Perth Voice Interactive

LEISHA JACK is the convenor of the Stirling Urban Tree Network. You can find more about them at http://www.stirlingtrees.com but here she responds to our story about tree removals at the Mt Lawley Golf Club (Voice, June 8)

IT really was a stunning act of hypocrisy at the May 30 council meeting when Stirling mayor Mark Irwin gave his passionate speech in favour of allowing the private Mt Lawley Golf Club to remove a further 41 trees from the public land that they lease.

The City of Stirling is losing tree canopy cover at a very concerning rate, as revealed in its Annual Report and in a recent ‘10-Year Urban Forest Review’ in the May 30 council meeting agenda. 

The City often says that it can’t stop trees being removed on privately owned land where removals are greatest, it can only plant and protect trees on verges, in parks and reserves, and in roadways and other public land that it owns or manages. 

In his talk titled “Valuing Positive Partnerships with Community” at the WALGA Urban Forest Conference 2023 in January, Mayor Irwin blamed the residents and the public for not getting onboard with the city’s urban forest initiatives that aims to retain and protect trees.

He said, “It is not that unpopular when you talk about it in general [tree retention initiatives], but as soon as you point to someone and say it is your house… it is a different story,” according to WALGA.

However, when given the chance to lead by example and use his influence to try and protect tall healthy trees on this public land that the City does have control over, this was clearly ‘a different story’ for Mayor Irwin. He ignored the City’s tree policies and urban forest plan to allow exactly what he accuses private landowners of doing. 

Neglected

Also, I dispute Mr Irwin’s claims that the club has managed the land well. Some of the remnant bushland (some protected) on the site have been neglected and degraded.

Some areas between the fairways were even being mowed, and trees damaged by whipper snippers.

According to an arboricultural survey in 2020 a lot of trees were neglected, and many were in need of need of pruning, some with unsafe branches.

Quite a few trees were damaged from pruning by poorly trained tree workers over many years.

And, the City have admitted that the club has removed trees without approval from the council as was required in their lease.

The recent and proposed bushland regeneration work by the club on the site is to offset bushland and trees that have been removed and to repair the neglected areas.

Logically, if the club really are the conservation purists they now claim to be, and if City staff had been overseeing the site and making sure it was maintained to their reserve and conservation policy standards, the bushland wouldn’t need to be ‘regenerated’. 

Those opposed to the club’s Vegetation Management Plan don’t believe that healthy trees should be removed until the new ones have grown big enough to provide shade and replace food sources and refuge for wildlife, regardless of whether they are non-local Australian natives or exotic. 

This is also the opinion of highly respected bushland experts and scientists that we have consulted with. 

These experts include environmental scientist Heidi Hardisty, a recent member of the Urban Bushland Council committee and founding co-convenor of the highly regarded and awarded Friends of Lake Claremont bushland group, and Nick Cook, the group’s new convenor and committee member of the WA Tree Canopy Advocates, and renown horticulturalist Sabrina Hahn from the ABC, and emeritus professor Hans Lambert, a plant and soil biologist from the School of Biological Sciences at UWA. 

Not approved

The public also need to be aware, that the club’s multi-million-dollar “2015 Masterplan” that was their informing document for works on site the over the past seven years, which laid out the plans to remove hundreds of trees, was never approved. The document was never put to a vote by the club’s membership, nor did it go to the City of Stirling for approval by the council of elected members or out for public consultation as has always been the case without exception as far as we can tell. 

In fact, councillors didn’t know about the masterplan until 2021.

Despite the controversy about it, councillors still have not been provided with a copy and City officers claim they have never seen it, even though the City’s recently departed director of infrastructure was a member of the club from about 2007 to about 2020 and would have been receiving club updates and had access to their Annual Reports that have mentioned the Masterplan since 2015.

The way the City and this private golf club has been managing the tree removals and works on this public reserve doesn’t pass the ‘pub test’ in my opinion.

