Having done everything possible to oppose action to mitigate climate change and replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, the federal opposition has suddenly decided to embrace the most ill-conceived and inappropriate solution for us (“Why nuclear power doesn’t add up”, March 19). Nuclear energy produces the most expensive energy compared to renewables; we have no local expertise in building and operating anything nuclear, or to refine, purify and enrich our own uranium. As small modular reactors are not currently commercially available, we must assume that they are now proposing full-size nuclear reactors. The time frame to build even one would mean that Dutton and Littleproud would have long departed parliament and our coal-fired plants would have long ceased being operational. The conclusion must be drawn, that having lost the argument that climate change is real, the opposition is promoting nuclear to pretend that it has an actual policy, and provides an alternative that keeps it at odds with the government, knowing full well that it will never eventuate, and to keep the fossil fuel industry in business for as long as possible. Alan Marel, North Curl Curl
Political fallout. Credit: Alan Moir
The opposition leader continues to deny the advice and analysis of experts such as Steven Hamilton and Luke Heeney, adopting tactics from overseas designed to discredit the “elites” and sowing seeds of doubt against professionals with whom he chooses to disagree. This reveals a very unhelpful and potentially dangerous trend, fostered by Peter Dutton, to make uninformed statements questioning the integrity and credentials of those in the community who have worked diligently to develop particular expertise. We have been well served over a long time by academics, researchers and other professionals by respecting their professionalism and being willing to act on advice they offer. Politicians are doing a great disservice to the community by attempting to undermine the credibility of this group.
Ross Butler, Rodd Point
This is yet another column with people in the know about the feasibility of nuclear plants in Australia giving intelligent and rational explanations of how high prices for nuclear energy are in their calculations of why we would never have nuclear plants in Australia. Maybe the Coalition seems to think that by the time of the next election, the Labor government will have the economy under control with inflation and interest rates coming down and they won’t have any excuse to attack the government on the economy. So they have created this boogeyman to divert voters’ minds. Mukul Desai, Hunters Hill
This sensible piece muses on how we went from the Liberal Party opposing climate action in favour of the cheapest energy source to one opposing climate action in favour of the most expensive – nuclear. It’s simple. Despite protestations, the Liberals want to delay for as long as possible the demise of fossil fuels. They also know if they tell the truth that fossil fuel retention is a non-negotiable requirement of their vested interests, the public will scorn them. What to do? Develop a bizarre “energy policy” that will take an extraordinary time to deliver. Fossil problem solved. Alison Stewart, Riverview
Nuclear-generated electricity may not be the leader economically, but Peter Dutton envisages it to be a winner in election outcomes. The possibility of decades of fossil fuel-supplying power plants until nuclear comes online will be welcome news to many in mining electorates. Logically, power generation must be assessed in terms of carbon emissions reduction, the time frame involved and the economics: the nuclear option is an inadequate loser to renewables in this calculus. Roger Epps, Armidale
Sadly your correspondent Ann Parker has forgotten that the decommissioning of old nuclear plants often exceeds the original costs (Letters, March 19). The decommissioning of UK’s Sellafield site is continuing at a budget of more than £121 billion ($235 billion) and employing 1500 skilled workers. When these enormous costs are added to the total project costs of nuclear power blows out even more. But we do not need to worry, because the government will pay. Peter Wotton, Pyrmont
A great article by Steven Hamilton and Luke Heeney. With the forgotten memories of the Liberals abolishing a minister for science and other poor decisions regarding climate change leadership, it is interesting to read this analysis of the costs of producing nuclear electricity. Mr Dutton has emerged as the friend of the battler who is now dealing with a cost of living nightmare and offers a way forward through nuclear energy. In promoting this debate he has chosen to howl down his opponents and offer the simple explanation that it will be a companion to renewables. Rubbishing the arguments of scientists and economists as well as ignoring overseas examples of costs and closures I feel we are being exposed to the one-sided argument as favoured by the conservative side of politics. Having chosen the roof-top solar option myself we now enjoy no electricity bills and knowledge of helping in some small way to minimise the impact on the environment. I have strong feelings that this current nuclear power deviation will become another AUKUS or Snowy 2.0 but with the added danger of nuclear waste to deal with as well. Did I hear correctly that the first nuclear plant would be built in a Liberal-held seat? Robert Mulas, Corlette
Child strip-searching travesty is beyond belief
Strip-searching of children as it is currently conducted in NSW is bad policing and a travesty of law and order (“Police still strip-searching children”, March 19). That it has been allowed to continue is beyond belief. It is almost always illegal, as it fails to meet the “urgent and serious” requirement. But let’s not mince words here. This practice is nothing short of institutionally sanctioned child sexual abuse, and goes beyond the remit of state policing. These powers must be suspended immediately, pending the findings of a national, independent review that includes in-depth consultation with child protection authorities. Meredith Williams, Baulkham Hills
Police and sniffer dogs at the Listen Out Festival in Sydney last year.Credit: Dean Sewell
I’m surprised that the strip-searching of young children isn’t considered a form of sexual abuse. Apart from extraordinary circumstances, surely a parent, guardian or appropriately trained childcare worker should be present. These searches have the potential for psychological harm. Strict guidelines and protocols must be formulated and enforced as a matter of urgency.
