GOOD luck to the poor residents of Wallsend and Waratah, along with Wallsend Diggers, in their interactions and dealings with the 'new' Mine Subsidence Advisory ('Residents waiting for street to get all-clear', Newcastle Herald 29/3). Having had years of dealing with the old Mine Subsidence Board and mostly positive outcomes, I can categorically say that my dealings with this new Mine Subsidence Advisory left me in a very dark place.
I believe the bottom line of Mine Subsidence Advisory is to offer what most would consider a paltry monetary compensation, leaving the resident to source their own tradespeople to rectify the problem and then to sign a waiver to make no further claims in the future. This was not the way that the compensation fund for old mine workings and subsequent subsidence issues was set up or how it worked.
Now that we have a new state government, maybe they will be prepared to look at how this authority was restructured. My attempts on previous occasions to get my local member to take an interest and assist were met with return mail of a Legal Aid brochure. Had it not been the diligent sleuthing work of a young engineer, my latest dealings with this authority would have been an even less favourable outcome.
How many other authorities have similarly been restructured?
Sue Perkins, Adamstown Heights
Swings show what people want
IF I was a Labor supporter, I would believe the results of the NSW election as justified. If I was a Coalition supporter, whilst I could concede that it was Newcastle-wise a foregone conclusion, I would wonder at the depth of the lack of support. A general showing of swings against hurts.
Being politically uneducated, my observation is that historical party voting is diminishing. Global economics has changed the commercial/industrial landscape, which was still loyal to blue collar support. But industry is no longer heavy and staffed by middle educated workers. Today's workers are proponents of a form of higher education, and more likely to step out and take on a business and work for themselves. This produces a change in thinking demographics as to what a party offers, against what they will come through with and provide. Having a good spiel does not cut it anymore; voters want results.
They also want leaders to perform. A party has three to four years to produce results and show the voters that they were fair dinkum. Politics in Australia is becoming discriminating and fluid. The electorate displayed their angst federally, and may again when dissatisfied. Australian people want a government that works for the national good, and projects that help the nation with bipartisan support.
William Hancock, Rankin Park
Young voters don't miss so much
MITCHELL Griffin, Liberal councillor for Maitland, ("Election far from Labor landslide", Letters, 29/3) said that the young voters who voted for Labor were too young to remember the dark days of the Iemma, Rees and Kenneally Labor NSW governments more than a decade ago.
If you ask me, though, it's pretty obvious they are old enough to remember the O'Farrell and Berejiklian governments, two premiers who ultimately resigned over allegations made against them.
Maybe you should be worrying more about the real reason why young people are not voting for the Liberals instead of coming up with the old Liberal excuse and putting the blame on former opposition governments and the young people of this state.
Barry Reed, Islington
A state of change, but so what?
MY son Charlie, aged 15, asked me: "dad, what does a change of state government mean?" I had to think about it a little and explain to him, given it is the first time in his memorable life this has happened, "Well, realistically not that much".
Although each party has different priority areas, I explained, there are very few options to manoeuvre as leaders of public institutions. All that is likely to happen is there will be a different focus on wage agreements, hours worked and where money is spent.
I'm throwing my son's question out there, as I am hoping another letter writer has a better explanation of what a change of state government means.
Greg Adamson, Griffith
There's a better way to ballot
IT is encouraging to read other letter writers noting the importance of publicising their account of the need for immediate action to reverse the consequences of climate change. Anne O'Hara from Canberra, ("It's time we acted decisively", Letters, 27/3), and Robyn McAllister, ("PEP-11 or wind farms, risks linger", Letters, 27/3), have raised their concerns about previously considered strategies to meet our reduction target by 2030.
On the practical side of preparation for the recent election I ask: what did you think of the size of the large ballot form? How many trees were sacrificed for this abomination? Maybe it was recycled paper.
