Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy's dismissal of missile factory critics as a "vocal minority" ('Conroy blasts missile factory critics as plant takes shape', Newcastle Herald 20/5) ignores the genuine concerns of many Hunter residents who envision a different future for our region.
While Mr Conroy claims the $850 million Kongsberg plant will become the "bedrock of Aussie manufacturing," he is tethering our economy to the multi-billion dollar arms export industry rather than the sustainable industries of the future.
He argues these missiles are essential for national security, yet ignores the most significant security threat to our nation: climate change. As the Department of Defence in its recent strategic reviews has explicitly identified, climate change is a major "national security issue" that amplifies regional instability, resource competition, and humanitarian crises across the Indo-Pacific.
Instead of manufacturing weapons designed to destroy ships, we should be investing in advanced renewable energy technologies. This is where true global demand lies. Developing a renewable manufacturing base would not only protect our national security by addressing the climate crisis, but also provide the export income and a just transition that workers in the Hunter are demanding.
I think Mr Conroy's hypocrisy is clear: in my view he claims those opposed are "out of touch," yet he prioritises the interests of global defence contractors over a community-led transition to green energy.
Our manufacturing future should be built on sovereignty in renewables, not on becoming dependent on an export arms industry associated with companies named as complicit in war-crimes and the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Dave McTaggart ("Right to be selective", Letters, 25/5): you say we have to be selective with whom we welcome to Australia. That suggests to me that you don't know we already are, which is a huge surprise.
Let me educate you. People cannot rock up to Australia and get let in. They have to come in with a valid visa. For permanent residency, there are three main options: work visa, business visa or a family visa. Each has its own vetting process.
There are a number of lesser visas, including global talent and humanitarian ones.
There is the need to pass health checks, English language proficiency tests (of various standards depending on visa) and background police character tests.
There is indeed an existing selection process. Some may argue it may need to be reviewed or upgraded, especially in regards to the English proficiency levels (which start from "Functional English"), and the fact there are a couple of exceptions to English proficiency test requirements.
I have a suggestion here, though. Perhaps people in a position of power like politicians or sport commentators should be forced to go through the same vetting process and see how they go. I suspect a number would not pass the tests, especially the character test and the higher levels of the English proficiency test ("proficient" or "superior") that are required for the higher levels of skilled work.
Environmental organisation Greenpeace has raised concerns about the environmental impact of AI data centers, as well as questioning their supposed benefits.
Of particular concern is energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, with one proposed data centre in western Sydney - the Mamre Road Data Centre Campus at Kemps Creek - forecast to create 1.3 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions at its peak in 2032.
These facilities also require lots of water. They make up less than 1 per cent of Sydney's consumption, but Sydney Water expects that to hit 25 per cent by 2035. This is indeed an alarming prospect, one that needs addressing in order to prevent our reliance on fossil fuels continuing. Like many environmental groups, Greenpeace has ignored the elephant in the room: the one caused by population growth. Building a new detached home in Australia generates 185 tonnes of emissions, and consequentially meeting the government target of 1.2 million homes would generate approximately 228 million tonnes, consuming up to 11 per cent of our total remaining carbon budget. These new dwellings will have an average water consumption of 500 litres a day, meaning that we would need to find an extra 600 kilolitres a day. The infrastructure required for this growth will generate even more emissions, estimated to be between 37 and 64 million tonnes a year. Hardly the way to reach net zero.
It is unfortunate that when Helen Smith and Ian Thomas attended the Jets semi-final, their night was spoiled by a few unruly supporters ("Stadium turned Colosseum"; "Not a fun atmosphere", Letters 22/5). In a crowd of 25,000 at any event there will always be a few who spoil it for others. Come back next season, but don't wait for the semi finals. Try to attend some regular home games and you will see brilliant football and enjoy a very friendly, family atmosphere. We have attended 99 per cent of Jets home games for 21 years and this is the first time we have seen or heard of any unsavoury incident.
Imagine if 'life' was an item the rich could buy. They would live, and the poor would die. Then we would have letters to the editor from these people with superior attitude, crying poor because of tax on capital gains, family trusts, tax on several properties here in Australia, with their vast money hidden in tax shelters overseas, and no poor people to pay the tax. All because they, the poor, were too poor to live.
The fifth Federal Labor Chalmer's Budget reminds us of the Hockey budget. Yes, that's right, years before the next election. The same can be said about Chalmers' budget, with the next federal election possibly and probably two years away. When most of Labor's changes come into effect, everyone won't realise what had happened previously.
I hear that the Libs were thinking about asking Harold Holt to be federal president but couldn't find him. Tony Abbott, eh? The resurrection of Dr No. God help us.
The only pests in the Middle East are Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump ("'Pests' not 'activists'", Letters, 29/5).