Graham Lum, North Rocks
The stories of the long-term child trauma of police strip searches should cause members of parliament to apply moral imagination to their legal choices. This is state-sponsored assault because rarely is it shown to be necessary to protect the child or the public. The state is the ultimate parent of children, the police behaviour is the parliament’s behaviour. It is not consistent with child protection or parenting. It is not consistent with decent adult behaviour towards children in Australia. I agree, there should be an immediate pause, pending parliamentary consideration of its duty of care to children. Anne Eagar, Epping
Reports of children continuing to be strip-searched, despite a government promise to review the practice and a constant stream of police shootings must beg the question: are the police out of control? The job of the police minister is to ensure that government policy is adhered to. Instead, police ministers over the years seem to have decided that it is easier to defend the police and be popular than to bring them to account when necessary. Ian Adair, Hunters Hill
Your article reads that the practice of strip-searching children has been “criticised” by health experts. I would have thought they would have been “condemned”. Apparently, the police minister thinks the community would be “concerned”. This particular member of the community is “outraged”.
Genevieve Milton, Dulwich Hill
I wonder how many suspected users of cocaine in wealthy areas, recently in the news, have been strip-searched by police. Classless society? Al Svirskis, Mount Druitt
Make special housing available to essential workers
While the independents and unions are quite right to highlight the tragedy and stupidity of our housing system that causes people to live far from their jobs, picking and choosing the classic “essential workers” invites the question – which workers are not essential (“Rare alliance to deliver essential worker housing”, March 19)? Any special housing near a hospital for example should surely be available for paramedics, cleaners, maintenance workers, admin staff, café staff, everyone else who works there and their families. And why have another inquiry when the planning, design, taxation, financing and social solutions are all staring us in the face? We just need political will to act for the greater good, and that will come when most of the 70 per cent of lucky households who are comfy in their owned homes are prepared to vote for change for the benefit of all. Anyone heard of housing co-operatives, by the way? Donald Proctor, Cremorne
Affordable accommodation would be a lifeline for registered nurse Lou Housego, who has been staying with friends in the inner west since moving back to Sydney from Tamworth in November.Credit: Wolter Peeters
For hospital nurses working on a “round the clock” timetable, public transport does not always fit nor is it always safe. Unable to afford housing close to work, they pay the price to drive on heavily tolled roads to hospitals where parking costs have gone through the roof. Any wonder we are short of nurses. Kathleen Hollins, Northmead
Fading phrase
With a leader that reflexively says no to any social progress, a shrinking cohort of women candidates and the addition of another far-right loon I’m surprised you could find anyone, even anonymously, prepared to use the phrase “modern Liberal Party” (“Liberal gets on front foot after Senate victory”, March 19). Colin Stokes, Camperdown
The antics of the South Australian Liberal Party clearly illustrate Dutton’s “new, clear” agenda. Promote a vainglorious, male, conservative ideologue at the expense of a highly experienced, female, genuinely committed Anne Ruston. Sounds like a vote winner to me and I’m sure the “grievance narrative” will allay the fears of Liberal moderates and female voters.
