Row over stricken boat says something about the voice debate

“I want my boat back,” said Michael Mansell, chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania (“Indigenous sea law cited in fight for Sydney-Hobart yacht”, 11/1). Reluctantly abandoned, the $170,000 racing yacht washed ashore on remote truwana/Cape Barren Island and was subjected to a claim by the ALCT in accordance with Aboriginal customary law, which is “not codified and seldom recognised by Australian courts”, said a lawyer cited in this article. I’ll bet the voice to parliament, if enshrined in our Constitution, will have a lot to say on this matter.

Evonne Moore, Stepney, SA

As far as I can gather, so far the arguments for the Yes case as outlined by Albanese are twofold. First, vote for the referendum and we will fill in the details when we work them out. Second, if you don’t vote Yes, you risk being labelled as a racist. As Peter Dutton has said, the Prime Minister is treating voters as mugs with this unsophisticated small-target approach to one of the most significant structural changes to the Constitution since Federation. He shouldn’t be surprised when voters return the favour.

John McLeod, Sunshine Coast, Qld

I was speaking with a friend who was vacillating regarding her options in the voice referendum. We were both reading The Australian and she directed me to “Indigenous sea law cited in the fight for a Sydney-Hobart yacht”. She said: “This is enough to encourage me to vote No.” I’d have to agree, given the scenario of the yacht wrecked on an island off Tasmania and the local Indigenous community claims it is theirs! Is this an attitude that we might expect should the Yes option win?

Susan Martel, Dubbo, NSW

The claim by the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania over a shipwrecked yacht washed up on Cape Barren Island after being abandoned by its unfortunate crew seems unsympathetic and opportunistic at the least. It’s certainly not consistent with the grace and goodwill that the PM asserts motivates those Aborigines pushing the voice. The reference by Michael Mansell to what happens in New Zealand does nothing to reassure me either!

Stuart Andrew, Berri, SA

Royal tragedy

I think Janet Albrechtsen (“Royal tell-all enough to drive one spare”, 11/1) displayed an accurate level of the frustration felt by us all from the Sussex imbroglio. Harry has displayed a low level of understanding of the significant position the family that he is part of holds in the British community. However, I am constantly reminded of the sad role that he was directed to play as a 12-year-old boy at his mother’s funeral. I clearly remember thinking as he marched behind his mother’s coffin: “What effect will this experience have on his long-term mental and emotional stability?”

Simon Gamble, Noosa Heads, Qld

Stained history

The Japanese ambassador is right to say we should remain vigilant about China, and the Chinese ambassador’s media event on Tuesday only proved the point. What a nerve to criticise our acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines when China has been ramping up its arsenal of nuclear weapons. And as for the prospect of renewing imports of coal, that has got nothing to do with relaxing China’s approach but purely reflects the fact that coal is in huge demand. In the same vein, of course China would like to resolve the other trade issues, which it initiated, by bilateral means as it knows it will be shown up by WTO actions taken by Australia as going against that organisation’s rules. And if we are into the game of suggesting how countries should budget, perhaps China could reduce its huge military spending. Finally, speaking of friends, China claims some sort of strategic partnership with Russia, which in its actions in Ukraine is operating like Nazi Germany.

Eric Hodge, Pearce, ACT

Power struggle

Ted O’Brien, energy spokesman for the Coalition, paints a rosy picture of nuclear energy (“Nuclear energy? Who better to ask than Japan, whose history is inextricably linked to it”, 11/1) His tour of Hiroshima and Fukushima, two of the most notorious sites of nuclear calamity, made O’Brien “realise nuclear’s capacity for good”. The Coalition, having failed to initiate or act on coherent energy policies and an orderly transition to renewables, now seeks to sell us the nuclear option.

All is not well at the Fukushima power plant. Water is still being used for cooling and the resultant contaminated water has been stored in tanks that will be full this year. Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority has formally approved the plan to discharge treated water into the sea. The usual trade-off between risk and cost has been settled.

Proponents of nuclear power extol the virtues of nuclear energy and attempt to allay safety fears. But the stakes are astronomical. Nuclear power plants are safe, until they aren’t.

Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic