WHY don't people like jury duty? A judge recently lamented this concerning a forthcoming trial. Out of 300 people summoned, only 70 presented on the appointed day.
Why is it this way? There are many legitimate reasons; inconvenience, childcare, pay, and sole proprietorship. However, there are also many websites and law firms advising people how they can escape this service. Not me.
I was euphoric when empanelled. Twelve divergent individuals from various backgrounds argued, disputed, snarled and discussed across a table. We cross-checked transcripts with videos, demonstrated physically and requested the judge advise numerous times on clarity and guidance. At last, all twelve of us converged on a verdict. A single unified decision. A scenario. Of course we cannot be 100 per cent sure but the system as we know it had worked.
Jurors are an indispensable part of the justice system. We determine whether someone is guilty or innocent. We are the judges of the day. Some critics argue it is more efficient and safer to have experienced and professional judges make this decision as they are more familiar with evidence, body language and previous behaviour. While that may have merit on occasion, jurors can bring the values, standards and experience of our community into our courtroom.
Helen Douglas, Stockton
Costs all add up in aged care
NOEL Whittaker's column ("Changes to interest rates will affect the costs of aged care", Herald 4/5) was informative. Mr Whittaker points out the high cost of entering aged care and the cost increases arising from the quarterly reviews of interest rates, now 7.46 per cent, which has a big impact on the daily accommodation payment (DAP).
His hypothetical case study involves "Shirley" facing a bill of $69,054 per year for her aged care fees exceeding her income by $38,390 per year. While this case might be common, it fails to expose the high costs faced by self-funded retirees with a partner living in the family home. These costs are a daily care fee set by government of $58.98 per day, or $21,527.70 per year; a means-tested charge which, as Noel says, can be up to $358 per day but capped annually currently at $31,706.83 but rising every six months. In my case, the means tested fee is $95.64, which reaches the annual cap in about 11 months, so $31,706.83.
An extra services charge that Mr Whittaker puts at $25 per day includes hairdressing. In our case, that cost is $32 per day and does not include hairdressing, which is extra. So, an annual cost of $11,680 excluding other charges. Finally, if Mr Whittaker's hypothetical case had assumed a partner stayed in the family home, then assuming the refundable accommodation deposit was $550,000 paid from superannuation the lost income would be $22,000 per annum. So, all up, an annual cost of $87,000 and that is before the partner pays living expenses.
John Davies, Newcastle East
Tough times can get tougher
REGARDING Alanna Tomazin's story ("This isn't living, it's surviving", Herald 9/5): I think the woman should thank her lucky stars that she has a roof over head, a car to drive around in and food to eat. There are people out there now living in cars and tents with kids and there are people living in houses that are paying anything between $500 and $1000 a week to rent and working two jobs to make ends meet.
I speak with a bit of experience, as when I was young I lived in a shed with four other siblings and parents. For most of my youth we had no power and relied on kerosene cooking and lighting. I started work at 15 and left home at 5.30 in the morning and didn't get home until 5.30pm. You didn't have time to whinge about how hard life was; you didn't have time for it. You made the best of what you had.
All I can say is, be grateful for what you have, because there are a lot of people out there worse off than you.
Allen Small, East Maitland
What a royal waste of resources
IN this lowly commoner's humble opinion, the coronation of King Charles boiled down to a whole pile of pomp to honour a 74-year-old Englishman (who is the better part of a decade past Britain's traditional retirement age) getting his very first job after decades of living off his mother.
To celebrate, this man, who has an estimated wealth of $2 billion, was given a parade and a hat that cost millions in taxpayers' money. Meanwhile, there are countless Brits who can't afford food or rent, but anyone who protested against the grandiose ceremony ran the risk of being arrested. I think it's sad that, in 2023, any person would want to call another person "your highness". Regarding royalists, I think I'd rather spend time with people who endorse lockout laws. At least the archaic decrees they support have a bearing on their lives.
Adz Carter, Newcastle
Why do we need a head of state?
SO, the old boy has been oiled up and given his new old hat. Now we can get back to discussing the far more important issue of the imminent Australian federal republic.
Much breath has been spent discussing who should be our head of state and how they should be chosen.
We might consider our present nominal head of state and how much they affect the running of government. Even with their various governors-general, the answer is not much at all. Our de facto head of state is the prime minister, so why change it?
Keep it simple and discard the unnecessary. Do we really need a president and an entire extra executive branch of government? Are elections not ceremony enough to legitimise our politicians? Along with discarding the monarchy, we can discard the silliness that accompanies it.
There will even be a considerable financial benefit in doing so.
The best outcome of this option is the removal of the elected or appointed argument, which confuses the issue and plays into the hands of royalists. Then there is the flag. I favour a golden federation star on a field of green. Keep it simple.
Peter Ronne, Woodberry
Keep subsidised hydrogen here
RATHER than have an opinion, I ask what's in it for the government to offer $2 billion in hydrogen start-up assistance? Surely as an investor they have a right to share in a profit as they will a loss. Hydrogen is in high demand and retailing in export markets for as high as $15,000 per tonne, which is expected because it requires 30 per cent more energy to manufacture than energy produced when used as a fuel.
I believe this hydrogen should be used in Australia, not exported to make wealthy investors wealthier. Why should we waste all this renewable energy that's required, plus the hydrogen it produces, for other countries to meet carbon reduction targets when we can do the same? If investors disagree, that's fine; just don't expect the government to foot the bill.
Carl Stevenson, Dora Creek
SHORT TAKES
I CAN understand that a lot of people have an issue with Mr Albanese's pledge to the British monarch during the coronation ('PM's coronation attendance, pledge to monarch 'crucial', Newcastle Herald 8/5). While I think it is inevitable that Australia will become a republic before too long (and I'm ok with that so long as we don't end up with a system like the US), the fact remains that currently Australia is a monarchy and part of the British Commonwealth. I think it would have been wrong not to make the pledge until we actually become a republic and leave the Commonwealth.
Ruth Burrell, Merewether
AS a 75-year-old Boomer I would like to express my agreement with and support for Matt Johnson's letter ("Let younger generations get on with the jobs", Letters, 6/5). The negativity of the Luddites amongst my peer group depresses me, but personally I have faith in the younger generations and I do have hope for the planet.
Catherine Anderson, Pelican
OH boy! After reading Matt Johnson's sourpuss and nasty letter it confirmed to me how grateful and proud I am to be of the wonderful Baby Boomer generation ("Let younger generations get on with the jobs", Letters 6/5). Thanks mum and dad. Yay!
Sandra Iceton, New Lambton Heights
SOME people held coronation parties on Saturday, or were glued to their televisions. But 50,000-odd others were at Lang Park for the Magic Round of Rugby League. Please explain which of these two things is the more important, and which is the one we may plan to do without. Is it the second-hand monarch who routinely makes laws in a foreign country which act against our interests, or the $30 million the Magic Round pumped into the economy?
Grant Agnew, Coopers Plains
I EXPECT many others would have wondered if George Orwell made an error in the title of his novel '1984' which would have been much better named '2019'.
George Paris, Rathmines
I FIND it hilarious how gullible Bill Slicer, John Levick and others seem to have been regarding my letter about the King (Short Takes, 9/5). Gentlemen, if you can't see the sarcasm in my letter I suggest you look more closely. It was a shot at Albo, and I'd have thought a simple cat or dog would know that. Long live Australia's king; me.
Steve Barnett, Fingal Bay
FOR goodness sake Peter Ronne, (Short Takes, 9/5) how can you equate the solemn (and alarming) parade of tanks, huge guns and nuclear missiles in North Korea to the joyous spectacle of the coronation parade in the UK last weekend?
Elsa Cant, Merewether
WAYNE Grant's rather ineloquent contribution (Short Takes, 9/5), referring to King Charles as "Prince Big Ears" is unlikely to draw many people to his cause, whatever that may be. We can't change the way we were born and making fun of someone's appearance about which they can do nothing, is a little pathetic.
