I suspect not amalgamating will accelerate that process regardless. In any case, with fewer people using branches because technology allows online banking, I think this is the only way both can continue to offer the branches they can in the future.

Of more concern to me was the narrow definition of who could vote. I have been with the Perm for over 30 years and held a mortgage for that long and had my pay held in an account there, but I can't vote. It seems rather silly and could see a vote biased to those fortunate enough to have money held long term at each institution at the expense of long-term and perhaps younger borrowers.

My money doesn't stay in my account long enough because it's paying the mortgage, but my loyalty is ignored for this vote. Absurd! If they get a no vote, they only have themselves to blame!

AS a member of both Greater Bank and Newcastle Permanent I have the advantage and burden of assessing the arguments being put by both about the merger but would suggest that the claim it will be a "merger of equals" in the glowing terms in which it is presented does not stand scrutiny.

The inference behind that claim is that the Greater Bank will have some control over the destiny of the combined group when merged but in reality the GB is being absorbed into the Perm and accordingly will be subject to the "constitution" of the NP either in its current form or in its amended form as proposed in the merger but the final details will not be known until they tabled at the NP merger meeting at 2.30pm on November 11.

As the merger meeting for GB members will take place at 11am on November 11, three-and-a-half hours prior to the NP meeting, GB members are being put at a distinct disadvantage in that they are being asked to vote on matters of which they do not have the full and final details.

In addition, GB members are being asked to approve the voluntary transfer of the business, assets, liabilities and membership without any compensation, financial or otherwise, in return.

Also both organisations have pledged to not have any forced redundancies or branch closures for a period of two years after the merger but when that time comes will the redundancies and closures fall equitably or will those from the junior partner take a disproportionate share.

In the merger documents both the GB and NP list various reasons why members may wish to vote against the merger but the elephant in the room they ignore is the loss of competition that will inevitably ensue if the merger proceeds.

There is much more to read with two merger packages to hand in fact too much to read, digest and consider in the time allotted given the complexity of the proposed merger and one could be excused for thinking "are we being rushed to vote as a means of avoiding proper scrutiny".

In conclusion I would urge all eligible GB and NP members to vote whether in favour or not but would suggest the most appropriate vote at this time is

Members when voting, please remember "Caveat Mergetor" (pardon the pig Latin).

PREVIOUS mergers and demutualisation of member-owned building societies and health funds have only resulted in vastly increased salaries and bonuses for the CEOs and senior management with reduction in services and benefits to members.

The proposed merger of NPBS and the Greater is noticeable by the lack of specific information. The closure of branches and reduction of staff would clearly be known before the merger was proposed but only a generalisation is advertised.

The CEO of the joint venture is apparently the CEO of NPBS but again not advertised and best of luck trying to find out what increases in salaries will take place.

The NPBS voting email is strong on prompting a yes vote but when trying to go to the information page directs you only to the voting page. I would urge members of both groups to not vote until far more specific information is forthcoming.

IF an accord is to be reached with those protesting the return of Supercars (Editorial 7/10), verifiable data will need to be produced after the 2023 event to demonstrate it is the city as a whole that benefits.

These are calculated from the number of attendees. As we know, the current system of counting attendance cannot be trusted. Instead, all attendees should be scanned when entering the gates, barcodes downloaded onto a computer and each number counted once. Barcodes could include postcode data to ascertain the origin of attendees and work out overnight visitation numbers. Supercars already scans attendees as they enter, but these are not the figures publicly released.

Why is this unlikely to happen? Because politicians and government staff have a vested interest in the current system. They reap their own rewards from the event, including: "a private 'premier pit suite' corporate facility above the pit garages at the event, to entertain up to 100 guests on each day of the event, including all associated hospitality for 100 attendees, full food and beverage service, ushers, waiters and other support staff... large screen televisions in the corporate suite at a minimum ratio of one television per 30 patrons".

Other benefits include free tickets in undercover grandstands, safety car rides and other photo opportunities. Since these are the people who will be making the decision on the future of Supercars in Newcastle, the public are unlikely to get a benefits assessment they can trust.

READING your cover story, ("A Bedder Way", Herald 10/10), as a 93-year-old I was keen to understand what was the cause of this waste of government services and facilities for the care of my fellow aged.

I was surprised that this Coalition government was actually still running aged care facilities as it is a policy of the Coalition since Howard to privatise aged care and this policy led to the abuse and neglect as revealed by the Royal Commission. It appears to me that the Perrottet government fails to utilise these great facilities as it is a practical example of how aged care homes should be staffed.

This facility is run by the Hunter Health who I am sure has many high care beds in John Hunter and other public hospitals occupied by aged persons waiting for beds in homes of their choice.

Wallsend is better staffed than many other aged care facilities.

WITH misguided hope I voted for Labor at the last election, foolishly believing a fairer Australia might be dawning. But no, it was just an illusion, already Albo has promised a pittance in tax cuts for workers while the rich will receive thousands, continuing ScoMo's legacy of ensuring the rich get richer, the worker gets further behind in life while the most needy, the homeless and the people struggling to live day by day get a kick in the guts. Thanks Albo, you're all heart. And what's happened to the dredge promised for Lake Macquarie? I'll be Green at the next election.

GREG Giles 'belled' the elephant in the room in his letter about the secret development plans for Broadmeadow Hunter Park, ('Community deserves to have say', Letters, 11/10). Apart from various announcements with different 'artist's impressions' of this huge brownfield development, Novocastrians have been told nothing, let alone been asked what they want. I can hear the white-shoe brigade in Sydney rubbing their hands with glee over this moneymaker. This is a perfect opportunity to design a modern, energy-positive precinct offering great lifestyles with broader community access but I fear profit and floor space ratios will, as usual, rule the day.

THE 110-turbine wind farm proposal off Newcastle comes with a promise of producing up to 80 per cent of power produced by the Eraring Power Station, "but needs more detail". Offshore wind farms cost more to build, maintain and remove than land-based wind farms and last half as long, simply because of rust and corrosion from the salt water environment. Yes offshore wind is more frequent, but also more powerful, wind turbines don't work with too much or too little wind, when taking into account this factor plus the shorter working life, 80 per cent of power is only available for a short period of time. When weighed against the Eraring Power Station that has worked 24 hours a day for the past 50 years, I believe there is no contest or comparison.

EVERY time I think we've seen humanity at its most depraved, a new and more heinous monster proves me wrong, ('Thailand in mourning', Herald, 8/10).

I TOO look forward to an EV version of Bathurst 1000. But unlike Doug Hoepper, (Short Takes 8/10), who would charge his one-hour run battery for four hours, I would exchange exhausted batteries for one already charged. I believe that this was Elon Musk's offer - fast charge or faster (swap). De-couple your charge time from your performance time.