Engagement vs Endorsement
Recent discussion of the Mount Martha Village project highlights a key community issue: the difference between engagement and endorsement.
The consultation attracted strong participation, with 488 survey responses and five written submissions on three key elements: a carpark upgrade, centre island works, and a proposed footpath.
The results reflected a divided community. The carpark upgrade received 51.9% support, largely conditional on keeping the design simple and natural, while 40% opposed it. The centre island works were opposed by 55.97% of respondents, with only 31.62% in support. The footpath proposal had 48.82% support and 44.34% opposition. For a full-length footpath along Watson Road, 44.86% said it was not required, while only 38.86% supported the full length. When prioritised by score, the carpark ranked first, the footpath second, and the centre island third.
Despite mixed outcomes, council endorsed all three elements, with some design revisions including tree retention, planting, and accessibility improvements. When introducing the item, the mayor stated that feedback on the footpath was “almost evenly split,” citing 56.25% support, 46.46% not supporting, and 7.29% selecting “other.” These figures differ from the published survey results. While this may not have changed the outcome, accuracy in presenting consultation data is important, especially when engagement is high and margins are close.
This case shows that strong participation does not automatically translate into clear endorsement. When survey results are closely divided or show majority opposition, the community reasonably expects those nuances to be reflected in the final decision. Councils must balance strategic, technical, and long-term planning considerations, while also demonstrating transparently how community input shaped the outcome.
When engagement is strong, clarity matters. Residents should see not only that their voices were heard, but also how they were weighed in shaping the final decision, especially if the decision does not fully reflect the feedback.
Anja Ottensmeyer, Mt Martha
Letter to Marsh
I am writing to express my disappointment and frustration regarding your recent decision to take a leave of absence from council to pursue a state political candidacy.
Over time, you have repeatedly assured the community that you had no interest in pursuing a political career beyond local government. You have been vocal in your concerns about the influence of major political parties, stating that there were “too many Liberal/Labor political types and not enough genuine independent community people.” You also criticised other councillors who stepped away from their duties to pursue higher office, remarking that “it was all about them and their political careers.”
Given these statements, your decision to do the same has come as both a surprise and a disappointment. It directly contradicts the commitments and values you publicly promoted and leaves the community questioning the sincerity of those earlier remarks.
Your departure has also left residents without direct representation on council and has created the possibility of an unnecessary by‑election. This disruption places avoidable strain on both the democratic process and the community you were elected to serve.
Our community deserves clarity, consistency, and accountability from its elected representatives. At the very least, we deserve an honest explanation that acknowledges the impact of your decision and the trust that many residents placed in your leadership.
I hope you will reflect on the commitments you made to this community and communicate transparently about the reasons behind your decision and its consequences.
Alison Coates, Mount Martha
Anthony Marsh
That Anthony Marsh has “officially” joined the Liberal party and put his hand up for the safe seat vacated by Sam Groth must be a surprise to absolutely no one.
Ross Hudson, Mount Martha
Science not the problem
Surely no one would suggest that because today is cooler than January’s statewide 40-plus temperatures that global warming doesn’t exist.
Similarly, I wonder how your correspondent (Cooler earth in 2025, Letters 3/2/26) can suggest that because 2025 is “only” the second or third hottest year on record, that climate scientists must explain themselves.
But in fact they have. And, in spite of your correspondent not seeing them, the articles were pretty common. (In short, the Il Nino weather phenomenon made 2023 and 2024 particularly hot in some regions.)
Even the conservative Murdoch websites reported that 2025 “was the UK’s warmest since records began (and) four of the UK’s top five warmest years have occurred in the current decade”.
There is some speculation that US bodies like NASA and NOAA have been quiet about last year’s phenomenal temperatures because, in Donald Trump’s America, government agencies have banned mentions of global heating and even fired researchers involved in a legally required report on the subject.
So your correspondent might be sort of correct that something is fishy.
But it’s not the climate science.
Lesley Walker, Northcote
Climate language
It’s tiring to keep reading phrases like “climate hysteria” and being dragged back millions of years to times when CO₂ levels and temperatures were higher, as if that proves we shouldn’t worry about today’s climate change (Climate hysteria, Letters 17/2/26).