Why Mayor Irwin, Cr Sandri and those councillors who voted to approve the club’s plan and turn a blind eye to the controversies around it is a mystery.

THIS week’s Speakers’ Corner was co-authored by Hossein, a refugee who arrived to Australia in 2012 and who now works in IT; Niloofar, a refugee who also arrived in 2012 and who would love to live free and without fear; ophthalmologist Hessom Razavi who is from a refugee background; and Caroline Fleay, academic and Co-Director of the Centre of Human Rights Education at Curtin University.

LAST year many of us supported the return of the Nadesalingam family – the so-called “Biloela family” – to the small Queensland town of Biloela after learning they had been forcibly removed from a community that loves them. The Nadesalingams had previously been held in immigration detention and threatened with deportation back to Sri Lanka.

This family are among 31,000 other people who came to Australia by boat more than a decade ago, seeking asylum on our shores. They have all been living here for years and had to go through the unfair “Fast Track” refugee claim process. Introduced by the Coalition Government in 2014, this is a process designed to make it more difficult to be recognised as a refugee. The Nadesalingam family’s refugee claims were among some 10,000 applications that were refused.

But last year the Australian Government finally recognised that the family had become part of the Biloela community, where they had been working and volunteering for years, and they were given permanent visas. Australia has embraced this family.

Still, there are many others in our communities who are in exactly the same situation. They too need our embrace. This includes Hossein and Niloofar, two people living in the Perth community who came to Australia to seek asylum more than a decade ago.

The “Fast Track” process that Hossein and Niloofar went through was recognised by the Labor Party as unfair, and it committed to reviewing the process. Earlier this year the Australian Government took an important first step. They created a permanent visa pathway for 20,000 people who were recognised as a refugee under this process but had previously only been granted temporary protection. Once granted a permanent visa, these refugees can finally begin to settle here and apply to reunite with close family members who remain overseas.

But there other important steps that need to follow. The “Fast Track” process still remains, which means there is no meaningful pathway to permanency for 10,000 others who have been refused protection. Like Hossein and Niloofar, many are from Iran, while others fled countries such as Afghanistan and Sudan. The situation in all of these countries has become much worse. People cannot return to such violence.
It is wonderful that the Nadesalingam family have been granted permanent visas. This recognises that the family has been here for years and become part of the Biloela community, and were subjected to a deeply flawed protection claims process. So too were Hossein and Niloofar, and thousands of others. They too are part of our communities, and they too need a pathway to permanency.

Hossein’s story:
I have been in Australia for almost eleven years after my dad and I fled Iran to try to find a safe place to live. Ever since I got the right to work here, I have been employed and contributing to society. I am helping Australia to fill the skills shortage.

As a person who went through the “Fast Track” process, I can tell you how complicated and confusing it is. We had no legal representation to complete the 40 page protection claim form because the government would not provide us with a lawyer, and we could not afford to pay one as we were not allowed to work at that time. I was lucky my English was good enough to at least understand the questions but still the form was so confusing. The “Fast Track” process rejected many people, including my Dad and I, and there is no way to get an independent review of our claim.

We have been denied the chance to stay safe in Australia and we live with such uncertainty and fear in our lives. After more than a decade, the Australian Government must look again at our protection claims and make sure we all have a fair go.

Niloofar’s story:
In 2012 I fled persecution in Iran and I came to Australia by boat to find protection. As soon as I was allowed to work, I began working full time and I have been paying taxes ever since. I now also volunteer at my church and I recently got married to an Australian citizen. We plan to start a family together.

My application for a protection visa was refused by the former Australian Government, leaving me stranded on a series of 6-month bridging visas. A bridging visa allows me to work, but that really is it. Because of this visa I am unable to take on higher education which limits my job options, and I am unable to obtain finance. I am unable to leave Australia as I would be refused re-entry, which means I cannot travel to meet my family who are still in Iran. Some of them tried several times to get a tourist visa to visit me here but each time their application was rejected.

