The ANU’s full leadership team should not blithely assume, as the vice-chancellor did, that the broader Canberra community, which includes many concerned and watchful ANU donors too, will remain committed to supporting ANU getting to wherever it is being driven to, says letter writer SUE DYER, of Downer.  

The ANU’s vice-chancellor recently advised the public about how the university’s change management program has now met a few interim turning points via a necessary “delicate dance”.

The announcements lacked clarity and showed that the university is still resisting calls for the retention of delivery of well-established and high-standard knowledge and skills outcomes across the humanities and particularly in the performing arts. 

The vice-chancellor’s subsequent chatty follow up with the public about the major restructuring and cost-cutting program would not have reassured many who have been following this lengthy institutional saga. 

There was no substantive enlightenment about future discipline offerings, or insights about how the depleted and realigned staff who remain will develop, juggle and deliver curriculum transitions for 2026 and thereafter. 

ANU’s chancellor, vice-chancellor and dean of arts do not communicate well with the broader public.

More transparency, less snappy managerialist mumbo jumbo, and concrete evidence of far better treatment of staff and students would help to counteract the current loss of trust and belief in the functioning and reputation of Australia’s national and federally legislated university. 

Nor should ANU’s still floundering leadership underestimate this local community’s well-honed ability to suss out spin, half-truths, information gaps and misleading statements that deliver vague rationales in the numerous change plans and proposals that have already been dumped on busy and under-resourced campus staff for “consultation”. 

Given all this, the full leadership team should not blithely assume, as the vice-chancellor did in her statements, that the broader Canberra community, which includes many very concerned and watchful ANU donors too, will remain committed to supporting ANU getting to wherever it is being driven to. 

Sue Dyer, Downer 

A matter for the integrity commission?

Readers would have (or should have) been gobsmacked by Beatrice Bodart-Bailey’s revelations regarding the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the light rail stage 2b extension to Woden (CN September 4).

Rather than meeting the requirement for an independent consultant to prepare an EIS, or for an independent review of the draft EIS, the actual draft EIS was apparently prepared by a company with a $93 million contract for the stage 2b design, with 20 of the 25 members of the “EIS delivery team” being current or former employees of this company.

Why is action not being taken — such as a referral to the ACT Integrity Commission – in relation to this as a clear case of serious maladministration? 

Karina Morris, Weetangera

Richer we are, the more climate damage

It’s welcome that Dave Jeffrey agrees “we can and must” combat climate change (“Climate change is about population”, CN August 4). 

But framing population as the main driver is misleading. There are populations, and there are populations. The most populous country, India, with 18 per cent of the world’s people, produces just 7 per cent of global greenhouse gases. The US, with only 4 per cent of the population, pumps out 13 per cent. Both wealth and population drive emissions.

Oxfam recently found, for example, the world’s richest 1 per cent emit more carbon than the poorest 66 per cent. 

The richer we are, the more energy and embodied carbon we consume – and the more climate damage we cause. Australia proves the point: 55th in population, yet 16th in emissions. In sporting terms, we punch (or rather, emit) well above our weight.

And while climate impacts hit everywhere – rising seas, hotter oceans, extreme weather – we still dither. The answer is clear: no new coal and gas projects, and a rapid shift to renewable energy with storage. The transition is underway, but far too slowly. Why is Australia still approving new fossil fuel projects when the clock is running down?

Anne O’Hara, Wanniassa

Let’s not kid ourselves, they’re Nazis

I’m curious. Media reports on the recent sovereign citizen protests make reference to their black clothing, implying that it is intimidating. 

I’m sure that’s their intention, but when you look around our state and federal police forces, some of them have also adopted black as the uniform colour of choice (the most recently visible being the Victorian Chief Police Commissioner, who usually fronts the media in a black uniform, with matching black shirt and tie). Why is this grim combination considered helpful to the police image?

Of course, some of us older citizens might remember Germany of the ’30s, when all black, with matching jackboots, was the totally frightening look presented, quite deliberately, by the Gestapo.

Of course, there’s no comparison between the genocidal Gestapo and our Australian police, but I do wonder if that was in the minds of those who thought all-black was a suitable colour for a democratic law enforcement body in the 21st century.

This brings me to another, not unconnected, issue – the euphemistically named ”Neo-Nazis” who are behind the “Sovereign Citizens movement”. Let’s not kid ourselves – there’s nothing new about this rising movement. They’re simply “Nazis” and if they had their way they’d introduce a similarly restrictive form of authoritarian government here. 

And there are further dangerous signs coming out of America with influential media personality Tucker Carlson pushing for a “rehabilitation” of Hitler. Hate to think what that might mean.

Eric Hunter, Cook

China leads the way in renewables

Thanks to Robert Macklin for sharing Jo Lauder’s story about China becoming the world’s first “electrostate” (“Jo’s seriously big solar story disappears in a day”, CN August 28). 

But what does that mean? In his book Powering Up, former chief scientist Alan Finkel writes: “Yesterday’s powerful petrostates will be replaced by emerging electrostates” – countries that supply energy transition materials and “ship sunshine” as green hydrogen, steel, aluminium and fertiliser. He argues Australia is well placed to become one.

Ms Lauder’s story on China can be found in the ABC’s News Daily podcast (August 18). As Macklin suggests, it deserves wide coverage. Australians still tend to associate China with coal, air pollution and soaring greenhouse gas emissions. Yet today it leads the world in renewables, with 180GW of new utility-scale solar and 159GW of wind under construction – more than double the rest of the world combined. By contrast, less than 100GW of new coal-fired power is underway in China, and signs suggest its emissions may already have peaked. 

Good news – and a counter to those who use China as an excuse for inaction.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Victoria

Are we that stupid to ignore smart countries?

Letter writer Ray Peck (CN August 6) quotes Dr Alan Finkel, but leaves out the bit where the former chief scientist says there is no better source of zero emissions electricity than nuclear power. 

Dr Finkel also said that he would like to see nuclear power introduced in support of electricity in the 2040s as our population expands, but said it was not a feasible option in the short term. 

Public opinion towards nuclear power in Australia has shifted over time. This year, in response to a new question, six in 10 Australians (61 per cent) say they “somewhat” or “strongly support” Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity (Lowy Institute Poll).

Contrary to Mr Peck’s suggestion I am more than happy to listen to Australia’s new chief scientist Prof Tony Haymet rather than former ones who are still living in the 1980s in regard to nuclear power. Prof Haymet has stated he is open to the prospect of nuclear power playing a role in the country’s energy mix. 

Are we that stupid that we are going to ignore 32 smart countries around the world that are already using nuclear power and investing more or are we going to follow Australia’s worst politician Chris Bowen with his nuclear scaremongering? Seriously if not now, when?

Ian Pilsner, Weston