Dear Editor,<\/p>\n
I wish to express concern about the physical risks to kangaroos posed by new development in Aireys Inlet\u2019s Painkalac Valley.<\/p>\n
Many new fences have been constructed with barbed wire top and bottom. The resident kangaroos\u2019 only recourse on what was previously mostly open land is to try and squeeze under the fences.<\/p>\n
I have photographs of them doing exactly that. Along at least one fence which stretches the width of the valley there are clumps of kangaroo fur on nearly every barb, testifying to the painful ordeal the kangaroos have to suffer.<\/p>\n
This may lead to serious injury and infection, and perhaps slow and painful death.<\/p>\n
Why has the Shire allowed this to happen, given that the Planning Scheme encourages the use of fences that do not restrict native fauna or, alternatively, provide gaps in the wire large enough to enable easy passage?<\/p>\n
Ellinor Campbell<\/strong> Dear Editor,<\/p>\n I am 10 years old, and my parents and I live in Margaret River in Western Australia.<\/p>\n Last week, we visited Queenscliff for our yearly holiday.<\/p>\n One of my favourite things to do is to eat fish and chips in the car up at the cliff near the lighthouse, while we watch the boats coming through the rip.<\/p>\n This time we went on two tours, the Fort Tour and the walking History Tour. I loved learning about the history of Fort Queenscliff in the World Wars and the stories of the old houses.<\/p>\n I heard that council wants to spend money on putting buildings on the cliff area where the big trees are. This would be terrible as it would spoil our views and there would be nowhere for families to have picnics.<\/p>\n Is this what visitors to Queenscliff want?<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think so!<\/p>\n Recently my council at home spent grant money towards improving Surfers Point.<\/p>\n We had new toilets, showers, barbecues, grassed areas, parking, and improved wheelchair access. All the locals and tourists love our famous look-out.<\/p>\n Why can\u2019t Queenscliffe council do the same here?<\/p>\n L Vitnell<\/strong> Dear Editor,<\/p>\n Peter Rees (\u201cOrganisational efforts misdirected\u201d, Letters, September 20) is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own \u201cfacts\u201d.<\/p>\n The refugees held captive in the offshore camps come from a variety of nations, including Myanmar, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Pakistan.<\/p>\n Some people seeking asylum, such as the Tamils from Sri Lanka who pooled their own money to buy their own boat, and the West Papuan refugees who paddled a canoe, didn\u2019t pay people-smugglers at all.<\/p>\n And in Afghanistan, for example, mothers sold everything they had and borrowed money in order to get their teenage sons away from the reach of the Taliban after their husbands were killed.<\/p>\n People held on both Manus Island and Nauru are certainly not \u201cfree to leave the island as long as the destination is not Australia or New Zealand.\u201d<\/p>\n They have only two options for travel \u2013 to a country which offers them refugee resettlement, or a voluntary return to face their persecutors in their homelands.<\/p>\n So far, only around 20 per cent of people held on the islands have been provided with resettlement in USA.<\/p>\n The one man who persevered with resettlement in Cambodia, has been prevented for years from bringing his wife and children to join him.<\/p>\n The immigration detention statistics on the Home Affairs website show that 1,177 people were held in Nauru at the population peak in April 2014.<\/p>\n While some people did decide that years of indefinite detention separated from loved ones was worse than being tortured or executed and accepted voluntary return to homelands, it was certainly not 1,000 of them.<\/p>\n Some people have been forcibly returned, and some have been brought to Australia for critical medical treatment, but the vast majority have remained in Nauru.<\/p>\n However, the Home Affairs website does not record the number of people who have been moved into camps outside the main Regional Processing Facility, as it considers them to be \u201cresettled in the community\u201d and no longer \u201cdetainees\u201d. Perhaps this is where Peter Rees has been confused.<\/p>\n The UNHCR and the AMA have both concluded that the medical care provided to people on Nauru is completely inadequate. Children on Nauru have suffered the same trauma as those in refugee camps around the world, with the added trauma of physical and sexual assaults being perpetrated by those paid to care for them, as evidenced in the \u201cNauru Files\u201d and the \u201cThe Forgotten Children Report\u201d.<\/p>\n Peter Rees\u2019 claim, that the people who advocate for the children held on Nauru are not interested in Aboriginal children or kids in UNHCR camps, is ridiculous.<\/p>\n People who believe in fairness and decency for people seeking asylum, believe in fairness and decency for all. It\u2019s a pity he doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
\nAireys Inlet<\/em><\/p>\n
\nBorough should look west for ideas<\/h2>\n
\nMargaret River<\/em><\/p>\n
\nFairness and decency for all<\/h2>\n