Reader ROSS KELLY is staggered to discover the road into his sleepy corner of Canberra is to be resealed – again. He reckons it doesn’t need it.
Kindler Place, Monash, is a sleepy little cul-de-sac of about 10 homes; and it’s where I’ve happily lived for a very long time.
It’s (literally) the kind of residential dead-end where you could throw down a picnic blanket and eat two sandwiches, a piece of cake, and then you’d likely be most of the way through a lazy can of cola before a car might come along.
And – more to the point – Kindler Place was granted a new surface of bitumen and aggregate (a noisy, smelly process requiring visitations by heavy equipment and a crew over a period of several days) only about three or four years ago.
Imagine my surprise, then, to see a sign this afternoon restricting parking on my street over an upcoming 10-day period because it is being resurfaced!
There are no holes at all, and no cracks at all in the road surface of my street.
The new work is, in my opinion, simply not required. Indeed before the 2022 roadworks the street had survived over 30 (yes, thirty) years with the original surface from when the subdivision first opened in 1991!
Now this actually raises another perhaps larger question: the appearance of the original (30-year) road surface was finer and smoother than the recent resurfacing – the newer surface has much less bitumen and the maximum of exposed, angular aggregate that was initially painful to walk on with bare feet.
Setting aside the annoying waste of money resurfacing my little, scarcely trafficked street, is the hyperactive maintenance program perhaps really and truly required in many other streets because the new surfacing method is crappy and short-lived?
In any event, Mr Barr, if you are going to go ahead and do it all over again to my street I’ll have my 2025 rates back, thank you very much.
Ross Kelly, Monash
Hero’s conduct disgraces the uniform he wore
Distinguished Vietnam veteran Ross Smith thinks that a hero can do no wrong (letters, CN October 16).
He says: “Soldiers do what they have to in time of war and sometimes unpleasantries of combat happen, brutal and inhumane.” Ben Roberts-Smith’s conduct was certainly brutal and inhumane, but he did not have to do what he did; nor was he in “combat”.
Smith says an infantryman’s duty is to “close with your enemy… and KILL”. But the men killed were not “enemy” – they were innocent civilians.
Roberts-Smith acted contrary to international law, the ADF’s own Rules of Engagement, and common humanity.
Roberts-Smith’s conduct disgraces the uniform he wore and the decorations he earned. Columnist Hugh Selby is right to ask why the government has not acted to strip him of the honour he no longer deserves (“National embarrassment: take the medals back now”, CN October 9).
Peter Stanley, Dickson
Discipline is vital to an effective defence force
With great respect to Ross Smith’s service to his country, no soldier can be free to do what they want in a time of war (letters, CN October 16).
Modern wars are never fought between the military forces of an foreign country, but rather against irregular actors seeking to install a government contrary to the military or economic interests of the US and its allies.
Strict rules of engagement are vital in modern conflicts.
Israel has fought many wars against Arabs, one lasting just six days.
The war in Gaza was the first in which members of the IDF were given full legal immunity for any criminal act committed in uniform.
The result has been a disaster for Israel. The IDF has ceased to be the disciplined and professional army widely respected by other other military professionals.
Atrocity after atrocity has undermined international support for Israel. Investigations are always promised, but legally nothing can be done.
My support for military discipline has nothing to do with a bleeding heart, but rather because it is vital to maintaining an effective defence force.
Noel Baxendell, Holt
We need to stand up against Royella quarry plans
If you haven’t heard about Monaro Rock’s Royalla Quarry proposal, don’t be surprised – not many people have, the NSW government was effective in keeping us uninformed.
The 30,000 residents of Lanyon Valley have been unaware that the quarry proposal could seriously impact the future health and safety of everyone in our community.
The MRRQ proposal, (announced on roadside corflutes as you drive into Canberra from Googong or Royalla on the Monaro Highway), will undoubtedly affect the quality of the Lanyon Valley environment if the proposal goes ahead.
Some of the many issues arising from the quarry that will affect all the people living within 10 kilometres of the project site are as follows:
- Up to a million tonnes of hard rock (construction stone) will be extracted every year, which means that 250+ fully laden BDouble trucks will be using the Monaro Highway during working hours.
- The potential traffic hazards for many travelling to and from Hume, Fyshwick, Manuka, Barton etcetera, will be significant.