I feel like I am being punished for trying to save my life and now my situation also affects my husband. He is fully supportive of me and knowingly chose to marry me even though I only have a temporary visa. I cannot even apply for a partner visa. I am hopeful that the Australian Government can allow me to apply for a permanent visa so my husband and I can continue living our lives together in Perth.

Time change deflates protest

DRAG storytime at Maylands library was secretly held earlier than announced on Saturday to confound protesters who were planning to blockade Saturday’s reading. 

The events have run for years in Perth but they’ve been increasingly in the sights of opponents who claim it is inappropriate to have performers in drag outfits reading to children (Voice, June 10, 2023). 

However all drag readers have working with children cards and leave their saucy outfits for adult entertainment.

Bayswater council, which runs Maylands Library, refused the calls to cancel the event. Amid the complaints, some councillors reporting they were receiving record numbers of emails from supporters.

Mayor Filomena Piffaretti said ahead of Saturday’s reading, “Bayswater is a place where everyone can feel safe and diversity is valued and respected.

“I would like to acknowledge everyone who has reached out in support of our Drag Queen Storytime sessions. All our Storytime sessions encourage early literacy and a love of books. 

“The Drag Queen Storytime sessions promote inclusiveness and recognise the diversity that exists in our community. 

“One of the City’s core values is respect and we will not tolerate hate speech directed at our staff, performers or library users. 

“The City of Bayswater is a place where everyone belongs. “

Protesters had been planning to attend the June 17 event which was scheduled for 11am. But organisers secretly advised parents the event would be run at 9am.

A few dozen anti-drag protesters were outnumbered by a welcome rally from LGBTQI+ groups and supporters, with estimates from the pro-drag attendees varying from 200 to 400 people.

Nat Latter from nearby store Rabble Books & Games has been involved in organising the story hours since Perth’s first event was held in their store more than four years ago, and now works with councils to coordinate the story hours at public libraries.

Mx Latter tells us that for most of those years there was only a very occasional “isolated” disapproving comment about drag story hour.

But this year the opposition grew more intense, and disparate elements seem to have been temporarily united by homophobia and transphobia.

“There’s neonazi groups. There’s fundamentalist Christian groups. There’s sovereign citizens and the antivax movement – there’s a lot of people that, I guess, have been left without a cause after a lot of Covid regulations have been rolled back.”

Mx Latter feels that if libraries stand resolute, the anti-drag protesters will probably move on to another cause as quickly as they’ve cottoned on to this one.

Mx Latter said they had started up drag story hour at Rabble shortly after the bookstore opened, after seeing clips of story hours from the US. 

“I was really keen on creating a welcoming space, and particularly a queer-friendly space where rainbow families wanted to come.

“Lots of people come: rainbow families, parents with queer kids, but also just people who want their kids to know that they’re going to be celebrated for who they are, no matter who they turn out to be.”

BAYSWATER council is at risk of being held in contempt of WA Parliament after missing a deadline to strike out a controversial clause from its proposed cat control laws.

The council tried to ban cats from all public places unless they were under the “effective control” of their owner (essentially on a lead), but the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation said that clause of its local law clashed with the state’s Cat Act and issued a direction for it to be removed.

Deadline

The committee’s regulations state that must be happen within six months, but the deadline passed on June 6 after Bayswater deferred a vote in May because of a legal opinion which suggested the committee’s interpretation was wrong.

As a result, the committee could report the matter to Parliament, and if it’s determined the council is in contempt, it then has wide discretion to impose penalties.

The committee wanted the clause knocked out because the Cat Act refers to councils “specifying places” for prohibiting cats rather than having blanket bans, but the legal advice from Castledine Gregory partner Mark Gregory suggests that is a narrow reading.

“In our opinion the ‘effective control’ provision is valid because…” Mr Gregory’s letter reads, with five pages of argument following.

“The fact that sections 79(3)(f) and (g) of the Cat Act refer to ‘specifying places’ for the absolute prohibition of cats, and ‘specified area’ where cats must be capable of being confined to the premises, is not relevant to the proper interpretation of section 79(1) of the Act,” he concluded.

