ISN'T it a little ironic that we can have two councils involved in remediation works at Jimmys Beach and an area at The Entrance, yet Newcastle council in my opinion has sat on its hands in regard to Stockton beach remediation while using political speak to largely pass the buck?
Personally I believe it's typical of this council when I read in Wednesday's paper the dramas that Judy Tynan, pictured, is going through in regard to unauthorised work carried out next door to her property ("Modern wall-fare: Judy's $80k battle", Newcastle Herald 24/5).
She apparently is out of pocket $80,000 for something that the council allegedly did not police in the first place. I think it should be an action between the council and the builder, and Ms Tynan should be reimbursed by council.
In my view it is the council's responsibility to get off their backsides and chase the builder for their mistakes. This situation definitely doesn't pass the pub test.
Tony Morley, Waratah
It's up to voters, not councils
THANK you to councillor Jason Pauling of Lake Macquarie City Council for acknowledging that the decision to vote on the Voice to Parliament is one for each individual voter, not for councils ('Tensions flare as council voices support', Herald 24/5).
The flurry of local governments, sporting teams and corporations to state their opinion on this matter is inappropriate.
Members of these organisations, and all voters, need to make up their own minds on this matter, just as we do at any election or referendum.
The time spent in debate at a council meeting this week should have been used in discussing matters that are the responsibility of council for the ratepayers.
Wendy Webb, Warners Bay
Stick to rates, roads, and rubbish
LAKE Macquarie City Council has now voted to support the Voice, the Uluru Statement from the heart and to provide opportunities to raise awareness about the referendum (in other words, spend ratepayers' money).
Have they consulted their ratepayers on this council decision? Of course not.
The council's job is about rates, roads and rubbish, and I believe with rising rates, deteriorating roads and three rubbish bins to collect every week they should concentrate on reducing costs and leave the woke grandstanding to the politicians.
John Cooper, Charlestown
Footy should be league's focus
I COULDN'T care less if The Voice vote gets up or not, and I care even less about what the NRL advocates.
As a fan who attended his first game in 1952, I actually see rugby league matches as somewhere I can go to enjoy the break away from the realities of life for a few hours. At no stage does a political cause ever enter my head; just the enjoyment of a day at the footy.
I think that the NRL, rather than trying to be a political trailblazer, would be better off trying to sort out many of the issues in its game.
After another Roosters loss a few weeks ago coach Trent Robinson and captain James Tedesco opined that Victor Radley was treated differently to other players by the referees.
In other words, in my interpretation they alleged they were biased yet the league chose to do nothing.
It was no surprise that in their latest game Victor Radley headbutted another player, a send-off offence every day of the week, but he not only stayed on the field - he wasn't even penalised. In my opinion the referee and the bunker perhaps didn't want to be seen picking on Radley.
The tactic worked, Mr Robinson; I expect you won't have to worry about Radley being sent off or sin binned anymore.
Jan Phillip Trevillian, Fennell Bay
Uni sets an example either way
IN reneging on their previous offer of 17 per cent superannuation contributions for casual staff - an offer that would equal what is currently offered permanent staff - I believe management at the University of Newcastle have placed all staff in an invidious position.
By pulling this previous offer off the table, they have effectively asked staff to throw their casual colleagues under the bus, in favour of what is being presented as (but does not necessarily constitute) a general pay rise.
In doing so, senior leaders have presented staff with an either/or choice that - whether through faulty design or cynical intent - drives a wedge between permanent and casual employees.
It demands that the University's most marginalised members be sacrificed for the promise of individual financial gain.
17 per cent is, undoubtedly, an enviable super contribution rate, and management were justifiably proud of what they called a "a sector leading casual staff offer", but backflipping on their offer may prove a strategic error in bargaining.
At a meeting last Friday, members of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) voted against the new proposal, with many citing management's withdrawal of the super offer to casuals as their primary motivation.
It would be a different story if the offer had never been made. Staff are understandably frustrated with how long bargaining has dragged on (over 21 months) and with the Vice Chancellor refusing to ease the financial burden on staff by providing an interim pay rise, many are struggling and ready to settle.
But making the offer and then taking it away is asking staff to actively assent to their casual colleagues' exploitation.
The university presents itself as a leader in equity for students, but in my opinion these actions indicate a lack of belief in equity for all staff.
They are presenting staff with a Hunger Games scenario that is particularly chilling given the university's role as a shaper of young minds and the kind of society we want to become.
Despite management's decision to take the issue to the Fair Work Commission, it is still not too late for them to reinstate their offer.
They have until May 30 to make the right choice and put 17 per cent super for casuals back on the table.
Union co-operation would likely follow.
For an institution that should be setting the gold standard in ethical education for our region, I fear the University of Newcastle is setting a poor example.
They have the opportunity here to set a very good one.
Associate Professor Patricia Pender, University of Newcastle
Charity is no plan for problems
WE are a clever country. Our statisticians have years of data about population, migration, workforce numbers, household details - we know it all, yet we have failed to avert current shortages in things like housing and workers. How did we get it wrong?
It is like the emperor's new clothes. Are we blind to poverty and homelessness?
A church newsletter highlights donations for food baskets. Disadvantage is noted on occasions, not for solutions, but to actually award charity workers for efforts. I believe community help is love in action.
Charity is terrific, but we cannot lose sight of justice and seek real solutions for those doing it tough and increase redistribution of the good life. Our leaders are blind. As a nation we must do better.
