This week, letter writers discuss if there’s too much pressure on children, the infamous Jonny Bairstow stumping, Robodebt and plenty more.

Consideration of others through regulation

By having no regulations regarding the design and construction of internal driveways, the ACT government is relying on neighbours to treat each other with consideration and respect. From my experience, this is not always the case.

My neighbour replaced an old two strip concrete driveway with a massive continuous concrete driveway which extends in width from the wall of their house to within a couple of centimetres of the common boundary between our two properties. Across its width the driveway slopes in cross section towards the boundary. Thus, the stormwater falling on it flows off the driveway and into my property. Problem solved for my neighbour and very conveniently passed to myself to deal with.

Commonwealth Government Guidelines state that stormwater should not be directed onto neighbouring properties. The underlying principle is that a person should take responsibility for dealing with the run-off from their own property. This would normally be done by directing runoff into the internal stormwater drainage system or out to the street. My neighbour did not employ either of these options.

I have raised this matter through various government channels but have been dismissed and ultimately ignored. I raise the matter here in the hope that some reform may be made to the regulations so that others in the future may not suffer as I have.

• Su Zeng, Kaleen

Just not cricket

The stumping of England wicket keeper Johny Bairstow in the second Test may very well have been within the rules, however it was “just not cricket”. It’s risible for the Australian team and its followers calling the Poms whingers when the Aussies who are not renowned for their sportsmanship do the same, they also cheat. Who can forget the “underarm” final bowl against the Kiwis, and the dastardly “sandpapergate” incident against the Poms.

• Mario Stivala, Belconnen

$76M waste must be punished

Re Bill Stefaniak’s op-ed (CW 6 July): He is correct in questioning the waste of $76M and no repercussion. Allowing the local minister to escape punishment for a $76M waste of ratepayers’ money would set a concerning precedent. Punishments for previous ministers in the 1990s such as Wayne Berry and Kate Carnell, were likely imposed to maintain accountability and uphold the public’s trust. Consistency in holding officials accountable is essential for maintaining the integrity of government institutions and ensuring responsible use of taxpayer funds.

Granting exemption from punishment could erode public confidence in the local government minister’s ability to manage finances effectively. It may send a message that officials can act with impunity, potentially leading to more financial mismanagement in the future. The repercussions of such waste fall directly on the ratepayers who contribute their hard-earned money for essential services and community development.

Instead, it is crucial to establish a fair and transparent process to investigate the $76M waste. This would allow for a thorough examination of the circumstances and determine whether any individuals or entities should be held accountable. Upholding accountability ensures that the mistakes of the past are learned from and helps safeguard public resources for the benefit of the community as a whole.

• Errol Good, Macgregor

Green light voice referendum

If you are contemplating toying with social engineering and switching on a green light, be careful to avoid getting an electrical shock if there’s bad wiring or shoddy installation.

• John Lawrence, Flynn

Too much pressure on children

Bill Stefaniak’s op-ed ‘ACT Government not accountable for any stuff-ups’ (CW 6 July) was excellent. The Labor/Greens government either don’t know what they’re doing or are trying to destroy our society. In regards to the issue of children, most of the government intentions mentioned by Bill are mutually contradictory, such as, raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14, along with lowering the age allowing children of 14 to euthanise, get a driving licence and joining the ADF and going to war at possibly 16. How is it reasonable to claim someone should not be criminally responsible until 14 years old while allowing them to decide to end their own lives at that same age? You can’t have it both ways.

Bill didn’t mention that children younger than 10 are being told they can become whatever they want or non-binary, such as a cat, as happened at a school in England recently. Children are also told they can change their gender without discussing it with their parents; some schools are told not to discuss it with the parents. Numerous child psychologists state it is not unusual for a child to go through these phases of uncertainty, but they grow out of it. There are children that have gone through the transition and then regretted it. How can they be old enough to decide to irrevocably modify their bodies yet not be able to be held responsible for crime?

We are putting too much pressure on children and confusing them. I fear it is child abuse.

• Vi Evans, Macgregor

No Robodebt for corporations

If the Morrison Government and the ministers responsible for designing and running the artificial intelligence assessments made by Robodebt did believe it was fair, legal, efficient, and moral, why did they never design a similar system for using the same kind of AI algorithm to calculate the tax debt that companies and corporations should be paying and send the debt collectors after the wealthy who own and run these businesses? It’s almost as if our federal government were specifically targeting poor people simply for being poor and not being able to fight back.
– Doug Steley, Heyfield VIC 

Cobalt, child labour, and toxicity

Chris Rule’s letter “Modern slavery in cobalt mines” (CW 6 July) accuses me of seeming “cavalier about the use of child labour in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo” and not being aware of Siddarth Kara’s book Cobalt Red. He is very far from the truth. I am deeply concerned about child labour wherever and however it may be used. I have read Cobalt Red, and own a copy. Kara is wrong when he “points out that cobalt is toxic to touch”. Very small amounts of cobalt are toxic, even carcinogenic, when ingested, or inhaled in the form of dust. Skin contact with cobalt ore can cause irritation, rashes, or allergic reactions: it is not “toxic to touch”.

However, I agree with Mr Rule that environmental degradation, and pollution of both air and water, effect people who don’t work in cobalt mines, but live in areas with one or more mines. Australia is the world’s third-largest producer and 14th-largest exporter of cobalt. I’m glad that I don’t live anywhere near any of Australia’s considerable number of cobalt mines.

• Douglas Mackenzie PhD, Deakin

Abbott and Advance Australia

Ex PM Tony Abbott’s appearance on the ABC’s 7.30 program where he represented the No vote supporting Advance Australia was yet another example of why Australians need the Voice. Old white people, especially old stale pale white males like Tony, are just another example of 200+ years of non-Indigenous Australians trying to tell our first nations people what’s best for them. This hasn’t worked in 200 years, it’s time to try something new, isn’t it?
– Doug Steley, Heyfield VIC

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.