Nuclear should be key to stopping any power crisis

Adam Creighton’s excellent analysis of the “net zero” scenario iterates the many problems inherent in providing stable and affordable sources of clean energy from wind and solar alone (“Don’t hold your breath waiting for energy transition”, 27/7).

Adam Creighton’s excellent analysis of the “net zero” scenario iterates the many problems inherent in providing stable and affordable sources of clean energy from wind and solar alone (“Don’t hold your breath waiting for energy transition”, 27/7).

Unfortunately, he fails to draw it all together by proposing the obvious and only solution in a country that, unlike Norway, is devoid of “hydro-electric potential”, and that solution is nuclear. Norway’s neighbour, Sweden, has recently realised the futility of chasing the wind and solar pipedream and developed a policy that includes nuclear as part of its energy mix.

The SMRs are nearly a reality so let’s start discussing them! These small, efficient and safe nuclear generators can be installed at the sites of defunct coal-fired power stations, obviating the need for new transmission lines. As recent articles in The Australian have demonstrated, sprawling solar and wind farms, together with the necessary transmission lines, are causing more environmental devastation than that attributable to a moderate rise in carbon emissions.

Bill Pannell, Dalkeith, WA

Voice validity

Both sides of the Voice debate assume that, absent another referendum to abolish it, a constitutional voice will exist in perpetuity. But is that really the case? The assumption is based on the wording with which the voice will be established in the Constitution: “There shall be a … voice.” These words are taken to mean it’s mandatory to have a voice. Noel Pearson calls this phrase “a guarantee”.

But these words are already in the Constitution and it’s not clear that they amount to a guarantee. In Chapter IV (“finance and trade”), section 101 begins “there shall be an Inter-State Commission …”.

By Mr Pearson’s logic this is a constitutional guarantee that it must exist. But it doesn’t. It only ever functioned in the 1910s and 1980s. Most recently, in 1990 it was abolished by parliament. At other times, parliament simply hasn’t passed any enabling legislation.

So if parliament can disenfranchise the Inter-State Commission, then why can’t parliament do the same to a constitutionally enshrined voice?

Even if it’s in the Constitution, without enabling legislation the voice will not exist – just like the Inter-State Commission. Parliament might fail to pass enabling legislation because both Houses can’t agree on a model.

The government refuses to issue a draft bill, so it can’t even claim a mandate for any model it proposes post-referendum. Of course, even if a bill is passed, a future parliament could just repeal it. A High Court challenge begs the question: What would the remedy be?

On the other hand, if the court says that the phrase is a guarantee, then what does that mean for the Inter-State Commission? Does it mean that Australia has been unconstitutionally governed for most of the last 120 years because the “fourth arm of government” has been missing? Would it invalidate every piece of legislation and every executive and judicial decision affecting interstate finance and trade since at least 1990?

A successful referendum could lead to stormy and uncharted constitutional waters. At the very least, the current Yes and No camps need to reconsider their “in perpetuity” messaging.

Michael Walton, Ogunbil, NSW

NZ Treaty myth

Anyone trying to draw a comparison of any relevance between New Zealand and Australia on issues of treaty with Indigenous people simply does not understand the matter or history.

The situation in both countries is dramatically different. Therefore, if PM Albanese is attempting to leverage support for the voice from the situation in New Zealand he is misguided and he is misleading.

NZ PM Chris Hipkins asserts “the process of reconciliation that New Zealand is going through … has been overwhelmingly positive”. The truth is that the “reconciliation” he speaks of has absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty of Waitangi.

Indeed, reconciliation in New Zealand has been despite the Treaty.Whatever support Hipkins may have been offering Albanese this week in respect to treaty and reconciliation issues means little. In all likelihood Hipkins will be gone in a few months. The people will have spoken.

Geoff Ellis, Smithfield, Qld