Everyone should know that I am not Kalyn Ponga's biggest fan, but I found it a bit distasteful how openly, without reservation it was stated that it would likely be the Raiders' intention to target the injured Knights fullback.
In my opinion, such tactics have gone past gamesmanship and amount to thuggery. Any kind of pre-game threat should not be part of the game, and I also believe the NRL needs to take action if injured players find themselves targets. It sets a very bad example to the young players.
Dennis Crampton, Warners Bay
Drug testing won't help anyone
It's been suggested, again, that authorities offer the option for party goers at summer music concerts to check their drugs on entry to ensure that they are not using harmful substances. Are these politicians blind and oblivious to administering a duty of care to our youth? What possesses these so-called adults, who are supposed to lead by example, to allow and condone the use of drugs?
For starters if these unfortunates who are users or traffickers wanted to smuggle hard drugs into these shows they would. I imagine only the gullible will be conned into bringing in so-called harmless drugs to these events as a smokescreen, while hard drugs will get past the blind eyes of the security and these soft drug mules will be rewarded once inside with the hard stuff. If politicians are so concerned with trafficking and supply of harmful drugs, I believe that the concert organisers must be held accountable and demand more stringent searches of those entering the events. Those caught should be put in custody and fined heavily, and traffickers be brought to trial.
Do they really think party goers are going to delay their entry while they line up, getting their photos taken and get their bogus soft drugs tested? Get real. Moles should be hired to suss out the dealers and users. Every vehicle coming and leaving should have the driver drug tested. Are these ignorant politicians going to get serious or hide behind a smokescreen as usual?
Graeme Kime, Cameron Park
Bundle for Joyce is a bad look
WHILE a vast majority of Australians struggle to make ends meet, they must look at the saga of Alan Joyce and Qantas and shake their heads in disbelief. How could this man step down from his position and walk away with a retirement package of millions after what the company did to its workers during the pandemic? Qantas was given JobKeeper payments to keep its workers employed but sacked many employees, eventually replacing them with casuals. I believe Mr Joyce should have been hauled before the Fair Work Commission and sacked.
Darryl Tuckwell, Eleebana
The message behind a 'no' vote
IN recent months a number of contributors to this page have indicated that they will vote 'no' in the Voice referendum. Reasons stated or implied include allegiance to the Liberal-National Coalition or antipathy towards the Labor Party and/or Anthony Albanese; rejection of a Voice in the constitution in favour of a legislated Voice (dangerous because it would likely be abolished if the Coalition gets back into government; not possible because it was a Labor pre-election pledge to implement the Uluru Statement in full, imposing a mandate and an obligation on the government to do so); the false notion that a constitutional Voice would somehow advantage First Nations Australians over non-Indigenous Australians, because some person or other has said something they didn't like, or because John Farnham is allowing one of his songs to be used by the 'yes' campaign.
The reality is that people who vote 'no', no matter how well-intentioned they may be, will be saying (to paraphrase a recent correspondent to The Saturday Paper): "No, we won't hear you, we don't want to give you the right to be heard on how to better your lives"; "No, we won't see you, you will not be recognised in the constitution despite having lived on this continent for 2600 generations"; and "No, we reject your longstanding efforts for constitutional recognition and we decline your generous, open-hearted invitation to 'walk with us ... for a better future'".
John Ure, Mount Hutton
Why I'm voting 'yes' next month
I WILL be voting 'yes' in the referendum on October 14. This is our opportunity to change the way things are done in Australia. A 'yes' vote will be recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first Australians. A 'yes' vote will create an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to advise the government on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The Voice will be an advisory body to the government. It will give Aboriginal and Torres great control of their lives by giving them a direct voice to government and make Australia a better place. The Voice will ensure our first Australians voices will be heard when the government is considering issues that affect their lives. It will address disadvantages and make Australia a better place. A 'yes' vote will be unifying. A 'yes' vote is for the future of all Australians. So join me and vote to make Australia a better, fairer society by voting 'yes'.
Jill Hall, former federal Shortland MP
Voice a question of morals, not politics
REGULAR critics of mine imply that the upcoming referendum is a question of politics. No. It's a moral question - and one which Peter Dutton and David Littleproud have, in my opinion, failed miserably due to their politics.
Mac Maguire, Charlestown
Nothing fair about the status quo
REGARDING "Equality is driving my 'no' vote" (Letters, 11/9), Greg seems to think that we are all already equal and that the documented unequalness in life expectancy, incarceration etc should be maintained. I see a 'no' vote by any non-Indigenous person as a selfish act. It will change nothing, and there is its selfishness. A 'yes' vote gives the opportunity of a change for the better. A chance for those who haven't been listened to to be heard. Perhaps the Gregs might finally listen?
Glenn Turton, Wallsend
Don't take easy vote if unsure
THE 'no' campaign has come up with the shameful cop out, "If you don't know, vote 'no'". It is a blatant attempt to encourage those who are unsure to take the easy option and vote 'no'. On the other hand, the 'yes' campaign's message, with John Farnham's You're The Voice, is positive and encourages us to be responsible and find out. The Electoral Commission's referendum booklet is in mailboxes and online. It's all that is needed.
Ray Peck, Hawthorn
Housing pain reaps what we sow
PETER Sansom ("Poor planning hits home", Letters, 13/9) goes to the source of the housing problem. Once again, throwing money at it and the rent caps espoused by various political parties may look good, but rarely do these window-dressing "reforms" lead to housing aligned to population growth. Development and subsequent planning run into wider issues of infrastructure, flooding and fires. As Mr Sansom asks, have we learned anything? It was Einstein who said dangerous problems emerge when people don't do anything about it.
