT government’s priorities when it comes to youth homelessness.

I WAS angered to see two contrasting headlines on the same day related to the ACT government’s priorities in social equity. 

One related to the Chief Minister touting about and shedding a tear on passing the first intersex legislation to protect vulnerable teens and hoping that the law would become an international model.

The other headline related to the record number of homeless youth in Canberra and the obvious conclusion that the Barr government was overwhelmingly neglecting this critical social needs priority. 

This was moreover reinforced by Jon Stanhope and Khalid Ahmed’s “CityNews” column, “Poverty’s not a word in the ACT budget lexicon” (CN March 23).

While the intersex law is no doubt a worthwhile initiative, surely it should not take priority over the desperate and ongoing daily needs of the increasing numbers of homeless youth in our city.

And no, Chief Minister, poverty including the circumstances of homeless youth is not just a Commonwealth government responsibility in terms of inadequate social security payments. 

State and territory governments have a broad range of social responsibilities which complement the Commonwealth’s role. The ACT government is clearly neglecting these roles given the growing numbers of youth homeless in Canberra.

Ron Edgecombe, Evatt

Bigger McMansions coming our way

ANDREW Barr recently claimed dual-occupancy homes in existing suburbs would be 100-150sqm (and thus solve the affordable housing crisis). If this is the desired outcome it needs to be backed with specific planning provisions.

I did a case study of the Mr Fluffy block (RZ1) next door. Under existing dual occupancy rules, 35 per cent (single storey) plot ratio applies, so two 192sqm houses could be built. 

Under new provisions, 45 per cent “site coverage” is permitted (Part E1: Residential Zones Policy: 1.4) and the only bulk/size limit in Technical specifications (Part TS1: 1.2:16) is 8.5 metres high (two storeys). Battleaxes are no longer excluded from the “site” definition (Part G: Dictionary).

For the next-door block, this translates to a staggering 97.8 per cent plot ratio: developers could build two 547sqm houses. How does this help affordable housing and reduce greenhouse effects?

I checked my case study with a town planner/architect who could not fault my logic. I also contacted my local MLA who said they’d asked the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate for case studies on the new planning system, without success.

The new provisions suggest outcomes for RZ1 will be much worse than the well-publicised Darke Street, Torrens, Mr Fluffy development (“Canberra Matters”, Paul Costigan, July 20, 2022).

Caroline Wenger, Macgregor

There should be two Voice questions

THE PM has got it wrong. There should be at least two questions: do you support recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution? A no brainer. It’s time!

Second question: do you approve the establishment of a Voice to parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?

Most Australians would vote ”Yes” emphatically for question one. We have major reservations about question two. If parliament can guarantee that a ”Yes” vote will remove all Aboriginal inequity by a certain date, a ”Yes” vote will occur. That is not going to happen.

The ”Yes” vote is about salving our conscience for 200 years of not getting it right. Also our First Nations people are but a small percentage of the population who need to be subject to the laws and behaviours as do the rest of us.

A third question: Do you support the constitution being amended to allow Citizens Initiated Referendums? More importantly, voters need to have a voice to parliament for matters that concern them. Overwhelmingly that would get the major ”Yes” vote.

Importantly, and consistent with past messaging, the public wants to have both sides of the argument put to them, not the PM’s one-sided funded argument.

Russ Morison, via email

Sadly mistaken, the Voice is not benign

ERIC Hunter’s letter (“Enough detail to satisfy the doubter”, CN March 23) claims, like the PM, his supporters and the indigenous industry, that there is enough detail to satisfy the doubters on the Voice referendum. 

He is sadly mistaken in essentially making the same and only argument as the PM – “Isn’t it a great idea and the right, moral thing to do”. 

I suggest Mr Hunter read in considerable detail the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is far from an innocent and innocuous document.

The fact that the representative body on the Voice, reporting to the government, is adamant that the Voice must be able to make recommendations to the administrative arms of government and not just to the Parliament, on any aspect of government and on any matter, whether affecting only indigenous people or not, should send a shiver up his spine. 

