Newcastle Herald letters to the editor, Saturday-Sunday, May 23-24, 2020: We can't wait five years for action on erosion

The question is: who should pay? Common law says the person who causes the problem should pay.

The cause of the erosion is the breakwaters which prevent the movement of sand from the south to the north, preventing natural repair of the beach after major storms.

The NSW government owns the breakwaters and makes over a billion dollars a year from shipping from the port, in particular coal, and spends most of that money in Sydney.

IN OTHER NEWS:

The $20 million for sand nourishment and annual top up costs are tiny compared to the money the NSW Government reaps from the port operation that the breakwaters allow.

The NSW Government has a common law, and a social licence requirement, to fund these works.

As well, the government needs to quickly address the mining licence requirements for offshore sand access to allow the dredging for major beach nourishment, as has been carried out in Queensland.

The situation is extreme and we can't wait for five years for action. Action is urgently needed now.

I agree with Joel Fitzgibbon's concern (Opinion, 20/5) about the farmers, businesses and employees adversely affected by China's trade dummy-spit of recent weeks.

But I don't agree with him that there was always going to be an inquiry led by the WHO into the origins and spread of COVID-19, or at least not an effective one.

China has forced the WHO to exclude Taiwan from its operations.

If they have that much influence, there's little chance an inquiry left to the internal machinations of the WHO could have been efficient or independent.

The push for an inquiry had to come from many countries other than China.

Marise Payne and Scott Morrison might have moved earlier than necessary, but Australia is hardly alone in being a target of China's current extreme diplomatic language.

MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

Sweden, Canada, France, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Iran, Brazil and Singapore have all needed to manage Beijing's childish temper tantrums in recent months, as communicated through Chinese ambassadors. They haven't needed provocation; rather they have been happy to invent reasons to fight.

I think it's possible an inquiry would not have been approved within the WHO for many months, possibly years, if other nations had not pushed for it now.

Investigating six months or some years down the track would obviously not get the same results as an investigation started quickly - the trail would have gone cold, and any government interested in cover-up would have had plenty of opportunity to go about it.

It's understandable to feel sympathy for our farmers, businesses and employees.

But an effective inquiry is about saving many millions of lives in future pandemics, including Australian lives.

Leaving that at the discretion of one international bully with a significant role in the current pandemic would be an unacceptable sacrifice.

China has shown no humility whatsoever, just total arrogance and denial, when it comes to questions around the origins of COVID-19, and I suppose that's what you'd expect from a country that holds so much power over a lot of countries in the rest of the world, including Australia.

They have been invited into this country with their cheque books to buy up or invest in whatever takes their fancy, all in the name of overseas investment and the good of our country. Before we went into a coma we were told that Australia's 20-odd years of uninterrupted growth was due largely to our dealings with China. And now this country has decided to reassess its dealings with China and its foreign investment policies.

Like it or not, China has a lot of control of the world's economy and, unlike the US, Australia and other developed countries, they have no or very little debt, while a lot of the debt of these other countries is owed to China.

China may be to blame for coronavirus, but other countries such as Australia can only blame themselves for becoming so entwined with a communist regime such as China, and not see the writing on the wall, while contributing to the rise of this economic powerhouse.

Now we have to deal with the subsequent economic issues while China will come out of this virtually unscathed.

Unfortunately it seems China can well afford to be arrogant and dictate terms of any sort of inquiry.

I expected to read this morning that hell hath frozen over, as I find myself agreeing with something that Pauline Hanson is doing.

Her planned High Court challenge to the closure of state borders is sound and necessary. It is unbelievable that state premiers had the audacity to disregard our constitution so wantonly.

Section 92 clearly states that "... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the states, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free".

Any restrictions on the movement of people or goods contravene this Act and we can only hope that the High Court rules appropriately.

Australians have enough excessive restrictions to cope with, without adding unconstitutional madness to the list.

It is interesting observing the politicians having a Eureka moment regarding the economy.

After being comfortable deferring to medical advisors to distance themselves from any decision making, they suddenly realise that we are headed for economic disaster and that they will be the ones making the decisions and they will be the ones held accountable. It has been a dream ride for them to deflect any hard questions, or decisions, to their medical advisors.

The day of reckoning for them has arrived; everything has a balance in personal life, business, and running a country or state.

The easy decisions to shut, close, prohibit, have been made. Now they must find a way to face the difficulties reopening the country and fixing the economy for which they will be held accountable with no one to defer to. Maybe they will become leaders again.

Julie Robinson (Short Takes, 21/5), in my opinion you are off the mark suggesting that criticism of Greta Thunberg is sexist or ageist. It wouldn't matter if she was male, female, old, young, straight, gay, black, white or yellow, the fact is she is an alarmist travelling the world inciting fear into her peers when she should be at school. She definitely appears to not "have it all together". In fact, I think she has a lot of problems.

Julie Robinson (Short Takes, 21/5), I totally agree with Don Fraser (19/5). Greta is a precocious person who has gained international recognition for all the wrong reasons. She should have spent her school days in school instead of protesting outside the Swedish Parliament. I agree with Don that she is certainly unhinged and no, it's not because of her youth or being female, she just needs to know what she is talking about before she mouths off.

Denise Lindus Trummel (Jonesing for a reckoning, Letters, 21/5) is spot-on re her assessment of Alan Jones. Jones always played "favourites", so in 1984 he replaced Mark Ella as captain of the Wallabies with private school head boy Andrew Slack. Considered by many to be Australia's most brilliant ever rugby player, Ella retired aged just 25 years. What a shame Mark Ella wasn't handed a radio microphone and Jones hadn't disappeared to the obscurity of the dairy farm in Queensland. If only.

Thank you Peter Devey (Check your fax, professor, Letters, 20/5), I no longer feel all alone as I send this message on my prehistoric Nokia. My employers have given me two smartphones which had gone straight to the bottom drawer until I dug one out to set up the COVIDSafe app. It will be back to the bottom drawer when this crisis is over. I can get into enough trouble, speaking my mind, without the use of (un)social media etc.

Is the NSW Government being pressured by the Federal Government to ease restrictions too soon for the sake of the budget? If so, then if we have a second wave of infections, the buck stops with the PM.

The reason Christine Everingham has a published opinion piece is because she has researched the costs Supercars impose on Newcastle ratepayers, exposing the spin of Supercars and NCC regarding the benefits.

Angus Taylor's decision to hand over emission reduction funding to the fossil fuel industry is appalling. The Coalition already wastes billions subsidising this cash up industry. Mr Taylor's decision to waste money on unproven projects smacks of stupidity and more money down the fossil fuel drain.

Two propositions: which one is the more valid? One) I am going to win Lotto next month. Two) It will be possible to have a feasible carbon capture and storage project. Answer: number one.