I WAS somewhat relieved to read that St Columban's Church at Mayfield would be spared for now ('Council rejects plan to level Mayfield church', Newcastle Herald 4/7).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I have many fond memories of going to Mass there in years gone by. In past letters I have expressed concern at the loss of our heritage. It has been distressing to witness the developers going through the city like a giant wrecking ball; all with the apparent blessing of the council.
Equally distressing has been the slow decay of heritage buildings, a classic example being the former post office.
I don't know the full story with the church at Mayfield or the former post office, but from what I can gather, many owners or custodians of our heritage simply do not have the resources to carry out the necessary maintenance and repairs to bring these buildings back to their former glory. Such being the case, it surprises me that this has not been an issue with our political and corporate masters.
I can't help but wonder why those charged with the care of our heritage, particularly individuals, can't access resources from local, state or federal government bodies to bring these buildings back to their former glory. Our heritage buildings made Newcastle a beautiful city. I'm saying this because heritage gives a city character and with character, a soul. If a city doesn't have a soul, it dies.
Peter Sansom, Kahibah
BEST MEASURE WE HAVE
JOHN Cooper (Letters 8/7) refers to a CSIRO report and says the cost of nuclear power is similar to the cost of renewable energy, and not three times as much, as I had said in my opinion piece ('Nuclear power means bigger energy bills', Opinion 2/7).
However, I believe Mr Cooper has selectively quoted the last paragraph of the CSIRO report "Electricity Generation Technology Cost Projections 2017-2050", choosing the figure where renewables make up more than 80 per cent of the market, as opposed to the figure where they make up less. It should be noted renewable energy currently makes up 21 percent of electricity generated.
The 2017 report is already out-of-date regarding the dramatic cost reductions in renewable energy. For example the projections for large solar projects cost reductions in 2030 have already been met.
And it is incredibly optimistic about the cost of Australian nuclear energy compared to current nuclear power prices secured in countries that have been operating nuclear power for 50 years.
For example, the UK government is paying the owners of the Hinkley nuclear power station about $200 per megawatt hour, indexed for inflation for 35 years. By contrast, the current NSW wholesale energy price is about $80 per megawatt hour, and renewables backed up by pumped hydro and storage are costed between $60 and $75 per megawatt hour.
While the "levelised cost of energy" (LCOE) may not be a perfect measure, I believe it is the best comparison tool we have.
Pat Conroy, Shadow Minister Assisting for Climate Change
AUTHORITY IS THE MATTER
IN response to Tuesday's front page ("Blood oath", Newcastle Herald 9/7), I would say that the real issue that is extant here is not the issue of religious freedom or rights. The issue is one of authority.
Historically, the church has used the power of the state to exert the church's supposed authority. I believe that connection is not to be maintained in a democratic society.
I am convinced that we should maintain a strict separation of church and state in democratic Australia.
The Australian parliament has authority given by the people to make laws for the benefit of the people. The Pope and the Church have no such authority given by the people. It seems to me to be a lawless act for any church leader to propose that the church defy the laws of Australia, especially since the Apostle Peter, who is claimed as the church's foundation authority, wrote "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority, whether to the emperor...or governors, who are sent by him to punish wrong".
It seems that the teaching of the Bible is that evildoers be dealt with by the government. Nowhere in the Bible does it command church leaders to hide crimes.
It is a matter of authority. The government has authority in Australia.
Let's hope that the government legislators are true to their oath (many given on the Bible, by the way) to make laws that do right by all the people, not laws that enhance the power of the Church.
Neville Briggs, East Branxton
GO FUND YOURSELF, FOLAU
I AM getting quite tired of reading all of the Short Takes about how Israel Folau is so hard done by. Well excuse me for not having sympathy for him. He has millions of dollars himself, and still has the hide to set up a GoFundMe page. My biggest gripe is that this is not about freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, but that he broke his contract.
Hello people, if you broke your mortgage contract with the bank, you would probably lose your house. It's the same thing.
To break your contract these days in sport means nothing. Loyalty to a club pretty much means nothing, it is all about how much money they can get. Just so you all know I am a Christian, but I do believe that Israel should pay for his own mistakes. Sorry Israel, but you knew it was in your contract not to go to social media. Donate the GoFundMe monies to the family in Singleton that lost three children in the house fire ('A town in tears', Newcastle Herald 28/6).
Jan Burt, Charlestown
OTHER POWERS AT PLAY
THE Israel Folau issue is not one of Folau discriminating against anybody, as Peter Dolan (Letters 9/7) seems to infer. The issue with him was purely and simply that he breached his employment contract with Rugby Australia and breached several undertakings previously given to his employers.
The independent review panel found he had breached those undertakings in a serious way. Folau spoke in a way that, in the opinion of his employers, was highly detrimental to their business and was calculated, perhaps negligent, to damage the interests of his employers' clientele and audience. Whether Folau was discriminating against anybody was not an issue that went to his breaching of his employment contract. I believe the mischievous portrayal of Folau's actions by the Christian lobby is just an attempt to use his case as a means of protecting their own interests and power bases and has nothing to do with the breaking by Folau of his employment contract.