Mr Gregory cited former local government minister John Castrilli from the second reading of the Cat Act in 2011, where he set out its intent.

“This legislation has been developed with a view to reducing the number of stray cats being euthanased each year, to encourage responsible cat ownership, and to provide for better management of the unwanted impacts of cats on the community and environment,” Mr Castrilli had said.

Mr Gregory also argued the “effective control” provision was “proportionate and reasonable” because it wasn’t seeking a complete ban on cats and was aimed at preventing the killing of wildlife.

The Friends of Bardon Park, which is desperate for extra cat controls, said there has been a stand-off between the council and the standing committee for a year and that pressure was mounting on the state government to take action.

Friends member David Dyke, who has recorded more frog calls than anyone else in Australia, says he sees first-hand the devastation to native wildlife caused by cats roaming at night.

“We are no longer accepting this decade-long cat and mouse game between the WA government and local governments,” Mr Dyke said.

“Every month that the WA government blocks local governments from taking action, is thousands more native animals killed.

“These animals we cannot afford to be losing at this time.

“It is an issue everyone should care about, but the people who should care the most are our politicians, who are in a position to act.”

Meanwhile Bayswater is waiting to hear from the committee on whether it would reconsider its decision based on Mr Gregory’s advice – or whether the City had been referred to Parliament.

by STEVE GRANT

Brickworks sell-off plan revived

AN unpopular plan to sell part of the Maylands brickworks for real estate development has been revived after other options proved too expensive.

The defunct brickworks have been closed for about 35 years and are now owned by cash-strapped Bayswater council, which hasn’t been able to afford the various plans to restore or adapt the buildings for community use which have been floated in the past five years.

A majority of locals along with community group Friends of Maylands Brickworks oppose selling off any land for residential development, soundly rejecting four such plans put forward by the state heritage department in 2018.

Now Bayswater council is considering a new business case looking at bare-minimum conservation work (costed at about $2 million), restoring them for community use like heritage tours (about $5.8m) or full adaptions for commercial uses like a café (costing about $20m). 

They’re all too expensive for Bayswater council to afford on its own, so at a closed-door, un-minuted councillor briefing in April, some councillors wanted to reconsider the old plan to sell part of the brickworks land or adapt some of the old buildings for medium-density housing.

They suggested going back to the community to see if some residential development might be acceptable now the indicative restoration costs had come in.

The western part of the brickworks that hosts the kiln and drying shed is zoned “medium and high density residential”. 

About 20 to 30 units could fit in the remaining open space if the kiln and shed were kept, and up to 60 units would fit if those buildings were demolished, or a few less if they’re adapted into apartments.

This week the council received a barrage of letters and spoken deputations swiftly opposing the land sale plan 2.0.

“’No’ to any business or residential development on or near the Maylands Brickworks,” Kathryn Lance, a local and Friend of Maylands Brickworks, wrote in a deputation.

“It is a heritage building and should be respected and treated as such. It should be restored for community purposes.”

She said the money spent on another round of consultation should instead just be spent on restoration.

Resident John Della told councillors at their June 20 briefing he was concerned the council looked like it might go back on its previous decision not to sell the land for housing. 

“The parks around the brickworks are also an important part of the ecosystem of the lakes,” and he feared local wildlife such as snake-neck turtles would be threatened by a housing development.

Only one councillor questioned the plan at the June 20 information briefing; Elli Petersen-Pik, a ward councillor for that area who also publicly spoke out against reviving the sell-off plan in the leadup to the meeting.

“I have strong concerns about this proposal,” Cr Petersen-Pik wrote via social media. 

“This is a drastic and sudden change of direction for the project and it goes against the decision of the previous council from 2019 to prepare a business plan to look into alternate uses, specifically excluding residential uses, to reactivate the site and possible funding sources.”

No other councillor posed any questions at the briefing, and they’ll vote on whether to refloat the sale plan on June 27.

by DAVID BELL