Well said, Yasmin Catley ('Port calls for crackdown on protesters', Newcastle Herald 26/5). Professional protester Zack Schofield has now been apprehended twice and returned to Australia. Is he going back for a third go or is he saving his energy for blocking Newcastle Harbour? What a dilemma. Maybe he and his friends might not get returned after the next stunt.
Last week's story did not mention that coal burning is the major cause of the extreme weather driving forest fires and flash flooding. The article said that Newcastle Port exported 154 million tonnes of coal last year. Attributional science is now able to calculate how much that coal contributed to local flood and fire damage. In these circumstances, how long before the Port of Newcastle loses its social licence to export coal?
When it comes to 'professional pests', those rubble addicts who bomb schools and hospitals are far more pestiferous than anyone trying to deliver aid to their victims.
In regards to Peter Davias's letter regarding Newcastle's Basketball Stadium ("Daring to dream of a basketball future", Letters, 28/5): I think most people want a new stadium for your kid's dream, but it's the location that matters. And yes, it is too much to ask to use these sporting fields.
Graham Danaher, your comparison of Albo with Nero is ironic as most of the complaints against Nero were overblown or purely fictitious, created by adversaries with an agenda ("Anger at Albo is a surprise", Letters, 27/5). The debt isn't as bad as the Opposition would have you believe; at 50 per cent of GDP it's one of the smaller debts in the OECD. As I said, adversaries with an agenda.
I don't know who's more confused about this budget and the tax changes; myself, my accountant or the Albanator and the Treasurer. As one of the great orators of all time Jeff Spicoli once said, 'Make up your mind, dude'
A University of New South Wales study, "Inequality in Australia 2024: who is affected and how", found inter alia that 10 per cent of households hold about half our wealth, that the wealthiest 20 per cent of households have 90 times the wealth of the lowest 20 per cent and they also hold 82 per cent of the value of all investment property.
Yet your correspondent ("We can't tax our way to wealth", Letters, 27/5), argues that removing the 50 per cent capital gains tax concession on investment properties, introduced by the Howard government in 1999 when young people could generally still afford to purchase their first home, should be retained simply because, in his words: "You can't help the poor by robbing the rich".
This is a false dichotomy. The changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing will be grandfathered. Negative gearing concessions will still be available on new builds, and investors will experience the added glow of aiding productivity. Nobody will be robbed, but what has proven to be systemic bias against young people trying to purchase their first home will have a partial correction. Hopefully this will eventually make it a little easier for young people to get a home of their own.
In the contribution ("We can't tax our way to wealth", Letters, 27/5), Peter Devey asks: "how does New Zealand manage so well with lower taxes?" The answer is they don't.
Mr Devey has conveniently ignored the 40-year GST that grew to 15 per cent and has applied at that rate for the last 16 years. This constitutes 30 per cent of New Zealand's tax revenue and, like here, is largely borne by salary and wage earners. It is somewhat perverse to suggest "you can't help the poor by robbing the rich". A more accurate statement would be it is unfair that the poor subsidise the rich.
Former UK prime minister and global darling Sir Tony Blair has advised UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to abandon the country's net zero targets in favour of tax cuts. He explained, "We can't tackle climate change by imposing burdens on our businesses and consumers to accelerate towards net zero when the rest of the world isn't doing so. I don't understand the logic behind it." I wonder if Sir Tony would be willing to discuss the renewable rationale of Australia's caribou-like journey towards self-destruction.
I wish to commend John Cooper on his letter ("Ideology won't protect the economy", Letters, 26/5), about energy policy in Australia. Rarely do we see correspondents admitting their mistakes in print. Mr Cooper's final sentence: "Some people can be sincere in their convictions yet choose to disregard or fail to objectively research and/or analyze the practical outcomes of their convictions." is one of the most honest and candid mea culpa I have read in the Herald's pages for some time. Let us hope that Mr Cooper's forthright admission of his logical failings will encourage him to continue this forthright commitment to the process of self-reflection.
Ten years of inaction by conservative government in this country, of having no working energy policy. I wonder if this is the reason for high energy prices now. Don't blame Labor for actually doing something. As soon as Abbott got into power, he started sabotaging the implementation of renewable energy. Congratulations to our present government for bringing down the price of energy. Just remember that private companies own and run our coal burning power stations, and they want to close them down because renewables are more energy efficient.
I read with disappointment what appears to be an incorrect claim that a couple of the writers (Letters, 27/5; Letters, 28/5) made in regard to the Global Summit Flotilla and Zack Schofield's involvement in the same.
Please note the activities, including the return of the Australians, has been funded by voluntary donations through the Global Sumud Flotilla. Peter Mullins incorrectly implied it was taxpayer-funded and Dave Sharpe suggested Zack should fund his own return, which to me wrongly implied there was some cost to Australians.
For mine, when these two writers choose to bring this conflict to Australia and continue the discussion in the Herald, they have an obligation to tell the truth, and the truth is Australians are not burdened with the costs of this activist group or its members. Again, these costs are borne by the Global Sumud Flotilla organisation and not the taxpayer.