First, life as we know it did not exist then. Such correspondents ignore the Holocene, the current geological epoch that began about 11,700 years ago after the last major ice age and spans modern human civilisation.
During this Goldilocks period, Earth’s average temperature has remained within a “just right” band – roughly 11°C to 15°C – allowing glaciers to persist, agriculture to develop and societies to flourish. Now, however, seven months of the year consistently exceed 15°C. We are pushing beyond the human climate niche and risk leaving this safe zone altogether.
While Homo sapiens has existed for 200,000–300,000 years, ice-core records show atmospheric CO₂ has not been this high for at least 800,000 years – effectively the span of our species.
Equally concerning is the unprecedented rate of increase. Sceptics could consult the evidence compiled by NASA or take the free, 20-hour online course from the University of Tasmania. They might then understand why concern about climate change is widespread — not hysteria, but a rational response to risks facing humanity and the living world.
Ray Peck, Hawthorn
Make polluters pay
Your correspondent is of course absolutely correct that we need to be concerned about the way humans have polluted our unique and beautiful planet (Climate hysteria, Letters 17/2/26).
But our pollution isn’t limited to the awful visible cigarette butts and plastic bags. It includes the greenhouse gas pollution (CO2, NO2 and CH4/methane) that is dangerously warming our Goldilocks climate.
And yes, human overpopulation makes the pollution and climate problems more challenging. However, we must surely acknowledge that it is the overconsumption and the greed of certain polluting companies that really makes the most difference.
The Make Big Polluters Pay alliance; groups like Oxfam, Uniting Church in Australia and the Catholic Church’s Caritas Australia, argues that coal, oil and gas corporations should be paying more towards the $38b that pollution-driven climate change is adding to Australians’ collective cost of living – each year. They want funds raised through the Levy to support our community to deal with the crisis they didn’t cause.
There is a petition at www.makebigpolluterspay.org.au but an email to your MP saying you endorse this idea might be even more effective.
Linda Marks, Thornbury
Australia Day’s history
Referencing the letter from Ian Lyons (Australia Day, Letters 3/2/26).
The history of Australia Day started in the early 1800s as Foundation Day, which was first celebrated by politicians and businessmen in private dinners. Australians called it Anniversary Day in 1836 and commemorated the day with the first Anniversary Regatta (which continues to be a part of Australia Day celebrations today). The first official celebrations of Australia Day were held for the first time in 1838, with New South Wales declaring it the first ever national day.
So no, it has nothing to do with the Australian citizenship laws being enacted on that date in 1949. They were enacted on that date because the date was already “celebrated” as a national day.
Ian notes, correctly, that Phillip entered Botany Bay earlier in January 1788 but he did not raise the British flag at Warrane until 26 January, formally claiming the colony on the lie of terra nullius.
A simple question for those who still believe holding Australia Day on 26 January is not hurtful to Indigenous people. If Australia was invaded today, if a foreign power pushed us all from our homes, forced us to speak another language, killed us en masse, then chose to celebrate that fact year after year, would you want to join the party?
Glenda Bray, Dromana
Poo problem
I found some dog poo all securely wrapped in plastic at the beach in Mt Eliza. Left on the sand. Duh. What were you thinking?
Ian Cayzer, Frankston
Demerger support
I must absolutely agree with the letter from A. Barling of Bittern regarding the merging of the three local councils in 1998 (Shire demerger, Letters 10/2/26).
I too would love to see Hastings Shire back again and our lovely town back to its former glory.
Joan Wood, Hastings
Injured wildlife
We all are aware of the injured animal rate on the peninsula and the appeal to report same.
It is unlikely that there will be a sign at that exact spot with the required phone number when we come across injured wildlife.
If the shire were to print a card with the required information and included with rate notices, the animal concerned would get faster attention.
Just a thought.
John Hodgson, Bittern
No ANZAC Day holiday?
So, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan reckons Victorians shouldn’t get a public holiday to commemorate Anzac Day, yet Jacinta Allan will be all for an AFL Grand Final public holiday, day off?
This bloke, wonders what the CFMEU, has to say about that!
