Letters over the past week writing about the annual kangaroo cull, Alicia Payne’s Voice to parliament opinion piece, Australia Day and more.

In May, the Greens/Labor government will undertake its 15th annual cull of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Canberra. Since the commencement of the annual kangaroo cull, the government’s own data has revealed that up to 29,000 kangaroos and between 7,000 and 9,000 pouch joeys have been killed in circumstances that are immensely cruel and would be unacceptable to most Canberrans. Supposedly the “conservation cull” will help protect the habitat of threatened species.

In 2014, the government commissioned a CSIRO report into the cull that concluded that there was no basis to claim that kangaroos damaged the grassy layer on which threatened species depend. Despite this finding, the cull has continued with thousands more animals being killed.

In addition, the government has resisted the community’s calls to have another independent review undertaken, insisting that it is appropriate for the Environment Directorate to review its own program. The Environment Directorate is effectively operating without any independent scrutiny of the way it is administering the kangaroo cull.

Many Canberrans are public servants and are well aware of the requirement that programs must be subject to external review on a regular basis. Canberrans should be asking their government: Why isn’t the Directorate subject to external scrutiny? Why are our rates being used to kill wildlife at a time where they are already facing multiple threats such as the loss of habitat and the impact of climate change?

• R. Marks, Palmerston ACT

I read Alicia Payne’s case for the Voice (CW 23 February 2023) and was a bit surprised about the general weakness of assertions made. 

I am not unsympathetic to improving the lot of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I am not negative to the idea of the Voice. I probably leant towards an administratively created body to sort out how it would work before putting it to a vote and putting it in the Constitution. A working effective body would be easy to sell and doubts largely dispelled.

Alicia and her colleague Andrew Leigh have restated the birth certificate line (the constitution), and the consultation line. Alicia made the flimsy assertions of: it delivering practical change on the ground in areas like health, housing and education; making a practical difference for their communities; address the injustices of the past; and create a better future.  

Alicia did preface “unifying moment for the nation” with a “could be a”. That might turn out to be true, but you do not have to apply much critical thinking to have doubts. It is very unlike the 1967 referendum which was unifying and people voted for it. 1967 was the highest yes vote on any federal referendum question, it passed in every state and every federal electorate.  

The question is, does it feel like a 1967 moment? The gradual decline in the yes vote and corresponding rise in the no vote suggests the sales job is not working. The ACT will vote yes, but a failure in several states is quite likely.  

• M. Gordon, Dunlop ACT

One of the unrecognised features of Canberra planning is that buildings do not front onto main roads. This feature must be maintained at all costs, however, I have not seen any mention in the draft [Territory] plans. There is a risk that the infill with high rise apartments and the desire to develop boulevards will reduce 80km/hr speed limits to 40. For example, the Tuggeranong district plan has lots of red markers (high rise buildings) from Wanniassa along Athlon Drive to Tuggeranong.

• J Thornton, Banks ACT

R Soxsmith states they are “Australian born and bred” but because their ancestry does not go as far back as the first fleet, Australia Day does not represent them. Also stated was they suspect it has no relevance to immigrants and refugees. The meaning of celebrating Australia Day on 26 January is that is when the First Fleet arrived and that is when Australia started to develop, grow and expand and become the great nation that it is today. Everyone in Australia benefits from that development and that includes the First Nations peoples, immigrants and refugees. We are a very multicultural nation and we celebrate other nations’ days even if they are not relevant to us. I am an immigrant and I am proud to call Australia home, which obviously R Soxsmith does not, if he/she also wants to change the flag and national anthem. There is an Aboriginal choir in WA (seen on TV) that sing the Australian National Anthem and it is very moving and beautiful, so they have no problem with the anthem.

R Soxsmith states the date for remembrance should be 3 March as it represents the Australia Act of 1901. Whilst it was the year Australia became a Federation, it was also the year under the Act that the White Australia Policy started. I do not thing the immigrants and refugees would be happy about that.

There are a great number of the First Nations Peoples that celebrate Australia Day, so they obviously do not have a problem with it.

• V Evans, Macgregor ACT

Can M Stivala (CW, 23 February 2023) tell us what evidence he has to assert voting Yes is “akin to signing contracts with blank spaces in them”?  May I suggest he reads Part V, Section 51, of the Constitution which lists 40 activities for which the Parliament has power to make laws. They range from Defence to weights and measures but none specify a single “known” regarding how they should be structured and operate. That’s how the Constitution works; dealing with principles, not the nuts and bolts, (more like a legal memorandum of understanding than a detailed contract). We vote only on whether or not we agree with the principle. The proposed Voice Amendment draft, consisting of three short, self-explanatory points of principle was released by the Prime Minister at last year’s Garma Festival.

Following a yes vote, the government will introduce legislation to enshrine those principles. Next comes debate, inside and outside the parliament, over the proposed legislative details of how the Voice will operate in practice. The only condition is that they follow the basic principles set out in the Amendment agreed to at the Referendum. If the Voice to Parliament is more than good enough for two former Chief Justices of the High Court, Robert French and Murray Gleeson, what expertise does M Stivala and other objectors possess that overrides such eminent and legally conservative minds?

• E Hunter, Cook ACT

Want to share your opinion?

Email [email protected] with ‘To the editor’ in the subject field; include your full name, phone number, street address (NFP) and suburb. Keep letters to 250 words maximum. Note, letters may be shortened if space restrictions dictate.