YOUR SAY: Let's settle the Australia Day dilemma once and for all

We wouldn't have an Australia Day but Australia Days!

Celebrations would begin on January 25 to celebrate a continuous civilisation that has existed for 60,000 years and which has developed into a unique one with its own special mores, languages and culture. It needs to be recognised and revered by what should be a very proud country. On January 26 our all-inclusive multicultural Aussie population would recognise our successful contemporary society.

New migrants could choose either day to become an Australian citizen and local councils would be superfluous to the debate!

Descendants of convicts, colonialists, migrants and refugees would join with Indigenous Australians to celebrate the development of our Great Southern Land.

This arrangement means that, depending on the calendar, some years we would have a four-day long weekend and I don't think there would be too many dinky-di Aussies who would object to that!

The King's Birthday holiday would become a part of our real national celebration.

The social aspect of bringing people together to enjoy our common bonds and to encourage our physical and mental wellbeing should be lauded by anyone interested in promoting a healthy society.

Have you got a better option?

If not, let's get on with it and settle this ongoing national dilemma!

MORE COMMENT

Your correspondent Betty McGrath seems very concerned about the environmental damage apparently caused by a solar farm. She raised three things that she is worried about.

First is environmental damage, which she defines as being incompatible with crops or grazing.

She may be pleased to know that both of these can be done on solar farms.

Second she is concerned that solar panels reflect heat back into the atmosphere, which is good that she is monitoring this.

She might be pleased to know that solar panels displace other energy sources that contaminate the atmosphere and reflect heat back to the surface far more than solar panels ever could, so there is a net reduction in the heating effects.

Betty was also concerned that solar panels might give off a toxic acid, and again I have good news for her.

Solar panels do not create or release any toxic acid.

Your editorial, Nuclear was never our best energy option (December 28), gives a fascinating potted history of Australia's thinking on nuclear.

Now nuclear enthusiasts - like Sir Ernest Titterton though, I suspect, not so learned - try to promote nuclear as our ticket out of the climate crisis.

It's true, nuclear interests were represented at COP28.

Members of the Coalition joined a group of 22 countries whose main task appears to have been to "commit to mobilise investments in nuclear power, including through innovative financing mechanisms".

Their interests are with those of a dying industry, outdone by newer, safer, cleaner and cheaper technologies.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report this year notes a 4 per cent decrease in global nuclear production.

"Nuclear power's share of global electricity generation fell to 9.2 per cent, its lowest share in four decades."

History is repeating itself.

Nuclear enthusiasts in Australia are ignoring the "lucky country's" better cards: not coal this time, but solar, wind and hydro.