Howard Hutchins, Wantirna
Immigration debate
The Sustainable Future Association (SFA) states net immigration “should be drastically reduced to much lower levels-40,000” apparently they do not have a clue about what Net Overseas Migration (NOM) is. The SFA 40,000 goal is naive and absurd.
The reference is to Net Overseas Migration numbers – Key categories driving NOM include temporary, permanent, and humanitarian migrants, with major groups being international students, skilled workers, working holidaymakers, and returning Australian citizens/New Zealanders of which 75% are temporary visas who will, at some point, have to return home.
Like all anti-immigration’ers he is long on words and short on substance, and once again, has not addressed the issues outlined (Immigration levels, Letters 10/2/26).
What I would like to see from any anti-immigration’er is how their target numbers would be allocated between the NOM categories and how that will solve the problems he mentions. Then we could have an intelligent conversation about it. I continue to put this challenge out there and never get a response.
A couple of his comments concern me and maybe are really what they want, a return to the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, “Each culture comes with its own values and bonds, which I believe has its own set of problems…respect for others.”, “we will see a fracturing in our society and a rise in cruel and radical anti-immigration elements, like in many other countries, and pay the price for it”
No worries, the new Coalition will fix the problem by taking pages out of The Trumpocalypse United States of Anarchy handbook and the return to PeterDuttonism and his interpretation of Trumpism.
Also wondering how Albo’s social cohesion program is coming along?
Joe Lenzo, Safety Beach
Kindness of strangers
I would like you to pass on my thanks to a young lady – Larinda – who kindly, using her phone, rang the RACV for me when I was recently stranded with a flat tyre in Beach Street.
A lady from a nearby clinic also offered help, water, whatever I needed. The RACV mechanic Joe, was quick and cheerful. My mechanics at BJK cars fixed the tyre in their usual quick, efficient manner.
The kindness of strangers. Thank you.
Zillah Carlin, Seaford
The joy of letters
Oh I’m so looking forward, as ever, to the next letters page.
First will come the outrage upon the ungenerous interpretation of the typo in printing John D’s (excellent) letter.
Then Brian’s assertion that my good neighbour Andrew, anchors a news desk (Peta being beyond the Pale).
Dale’s confabulations about climate, counterpoised by concern about population
All rounded off by Cliff’s neo-cryptic peregrinations.
Wonderful stuff. Can’t wait.
Richard Kessling, Somers
BarleyCharlie@Almost90
The “We know best” Society, aka letter writers to The Age, running at full throttle; quaint no! The estimated $15 billion loss, and Isaac Herzog’s Australian holiday. No mention of how the billions personally affect them, if at all?
Jacinta Allan to explain, crooks in the CFMEU, time will tell, or not, recalling the sacking of John Setka?
New Opposition leader referring to us as “Everyday Australians.” adding in accessible housing and wage justice on Labor’s watch?
Darling Sussan gone when going in hard against Isaac Herzog, joining Josh Frydenburg, thus her decision to take her bat and ball home, leave it to the right wing mafia, sensible in her situation, (erratic at best) not to mention Jane Hume’s undercover work.
Comedy; TV commercial? “At the Herald-Sun we are committed to the stories that matter to our readers.”
On calmer matters the USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier, apparently carrying some 4,500 sailers a day; imagine the cook, the 100 cooks, the size of the cafeterias, and the daily showers, latrines?
Passionate supporters, in football, in politics, the wide world; why? Loyalty, as in clear thinking, on a long break? And our Albo? A royal commission into antisemitism and the Bondi attack, both (sadly) inevitable, for months, proving nothing. Recalling 2022 national risk assessments for climate breakdown, under the carpet?
Yes, I could refer to the obvious wealth disparity and Taylor’s take on capital gains tax (No!), and our newspapers’ right wing style of reporting and Albo coming up trumps again and again, but at almost ninety, 30 days to go, the philosophy of “Nothing matters” is fast gaining traction.
BUT it matters when Woolworths have large vita brits, corn flakes, others, on special (too big for my scooter) and the smaller packs near enough to the same special price? Crooks? Not forgetting 8 March – Go Pies.
Cliff Ellen, Rye
