“The national capital and territory planning ‘authorities’, as minor units of government bureaucracies, will roll over and accept whatever the ACT insists on,” says letter writer RICHARD JOHNSON, of Kingston.

The Tasmanian Planning Commission has recommended against the proposed Hobart stadium in a “scathing report”. 

Its main concerns were inappropriate scale and location, poor urban planning and the cost on Tasmania’s budget with limited returns.

This is a project likely to cost something over a billion dollars, compared to Light Rail Stage 2 at several times that and with negligible benefits. The national capital and territory planning “authorities”, as minor units of government bureaucracies, will roll over and accept whatever the ACT insists on.

The national capital needs a truly independent planning commission!

Richard Johnston, Kingston

Griffin was actively obstructed by administrators

Robert Macklin, in his column “Sad things Mr Weston could not have imagined” (CN September 25) asserts Charles Weston “did a brilliant job in turning the national capital into his ‘dream city’ where the designer Walter Burley Griffin failed”. 

More detailed research into that period up to 1920 would have revealed the 1917 Royal Commission’s conclusions about the active obstruction of Mr Griffin by the administrators of those times.

In its report of March 15, 1917, the Royal Commission into Federal Capital Administration and its “Issues Relating to Mr Griffin”, the Commissioner concluded:

(1) That necessary information and assistance were withheld from him and his powers were usurped by certain officers;

(2) That he and his office were ignored, his rights and duties under his contract denied, and false charges of default made against him;

(3) That the Honorable WO Archibald and members of the Departmental Board endeavoured to set aside his design and to substitute the Board’s own design; and

(5 sic) That there was in the Department a combination, including the Honorable WO Archibald and certain officers, hostile to Mr Griffin, and to his design for the Capital City;

…and that the Honorable WO Archibald and the officers mentioned in my references to the evidence under these charges are severally responsible to the extent already indicated by me for this result.

The active obstruction of Walter Burley Griffin from turning the prize-winning design for Canberra into a dream city is far more relevant to the later worthy efforts of Charles Weston.

Peter Graves, former chair, Walter Burley Griffin Society, Canberra Chapter

Peace in Gaza, where do we go from here?

Like most of the amateur “experts” on the Israel/Hamas/Gaza conflict, I was very much ignorant of the day-to-day happenings in Gaza until October 7 2023.

The attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists on that day of ignominy awoke the world with a jolt, and one must ask – why did it happen? Why did Hamas attack an Israeli festival and slaughter and rape over 1200 people and kidnap 250 others? Why would they poke the Israeli bear?

In my mind, they had two reasons. One, they believed the rest of the Arab world would rise up behind them, and attack Israel to fulfill their aim to obliterate Israel. This did not happen apart from Hezbollah in Lebanon, who tried but were quickly silenced by Israeli reactions.

Two, they wanted the rest of the world to react with anti-Israel demonstrations because of the response via the attack on Gaza.

The first failed, but the second continues. The propaganda machine within Hamas should be praised for the results it has achieved over the past 12 months. 

They have blamed Israel for atrocities that were in all probability Hamas instigated by hiding their organisation cells and weapons caches within public buildings like hospitals and schools.

Consequently, all resulting fatalities and injuries are attributed exclusively to Israel. I am sure that the Nazi propaganda machine would have been proud of their results.

I see no end to this conflict until Hamas return the remaining – if any – hostages and agree to live in peace with Israel. Israel could then withdraw. Neither of these options will happen, so where do we go from here? The answer is, who knows!

Dave Jeffrey, Farrer

Target week makes for timely letter on emissions

Published the same week Australia announced its 2035 emissions target, Leon Arundell’s letter on Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions was timely (“There’s no target for Scope 3 emissions”, CN, September 18). 

Since January 1, large companies (Group 1) must report on four sustainability measures: climate governance and risk management; climate risks and opportunities (including physical and transition risks); greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and 2 initially, with Scope 3 to follow); and transition plans, including targets, mitigation strategies, and integration into business strategies.

Smaller entities (Groups 2 and 3) will follow in 2026 and 2027. In this respect, Australia is ahead, as the UN does not require Scope 3 emissions in interim national targets (NDCs).

Yet Scope 3 – the broad upstream and downstream indirect emissions – typically account for 70–90 per cent of a company’s footprint, and around 94 per cent of the ACT’s emissions.

The page at tinyurl.com/ACTScope3 helps understand Scope 3 emissions and explains how residents can begin to reduce them. To argue against emissions reduction, as the Coalition is doing, is irresponsible.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Victoria

No nuclear, we’re the unlucky country

Fiona Colin contradicts herself (letters, CN September 16) by somehow confidently predicting that Australia’s energy will pretty much come all from renewables by 2040, while also stating that gas will continue to power us beyond 2025.

At present, gas represents 25 per cent of our energy needs, coal is around the same. So, with the present government’s determination to eliminate cheap, affordable, baseload energy in the form of coal, does that mean gas will take up more of a role or are we going to lean on more intermittent, expensive, unreliable renewable energy? 

So for Ms Colin to predict that most of our energy will come from renewables in less than two decades is strange.

She also states the Coalition abandoned its nuclear push at the last election. While this is true, when they did push it, they were leading the polls and it was only when they stopped mentioning it that their popularity dropped.

This was not helped by Labor’s lies about using Medicare money for nuclear power plants and grossly lying about the cost of nuclear power, which has since proved that Mr Albanese was quoting a Labor Party donor with interests in renewable power.

Is it any wonder, along with Labor’s stubborn refusal to lift the ban on nuclear power, that we will now be forever and ever known as the unlucky country.

Ian Pilsner, Weston