Walk together into the future

I will be voting yes in the voice referendum, but not for any of the reasons I have heard in the media. Nobody has looked at the big picture. Australian Indigenous culture has lasted over 60,000 years. European and Asian based cultures seldom last over 1,000 years. Our Indigenous elders have offered for us to walk with them into the future. This is an opportunity for us to improve our society, to make it stable and lasting. I will be voting to accept this offer to work with our parliament in the centuries to come. I do not want what we have achieved to date to be lost to the dustbin of history. They may not repeat this generous offer.

• Greg Butler, Murrumbateman NSW

‘Signing the contract’

Some in the ‘No’ camp claim that the Voice referendum is analogous to signing a contract to build a house. They argue that one should never sign a contract without seeing the details. Good advice. Pity it’s a fallacious analogy.

The referendum is more like the family sitting at the kitchen table, deciding to build the house. Will we build a house? Yes or no. Will we have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? Yes or no. That’s what the Australian ‘family’ is being asked in the referendum. 

It is only after the decision to build the house that we think about the details. Will we have three bedrooms or four, white or green tiles in the bathroom? This is analogous to drafting the legislation and parliamentary debate after the Voice referendum has passed. The legislation and debate determine the details of the Voice. And, by the way, Dutton and Price will contribute to the details through the parliamentary debate. 

‘Signing the contract’ only comes after the details are decided. ‘Signing the contract’ is the vote in parliament. The vote commits the nation to implementing the Voice with the details agreed through the process of drafting the legislation and the parliamentary debate. 

The ‘No’ case wants Australians to be frightened by their false analogy. The referendum is not like signing a contract. It’s just the family making the decision to ‘build the house’. The details and the ‘signing of the contact’ come later. 

• Bob Hall, Chapman

Views from both sides

Thank you and congratulations to the editor of Canberra Weekly that presents a fair smattering of letters from both sides of politics on various subjects such as the Voice and Energy matters. I have written many letters to the Canberra Times on these subjects, but rarely do they get published. It seems they only publish one side of the story, although I do see a few familiar names here, but you can guess which side they are on. Reading their editorials and letters pages is like watching an episode of the lefty echo chamber Q+A on the ABC. 

• Ian Pilsner, Weston

Wind farms and nuclear energy

Bill Stefaniak’s op-ed about windfarms and nuclear energy (CW 28 September p8) is full of misleading and incorrect information. I’ll start with the claim that Wind Farms kill whales. There is no evidence to back this up. It was the same claim made by former US President, Donald Trump: “Wind farms do not kill whales, according to the scientific evidence available. The claim that wind turbines lead to whale deaths by making them ‘batty’ was made by former US President Donald Trump at a rally in South Carolina on Monday. However, this claim is not supported by any facts or data.”

Do wind turbines kill birds? Yes, but only a fraction as many as are killed by house cats, buildings, or even the fossil fuel operations that wind farms replace.

Next is his claim that nuclear energy is the way to go. A quick search using the question “Do small modular nuclear reactors present a viable and safe alternative to renewable energy?” The answer via Bing AI is instructive: “Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a type of nuclear reactor that are smaller in size and output than conventional large reactors. However, SMRs also face many challenges and uncertainties that could limit their viability and attractiveness. Some of these include: SMRs are still largely unproven and underdeveloped. There are no SMRs in commercial operation in the world today, and most of the proposed designs are still in the early stages of research and development. SMRs may not be as cost-effective as claimed. While SMRs could benefit from economies of mass production and standardisation, they also suffer from diseconomies of scale and higher unit costs compared to large reactors.”

• Phillip Martin, McKellar

Questioning motive for cull

Killing more than 40,000 healthy kangaroos and bludgeoning their joeys to death is apparently not enough for the ACT government. Some 3,400 dingoes, dogs and foxes are now to be subjected to the indescribably agonising death caused by 1080 poison. This will achieve nothing, of course, because these animals breed much faster than anyone can kill them.

Sadly, this is not the case for kangaroos who have only one baby a year, most of which are taken by dogs, dingoes and foxes.

A release under Freedom of Information has revealed the government’s use of a professional butcher during this year’s annual kangaroo slaughter. This has fuelled long-standing rumours that the government is making money from its alleged “conservation cull”. It is hard to imagine what could be done with 3,400 poison baits, other than sell them to other landholders.

A commercial motive would certainly explain why the government is undertaking the kangaroo slaughter. The “conservation cull” excuse was debunked in 2017 when an earlier release under FOI included a critical report by CSIRO. The CSIRO’s analysis of the ACT government’s own data showed: that vegetation on all Canberra Nature Park reserves where kangaroos were present was richer and more diverse than where no kangaroos were present; that this richness and diversity did not decline where a higher density of kangaroos was present; and that no more three kangaroos per hectare were present on any reserve where data were collected.

• Frankie Seymour, Queanbeyan

Kangaroo cull is cruel

A recent FOI request submitted by Save Canberra Kangaroos revealed shocking new information about the Greens/Labor Governments’ annual kangaroo cull which has been taking place for 15 years now. The FOI request revealed that after the shooting has ceased at the cull sites, the kangaroos are butchered on site for the purpose of being used as bait to kill dingoes, as well as cultural reasons.

Butchering the kangaroos at the cull site means that any kangaroos and joeys that have managed to escape the shooters are then terrorised by smelling the blood of their family members, or even worse, seeing what terrible things are being done to their loved ones.

It is simply unacceptable for the Greens/Labor government to use taxpayer funds to inflict trauma, injury and death on these gentle sentient beings that are known for their close family bonds and long-term relationships with other kangaroos. Minister Vassarotti, the cruelty must stop now.

– Jo Kirwan, Curtin

Improve indigenous Australia

Rather than expensive, low option, dodgy referendums would it not be better if, in government, we had less slot machine, eye rolling, arm flapping, photo-opp smoke “inhaler” pretenders and more hard-working, intelligent, elected professionals focussed on outcome who are driven, committed professionals seeking resolution and excellence? That would surely go a long way towards repairing Indigenous disadvantage. Why do registered voters have to light the way for government incompetence. Resign if the job is too much for you because you may well be the problem, not the cure.

• John Lawrence, Flynn

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.