Commenting on the story: ‘We are going to make this happen’: Premier backs in uni merger

So did I waste my time providing comments on the draft “vision statement” for the proposed new university? Apparently, the Premier has spoken. He will “make” the merger happen, in effect, regardless of what the people of South Australia may think.

Well, bugger that.

To put it mildly, I find the arguments in favour of merging two of SA’s universities unconvincing.

Long experience in both private and public sectors is that mergers usually fail to achieve their objectives. Of course “merger” is usually a euphemism; there is almost always a stronger party that takes over a weaker party in the end.

Moreover, a bigger university isn’t necessarily a better one. Adelaide University currently has approximately 24,000 students. Oxford University has a little over 26,000. Does Oxford University fail to achieve its world leading status because it is too small? Harvard University has approximately 30,000 students, with fewer than 10,000 undergraduates. Does it lack size?

I respectfully suggest the Government take more notice of the details of the merger activity it has initiated. So far as the draft Vision Statement is concerned, there is much emphasis on achieving “equity”. It asserts, without evidence, that “equity and excellence are wholly compatible”. It proposes that the merged university would aim for more students from low socio-economic backgrounds to learn and complete degrees than at any other higher education institution in Australia.

In other words, the proposed university is to adopt, at birth, the utterly failed and toxic “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) philosophy that has caused such devastation to the reputations of the universities of the United States. This is the last thing we want. Surely our universities should strive for academic excellence. We want the best and brightest minds in South Australian universities; we should not destroy two fine universities to pursue policies and objectives that diminish the academic strength of the student cohort, devalue degrees and prioritise social rather than economic outcomes.

I urge both universities to resist this merger. It is an expensive diversion for them, and in my opinion, highly unlikely to succeed. I urge the Government to think more seriously about this issue, and stop treating it as a test of political muscle.

Respectfully, the Premier should read the draft report from the SA Productivity Commission on turning research into economic competitiveness for South Australia. The problem the SAPC has identified is not the size of SA’s existing universities. It’s about improving the interactions between those universities and local industry with a view to enhancing SA’s competitiveness.

Rather than push a merger and DEI agenda, I suggest the government review the enabling legislation for our universities to ensure that each of them is driven to deliver the commercial outcomes the State needs, and that I assume the Premier wants. In my opinion, a merger alone won’t work. Aligning the universities’ enabling legislation, and relevant incentives, with desired commercial outcomes just might. – Stephen Trenowden

Commenting on the story: High tension: Electricity network arcs up over trees

Instead of complaining about the trees, I agree with many others that they should be burying the power lines. Wouldn’t it make sense to come up with a prioritised list of areas that need it the most and start spending the $42 million a year on that work?

I suspect after that work is complete there’d be no need for all the workers to keep erecting and removing signage, less reason to buy the equipment needed to remove non-compliant tree material, and find something else for those workers to do as most of them stand around the cherry-picker watching one person doing the work.

As an Adelaide Hills resident I have experienced this way too often. The tree work is disruptive to traffic. To suggest that you not plant trees, or even take out trees in the Adelaide Hills is a little ridiculous. Putting those lines underground using modern equipment would not be a task that is that difficult in most places, especially in the Hills where there are fewer pipes and other impediments underground. – Bob Sibson

When I worked for ETSA in the 1980s, the Distribution Services Department under Ray Elford developed and made numerous installations of insulated cable, designated ‘ABC’ for Aerial Bundled Conductor. This was expressly to mitigate fire risks, and was a major response to the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983.

The ABC was installed in areas where tree and vegetation cover was deemed too extensive &/or trimming would produce an unsightly result. This installed ABC is still in service, and, as far as I am aware, has served very well in its intended purpose. Of course, it is more expensive than bare conductors, but much less expensive than undergrounding.

I imagine that the extra expense is why the profit-driven private operator has not proceeded with the system. – David Inkster

Whenever I read these kind of comments I wonder why we are not burying our powerlines like other civilised countries. Then no tree branch can cause blackouts.

It should be part of our future-proofing against wilder and wilder weather coming our way in the near future. – Hubertus Jersmann

SA Power Networks destroy our trees because they won’t invest and put power underground like the rest of the country. – Rob Naudi

Commenting on the story: Noise push for silent electric cars

This is a no-brainer. It doesn’t need to be delayed by consultation. The measure should be mandated now, just like seat belts.

