Commenting on the story: Punters fill Town Hall as council backs the Cranker

I’d like to suggest that Cr Davis might like to watch that classic Australian movie The Castle, so that he can better understand the “vibe of the whole thing” that many of us are fighting for regarding the Save the Cranker campaign.

Thank you to InDaily for the extensive coverage of this issue and to (most of) the ACC for the motion and their continued support. – Kati Jenkins

Commenting on the story: Adelaide left in the shade over tree canopy goal

The results of the latest LiDAR scan are not surprising – 17% tree canopy coverage is a disappointing number.

We are relying on planting small trees to offset the loss of large trees and green spaces. Large established trees have well documented environmental benefits that new or smaller trees simply can’t provide.

At the last State election in 2022, Labor committed to “having Australian best practice for tree removal regulations” here in South Australia.

Despite these extensive recommendations, an election commitment, significant community angst over the unnecessary loss of trees and an urgent need for action, the Government sat on the report for over a year.

While they have supported all tree related recommendations, I hope it will not take an additional year for the implementation of them.

Severe and extreme heatwaves have claimed more lives than any other natural hazard in Australia. Urban trees are the best solution to tackle this but growing new tree canopy isn’t a quick fix.

Tree protections should be set to match community expectations, it is clear they have not for a long time. – Tom Morrison

Commenting on the opinion: Listening out for impact of the State Voice

The Voice to SA Parliament has made a sound start, contrary to a range of criticisms and doubts already being expressed.

One of the most strident criticisms is that we don’t know how it will work. Prescribing how it should work would have been contrary to sound stakeholder engagement principles and would have jeopardised achieving its full potential.

An important principle of effective stakeholder engagement is to enable the stakeholders to influence the engagement processes. When we fail to do this, we are exposed to the risk that stakeholders reject the outcomes of engagement on the basis that the processes were inadequate or deficient.

Applying this principle to the Voice, it is best that the design of how the Voice will operate involves the members of the Voice and the Parliament. Who best to know how to engage with Parliament – parliamentarians. Who best to know how to engage with Indigenous people in a culturally appropriate manner – indigenous people. The latter could not be done until the first members were appointed.

Had more detail been prescribed, this would have created a situation where, yet again, non-indigenous processes were being applied to indigenous people, compromising one of the key objectives of establishing the Voice.

Another criticism pertains to the absence of performance targets. The Voice is a facilitative process, so outcomes are derived from processes that it supports such as truth-telling, agreement-making and systemic change, rather than its own engagement processes. Some of these performance targets are already defined through Closing the Gap. More immediate measures will simply be the degree to which it successfully engages with Parliament and with local indigenous communities.

A third criticism is that it will be powerless. This is a disingenuous assertion, creating a lose / lose proposition. Were it to have more “power”, it would be criticised for compromising the sovereignty of the SA Parliament. Rather, it has been established in a manner to have influence but not compromise the ultimate decision making power of Parliament and Executive Government, and hence our democracy.

Doubts have been expressed on the basis of the suggestion that the Voice (state or national) will be a silver bullet, when no such claim has been or would be made.

Other doubts have been expressed in terms of the resounding rejection of the Voice by Australian voters, when, in fact, they rejected changing the Constitution, not necessarily rejecting the Voice per se.

Concerns have been raised about the cost of operation for the Voice to SA Parliament. Leaving aside issues as to whether budget estimates reasonably reflect the likely costs, any costs need to be considered in the context of outcomes achieved. At a minimum, one set of engagement infrastructure to support truth-telling, treaty and closing the gap, is more efficient than three separate sets.

More effective engagement of indigenous peoples could also lead to reducing program costs by winding down ineffective programs or redirecting funding to more effective programs.

There has been criticism that the SA Voice was not subject of a vote as occurred with the Federal Referendum, but simply legislated.

This fails to recognise that any Voice to Parliament will be legislated and that the Coalition intended to establish a National Voice through legislation without changing the Constitution and hence without initiating a Referendum. More significantly, it demonstrates a failure to understand that the Referendum was about substantive recognition of First Peoples, not about whether to establish a Voice or not.

Questions about the legitimacy of the Voice have been raised on the basis that less than 10% of registered voters actually voted and they represent a little over 0.1% of the population.

Let’s put the voting statistics in context and perspective. The total population of South Australia is not the same as the total number of registered voters. Even if the correct figure had been used, this is not relevant to its overall powers, as the Voice has no decision-making powers. These remain with SA Parliament and SA Executive Government.

It is worth noting that the participation rate for Australian elections where voting is compulsory is 90%, the SA participation rate for local government elections where voting is non-compulsory is 30% and the participation rate for the First Peoples Assembly of Victoria was less than 10%. In this context, the participation rate for the Voice to SA Parliament is quite reasonable.

A concern has been expressed about the “multiple” voices that will arise from 6 regional voices plus one State voice. This reflects the nature of the First Nations. It is no different, in reality, to the different voices that arise through different parties and independent members in Parliament.

As with many other issues, Parliament will need to balance a range of views. Perhaps this concern reflects an inappropriate expectation that First Peoples are homogeneous and need to hold a single, unified view?

Overall, there are quite few criticisms and doubts that do not stand the test of careful analysis. – Peter Murchland