Just heard about the latest cutbacks to NBN news and possibly journalists since WIN takeover through Tim Crakanthorp ('NBN News bulletins slashed, job cuts feared', Newcastle Herald 3/6). To say I am severely pissed off is an understatement. Local news cut back to half an hour? What? We love our local journalists and news readers and we care. We are not a backwater town but we are treated like that thanks to our Sydney-centric neighbours who treat us like dirt. I am fed up.
Newcastle deserves a full hour of news and most importantly, local news. We've always been the poor cousins to Sydney and this apparently still happens.
Now that NBN has been censured to an alternate format, I'll be relying on the Herald for news. Sadly and skeptically, I hope to also be informed by the ever-growing ranks of Googlers in the lunchroom at work for current and artificially-generated bulletins.
I'd wager almost everyone is confused about the six again tackle rule for a ruck infringement in rugby league. Essentially, six again is awarded when the referee deems a defending team has illegally slowed down the play-the-ball or broken the rules during a tackle. It was supposedly introduced to increase the pace of the game and reduce penalties, but I believe very few six-agains would actually warrant a penalty, so why bother?
If a ruck infringement is worthy of punishment, then just penalise the infringer. After two more breaches, the third infringer gets sin binned. To speed up the game, the NRL should eliminate captain challenges and endless video replays. Just allow the referee and lines people, some of whom reportedly earn as much as $300,000 and $100,000 annually, to earn their keep. Rugby league is a physical, simple game not a video game.
The editorial "Why 3M could be the new James Hardie" (Opinion, 29/5), made an astonishing claim that 3M could be compared to the asbestos processing company James Hardie, though no evidence or argument to that effect was made in the body of the editorial. Just claiming that in a headline is no proof of anything.
What was in the text of the editorial shows the weakness of the argument. Talking about PFAS, it stated "These chemicals don't break down in the environment or the human body". That's true, PFAS are some of the most chemically and biologically inert compounds on the planet. They won't burn, oxidise or otherwise chemically degrade when exposed to the environment. Nothing will eat them, even bacteria, so that they remain unchanged in our environment, soil, air, water or whatever for a very long time, consequently their colloquial name of "forever chemicals", unlike most other complex substances, natural or man-made, in our world. But that very property makes them very unlikely to ever be able to interact with and affect our health.
The editorial states PFAS "has been found in the blood of people and animals throughout the world". Just about every person on Earth would have some PFAS low-level in their blood but without any adverse health effect noticeable. There are no diseases that have been proven to be caused by low-level PFAS exposure. The editorial said that PFAS "has been linked with diseases" but that's a very weak association, comparable to saying eating cornflakes is linked with cancer. Inferring that exposure to PFAS is equivalent to exposure to asbestos is totally lacking.
We debate politics as left or right. Previously left politics was anti-immigration, or pro-tariffs or anti government ownership. Right-wing politics has now embraced this policy direction. The public is rejecting the major parties, Labor and the Greens versus the Liberal and National parties, instead letting preferences decide the parties in power.
The old style of politics may go out of fashion, but new ways have not yet been defined. The two major parties are yet to respond to the philosophical changes going on in our own unique form of politics. In my view there is little policy in regard to issues concerning Australians: immigration, health, welfare, housing, energy. They are all driving the cost of living for people, but the two major parties are on the brink of being left right out.
Sarah Taylor, you are wrong to assume it's only the wealthy whinging about Labor's latest broken promises ("Fair go a faded hollow myth", Letters, 2/6). Financially they will have bugger all effect on me and others like me, but I believe this PM made a big deal about restoring people's faith in politics before being elected yet continues to find new ways to trash our democracy. If any savings are made from these changes, you can bet they (and more) will be used to buy votes at the next election.
There are officially 178 billionaires in Australia, with combined wealth of $686 billion. Yet we have right-wing politicians including One Nation's Barnaby Joyce complaining about the small wage increase given to Australia's lowest-paid workers. Wake up, Australia. Add to the billionaires - the many more Australians who have more than $100 million: it's obscene that so few hold such a large percentage of wealth, and we complain about a wage rise.
Graeme Kime ("Passing the buck", Letters, 30/5): I think wrongly claiming the 300,000 marching across Sydney Harbour Bas supporting terrorists needs addressing. We all know they were there protesting Israel committing genocide and not as an act of anti-Semitism.
If the government didn't pour so much revenue into bottomless pits like defence, NDIS, Closing the Gap, renewable energy and the government itself, to mention a few, it wouldn't have to raise more revenue through increasing taxes.
Steve Barnett (Letters, 2/6): I have not heard of Russia and China: but Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Iran. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Quite a toll, no?
