To the editor: Electricity prices, light rail costs, nuclear, animal welfare and more

This week, letter writers discuss electricity prices, light rail costs, animal welfare, respond to Bill Stefaniak and plenty more.

Smoke and mirrors

Yet again the Chief Minister and ActewAGL are conning ACT consumers over the price of electricity. Barr is bragging the electricity price in the ACT is only increasing by four per cent and that his government is delivering cheaper electricity and that the ACT increase is a lot less that other jurisdictions. However, in a recent letter I received from ActewAGL I was notified that the discount I am currently receiving of 32 per cent on the ‘Power Up Plan’ will reduce to just 16 per cent. So, my electricity costs will actually increase by 20 per cent, which is on par with other states. Talk about a con job! Mandrake Barr and ActewAGL have deceived us yet again with their ‘smoke and mirrors act’.

Bill Meani, Lyneham ACT

Light rail costings

I find it hard to conceive that a well-informed transport minister would claim (‘ACT Legislative Assembly 27-29 June‘, CW 30 June) that releasing light rail costing details before contracts were signed might negatively impact value for money in procurement.

The Audit Office’s September 2021 Canberra Light Rail Stage 2A: Economic Analysis published the ACT government’s estimates of the capital, operating and development costs of stage 2A of light rail, and of stage 2 as a whole. The costs did not include the additional costs for wire-free operation. Those costs include converting the existing fleet to dual energy operation (overhead power on stage 1 plus wire free on stage 2), the additional cost of new dual energy vehicles for stage 2, the extra vehicles that will be required because wire-free operation will increase travel times, and the costs of replacing the storage batteries on light rail vehicles every 10 to 15 years.

The cost of stage 2 was estimated at $1,173 million and its net benefits (including $466 million of questionable “wider economic benefits”) were estimated at $44 million.

The ACT government’s 2012 submission to Infrastructure Australia estimated that bus rapid transit would offer net benefits of $243 million.

Leon Arundell, Downer

A place to call home

I would like to thank Bill Stefaniak for his insightful op-ed on AUKUS and Israel. We should never lose sight of the fact that Israel has been in that land for thousands of years. Abraham bought a burial plot there some 3,500 years ago. Joseph buried his wife Rachel near Bethlehem and her tomb can still be seen there today. David established Jerusalem and built a palace there and his son Solomon built a magnificent temple there, too. Hezekiah built a tunnel and an aqueduct, and one can go on and on. The “Wandering Jew” has been displaced over the centuries, and expelled from various lands like Spain and Britain, and after the horrendous Holocaust, they found their way back home. This tiny piece of real estate, the size of Wales, is the only place the Jews can truly call home.

The inhospitable land they found after WWII has been reclaimed and turned into a garden of trees, flowers and fresh produce. In fact, Israel is the only country on earth in the 20th century to have a net gain of trees instead of a net loss. We would do well to embrace truth and do what is right.

Ruth Naude, Charnwood

Modern slavery in cobalt mines

I refer to the letter ‘Stefaniak wrong about renewables’ (CW 22 June). The author, Douglas MacKenzie seems cavalier about the use of child labour in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. If he were to read a book titled Cobalt Red by Siddharth Kara, he might change his attitude.

Amongst other things, Kara reports that tens of thousands of children as young five are employed in these mines. This is captured by the definition of modern slavery which Australia is obligated to fight by having signed an international convention. In other words, no matter how small the amounts of cobalt used in renewables-related items, if it comes from mines using child labour it should be rejected. Sexual violence against girls and women is also prevalent in these mines.

Kara also points out that cobalt is toxic to touch, and these children wear no protective clothing/equipment. In fact, they are desperately poor, are clothed in rags and work in terrible conditions.

He also talks about the environmental degradation, and air and water pollution which is occurring as a result of cobalt mining. This affects those who don’t even work in the mines.

Chris Rule, Conder

Problems with nuclear power

Further to the very good letter from Alma Quick (CW 29 June), there are a number of problems with Peter Dutton’s statement that nuclear power must “be in the (energy) mix” if Australia is the achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Nuclear waste storage may not be a serious problem: Australia has vast areas of geologically and tectonically stable ancient continental crust, parts of which are host to numerous mine shafts and tunnels. At least some of these spaces will probably prove suitable for waste storage.

On average, it takes 10-12 years to build and commission a typical reactor; and the cost is about $12-15 billion. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia has the world’s third-largest resources, and is the third-largest exporter of uranium at 10 per cent.

There is a handful of scientists at the Lucas Heights medical isotope production facility. It would therefore be necessary to train many technicians and scientists to operate any new nuclear power stations. I cannot see all this happening in time to meet the net zero by 2050 target, especially given the rate of advances in solar and wind energy and its storage.