Messaging using digital technology was one of the greatest advances during the last century. There must be a safe, secure, cheaper, sustainable and efficient process, detailing the people's view about which political party they want to manage the billions and trillions of tax money, so as to give more dignity back to planet Earth and its people, flora and fauna, than it presently receives.
Surely there are some senior school students and university participants who could take my suggestion about how to improve the voting system further as a topic for their thesis or similar. Times have changed and I am thankful for some - some - technology which has improved society.
Pat Garnet, Wickham
Climate horse trade misses point
THE editorial ("A compromise to offer some progress", Editorial 28/3) noted that reducing our emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 was "ambitious", which I took as code for it won't happen. That is a sensible admission that the binding hard cap on emissions deal done between the Greens and Labor will not work or it will just drive our economy into the ground.
In my opinion the Herald should instead say that the policy is impractical. Almost none of the 215 biggest "emitters" (they are not "polluters") will be able to work with this hard cap while maintaining production, and it will add to the costs of all 215 companies.
It's easy to say that the Liberals are "dragging their feet" on climate change action but what action is suggested that can be shown to work? Global human-induced emissions are estimated to be about three per cent of total levels in our atmosphere, and Australia is responsible for about one percent of that three percent. It doesn't matter what we do.
The Liberals don't "need to take a good hard look at their beliefs"; there are too many "beliefs" going around as it is. They need to look at the facts and so should everyone else.
Peter Devey, Merewether
SHORT TAKES
I SEE fans of nuclear energy are peppering these pages (Letters, 28/3). But none of them mention that every nuclear plant is one missile away from a Fukushima, a disaster not unimaginable as idiots talk up war with China and we are now locked into the US Defence machine. As for the toxic waste, if that's such an easy problem why are all the UK's original nuclear subs still tied up at the dock 40 years after they were retired?
Michael Gormly, Islington
IT is encouraging that Labor and the Greens have reached a compromise on the safeguard mechanism bill with an emissions cap of 140 megatonnes on our biggest polluters. Fossil fuel producers like Santos and Woodside have made record profits in recent years, while natural disasters are costing our economy billions of dollars, according to Treasury estimates. These disasters are fuelled by the very product coal and gas companies are selling. Yet the door is still open to approve new fossil fuel projects. As recently as a few days ago, Penny Sharpe has done a backflip on the Narrabri gas project. We have a long way to go.
Anne O'Hara, Wanniassa
I THINK the Socceroos were impressive, Ecuador wanted Academy Awards, and the referee? Awful ('Socceroos cop physicality lesson in Ecuador loss', Newcastle Herald 28/3).
Stephen Willmott, Maitland
COUNCILLOR Mitchell Griffin, ("Election far from Labor landslide", Letters, 29/3), good try, but many young voters will remember the even darker days of the Berejiklian/Barilaro era. On a federal level I will never forget, or forgive, the Howard era that set up the dysfunctional society we now experience. To be fair, the Hawke/Keating era set up a springboard for the Howard government to exploit.
Marvyn Smith, Heddon Greta
THE shipping news in Monday's Herald had the name of a ship, a name that has not been seen in Newcastle Harbour for some long time; the Iron Maiden, but of course not a BHP "Iron" ship.
Fred Saunders, Waratah West
I WONDER if anyone else has noticed that many logable trees are being chipped up instead of being harvested for building timbers. I do understand trees at Jesmond need to be removed for the road to be constructed, yet if we must remove trees it seems to me that we should add value by using the logable ones for useful constriction timbers. Why do we waste resources that we must remove from one location?
Milton Caine, Birmingham Gardens
GREG Lowe, (Short Takes, 22/3), I think that the outgoing premier was emulating his predecessor. While Gladys Berejiklian was Minister for the Hunter (from April 2014 - April 2015) she didn't even visit Newcastle or the Hunter Valley once.
Adz Carter, Newcastle
IN reply to Dave McTaggart, (Short Takes, 29/3), if 250 years of destruction by construction is advancement, I must have missed reality.