Can’t the Government make a simple decision in the interest of safety. Don’t wait for fatalities. Do it now. – Max Fitzgibbon

Commenting on the story: Rally planned as tide turns on new Henley Beach sand

Anyone who wants to see the effectiveness of sand carting done well only has to travel to South Brighton beach.

When we moved to South Brighton 13 years ago, a sand transfer program had been going on for months and quite a bit of sand had been built up. They had built a road along the beach to allow the sand trucks to have access however, and it looked terrible.

They eventually removed the road (or at least most of it, some still exists at the end of Edward Street), bulldozed the sand into the shape of beachside sand dunes and initiated a marvellous project of planting which is maintained to a large degree by volunteers. The results are now outstanding!

At anything other than a very high tide there is a gorgeous beach which is protected by proper system of sandhills. The sand is supplemented from time to time by the sand pumping system, but it seems to be needed only rarely. Henley beach deserves the same treatment. It would be wonderful to see a similar success story.

The damage to our coast has already been done to the coastline by encroaching onto it with buildings, roads and paths but South Brighton proves it can be very effectively repaired long term. I suggest the team from Holdfast Bay Council be consulted, they do a marvellous job. – Bob Beaumont

Commenting on the story: City council asked to act on adding ‘Breaker’ Morant to Adelaide war memorial

Regarding this story and putting aside the issues surrounding Harry Morant’s criminality and his historic high profile there are, as mentioned by the lawyer acting for Morant’s descendant, around 23 other South Australians killed in the conflict whose names do not appear on the memorial (a forebear of mine being one of them.)

Note that Harry Morant was not actually South Australian – he was working here when he enlisted.

A look at Council minutes should reveal that the ACC and authorities were made aware of at least some further South Australians killed on active service (later research has revealed more). However, a decision was made on financial grounds not to include them, i.e., the expense of recasting the plaques (keeping in mind the Memorial was unveiled in 1904, the war ended in May 1902.)

There is also the issue that not all those South Australians killed in the Boer War served in South Australian raised units: many enlisted in ‘Imperial Units’, such as the Bushveldt Carbineers, raised for service by the Crown in South Africa and the Transvaal from various nationalities but including of course many South Australians. Serving the same Queen/King, in the same cause, in the same war.

To our modern notions of justice and inclusion, a decision on memorialising war dead according to the units they served in would seem a quite ridiculous demarcation. It would show both the historic monument and those fallen their due respect if a plaque memorialising those South Australians omitted was placed near or adjacent to the current statue. – Grant Ker

Council’s dithering to make a decision about Cathie Morant’s request to include Breaker Morant’s name on the Boer War Memorial is regrettable and a failure of effective governance.

Breaker has been honored on other memorials, including Renmark and the National Boer War Memorial dedicated by Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd),n former Governor-General and CDF. It’s time for Council to honour Breaker’s service for South Australia and address this unjust omission.

The delay has been protracted, a poor reflection on the review process and has caused Cathie Morant considerable distress.

The Boer War Memorial was presented to the City of Adelaide in 1904 to pay homage to the men who served and those who sacrificed their lives in the service of the Crown.

‘Breaker’Morant, was tried and executed following British Courts Martial held in Pretoria in January-February 1902. The trials related to his conduct while serving in the Bushveldt Carbineers, an English Contingent. However, prior to his service with the BVC, he served from 1899 with the Second Contingent of the South Australian Mounted Rifles. 

He served with valour in the SA unit, was promoted from Lance Corporal to Sergeant and he was subsequently commended in writing by his British Commanding Officer. His record was exemplary. The memorial relates solely to recognising service in an SA contingent. Morant’s selfless and distinguished service should be acknowledged by including him on the SA Memorial.

Those who oppose this request fails to appreciate it refers solely to the Memorial. It has nothing to do with Morant’s subsequent service with the Bushveldt Carbineers.

The Council has a civic duty to act fairly and in the interests of the community to ensure the 23 soldiers are added to the existing Memorial. If this is not possible from an engineering perspective, then a separate plaque should be created and placed at the Memorial.

Cathie Morant’s request is honourable as she wishes to have Breaker Morant recognised. Denying her request would be discriminatory and inequitable as it would be with respect to other soldiers.

Australia has a fine tradition of including the names of service men and women who have served in war time. Resolving this matter would be consistent with the tradition and in the interest of reconciliation. – James Unkles