LETTERS: It'd be preferential to have a different voting system

The current federal system, while touted as democratic, is not.

This is because forcing voters to number all candidates on the House of Representatives ballot paper requires voters who do not want to vote for parties like Clive Palmer's or Pauline Hanson's to rank them by preference.

For many people that will be hard because they are so ideologically opposed to these populist parties, they will probably simply nominate their preferred choice and so make their vote informal or randomly number others including independent plants.

This is totally undemocratic as it denies their preferred candidate a first preference vote and sees a situation where a candidate with poor first preference votes elected on distributed preferences based on denial by the AEC that if a voter does not make preferential nominations, they are saying none of the candidates are worth voting for.

That is not democracy.

The system of first past the post or the optional preferential system as applies in NSW and Queensland seems far more democratic than Australia's preferential voting system.

One only assumes that the current system is supported by the parties as it allows them to hoodwink the public by organising preference deals.

JOHN Tierney understands how foreign aid works.

Australia has only given as much aid as it takes to keep the impoverished nations of the Pacific on side politically. These nations have always been grateful for the crumbs falling from the rich man's table.

Foreign aid has never been an issue in Australian elections, since foreigners don't vote. In recent times, successive Australian governments have cut foreign aid, ("Australia pays for neglecting Pacific family", Herald, 10/5).

The Solomon Islands, in its desperation, have turned to China for aid.

The Chinese might, as part of a quid pro quo, build a military base in the Solomons on Australia's doorstep. So, foreign aid has become an election issue, but only insofar as it affects Australia's defences.

Both China and Australia have a moral obligation to low-lying Pacific nations to provide aid for sea defences. Australia makes megabucks from selling coal to China. In turn, China burns the coal, causing global warming and rising sea levels.

Australia, under the Coalition, is unlikely to help build sea defences for Pacific nations.

In 2015, Australia's Defence Minister Peter Dutton mocked Pacific nations' concern about rising sea levels. PM Scott Morrison smirked in agreement.

Will China step up and build the sea defences that Australia is unwilling to fund?

REGARDLESS of the many things that make the Prime Minister's position untenable, such as dishonesty and ineptitude, a more powerful motivation to remove him has emerged.

Morrison has simply lost control of the entire right wing of the Australian political landscape, from reasonable to radical.

The Nationals, through Barnaby Joyce, One Nation's Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer's UAP, to name a few, have publicly voiced their distrust of the PM.

Others within the Liberal Party, too many to mention, but notably Malcolm Turnbull and Gladys Berejiklian, have publicly voiced their distaste for this man.

Members of the government, such as Matt Canavan, advertise policies in direct conflict with their own elected leader.

The "Teals" as they are known, are Liberal moderates who are running candidates against the Liberals in several marginal seats.

Somehow this contemptible PM is still a good chance of retaining office.

A combination of a dominant right wing media who have brainwashed a large group of the electorate and a fairly uninspiring opposition, have kept Scott Morrison in the picture.

Undoubtedly people are moving within the conservative parliament to remove Morrison, whatever the outcome of the election.

If we are not careful our new PM could be Peter Dutton. Is that what is meant by jumping out of the fat into the fire?

FOR those of us that espouse the virtues of renewables as the saviour of our future electricity supplies, a few electrical principles should be realised.

One of the basic principles for controlling the stability of our power grid is frequency. The entire power grid operates with alternating current (AC) electricity at a frequency of 50 cycles per second (cps) and any unbalance between power supplies and demand, which is inherent with renewable power supplies, affects the grid's frequency and leads to the instability of the grid (load shedding or blackouts or both) and equipment damage.

The primary role of batteries in a power grid is to maintain the reliability of the power grid by ensuring a constant frequency of 50cps. Current battery technology cannot, and will not, provide sustainable large power supplies to compensate for prolonged power shortages caused by the variable output of wind and solar plants.

Recent reliable data revealed that Germany (often used as the holy grail for conversion to renewables) had the second highest consumer electricity prices in the EU for the second half of 2021 this was before Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. So let us stop cherry picking "statistics" and objectively and honestly address the real issues.

I HAVE read with interest the many articles recently regarding the Kaden Centre "the ground breaking" exercise oncology clinic that provides targeted training programs.

It is great to hear the possibility of $1 million over four years which enables as many people as possible to gain access to essential exercise programming.

But there are many more facilities that need this type of assistance across Australia.

For example at Ethos Health I have been running C-fit (training through treatment) exercise programs for people (both one to one, small group and via Zoom) with cancer since 2017. These services across the board receive limited funding through private health funds and Medicare.

As a passionate advocate for exercise for cancer, readers of the Newcastle Herald need to be informed that there is more than just one option in Newcastle for these services.

IN response to Ryan Tranter's letter, ("Case for lower speed limits", Letters, 11/5), may I suggest a 30kmh trial on a lower speed limit on Steel Street, Newcastle West between both Marketown shopping centre, high pedestrian traffic and four entry or exits to McDonald's and both east and west shopping centres.

DARRYL Tuckwell, I reckon we should be paying our politicians millions more. That way it would attract the most talented people from the private sector who have some idea of the machinations of business instead of the bunch of super gooses on all sides we have now. Success in the real world is something our career politicians have no idea about. If business, small or large, conducted itself like a government, top heavy with open cheque books and no accountability, the business would fail. So more butchers, bakers and candlestick makers in politics, I say.

DARRYL Tuckwell, by his response that the Prime Minister is not underpaid, is understandable from a worker's point of view, because it is more than most workers would earn. But in comparison to those in the corporate world, if the government of Australia was privatised, the CEO or "Prime Minister", would be in charge of a trillion-dollar industry, and paid well in excess of a Prime Minister's salary, plus performance bonuses.

A FEW of our fellow constituents are bellowing about our current PM's wage. Yes, he is the fifth highest paid leader in the western world; $500k with allowances, this wage to run a country like Australia? Minimum for me. And if Albo wins he will get the same. And for the record, Biden gets $400k US a year (more than $500k in Aussie dollars) to bumble through his gig. Based on CEOs in the private sector in big big companies in Australia it is pittance.

DON Fraser, (Short Takes, 5/5), you have confirmed what I've long suspected, you watch Sky News each night, hanging on every word Rupert's minions report. We all know Bolt, Murray and Kenny are climate change denialists, in step with many of their Coalition mates. For your sake, I hope you don't live too close to the lake, you could be in a bit of bother down the track.

I HOPE those Democrats who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 for myriad reasons, now understand that elections have consequences. Donald Trump's stacking of the Supreme Court has left a right wing legacy which will last a generation. I guess it proves once and for all that the religious right believes in small government; government so small that it fits in your bedroom.