Little faith in anything learnt since 2023 bushfires

DESPITE all the hoo-ha on the anniversary of the 2003 fires, I have little faith that the government and emergency services leadership have learnt much since 2003.

After all we have had several major fires since then that the government struggled to contain, particularly Pierces Forest and the Orroral Valley fires.

The fact that the Chief Minister, together with Shane Rattenbury and Emergency Services head Georgeina Whelan determined that no inquiry was necessary into the fire started by a Defence helicopter, engenders no confidence in me at all.

As someone who flies a helicopter from time to time, I would like to know why it did not land as soon as possible to inspect dam age and why it did not radio or telephone in the location of the fire.

Both the government and emergency services management need a complete overhaul if we are not to have another 2003.

Of particular concern to me and bushfire scientists, is the forest on Narrabundah Hill in Duffy. This, according to Coroner Doogan’s report, is supposed to be open woodland.

However, with the drought the exotics have died and eucalypts and pines have once again taken over the area with the buffer zone reduced to 20 metres in parts.

Bushfire scientists claim this buffer zone, which would still contain suitable trees and bushes, should be 150 metres wide rather than the 70 recommended by government.

If houses are lost once more in upper Duffy, I hope residents will run a class action against the government for ignoring the dangers presented by this forest on the urban fringe.

Ric Hingee, Duffy

Canberra poorer for government failure

THE Centre for Population’s “2022 Population Statement” projecting the ACT’s 2033 population to be 550,000, up from 454,000 in 2021, has raised questions about how this growth can be best managed.

Historically Canberra’s growth was well managed through strong metropolitan plans based on the detailed assessment of alternative futures in the context of the demographic, environmental and fiscal parameters shaping the city.

Until the early 1990s growth was accommodated primarily by new towns, each with substantial employment and facilities supported by a high-quality transport network. This strategy substantially reduced travel and largely met the then overwhelming preferences for low-density living and car use.

The strategy was progressively refined to address an increased preference for apartment and townhouse living, an increased awareness of environmental impacts and a reduced ability of the ACT government to influence employment location. The need for a level of infill was recognised to reduce travel, use underutilised infrastructure and widen housing choice.

Unfortunately, the current urban strategy, essentially an infill share of 70 per cent with redevelopments largely concentrated at centres and along the inter-town public transport route serviced by light rail, was determined without detailed assessment of alternative urban futures.

The government claims the strategy is designed to provide Canberrans a choice to live close to work and amenities and have access to high-quality, frequent, reliable and sustainable public transport. There is little evidence it is delivering these outcomes.

The strategy needs urgent review as it is resulting in (a) an undersupply of detached and townhouse dwellings, (b) poor design and build quality in redevelopments, (c) insufficient employment in Gungahlin, (d) inadequate facilities in Molonglo, (e) increased car dependent growth in the region and (f) poor utilisation of public transport.

Furthermore, its validity is undermined by its failure to investigate housing preferences, consider strategies to disperse employment and evaluate bus rapid transport as an alternative to light rail.

Canberra is the poorer from the failure of the Barr government to base its urban development decisions on evidence.

Mike Quirk, Garran

Build a steel bridge, if you must

SINCE my last letter saying that Commonwealth Avenue Bridge will not last 10 years if a tramway is built upon it, due to corrosion, I have been impelled, sigh, to talk about the plans I have heard to strengthen the bridge.

What I have heard is that it is intended to place a catenary [a curve that describes the shape of a flexible hanging chain or cable] shaped tube on each side of each road bridge. These tubes will support the tram bridge and the road bridges by placing metal straps under the road bridges.

The straps will, of course, corrode despite anti-corrosion paint. But what is more important, when the internal steel cables supporting the road bridges are corroded through, and they will be, the bridge will collapse anyway.

The weight of the collapsing bridge is likely to force one or more of the tubes out of their sockets, like a spring. Yes, those on the bridge will probably be saved from drowning, but the bridge will be wrecked anyway.

Again I say, if the ACT government wishes to build this wretchedly expensive bridge, they should build a separate steel bridge.

Tim Walshaw, Watson

‘Deplorable’ state of the suburbs

I AM writing to express my disgust over the deplorable conditions widespread throughout Canberra’s suburbs.

Among the many defects, weed infestation is rife, tree roots have forced slabs of footpaths to lift dangerously, trees long dead remain standing, tall dry grass (some of it shoulder high) proliferates along fence lines and fallen branches together with dumped and decaying rubbish litter tree-lined corridors.

Because vast sums of money have been spent on building light rail, the ACT government clearly lacks sufficient funds to fulfil all its responsibilities.

Relative to Canberra’s population overall, light rail is used by very few people yet one way or another all must pay, not least with having to put up with ongoing neglect and dilapidation in the suburbs.

Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that unless ratepayers challenge the government “collectively and forcefully” it will do little or nothing to address the problems.

Frank Reade, Macquarie

Time to embrace, not kill kangaroos

IT takes courage to admit to the shameful act of recklessly killing our indigenous kangaroos (“The Gadfly”, CN January 19).

I wonder if columnist Robert Macklin’s admission has pricked the conscience of others who have so egregiously snuffed out the life of our precious wildlife.

While acknowledging the “thrill” of killing, the article fails to recognise the widespread shooting of kangaroos in Australia that continues to this day. At the time of printing, the ACT “Greenslabor” government is gearing up for the 2023 kangaroo “cull”.

It is impossible to reconcile the government’s position for killing kangaroos with the facts. Their alleged science was exposed as nonsense during the 2009, 2013 and 2014 ACAT hearings, and in numerous well-researched submissions made during “public consultations” on the 2010 and 2017 Kangaroo Management Plans.

The CSIRO Plant Industries Report in 2014 confirms the expert opinion expressed at those hearings: That is, the ACT government’s use of grass mass as the indicator for diversity is patently absurd. It is the number and variety of plants and animals, not mass of vegetation that gives all species the best chance to live and thrive.

Shouldn’t 2023 be the year that Canberra moves away from the wholesale slaughter of kangaroos and embraces them as an important part of the Bush Capital?

Robyn Soxsmith, Kambah

Take me to Not in Service!

VISITORS to the National Capital, not very familiar with the English language, let alone the names of suburbs, might be inclined to ask locals a few questions about the destination names they see on ACTION buses.

Where is “Not in Service” located in the city? Why does it have such frequent services, especially during the week and yet there appear to be no passengers? I observed five buses in a row headed for that suburb, a visitor noted! Meanwhile, other suburbs, I am told, get a very infrequent service particularly on weekends, they added.

The visitor noted that another suburb with an excellent, frequent service is “Returning to Depot”.

Colin Lyons, Weetangera

Correction

ALBERT Oberdorf’s letter “Set up for more social injustice” (CN January 19) incorrectly stated that the ACT government diverted $1,580,305 from the sale of ACT public housing to fund the Light Rail Stage 1, not the construction and purchase of new public housing.

Albert writes: “The correct total from the sale of ACT Public Housing plus incentive payments from the Commonwealth was a MASSIVE $1,580.305 million, all of which was used to fund the ACT Light Rail Stage 1!”