Barry Ffrench, Cronulla
The rolling of Anne Ruston by Alex Antic for the number one Liberal senate spot in SA indicates why the Liberal Party has an electoral problem, to which the preselectors seem oblivious. David Rush, Lawson
An SA Liberal supporter of Alex Antic has described him as taking a more conservative, forward-facing approach. Forward-facing conservative? An oxymoron if ever I’ve heard one. John Bailey, Canterbury
Alex Antic is known for controversial positions, including his opposition to vaccine mandates.Credit: Photo: James Brickwood Artwork: Jamie Brown
Peter Dutton is reaping what he sowed. For years he has led and championed conservative white male policies and representatives and he should not be surprised, therefore, that Alex Antic was given the number one senate spot ahead of his endorsed representative, Anne Ruston. Rowan Godwin, Rozelle
Heat equity
The health costs of extreme heat are increased death and sickness and if you are a renter, you are more likely to suffer in the heat (“Long hot summer too much for sweltering renters to bear”, March 19). Heat is the biggest killer of disasters in Australia, more than all other disasters combined. And heat affects some people more than others. Extreme heat and its impacts is a health equity issue. Where you live should not determine how healthy you are, but it does. Renters are at the mercy of the landlords and the property they inhabit. The last few months have been the hottest on record, following a year (2023) that is the hottest on record. With increased cost of living, people will not be able to afford to pay for what will keep them safe from the suffocating heat – air-conditioning, window cover, access to cool places for their activities of daily living and getting health advice from their general practitioners if they have chronic medical conditions. At 31 degrees and 75 per cent humidity, you are at risk of getting very sick in your own home without some precautions, including physical and mental health conditions. Extreme heat can increase anxiety and depression, incidence of domestic violence and associated with increased suicides. We need to protect vulnerable groups. Lai Heng Foong, Glebe
No tolerance
Kylie Moore-Gilbert is wholly justified in castigating Iran for the hundreds of days she spent as an innocent – time she can never regain – in that vile prison (“No other Australian should have to endure what we did”, March 19). Like Canada and the US, we should strengthen measures taken against those who tolerate the totalitarians. She rightly maintains her rage against those who represent the polar opposite of the freedoms we take for granted. Democracies might not be perfect, as Churchill once laconically observed, but they are better than all others, enabling us all, including the likes of Moore-Gilbert to express critical views without fear of retribution. Ron Sinclair, Windradyne
Dumb ideas
The Bar Association’s Ruth Higgins puts forward the benefit of non-custodial sentences for children (“Locking up children is an expensive, destructive wrong”, March 19). However, she fails to address the safety of regional communities, which suffer antisocial behaviour that results in physical harm and damage to property. What’s needed are correctional centres that are just that, a safe space that nurtures and corrects behaviour rather than career paths to a life of crime. Higgins is right, incarceration is not the answer, but serious crime going unpunished with suggestions like “education, support and diversion” that have been trumpeted for generations but are just as dumb. Simon Pitts, Riverview
Flood follies
My experience with flood cover on a home insurance policy is different to that of your correspondent (Letters, March 19), who suggests flood cover should be mandatory on home insurance policies. Several years ago, my home insurance premium was set to double from the previous year as we were newly assessed as living in a “flood risk area”. I was told this “flood risk” was assessed from a map that showed a water course several hundred metres from my home. I tried to explain that the creek was below the level of my home and so could not flood it. This was beyond the comprehension of the insurer. In the end we agreed that I would be covered for “inundation” but not “flooding” and the premium returned to the previous year’s amount. Thinking of your Sutherland Shire correspondent there seems to be two dubious practices in play – the use of inadequate flooding studies and the intent of insurers to push policyholders to opt out of “flood cover” as a form of risk management by them. Neither practice reflects well on the insurance industry. These matters are of course academic for those who have properties in genuine flood-prone areas. It is hardly surprising that no insurer will provide them flood coverage. Those homeowners should attack the state and local government planning authorities that permitted, and continue to permit, residential development in such unsuitable areas. Peter Cuk, St Ives
Grim future
It was most distressing to read that the frogs are up against a rival over which they have virtually no hope of winning (Letters, March 19). Before the 2000 Olympics, these little frogs were considered valuable enough to be microchipped by employees from the Australian Museum so that their numbers and habitat could be protected. Surely there is a solution that protects our valuable biodiversity and at the same time delivers a racecourse. Barbara Leigh, Pennant Hills
Could Rosemary O’Brien apply her ability to predict the crowd at next weekend’s Golden Slipper to picking the winners of the races on the day?Alan Robertson, Campbell (ACT)
Cost burden
I learnt from one of your correspondents that the Sydney Harbour Bridge has been paid for. That begs the question: for whom does the bridge toll? Bernie Bourke, Ourimbah
Putin’s pretence
In Soviet-era Russia, there was a wry joke doing the rounds that said:
“They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”. After Putin’s massive
win, the joke has been re-written: “They pretend to hold an election,
and we pretend to vote”.
Kristina Vingis, Church Point
Yulia Navalnaya, center, widow of Alexey Navalny, stands in a queue with other voters at a polling station near the Russian embassy in Berlin.Credit: AP
Power down
Mr Bowen says we will see a reduction in our power bills after July. I just saw a flock of pigs fly by (“Australians’ power bills set to fall after two years of huge increases”, smh.com.au, March 19). Terry Cook, Ermington
- To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
- The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.