Douglas Mackenzie PhD (geologist), Deakin

Democracy, and roos, dying

I am deeply concerned about the oppression of democratic processes within ACT Labor and wish to reveal these concerns to Canberrans.

I am a member of the Gungahlin sub branch of ACT Labor which passed a motion calling for an independent review into the kangaroo cull in early 2022. The motion was presented at the ACT Annual Conference where it was supported by an overwhelming majority of delegates (over 260 attendees) and became a resolution (Resolution 0124G).

Myself and other party members have been seeking an update on the progress of the resolution from the ACT Labor leadership since January this year. This has included referring the matter to the Labor Caucus as well as the ACT Labor Secretary. We have been told since January that an update will be provided, however, we are continually being ignored and stonewalled by our own party.

The ACT Labor leadership is wilfully ignoring the concerns of its own members. It appears to be hell bent on killing kangaroos.

Not only are the kangaroos dying, democracy in Canberra is dying also.

Rebecca Marks, Palmerston

Animal welfare code ignored

I am part of a team of volunteers who watch and listen outside the Canberra reserves throughout the government’s annual kangaroo slaughter. Our job is to count how many shots are fired and note whether our counts tally with the number of kills the shooters report to the government and to record any shooter activity that breaches the law.

The ACT’s legislated Animal Welfare Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies (non-commercial), 2014 states that shooting must not occur in adverse conditions. A government spokesperson is on the record as citing fog, strong winds and wet weather as examples of adverse conditions.

On the night of Monday 26 June, I was on watch at Red Hill Nature Reserve. It was very windy, with BOM reporting gusts between 26 to 30 kilometres per hour. When I heard a gunshot, I approached a ranger’s ute parked nearby and knocked on the window. A ranger opened the door, and I told her that, according to the Code, the shooters should not be shooting because it was too windy. She said she wasn’t aware of any code.

This is a damning indictment of the ACT government’s alleged concern for animal welfare during this publicly funded mass slaughter that has now claimed the lives of well over 40,000 healthy kangaroos – that Canberra’s own rangers don’t even know what laws they are supposed to be out there enforcing.

Robyn Soxsmith, Kambah

Greens condone roo cull

The ACT Greens state on their website that ‘animals are sentient beings with intrinsic moral status, deserving to be free from direct and indirect harm caused by humans’ and that ‘animals are not provided with the moral consideration they deserve’, yet the party has no issue with spending millions of taxpayer dollars on contracting shooters to slaughter thousands of kangaroos every year in the territory. Where does bludgeoning joeys to death fit in to their claim that animals deserve respect? Where does waging war and terror on sentient beings fit into any of the claims on their website? The government needs to be held accountable for the pain and suffering inflicted upon sentient beings who deserve respect and to be provided with the moral consideration they deserve.

Whitney Richardson, Palmerston

Stop the slaughter

The ACT Greens should indeed be worried about next year’s election. Their unwavering and ongoing support for the annual kangaroo slaughter will reflect at the ballot box. “Killing kangaroos with joeys in their pouches or young standing nearby is morally indefensible and completely reprehensible.” Thank you, Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi.

Unethical, cruel, destructive kangaroo slaughter must end. It’s already impacting our future generation. Out of the mouths of babes. A call from our future leaders at an entrance to Red Hill nature reserve: ‘’Don’t dare to come, hunters beware. Kangaroos deserve to live. So why are you shooting them, hunters? Don’t choose to kill the roos. How could you shoot something so cute? Don’t kill the kangaroos! Hunters not welcome here.”

Seriously, what are we doing? It’s insane. Traumatised youth of today.

Alex Kucharska, Griffith

Development cull

I’ve noticed the ACT government claims the recent kangaroo cull (which has seen the killing of 40,000 kangaroos in 15 years) is for ‘conservation’ of the Earless Grassland Dragon. If this is the case, why is the government clearing areas of kangaroos and then covering those same areas in housing developments?

I’ve also heard the government is currently clearing Red Hill of kangaroos whilst advertising a major new retirement village in the area.

If what I heard is true, then it looks more like a ‘development cull’.

Karl Herzog, Gowrie

Correcting corrections

Douglas Mackenzie (CW Letters, 29 June) claimed that Ian Pilsner made several errors of fact. One was that Ben Roberts-Smith murdered at least one unarmed Afghani and ordered the execution of another, so he is not worth of the Victoria Cross. Ben has not been convicted of these crimes so until he has, by law he is innocent. As to the Victoria Cross, that was awarded for for ‘most conspicuous gallantry’ in the famed battle of Tizak in 2010 which was a separate issue, so it is not relevant to those allegations.

