In a new light: an infrared perspective of Australia's capital
Mon 14 Jul 2025 08.51 CEST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Mystery as plane VANISHES mid-air above ocean as major search underway for pilot and female passenger near Tasmania
A SMALL plane carrying the pilot and one passenger has shockingly vanished while flying to Australia. The aircraft reportedly made no radio contacts or issued a Mayday call before disappearing into thin air after taking off from Tasmania. 2 2 The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said it was coordinating a search for the plane that disappeared while crossing the Bass Strait. The two-seat aircraft was carrying the pilot, said to be in his 70s, and a female passenger in her 60s. The pair, described as a couple, are both Tasmanian residents and were travelling to visit friends. The plane was headed to Hillston Airport, Condobolin, New South Wales. Authorities were alerted after the passengers failed to reach their destination. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said it was "currently coordinating the search for a missing light aircraft with two people onboard, near Tasmania". It said: "Just after 5pm on Saturday evening, concern was raised after the aircraft failed to land in Central Western NSW, after departing George Town, Tasmania at around 12:45 pm." .
Daily Mail
12 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Three-year feud breaks out between neighbours over trees blocking their million-dollar views: 'Oppressive'
A Gold Coast resident has been ordered to remove trees blocking his neighbours' million-dollar city views after causing 'alarm' and 'stress'. Neil Arden Coombe and his wife Olivia Arden Coombe took their neighbour Benjamin David Engwirda to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The couple, who live on top of a hill in Robina, claimed Mr Engwirda, who lives at the rear of their property, had trees growing in his yard that blocked 40 per cent of their view of the city skyline from their rear verandah. Their complaint was lodged with QCAT three years ago before the tribunal made its decision on July 11 this year. QCAT member Danielle Brown ruled Mr Engwirda has to remove two large trees at the back of his block, and prune several others and he must pay the trimming costs, by a September deadline. 'Given the ongoing dispute between the parties the tribunal will make orders to ensure any necessary access can be obtained to conduct the work and that should Mr Engwirda fail to conduct the work, Mr and Mrs Coombe will be authorised to do so and can seek the costs from Mr Engwirda,' Ms Brown said. 'I find that the interference with the use and enjoyment of Mr and Mrs Coombe's land caused by the obstruction by Trees 1, 2, 3 and 5 is substantial, ongoing and unreasonable.' The decision states the trees that must be removed include stump-grinding, a weeping lilly pilly and a clustering fishtail palm. Mr Engwirda, who lives down the hillside from the couple, must also trim the clump of golden cane that runs along the western boundary of his property. He has been ordered to trim the golden cane each year to reduce its height. 'In this case, the tribunal accepts that the obstruction of the views is severe in that it obscures a considerable portion of the skyline views,' Ms Brown said. In her decision, she stated the city views are 'worth protecting'. Photographs showing the view of the skyline at the time the Coombes purchased the property were used as evidence. The couple claimed they have stopped using particular rooms in their house due to the loss of the views. It was also argued the loss of skyline views could negatively impact the value of the Coombes' property. Ms Brown stated these factors led her to order that the 'obstruction of the view is substantial and unreasonable'. The couple paid $635,000 for their four-bedroom home in 2015 and it is now worth $1.5million. Mr Engwirda bought his home for $875,000 in January 2021, and it is now worth an estimated $1.6million. The dispute has also sparked claims of 'relentless' harassment, with Mr Engwirda claiming Mr Coombe called, sent text messages and repeatedly knocked on his door. Mr Coombe denied this and told QCAT he and his wife never called their neighbour and attended the property twice. The couple told the tribunal that last summer they noticed fewer cooling ocean breezes from the east/south-east. They also noticed less morning light in their home, which they claimed made it 'oppressive' inside. The Coombes said the trees caused them 'a great deal of stress' and reduced their 'wellbeing' as they were not spending time on their back deck.
The Guardian
15 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Why didn't you tell me?': the Australian push to have all adopted people told their full history and identity
Merrilees Ritchie describes it as an 'out of body experience'. It felt as if she was watching from above her kitchen table in Albany, Western Australia, as her brother explained to her that the pair of them had been adopted as babies, nearly 40 years before. Over a cup of tea he revealed they also had different biological mothers. They were not biologically related. 'I was absolutely shell-shocked,' Ritchie recalls. 'I'd basically lived half my life by then, believing I was part of this family I'd grown up with.' By the time her brother made the revelation, 32 years ago, their adoptive mother had been dead for 10 years. Ritchie had kept a photograph of her up on the kitchenette. 'I looked at the photo and just thought: 'You liar, you liar, why didn't you tell me?'' After her brother's disclosure, she has spent years jumping through hoops trying get hold of crucial documents that would help her claim back her identity. She even had to pay for her real birth certificate, since adoptees were given fabricated versions with their adoptive parents' names on them. Ritchie is a late discovery adoptee, a term given to people who find out as adults that they are not who they thought they were. She is one of a number of people born during the secretive forced adoption era from the 1940s to the early 1980s, when thousands of babies were removed from their single mothers and given to married couples. For many late discovery adoptees, the truth is only discovered after an adoptive parent dies or by accident. Now Ritchie is part of the Great Southern Adoptee Support Group, calling for all adoptees to be notified of their adopted status. 'It's like a bomb going off,' says Caroline de la Harpe, a senior counsellor with the WA-based Adoption Research and Counselling Service. Suddenly, she says, grown adults have to navigate two different worlds, that of their adoptive family and their newly discovered biological kin. 'That kind of turns their world upside down in terms of who they think they are.' The plight of late discovery adoptees was highlighted at a WA parliamentary inquiry into the forced adoption polices of last century, with its report released in August last year. Among its 39 recommendations, Broken Bonds, Fractured Lives recommended the WA government notifies all adult adopted persons not already aware of their adopted status. A system of automatic notification would be the first of its kind in Australia. Although no clear pathway for notification was outlined in the report, advocates say mandatory notification would tackle the ongoing harm to people who may find out the truth without warning or support, or are denied the truth about their origins for their whole lives. The recommendation was rejected by the WA government two months later due to its potential to 'cause significant psychological harm and distress.' Bernadette Richards, associate professor of ethics and professionalism at Queensland University medical school, says while the argument about potentially traumatising unsuspecting people by telling them they are adopted is persuasive, doing nothing breaches adopted people's fundamental human rights. Not least their right to know their family medical history. 'There is also that risk there of benevolent paternalism,' she says. 'Trying not to harm someone but taking away a choice. In reality, that's what has happened to these people, isn't it? They've lost the right to know something important.' However, Richards says comprehensive supports would need to be carefully planned to address the 'real risk of harm' in implementing a mass notification system. 'The age of these people must be respected, as must the fact that this is really something that goes to the core of individual identity and understanding of who they are and how they define that,' she says. Prof Daryl Higgins, a psychologist who has researched the impact of forced adoption, questions whether there is research to support the case for mass notification. Higgins, the director of the Institute of Child Protection Studies at the Australian Catholic University, says while adoptees have a right to know information about themselves, if they choose to, he is not convinced that all adoptees would welcome, or benefit from, being told by government authorities. Instead, he calls for a community awareness campaign – ideally a national initiative – to encourage people who have doubts about their birth status to access services that can help them find out in a supported way. Dr Ebony White from St Bonaventure University in New York was a co-author of one of the few studies in existence about late discovery adoptees. White backs the idea of proactively notifying adults, but supports a national awareness campaign to prepare people beforehand. She too underscores the importance of providing counselling and support to those who suspect they may have been adopted and coaching for adoptive families on how to broach the truth with their adult children. She also warns that for many reasons some biological parents do not wish to be found, and mandatory notification could lead to distress for all parties. That's an issue also raised by Caroline de la Harpe of the WA government-funded Adoption Research and Counselling Service, who stresses the importance of considering other family members, including half-siblings. 'Absolutely, [the adoptees] have the right to know information about themselves,' she says. 'But you can't just think about notifying that person because there's a whole raft of people who are going to be affected by that notification.' The senior counsellor and psychotherapist says, for example, biological families would also have to receive support in advance of possible reunification. 'Are you wanting a relationship with them? Are you willing to at least meet them and get to know them? So at least when [adoptees] are notified, you've got some information around their birth family and what the possibilities are for getting to know them.' So-called 'contact vetoes', which are lodged by different parties to adoption who do not wish to be contacted by each other, would also have to be carefully considered, she adds, with separate management plans put in place to handle those cases. About 700 contact vetoes remained in place in WA at the time of the inquiry. For Ritchie, now 71, despite the fact that her reunion with her biological mother was imperfect, she is glad she knows the truth about herself. 'I'm only sorry I wasn't told earlier,' she says. Although she managed to find her biological mother, Nola, she says too much time had been lost. Reconnecting with her biological mother at a younger age, she believes, could have brought them closer. 'I don't think she could actually deal with the fact that I was back in her life,' she says. 'I feel quite cheated. If we'd been given more time, I think she would have softened.' They never hugged or had any physical contact, until six hours before her mother died when Ritchie was able to visit her in hospital in Perth. 'I just put my hand on top of her hand,' remembers Ritchie. 'I don't even know if she knew I was there, but I knew I was there.' To contact the Forced Adoption Support Service in your state or territory, ring 1800 210 313. To contact the Adoption Research and Counselling Service, ring (08) 9370 4914
