Newcastle Herald letters to the editor, Thursday, June 11, 2020: Part of the solution, or part of the problem

If you believe this situation is a result of unacceptably poor socio-economic living conditions brought about by over two centuries of political and social discrimination and neglect you'd be a realist. If you believe Indigenous people are 'just born like that', then you'd be racist.

Either way, if you do nothing to support change for Indigenous disadvantage you continue to be part of the problem, not the solution.

THE recently published findings of Australian National University researcher Siddharth Shirodkar purported to show that seventy-five per cent of Australians hold an implicit bias against Aboriginal people.

If correct it would be a damming indictment of the majority of our population and a source of pain and anxiety for the indigenous people. However the conclusion was based on a somewhat dubious test - the Implicit Association Test that has been criticised as producing responses that rely on our familiarity with other groups.

This was born out by a study done in the US. Researchers asked university students to pick which potential political candidate they trusted most from photographs from a range of African, Asian, white and Latino people of both sexes.

The results overwhelmingly showed that people's first reaction is instinctively to support people they could identify with or their own ethnic group, perhaps because of an inherited tribal instinct although it did not always extend to their voting patterns.

DEBATES about the true meaning of the US Second Amendment on the "right to bear arms" are always interesting, and certainly worthwhile. The problem is that, translated to modern times, the actual text of the amendment is not really capable of yielding the definitive meaning people seek. So much is shown by the fact that, 230 years after the amendment's ratification, the US Supreme Court has still not completely settled the law on the issue.

While John Ure (Letters , June 9) is correct to say the overall weight of Supreme Court decisions over a long period of time was that the amendment should be read as being related to states' rights to establish armed militias, and not to individual gun rights, this view was very often hedged and qualified, there were reversals and setbacks to its development, and it was resisted by very significant dissent on the Court. And since the decision in the Heller case of 2008, the court has pretty much done a volte-face on the issue.

MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

Despite what the "black letter lawyers" on the court would claim, this is because the issue is, as it always has been, far more political than legal. Even though I happen to agree with Mr Ure's legal interpretation, it is on the political question that I suspect our minds really meet. And the question is this: in a civilised society, what rational basis can there be to allow everyone unfettered access to a smorgasbord of lethal weapons, simply because that is what they want, and 230-year-old words appear to say they should?

Those words aren't going to be changed, so I suggest a compromise outcome which would eliminate mass shootings while appeasing the legal textualists. Allow free access only to the weapons that were in existence when the Second Amendment was written. Muskets.

NOW that the Federal Government has a spare $60 billion that has already been budgeted for, surely that would be enough to build two brand new steelmaking facilities in NSW?

One in Newcastle and one to replace the ageing mill in Wollongong.

That would be a huge step in relieving our total reliance on China for everything, and kick start a recovery in Australian manufacturing.

The difficulty of Justice Lee is compounded by the inaction of all NSW premiers from Barry Unsworth, to the current Premier, for not preventing the transport of the toxic firefighting foam on NSW roads, as well as permitting the use in NSW firefighting training and applications; as well as the continued support of the use of this product from Bob Hawke, to the current Prime Minister, even though legal questions were before the courts regarding its safety.

All should have known.

The Defence Department should have known of the potential damage of this product if they bothered to search it out.

This has been kicked down the paddock for at least 30 years and been resisted by all governments - in opposition many claimed to take action on this yet in government that evaporated and was resisted with the strongest legal defence that could be mounted.

Both Terrence Chedzey (yesterday's Letters) and Graeme Bennett (yesterday's Short Takes) are in part right, yet all those involved in the leadership inaction for at least 30 years must share the condemnation.

It is true that the current Prime Minister and the current Premier ought to have stepped up with a more comprehensive settlement.

They can still both make additional payments to those affected to make the whole settlement more just (but I am certain all legal counsel would advise against that) and let us pray that they will do so.

The mandate for Justice Lee was possibly very narrow and even though the class action legal team were the only winners and ought to have their charges limited to "taxed amounts" (that is a legal determined charge) and so the payment to them ought to be reduced but this legal team would fight tooth and nail to retain all of their claim and in doing so would reduce the payout further.

Community action could demand of the government to do the right thing and to make more substantial payments.

All taxpayers could demand of the government to make additional payments - but will we demand that of government or will we just agree that it is unfair and put it out of our mind?

It is time for collective action for just compensation.

IN THE NEWS:

AUSTRALIAN taxpayers support an enormous administration infrastructure consisting of parliament, the public service and public facilities such hospitals, etc while they are left to fend for themselves. Those who cannot manage go to Centrelink or the charities like Samaritans, Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army. Why doesn't the government share the royalties from mining (the minerals belong to all Australians) with a living wage for everyone who needs it? This would eliminate poverty and homelessness and give women independence. Domestic violence would be reduced.

THE Chinese government would have us believe its students in Australia are victims of racism. As one who taught English in Hefei some years ago I wonder how Australian teachers and other Australian employees are now being treated by the Chinese.

AT least there's a stadium at Gosford. When I played school sport at Grahame Park the humble grandstand stood silent, devoid of crowds, as I hit the ground on a surface no team would play on today.

GRAEME Bennett it is ScoMo and Gladys who have started to pay compensation to PFAS litigants. Previous governments should be the ones to blame not this one. It has been going on for many years.

MARK Creek (positive Supercar stories, 8/6) if you were a real car racing fan you would realise the Newcastle slot car track is wrong. Hardly any passing room. Top three cars teams dominate qualifying and win the race. Any crashes cost car teams massively. Can't wait for double Bathurst this year!

QUEEN'S Birthday honours for Tony Abbott and Bronwyn Bishop? This is nothing more than the conservative establishment back slapping the conservative establishment. These award recipients cheapen the Queen's Birthday honours and lend them a meretricious appearance.

IT is said the Liberal Party is a broad church, hence the Queen's Birthday honours list was led by a Bishop and an Abbott. Now I am awaiting for Donald Trump to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for holding a Bible outside a church. May well we say "God save the Queen," but God does work in mysterious ways.

I HAVE just subjected myself to about 30 minutes of Question Time in Parliament on ABC TV. What a joke! No matter which party is in government, the government members simply ask questions that lead into promotion of government policy and "pats on the back", while the questions from independents and opposition members are never answered directly. Time to close this down unless it can be done properly.

HOPEFULLY I'm one of the lucky 7000.