Commenting on the story: Walking and cycling left at the kerb in SA’s next infrastructure plan

Another urban planning report that overlooks the elephant in the room. Adelaide dedicates significant (high access/high value) land to subsidised parking.

Parking policy fundamentally shapes the form, functionality and attractiveness of our city and places, yet the report give zero attention to this critical place shaping issue. – David Mepham

Commenting on the story: Adelaide’s public transport problems under microscope

You might like

Archive

The one-legged guide to ageing well

Archive

Reserve Bank tipped to hold interest rates despite inflation fall

Indeed, the GARP falls well short of any meaningful suggestions to improve public transport, active, cycling or pedestrian infrastructure, and with the State Government’s massive urban sprawl projects straight out of the 1960s urban planning handbook, will only further entrench car dependency.

This will result in more traffic congestion, increased fuel consumption, higher carbon emissions, increased stress, increased vehicle collisions and worse – increased injuries and fatalities. – Phil Rollas

Commenting on the opinion piece: A long journey to heal after referendum

Thank you for Professor Bongiorno’s informative article. I wondered whether in the drafting process, thought was given to a separate question about constitutional recognition of First People? I don’t think that’s very contentious and would have likely been successful.

That success would have allayed fears about a threat to reconciliation which many Australians have today. Instead, constitutional recognition was attached to the contentious Voice. – Derek Bowman

Mr Bongiorno asks: “What if it had released a draft bill?”  It did! It was the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 and was what we were asked to vote on.

The relevant clause was: “the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Mr Bongiorno states: “The Voice, moreover, was to be advisory – a point that Prime Minister … repeatedly underlined in an effort to reassure non-Indigenous voters it would do little to change the existing political arrangements.”

But the Bill makes it clear that the voice was not to be advisory – it would create a constitutional right to make representations to both the Parliament and the Executive. To determine whether it was intended to “do little to change the existing political arrangements” we could read the Statement From the Heart which states “With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood. … We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. … We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.”

None of this is necessarily should have been fateful for the vote – in fact many may support indigenous sovereignty, a truth commission and treaty. But the assertion that that the Voice was to be “advisory” and “to do little to change the existing political arrangements” and the failure to declare, and make any argument for, the objectives of the Statement from the Heart is reprehensible. Even though Mr Bongiorno might like them to be, Mr Dutton, Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine are not the villains here. – Michael Evans