Sophie Tanchev touched the tip of the iceberg in this morning's Herald, remarking on the collective, selective deafness of Newcastle Council, the developer, the ombudsman and state government. A similar affliction appears to have affected many other issues such as the Newcastle racing cars, Lake Macquarie Council's six story building on the waterfront and the Myall Bay ash dam's 5000 year earthquake threat.

This disease seems to have afflicted most of the major parties throughout Australia and only independents such as Robbo in Newcastle and Jodi Harrison and Greg Piper in Lake Macquarie seem to be immune. Maybe therein lies a lesson for the next elections?

WITH respect to recent letters on scientific modelling by Peter Devey and others, we should always bear in mind two things. Firstly, the art and science of forecasting is an integral part of our society in so many areas, such as the economy, disease prevention, weather forecasting and also climate change. Modelling is a legitimate tool for forecasting future trends or events, as distinct from non-scientific methods.

Secondly, any reputable forecast comes with an estimate of its probability or accuracy. Weather forecasting may never be 100 per cent perfect, but like science it is as good as available data will allow, and like science it is subject to constant improvement. This does not mean that any forecast that is less than 100 per cent perfect should be disregarded. To do that would be to go back in time, to before 1861, when the first weather forecasts were published.

Before then, any change in the weather came as a complete surprise. Do we, today, want to be taken by complete surprise by the direction of climate change?

In my opinion the problem with climate-change deniers is that they set the bar impossibly high, at virtually 100 per cent correct, before they will accept any forecast. That is not how science works.

If you will only accept something that is infallible, cannot be refuted or modified on the basis of observation, there is an option: religion. They have a thing called dogma.

IT is very frustrating trying to argue with a climate denier. No matter how serious the climate-related catastrophe, the denier will always have some flippant answer like that the planet warming is good because it will reduce the number who die from the common cold. Fortunately, most of our politicians recognise the danger even if they are reluctant to act.

On the downside, deniers in parliament are not restricted to the climate and nearly all reject the cause of an Infrastructure Australia audit which found that there was a catastrophic failure of transport despite expenditure of $200 billion which will leave cities gridlocked by 2031 ('Hunter view of audit, UK deal', Herald 14/8).

The report also warned of cities running out of water, tree cover disappearing, some suburbs up to 6 degrees hotter, energy and water costs increasing, shortages of schools and hospitals and we of course probably won't meet emissions targets.

The congestion alone will cost us $38.8 billion by 2031 and all this, the report noted, because of the combined impact of climate change, population growth, ageing facilities and increased community expectations. Obviously unimpressed with the many warnings, all our politicians opposed a plebiscite on immigration numbers ostensibly because it was put forward by Pauline Hanson.

I BELIEVE any federal government claiming that its number one priority is the wellbeing and safety of Australians is nonsense based on the fact that the biggest threats come from a number of faults and failures in their systems and policies.

Every day a number of people die unnecessarily from suicide, failed health systems, murder, domestic violence (not enough support or safe houses for victims) and unnecessary deaths from over stretched hospitals and nursing homes. The handful of terrorism-related deaths we may have experienced can in my opinion also be traced back to incompetence and failures in systems we already have.

So, what is the Prime Minister's answer to all these ongoing problems? When told that three quarters of a million people can't live on $40 a day, he just sprouts that the best form of welfare is a job. As for all the other failed systems, he decides to earmark $3 billion for special forces (Herald 13/8) so they can fight someone else's unnecessary war. I suppose we deserve the government that we vote for.

IN my opinion the justice system of NSW needs defining as to what it is, punitive or restorative, and not a poor mixture as it is at present. Punitive justice is when a penalty for a crime is imposed and that's the end of it. Restorative justice is when the victims are (as far as possible) restored from the impact of the crime and the perpetrator is also on a program of restoration to become an acceptable person to return to the community after their acceptance of the criminal action was wrong and restoration to the victims (as far as is possible) is completed. With the evidence of a changed life, the perpetrator is conditionally released from custody into the community.

In Thursday's paper we had the news of the impending release of Berwyn Rees because the State Parole Authority recommends his release ('Killer blow', Herald 15/8). From the evidence I read, the victims (family members and friends of the deceased persons) do not feel restored at all. The claim that this Mr Rees is no longer a threat to the community because of his health concerns are of little comfort to the victims, and neither should it be.

Our justice system in my view is part punitive and part restorative, but because of the parts of both systems used there is no justice at all in the system. I believe community disquiet over the release of such people is well understood. Not good enough.