Labor government is all at sea with net-zero energy transition

That Labor stalwart Jennie George is critical of the Labor government makes you question who Labor is really trying to represent. The industrial relations policies, destructive as they may be, should be expected from a Labor government (“Is Labor finally realising the folly of its energy plan?”, 24/10). But the drive to renewables and net zero – throwing thousands out of work on the way – is counter to the objectives of the Labor movement. The coal generators are clearly going to lose thousands of jobs; the BHP nickel smelter in Kalgoorlie with 2500 jobs is a victim of the net-zero policy.

The environmental policies are also job-destroying with little environmental benefit – look at the problems of Woodside at Browse, Santos in the Gulf and Alcoa in Western Australia. These are not the policies you would expect a Labor government to follow – if its aim is to look after the working man.

And do we need to mention the pending live sheep export ban – losing jobs and vital agricultural revenue for farmers diversifying their incomes to cope with the varying climate – and all for no benefit. The renewable power aims flies in the face of reality – not just here but around the world. The renewable claims of the UK only work because of the nuclear power plants of France. Even South Australia only works, despite the huge capital investment in overcapacity, because of gas- and coal-fired power from Victoria.

What makes it worse is that Australia is already at net zero – our forests alone absorb three times our emissions. What further improvement are we trying to make? And what is Labor really trying to achieve, and for whom?

Brian Povey, Churchlands, WA

In what could be a severely career-limiting move AEMO’s Daniel Westerman has blown the whistle on the fantasy of cheap renewables (“ ‘No guarantee of cheaper bills after energy transition’, AEMO chief executive says”, 24/10). This is not news to many of us who have observed skyrocketing prices over the past few years along with the fear of grid instability. Politicians of all ilks have been grabbing broken-down old donkeys, sticking a dunce’s cap on their heads and calling them unicorns (hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydro, solar and wind), but they are unable to handle the load, so more donkeys are pressed into service, though nothing changes. The next thing to do is to throw out the fairy story about emissions and recognise that man will never control nature. Coal power worked before and would do so again if anyone was brave enough to bring it back. Students of history will remember that Galileo was imprisoned for advocating the Copernican view on the solar system. We have people with the same mindset today.

David Bidstrup, Plympton Park, SA

Democracy’s glory

Nigel Biggar is to be congratulated on his sensible commentary concerning democracy and its de facto parent, the British monarchy (“Democracy is crowning glory of monarchy”, 24/10). As Biggar explains, Australia has long been an independent state defined by its British origins, through its primary language, its tradition of liberal rights and parliamentary democracy, all a valuable inheritance and now thoroughly Australian.

As he points out, these inheritances were not just lying there but were hard won. It is that limitation on power that Australians appreciate is the essence of the system of government they enjoy today and why they resist unnecessary change. Biggar reminds us that Australians elect their own governments and their own representatives of the Crown so that the entire matrix is Australian-made. That process should not be disturbed lest we find ourselves having to relive the circumstances in which and reignite the battles whereby our present freedoms were won by our doughty forebears.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

Senator’s sedition?

Lidia Thorpe’s egregious behaviour in the presence of King Charles III and Queen Camilla has led to her disclosing her betrayal of her affirmation under section 42 of the Constitution and, indeed, put in question whether she ever made one. Arguably, she has never been entitled to sit in the Senate.

The prescribed affirmation, if one is unwilling to swear an oath, provides for the maker to “solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to (the king or queen of the United Kingdom for the time being, his or her) heirs and successors according to law”.

Thorpe contemptuously declined to “make and subscribe” the required affirmation by substituting the word “hairs” for “heirs”, choosing to sign the requisite words but not orally declare and affirm them. Perhaps Thorpe has never been entitled to any of the privileges of office. As an aside, is she a relative of Joana Partyka?

Peter Graham, Sydney, NSW