Otherwise, this is a bizarre sort of test in the philosophy of paradoxes. Investors say they'd happily move forward with a terminal if the penalties weren't there, and then a case was initiated on the basis the penalties stymied competition. But the court says the penalties aren't stopping anyone moving forward because no one would, even though there wouldn't have been a court case if that were true.

Yesterday, upon the stair,

I met a man who wasn't there!

He wasn't there again today,

Oh how I wish he'd go away!

Am I missing something?

AS a proud Novocastrian, I am affronted by the findings of Justice Jagot, whose demeaning description of the Newcastle Port capabilities lacks intuitive and properly resourced credibility.

It would appear the Justice is singing from the NSW government songbook. Whatever nuances the court found to legally qualify its decision, it is clearly discriminatory and unfair. Should this attack by the state on the future prosperity of this city survive all legal challenges then I would suggest that the law is wrong.

It is a shameful episode in Newcastle history, that the BHP site has laid largely dormant for more than 20 years. Its toxic sub-structure and existing rail corridor makes the site ideal for repurposing as a container terminal.

This is a Boston Tea Party moment for Newcastle. How many more insults should Newcastle people receive from this Sydney government?

It is time our local representatives at local, state and federal level support the terminal and defy this direct tax on the people of the Hunter.

Of course there is another legal remedy. That is, secession from the state.

I look forward to statements from all elected officials not currently undergoing backbone surgery.

THE Federal Court has ruled that the NSW government is immune from the Competition Act over its 2012 decision not to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. This comes as no surprise because the government did what it was permitted to do by the Act.

However, the Court ruling does not necessarily mean that the government acted legally. In 2012, the government concealed its decision to be penalised if it breached its policy not to develop a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. The terms of the penalty were included in confidential contracts between the government and the lessee of Port Botany and Port Kembla, NSW Ports Pty Ltd, in 2103. The penalty is payable to NSW Ports in the form of so-called "compensation payments".

The penalty is illegal because the government cannot be penalised for breaching a policy. The government can only be penalised for breaking the law. Parliament did not make a law of the government's policy not to develop a container terminal. It was impossible for Parliament to authorise the secret penalty without passing a law.

Parliament is accountable to the people of NSW for the government's claim that a penalty that was concealed from Parliament was legislated by Parliament.

Parliament has authority to disallow the penalty. The government has an obligation to present Parliament with a Bill to pass the penalty into law.

The penalty is significant for another reason. The government does not incur the penalty if NSW Ports develops a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. An agreement to this effect was made when the lease contracts were signed with NSW Ports. At that time, the government was the owner of the Port of Newcastle. The government agreed to abandon its policy not to develop a container terminal if NSW Ports became the developer of a container terminal at the Port of Newcastle. Neither did the government incur the penalty if NSW Ports leased the Port of Newcastle, or any material part of it.

The government concealed its deal with NSW Ports from the public and Parliament because it revealed the government's policy to be a marketing device for influencing the value of the NSW container terminal monopoly. If John Barilaro and the Nationals want a container terminal, they can vote to disallow the penalty, so that the Parliament gets to decide, as it must.

THIS is a call to arms to all you live music lovers.

While in these scary COVID times it is understandable that people would be rethinking their choice of late night entertainment, a couple of venues I frequent are seriously looking at whether it's viable financially to continue to employ live bands because of a drop in patronage.

We really need to support our live music participants,most of them already taking drastic pay cuts so they can continue to do what they love. The establishments that I frequent certainly adhere to COVID rules because, let's face it, if you don't have a mask you don't get a beer.

So in that regard I would venture to say that it's much safer enjoying live music in Newcastle than shopping in a major supermarket. Why? Because the supermarket can't force you to sign in or wear a mask. The police can. But they are more inclined to penalise a live music venue than close down a supermarket. So the choice is clear. Forget the toilet paper,get out and enjoy some live music.

REPLYING to Peter C Jones, (Short Takes, 22/7), the horses can't look after themselves.

All the people who are employed to look after them still need to.

The industry, just like football, can operate in a bubble where participants can conduct their meetings at empty racecourses with no contact with the public.

The industry is one of the largest employers in Australia employing tens of thousands of people and paying huge amounts of tax revenue.

To a lot of people in lockdown it provides a bit of entertainment to people who can't leave their homes, just like football and it has continued to operate throughout all previous lockdowns without any problems.

I'M a tad envious of my friends in the Newcastle Council area who now have an independent lord mayoral candidate with a track record of fighting against excess spending and self indulgence by the Labor-dominated council. Two letters from Mr Clausen in the past week show he'd rather play the man with him making no attempt to discuss the issues. Mr Church is a true independent, with no support from the big party machine and no obligation to toe the party line.

SO will Annastacia Palaszczuk and her entourage, coming back from a hotspot and state of emergency country, be allowed back into Queensland to quarantine seeing she has shut the border again. What happened to "we are all in this together" when there is a different set of rules for celebrities and politicians? Also, how can we afford $70 million just for an opening ceremony when the country is in so much debt and struggling to help people and businesses to survive lockdowns?

WELL said Lisa Davies, (Short Takes, 23/7), the Knights continue to disappoint, changing the coach has never worked. We have a great team on paper, but the team has no fire in their bellies. Sad for the couple who do, but as they say "it's hard to soar like an eagle when you are playing with turkeys".

PETER Devey (Short Takes, 23/7) still shows no evidence of having read Rudd's letter or mine. Instead of apologising for inaccurately claiming Rudd said he had secured extra Pfizer doses, he dodges his issue and employs the straw man, creating a new issue. Peter, I never mentioned what Pfizer executives said about Rudd. Some people will go to any lengths to avoid admitting when they are wrong.

HARD for the government to bring back JobKeeper when billionaires keep millions while their companies still make huge profits.

SCOMO continues to fail to lead and it's what we've come to expect from him unfortunately. He's set the bar so low, that just appearing in public is now seen as a plus.

SO the once loved Harry has gone to the "dark side". Twenty million dollars to write an exposé on the royals. Now people think he's just a spoiled twit getting all he can by writing about his ex family. I think Meghan has got hold of him by the "proverbials".

VIC Davies, (Short Takes, 22/7) was apparently impressed with the "sparkling editorial" in the Herald on 19/7. Frankly, I thought the suggestion that Scott Morrison would appoint Lieutenant General John Frewen to coordinate the vaccine roll-out just so the Prime Minister and his senior ministers could avoid responsibility, was beneath contempt.