- The quarry work will include blasting, processing of large, hard stone pieces, and crushing recycled concrete, all of which will create fine dust. Lanyon Valley homes, schools, outdoor recreation areas and public spaces could be affected by this dangerous airborne fine-particle pollution.
- Gigalitres of water will be used in processing the rock to minimise dust. There is the potential for toxic runoff to contaminate the water table and surface water flowing to Lake Tuggeranong. Water shortages can occur during our long dry summers, how will the dust suppression process work without a continuous water supply?
Hundreds of submissions from extremely concerned Royalla/Googong and more recently Lanyon Valley residents have been made to halt the development of this project, BUT it may not be enough.
The time is coming when this dispute will arrive at our front doors, Lanyon Valley residents will need to stand together with our Royalla friends and be there to support them.
Carole Ford, Conder
First-class treatment at Canberra Hospital
My husband recently underwent prostate surgery at Canberra Hospital, Garran.
While I realise the hospital provokes nothing but negative comments (which seem to be the only ones I see published), I am compelled to say it was first-class treatment from a pre to post-operative situation.
The care, efficiency and kindness were first rate – every step of the way, procedures were explained by diligent and professional nursing staff and clinicians.
Follow up treatment at Urology beyond excellent, with two outstanding staff members, Belinda and Tina, who are the benchmark/gold standard for what a public health system should look like. Highly trained, brilliant communicators, who genuinely care about patient outcomes, they have our complete gratitude and admiration.
Gail Nagel, Isaacs
Confirmed: social posts hinder job prospects
Some time ago, when ANU students refused to follow instructions to move their Palestinian protest at the ANU, I commented that those students who refused to obey legitimate requests and who comment negatively on social media, need to take care not to jeopardise their employment prospects.
I mentioned that I was the architect of the Graduate Recruitment Program of a Commonwealth mega-department (DPIE) and had run it for a year, which included interviewing prospective, high-calibre applicants.
I commented that, in today’s world, interviewers could be expected to examine the activities and social media posts of such applicants and were taken to task by some of your readers who seemed to think they knew better.
For their information I provide the results of a recent survey showing that new research shows that social media can cost jobs and interviews, that 77 per cent of recruiters review social media accounts, that 97 per cent of them said they would reject someone based upon what they posted and that 26 per cent of Gen Z had been rejected because of social media.
So I hope those who criticised me now understand that I was trying to warn our young potential job seekers to be careful what they post and how they act in public.
Ric Hingee, Duffy
What’s the point of a head of state?
What is the function of the Australian head of state? Not much – this role is a relic of the British monarchical rule and is anachronistic under the “Westminster” system, where Parliament is the supreme governing authority.
But both the UK and US systems are defective in that both have “first-past-the-post”, non-compulsory, voting, which allows domination by one or other major parties and a potential for autocracy, particularly in the US case.
The Australian system is better, but could be made more representative by having multi-member electorates for the lower house (as per the ACT and Tasmania).
The separation of powers could be more clear, with the upper house (Senate) only being a house of review and confirmation of legislation agreed by the lower house.
The senate president could have the ceremonial functions of the governor-general. Party allegiance should also be banned for senators to prevent total control of parliament by one or other major party – our own David Pocock shows how effective a true independent can be!
Richard Johnston, Kingston
Searching for truth is part of living
The world wide web has become immensely useful because many people generate content, although some would say the wisdom that leads to truth is hard to find.
Some thinkers say that AI will destroy the web because users will just ask GenAI for information.
On the other hand, AI is threatened by the amount of material now published on the web that is AI generated, because it is web content that is currently the main source of material for training Large Language Models. AI could be left chasing its tail.
But there is a more sinister feedback effect already well established in Western society through social media and its manipulation by those in control.
The commodification of human life, the unguided emotions of individualism and consumerism are some of the themes that are forming cultural beliefs. Its adverse influence on youthful minds is now being acknowledged by government.
Everyone is vulnerable to technology, which can be seen as the power of a few to make others what they please. Will AI succumb to the technology from which it arose?
The alternative is for independent thinking to return to the question of God who, until recent times, was accepted as the author of human life and all intelligence.
John L Smith, Farrer
Leave a Reply