Split-family visas a priority
The Afghan Ambassador reminds us to keep hope alive for his country (CW 31 August, p14). His address at the Press Club was a useful reminder of our hopes for those Afghans left behind at the fall of Kabul and what has happened to them since August 2021. We also need to remember the importance of re-uniting families, especially those who managed to get across borders to Pakistan and Iran and are seeking split-family visas.
They are families deeply at risk because they are related to people who worked either for the former government, or the former allied military forces. 41 of our soldiers died in Afghanistan providing protection for its residents. Let’s continue that protection with quicker issuing of their split-family visas.
- Peter Graves, Curtin
Resilience of Afghan people
After reading Georgia Curry’s article ‘Embassy of Afghanistan in Canberra keeps hope alive’ (CW 31 August, p14) I was mightily impressed with the spirit and resilience of the Afghan people. Somehow, they have overcome a would-be cultural extinction by the Taliban, and openly defied their radically restrictive rules. Women and girls dare to wear whatever clothes they wish to, and to be educated in the ways of the “western devil”. But most admirable of all, they have survived to send diplomatic missions to western countries such as Australia. They should be proud; and they should be saluted.
- Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin
Shoot nothing but photos
While John Lawrence (CW 31 August p22) has been following the letters on wildlife and introduced animals, it doesn’t appear he has actually understood the issue. That is, we cannot kill our way back to biodiversity.
I certainly agree about the need to attract tourists. Where we differ is that I support sustainable, animal-friendly wildlife tourism where the only shots taken are with a camera.
- Robyn Soxsmith, Kambah
Respect all living creatures
Yes, John Lawrence your letter about feral animal eradication (CW 31 August p22) was either satirical (initially, I nearly choked laughing) or deliberate for its blanket inclusion of wildlife as feral? Are you focussed on promoting family bonding fun in hunting? Are you new to the ACT perhaps having arrived from the north? The list of dangerous weapons to be controlled costs taxpayers, but hang on, how do you know all the details? The setting-up and enforcement of protocols for private hunting sounds challenging and unlikely capably monitored on Australia’s private landholdings or through government-sanctioned culls. There are plenty of statistics that indicate methodology or protocols are not working. Is your reference for Indigenous leadership to be co-opted for your ideas potentially an oblique justification that would also be a taxpayers’ expense? Can you ignore how many Australian species of living creatures are added as fair game / submit to bi-kill on a national scale? For our greater good perhaps? My maths is not too bad, but it is difficult to see how your proposal brings a win except for those hunting, as a sport, paying for expensive ammo and the availability of more dangerous weapons. Maybe our next Census could include a question on weapon ownership?
Are we losing our ability to respect all living creatures and their humane treatment? There are lots of areas where we humans could improve on our behaviour or do we need shooting tragedies already taking place every single day? Very concerned,
- Ilona Crabb, Narrabundah
A balanced approach to drugs
I refer to Bill Stefaniak’s opinion piece ‘CPO slams ACT Green/Labor government on drugs’ (CW 31 August) and agree with his comments, which the Government may wish to follow up on. Decriminalisation could lead to increased consumption and accessibility of these highly addictive substances. Reduced legal consequences might inadvertently send a message that these drugs are less harmful, potentially leading to higher usage rates, especially among vulnerable populations.
Moreover, decriminalisation might undermine efforts to combat drug trafficking and organised crime. A legal market for hard drugs could create opportunities for illicit manufacturers and dealers to exploit regulatory loopholes, worsening the existing challenges of drug-related violence and criminal enterprises.
The public health implications cannot be overlooked either. Decriminalising drugs without a comprehensive strategy for treatment and harm reduction could result in a surge of drug-related health issues, straining healthcare systems and exacerbating social problems.
Furthermore, the potential for addiction to impact productivity and public safety remains a concern. Increased drug use could lead to more accidents, workplace inefficiencies, and strained social services.
While the intention behind decriminalising hard drugs like ice and heroin might be well-meaning, the dangers of such a move are significant. A balanced approach involving comprehensive addiction treatment, harm reduction strategies, and thoughtful policy-making is essential to address the complex challenges posed by these substances.
- Errol Good, Macgregor
Climate action in the ACT
Local Greens MLA Jo Clay asks, “Is the ACT taking enough climate action?’ (CW 29 August).
ACT greenhouse gas inventory reports show that electricity use within the ACT caused 70 million tonnes of Scope 2 CO2-e (carbon dioxide-equivalent) emissions from 1989 to 2020. Those emissions occurred outside the ACT. Under the government’s policy of 100 per cent renewable electricity, we have not added to that total since 2020. We have no plan to remove those emissions from the atmosphere.
Since 1989, 50 million tonnes of net Scope 1 emissions have occurred within the ACT’s borders.
The government’s so-called “net zero emissions by 2045” target applies to annual increases in total Scope 1 emissions. Under that policy, net total Scope 1 emissions will continue to increase each year until 2044.
The Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment estimates that in 2018 the ACT caused a total of 35 tonnes of emissions per person. Subtracting five tonnes from electricity generation brings our annual emissions to just below 30 tonnes per person. That is more than four times the world average. 94 per cent of the ACT’s carbon footprint is Scope 3 emissions. Those emissions occur outside the ACT, in producing and transporting goods and services that we consume here. The government’s only commitment to addressing Scope 3 emissions is to talk about them.
In answer to Ms Clay’s question, I say that the ACT is taking too much climate action.
- Leon Arundell, Downer
I agree with Stefaniak this time
I’ve often wondered whether you pay Bill Stefaniak for the dribble (sic) he sprouts (sic) each week. But I have to say I agree with his every word this week (CW 31 August p10), lamenting the decriminalisation of hard drugs in the ACT. I have some concerns with the decriminalisation of the softer drugs, but ice and heroin? One of my many fears is the people who get behind the wheel whilst under the influence. If any defence lawyer puts that up as a mitigating factor when these people are brought before the courts having killed someone, I’d like to see that lawyer do time as well!
- Kim Fitzgerald, Deakin