Max Flint, Erindale

‘Clear and concise’ article on the Voice

THANK you Peter Robinson for your clear, concise and most helpful article on the Voice (“Why it’s time for Albanese to throw in the towel”, CN March 23).

I have read the Uluru Statement from the Heart a couple of times, but if asked would be unable to recall anything. 

Jacinta Price’s quote of her elders’ teachings was so much more meaningful. Now if we could just change the national anthem to the Seekers’ “We are One” everyone could understand and agree with that.

Eric Lindemann, Greenway

For those who wonder or have doubts

THANKS to Peter Robinson for his opinion piece (“Why it’s time for Albanese to throw in the towel”, CN March 23).

A timely and comprehensive piece by Paul Kelly, “Albanese’s flawed voice fails the test” in “The Weekend Australian” (March 25-26) goes into greater detail and depth on the topic.

Both excellent articles for those who wonder what “this Voice business” is about and for those with doubts.

The outcome of the referendum will impose a permanent influence on our democracy. George Orwell’s masterpiece of 1945 is pertinent.

Ray Atkin, Gungahlin

The Voice referendum is all wrong

WHILE we are all supportive of a referendum on the Voice for indigenous Australians, isn’t this a waste in isolation? 

It should have been coupled with a general election, a more sensible approach to good government. That way the government would be compelled to discuss complexities and remedies in much more detail, rather than the rabbit-down-the-hole approach we see today.

Issues with the Voice are separate, but a government out of touch and left wanting can only be fixed by a general election.

John Lawrence via email

Uncollected shopping trolleys everywhere

I AM in complete agreement with R Nano’s letter (“Graffiti blight makes me angry and sad”, CN March 23) regarding the rampant vandalism perpetrated by graffitists; it is another shameful example of how our once cared for city and suburbs have fallen into a state of ongoing decay.

Adding to all the widespread unsightliness is the large number of uncollected supermarket trolleys that are found almost everywhere. 

If the various outlets won’t act responsibly and collect the trolleys which after all are their property then surely it’s time the ACT government forced them to do so. Locking devices on supermarket trolleys have been operative for some time in different parts of Australia; without question it’s now time to introduce them here. 

Frank Reade, Macquarie

Renewables are not cheap to start with

DOUGLAS Mackenzie (Letters, CN March 23) claims that nuclear energy is too expensive and that energy experts and scientists are virtually unanimous that renewables are cheaper. 

I think he will find there are just as many energy experts and scientists that disagree and state that, in the long run, nuclear power is far cheaper. 

The so-called renewables are not cheap to start with and they have to be replaced every 10-15 years, yet modular nuclear power stations last for 60 years. 

The renewables are not being recycled so they have to be buried. This is not only an added cost, but they will contaminate the ground where they are buried as well as the surrounding water tables. 

As to the time to build the nuclear reactors, how long is it going to take to build enough solar power and wind turbines to give us 100 per cent reliable electricity?

Dr Mackenzie’s last comment: “Thanks to almost a decade of government inaction, we cannot afford to wait that long”. I think he will find it is a lot longer than a decade (from all sides of politics) that we have been having problems.

Vi Evans via email

In climate, common sense is overrated

CAROL Dunnet felt Max Flint’s thoughts on climate change (Letters, CN March 23) showed “common sense logic”. But common sense is overrated. 

Stuart Chase, the American economist said: “Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.” For Albert Einstein, common sense was “the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18”.

When it comes to climate change, the science of thousands must overrule the common sense of one. 

For example, Mr Flint claimed global warming was slow. Yet science reveals that the planet is warming faster than it has in 10,000 years. It seems slow to us, but Australia is already halfway to 3 degrees of warming which, according to the Australian Academy of Science, would mean many of Australia’s ecological systems would be unrecognisable, the decline of our natural resources would accelerate and we would lose thousands of species.

This fast warming is caused mainly by land clearing, agriculture, transport and the burning of fossil fuels releasing greenhouse gases (more science). Anyone who views the NASA graph at climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ showing how CO2 levels have not been this high for 800,000 years and are rising fast will be shocked. 

Common sense would not have predicted that.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Victoria