Regarding the use of nuclear energy, given there are 410 operable reactors in the world and as the first was built in 1951, I do not believe that four accidents in 70 years are of major concern. Do we stop building cars, aeroplanes or trains because of the number of accidents. We would never move forward if we did that.

As to the world coming to a dangerous tipping point before we can build a reactor, alarmists have been making such predictions for many years that the world was going to end and the predicted dates have come and gone and nothing has happened. So, is it not worthwhile building some reactors ASAP to improve the situation with electricity?

Vi Evans, MacGregor

Using nuclear power safely

Mr Mackenzie (CW 29 June) makes the same, tired, old line about nuclear energy by referring to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. Chernobyl was caused by human error during a routine test and was then covered up by a corrupt Soviet government. Interestingly, people that stayed in the area have outlived those that fled. Three Mile Island was a good example of a how a nuclear accident can be contained with no fatalities, and Fukushima was the result of a tsunami from an earthquake. No deaths were attributed to radioactivity from the nuclear power plant; they were a result of drownings from the flooding. All three countries – Ukraine, USA and Japan – still use nuclear power safely.

I encourage readers and Mr MacKenzie to look up Sayano-Shushenskaya in Russia 2009, Banquian in China 1975, Machhu in India 1979. Look at the number of lives lost in these hydro accidents where dams have failed, resulting in catastrophic damage. I look forward to Mr MacKenzie’s justification to the use of this so-called renewable power as he seems intent of running down nuclear power because of a few accidents resulting in very few deaths.

Self-proclaimed climate experts like Mr MacKenzie keep telling us that the world is going to end. Can he provide an approximate date? Because it takes anywhere between five to 10 years to build a nuclear reactor and he states there is not enough time left for nuclear power in Australia, maybe in that time they will retrieve the tunnel-boring machine that is stuck in the Snowy 2.0 Hydro renewable scheme causing considerable damage to the Kosciuszko National Park.

If Mr MacKenzie is going to make errors of fact whilst accusing others of the very things he is guilty of, he needs to get his facts straight.

Ian Pilsner, Weston

From behind the barbed wire

Eric Hunter’s comments (CW 15 June) leave me in awe. He can be read in a wide range of publications challenging those with opinions, including Bill Stefaniak, Vi Evans, myself, and others. He sometimes makes good points. However, I await a letter from Eric one day tackling important local issues with Menzies era This-Day-Tonight investigative zeal, from which we can all learn. That’s what freedom of speech is all about so let’s embrace and not be critical. Vi Evans’ letter about Indigenous welcome to the country (CW 15 June) and Stefaniak’s Ben Roberts-Smith comments and alleged but not really proven over-media-exposure of Bill appears to have sent him off. The following is to say “sorry” and to remind it’s not the end of civilisation as we know it.

“Aswe meet in the pages of this esteemed publication, I acknowledge all Letter to Editor quality control/content – advisers/critics and pay my respects to those past and present and extend that respect to emerging hopefuls mastering the mysteries of MS word, office, spell-check and inadequate NBN, whilst showing that sacrifices made for the betterment of critical thinking were not wasted, despite some hurdles. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the UK’s former Houses of Commons/Lords/Privy Councils for sharing our load and lighting the way in which we, in this modern era, have been blessed with the freedoms we take for granted – including those of equality, happiness, speech, law/order and high-tech 21st century platforms used to call a spade a shovel. Your comments have been indexed and stored. Thank you for making them.”

John Lawrence, Flynn

Wind turbines not so green

Douglas Mackenzie (CW Letters, 22 June) says that wind turbines last at least 20 years. Agreed, however, it’s what he does not tell us about them that should be of concern. Just because the wind turbines do not use fossil fuels to generate energy, does not mean that they are environmentally friendly. To create and install a commonly used 2.5 to 3.00 MW turbine you need massive amounts of steel, aluminium and concrete, all requiring large amounts of energy to produce them. Also, as the majority of wind farms are remotely located, additional infrastructure and transport may be required to install and maintain them.

A turbine within the range 2.5 to 3.00 MW requires an estimated 250 to 300 cubic metres of steel reinforced concrete for its foundation, depending on size and the terrain on which it is located. As Australia allegedly has close to 600 turbines over 15 years old and therefore rapidly approaching their ‘use by’ date, what will happen to the massive foundations once the turbines are decommissioned?

I believe that to continue installing wind turbines would be environmentally unsustainable and instead we should concentrate on increasing solar power installations which have a much better “green” footprint, and to consider using small modular nuclear power plants to ensure that our base load requirements are met in the future.

Mario Stivala, Belconnen

Want to share your opinion?

Email [email protected] with ‘To the editor’ in the subject field; include your full name, phone number, street address (NFP) and suburb. Keep letters to 250 words maximum. Note, letters may be shortened if space restrictions dictate.