• Elizabeth Dangerfield wrote on the case against Australia pursuing nuclear energy.
• Neil Francis shone a spotlight on the threat to abortion and voluntary assisted dying laws at the Queensland election.
• Rosemary Lynch wrote about the need for a reset of state and federal funding of chaplaincy and wellbeing officer roles to allow schools to directly employ the best people for the job.

Is nuclear energy the magical solution that will reduce our use of fossil fuels, save us from global warming, and allow us to continue our privileged lifestyles? I understand why a nuclear energy-fuelled future is so seductive. Vast amounts of electricity can be produced without producing vast amounts of carbon dioxide. We can continue to grow, consume and become even wealthier with an abundant supply of electricity. Also, nuclear energy provides electricity 24 hours a day and is unaffected by lack of sunlight or wind, or variations in the tide.

May Joh (Bjelke-Petersen) rest in peace. Queensland no longer deserves its historical reputation as the nation’s conservative capital. Take human rights, for example. Analysis of the Australian National University’s 2022 Australian Election Study shows that Queenslanders favour marriage equality (73 per cent) at the same rate as the national average (73 per cent). On abortion, 71 per cent of Queenslanders favour access on request, compared with a national average of 69 per cent. Just 5 per cent oppose abortion in all circumstances, compared with a national average of 5 per cent.

It is almost 20 years since the then Prime Minister John Howard unveiled funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) to “promote pastoral care and spiritual guidance for students”, with Christian contractors paid to employ Christians in public schools. While the role has been essentially that of a secular pastoral carer/student wellbeing officer – with religious activities and proselytising banned – the program has, for much of that time, required, without any justification, those people who fill the roles to be people “of faith”.

As I write these words, could I be writing something else? It seems intuitive to think I could. If I wanted to I could delete these words and start again, as I have done several times already. But even then one might ask if it could have been any other way? Those who believe in free will would say it could have been, that as John Searle argued, “each thing we do carries the conviction… that we could be doing something else right here and now, that is, all other conditions remaining the same” — what Robert Kane referred to as ‘dual power’ in his 1985 book Free Will and Values.

Political operatives on the far right have long spoken about their ambition to shift the “Overton window”. The aim is to “mainstream” ideas long considered unthinkable, through gradual, step-by-step radicalisation and repetition – especially on hot-button issues such as immigration, sexuality, race and identity. If challenged, commentators respond by appealing to “free speech”, accusing their critics of denying this basic liberal right.