Average Aussies cry all the way to the bank as Bullock panders to the powerful

Nicola McKay writes: I’m old enough to know that democracy is about representation, but with the rise in economic (read: class) divisions the ruling class is now insulated from the ordinary, everyday, average lives of those it theoretically represents (“Inexperienced Bullock puts pandering to inflation hawks ahead of Australians”).

If you have never been hungry, never sat at the kitchen table trying to choose between bills, never earned minimum wage, and never looked at mainstream advertising with a mix of envy and resignation then you are not really equipped or qualified to make decisions that affect you and your class not a jot.

Since cruelty is the often preferred option to make a national statement (think migrants, animals, the poor, Indigenous…) I think Michele Bullock inflicts economic cruelty the same way a gang prospect does — to impress those with power. That makes sense of her comments if they are read assuming the patriarchy as the audience. I can’t believe for one second she actually believes her argument when Crikey can demolish it in a couple of paragraphs.

Glenn Jones writes: It is obvious that Bullock took no notice of the economic pressures that this decision will put on ordinary Australians. If she thinks wage growth is an issue, how else are we to keep up with policy like this?

It’s obvious she has not looked at what is causing the inflationary figures that she reads. I am just an armchair dummy economist, but even I can see the inflationary pressure caused by two wars or conflicts, not to mention the greed of big institutions in this country with their price gouging in pursuit of bigger profits and returns for shareholders — all at the expense of the ordinary Australian.

Maybe a better tactic would be to call in the treasurer and finance minister to discuss alternatives such as tax reviews or other policy developments that could tackle inflation and have the hurt shared more equally. But oh, I forgot: no Liberal politician or Murdoch outlet would let that happen if they might have to contribute to society.

Erik Kulakauskas writes: Bullock is not inexperienced — the RBA is the only employer she has known and she is well educated. It is highly likely she is imbued with her former boss’ mentality (without the neat little smirk) and she is blinkered and bound in traditional economic theory, mainly the now universally disgraced Chicago School. Thank you, Milton!

I learnt this stuff in the 1960s and early ’70s. The world has moved on but seemingly not so the “experts”. Frankly, they make batshit look good. I acknowledge the RBA does not have the tools to be an effective economic influencer, but why does it not say so? The RBA is a busted flush and needs to be overhauled.

Nuclear reaction

Peter Barry writes: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nuclear power (“Teen poster boy for nuclear energy denies Libs are backing his ‘nonpartisan’ group”). It has a good safety record if you simply look at immediate deaths, but the long tail of increased cancer risk and local contamination after accidents should be factored in.

 The main issue relates to the long interval between conception and a functioning reactor. Those under construction overseas are ludicrously delayed and running massively over cost. Experience of big builds in Australia means we can expect those problems to be even greater. We then have the issue of dealing with nuclear waste, an inexperienced workforce, decommissioning imposts, and the ever-lower cost of renewables making nuclear prohibitively expensive in comparison.

Modular nuclear reactors are a pipedream. The go-nuclear concept is simply a distraction to enable Australia’s massive fossil-fuel companies to continue to destroy the earth with impunity.

Michael Gormly writes: I will watch the next federal election with interest if the Liberals continue with their laughable nuclear push. Not only are the small modular reactors (SMRs) they recommend non-existent commercially, but their latest policy of placing them on the sites of old power stations is absurd. That would mean replacing a legacy coal plant generating gigawatts of energy with one producing only megawatts, leaving our grid massively underpowered and presumably relying on the very renewables so hated by the LNP or its preferred climate-destroying fossil fuels.

Apart from every nuclear generator being one missile away from a Fukushima, the big problem with SMRs is the word “small”. I can only conclude that this impractical nuclear push is merely a device to delay the onset of renewables in favour of the fossil industries which so generously donate to the two major parties. I doubt Opposition Leader Peter Dutton can spin this boondoggle as effectively as he spun the Voice campaign.

Andrea Long writes: Noting the change in leadership since the last election, certainly some Liberals (and Nationals) are serious about nuclear energy. In any case, the Labor government should call the Coalition’s bluff and lift the ban. Only then can we claim to be having a serious discussion about whether adding it into our energy mix is right for our country.

We can legalise this low-carbon energy source at this point in the climate crisis, and properly assess its suitability for our grid, or we can rush it later, when our decarbonisation efforts diverge so far from our targets that we can no longer stand the embarrassment.

Tyrone D’Lisle writes: Nuclear energy is popular; polling from several sources conducted since 2019 shows declining opposition to nuclear and majority support from Australians of all political stripes. The most recent polling shows an equal split between Green voters who strongly favour vs strongly oppose nuclear energy. 

What’s clear is that existing bans on nuclear energy across the country no longer have a social licence. From polling and personally speaking to voters, it’s clear that nuclear energy unites both pro-climate voters and voters concerned about energy security or jobs.

Labor and the Greens have an opportunity to put aside their opposition to nuclear and put an end to the energy culture wars. This has occurred in places such as Finland where every political party now supports nuclear, including Greens, and they are just getting on with the job of phasing out fossil fuels. As an environmentalist and Greens voter, I am more concerned with what Labor and the Greens will do than whether Dutton is serious about nuclear energy.

John Macdonald writes: Re Dutton and nuclear energy: it’s forgotten now that he was once federal health minister. It’s also forgotten that the AMA described him as the worst in 35 years. Other accolades ranged to the worst ever. Then the former copper was given charge of what became a Home Affairs-Immigration empire, run with his trademark competence and marked by the humanity on display in many comments.

His successful opposition to the Voice campaign, with considerable help from News Corp and social media, was surely a blueprint for a nuclear-energy plan sold with a salesmanship that can deliver him the Lodge. But there is a simpler way and a slogan to match: make Australia great again.