YACWA Oz Day reflection

Dear Echo News,

YACWA does not observe January 26 as a celebration, but rather a day of reflection and mourning.

We stand with First Nations people and continue to work towards reconciliation this day and every day.

We acknowledge that for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, January 26 represents the ongoing impacts of colonisation, including the dispossession of land, loss of culture and language, and the profound grief associated with genocide and historical injustice.

We recognise these challenges continue today through intergenerational trauma, disproportionate rates of incarceration, the removal of children from their families, systemic health inequities, and the desecration of sacred sites and Country.

We also acknowledge the hurt First Nations people may feel at this time due to continued debate of the date.

In our ongoing commitment to reconciliation, YACWA continues to work to amplify the voices of, and advocate for the rights of First Nations young people.

We prioritise working alongside First Nations people to create a more culturally responsive and inclusive society.

We remain committed to listening, learning and advocating for change and are dedicated to walking alongside First Nations people in the ongoing journey toward accountability, justice, and equity.

WA Youth Affairs Council

Artificial turf debated

Dear Echo News,

I found the article on the push to get the City of Swan to ban synthetic turf very interesting, for several reasons.

We have synthetic turf in our back garden and natural grass in the front garden and I might add, in reference to the comment about houses with artificial grass almost always having no trees, we probably have more trees than most people.

The main differences between synthetic and real lawns are that synthetic turf requires no maintenance, other than the occasional raking of debris, in other words, cost free, as against the real lawn requiring constant care and attention, from water through fertiliser to weeding and mowing.

Yet it still doesn’t look as good as the fake stuff, to the point where we are giving serious thought to ripping the front lawn out and putting in synthetic.

I do agree that fake lawn by itself looks exactly what it is, but plant trees and shrubs and flowers around the borders, put pots and a fountain or something similar on the synthetic and it gets very hard to tell whether it’s fake, or an exceptionally well-maintained real lawn.

We have no problems with the synthetic lawn getting too hot and smelling and we have a large dog, who is very happy to sunbath out on the fake turf, plus a plethora of birdlife living in our trees, or coming to visit, all feeding, resting and utilising the birdbaths and fountains.

I did have to smile at Mayor Richardson’s suggestions regarding greening verges with native plants as a waterwise initiative – we’ve been wanting to do that with our verges as we’re on a corner block.

However, when I rang the city seeking information on where utility services were buried, I was told that information wasn’t available, but warned I needed to be careful of where I dug.

When I asked if it would be possible to get some assistance in digging holes in the side verge, I was told a previous owner had requested the verge be compacted and there was nothing the city was prepared to do.

If the city has no interest in our planting native vegetation on the verges, I see no reason to consult them on whether I lay synthetic turf on my front lawn – is the city going to assist with the cost of water for a real lawn?

Which segues into the initial upkeep of a native garden.

There is no doubt a native garden is a brilliant way to go for verges and gardens alike – food for pollinators, birds and other mammals and a more natural WA look than the usual cottage gardens most of us plant.

However native plants and trees do require extensive watering for the first few years and gardeners are heavily penalised for anything deemed excessive water use.

I have no objection to paying for the water we use (‘user pays’ is a sound and just principle), but why should I pay a lot more for the necessary water, (penalty rates) if, as the mayor suggests, I’m “creating a cooling effect … providing habitat for local wildlife … being beneficial for human health and wellbeing and improving aesthetics”?

I’m not suggesting the use of water be carte blanche, but the state government should make allowances (not penalise) for people who wish to green the state.

That leaves (no pun intended), trees.

So, we put in trees, which everyone agrees is a wonderful initiative, for many reasons, but when they reach maturity, there’s a $1000 to $2000 trimming cost every couple of years, as they get too close to power lines!

Here, it would be remiss of me not to compliment the City of Swan on their excellent provision of free green waste collection.

It’s very easy to see there is no incentive to create or establish native verges, just by driving along almost every street – at this time of the year, everything is dead.

The lack of interest from the City of Swan is disheartening enough if you’re an owner, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone renting to bother.

G Ross

Swan View

Thanks for market promo

Dear Echo News,

Thank you so much for helping to spread the word about our recent community event The Really Really Free Market.

We had so many of your readers attend our market.

A lot of stuff was diverted from landfill.

We appreciate all that you do in helping to promote our frugal event as we have no budget for advertising.

Many thanks and wishing you a fabulous 2026.

Transition Town Guildford