When an after-work beer's a luxury, it can be hard to stay cheery

THE federal government must be delighted that their modifications (or broken promise) on the tax cuts were so well received. However, it does not excuse them for the gross error of committing to support them while in opposition, something they should have learned from Kevin Rudd's mistakes. We can only hope that, freed from this nervousness, they may now break their promise to buy nuclear submarines, a move that would be greeted with even more enthusiasm by a public more aware of the downsides than the government gives them credit for.

NUMBERS are not my subject, but it takes a very smart government with a system that gives every taxpayer a reduction in their income tax, yet will still collect an extra four billion dollars from income tax. I reckon this mob should be running a casino, not a government.

I'VE been a keen observer of politics for a big number of years now. I have seen many changing ideas and minds of quite a few prime ministers. It seems that some believe what they say at the time of saying it. Then there are those who say what they said was based on the best advice available at the time, and of course who can ever forget, there are promises and there are core promises. I wonder why the current prime minister hasn't so far used any of these excuses on the tax changes. I don't think the current leader of the opposition would accept it, nor would some others. That might say more about the people refusing to accept the excuse than about Mr Albanese.

IF anyone knows how to run a once highly respected public service into the ground, I reckon it's Australia Post. Not only are they jacking up the price of a stamp by 25 per cent and reducing the number of mail delivery days by 40 per cent, they are closing post offices in places such as Glendale and Elermore Vale shopping centres. Why?

As for the mail delivery service, words fail me. Two important documents posted to me, one from Bathurst in July and one from Melbourne in September, still have not arrived. A special occasion card sent from Newcastle by me to Bathurst on January 16 has not yet been delivered, plus a letter posted on December 27 in Melbourne to me has still not arrived. One would have to ask how many other letters never arrive at their destination or if they do take forever and a day to do so.

YOUR correspondent ("Windy waste of time", Letters, 6/2), dismisses employment opportunities generated by offshore wind farms because, in his view, they only operate for about a third of the day. Many enterprises that employ large numbers of permanent staff, including schools, banks, insurance companies, Commonwealth and State public services and myriad white-collar businesses only operate for a third of the day, yet they manage to sustain a large proportion of the Australian workforce.

Your correspondent also questions where power comes from when wind power isn't available. The answer is obvious: from the rest of the energy mix.

Humans have always used a mix of sources to generate power and heat: in the formative years they used wood, peat, animal fat, natural oils, wind, and in more recent times coal, steam, petroleum oil, gas, water (hydro) - and wind. There are windmills scattered right across Australia and the rest of the world, powering the pumps that bring water to the surface, backed up by electricity generated by coal, petroleum oil or gas for when the wind doesn't blow. So it is with renewable energy; not relying on just one source but a mix: solar, wind, hydro, batteries and possibly hydrogen.

SO we have had another rally in support of renewables ("There's no time to lose", Herald 5/2), in particular the construction of wind turbines off the Hunter coastline. I believe the people that reportedly spoke at this rally were largely business people, who will benefit from more government subsidies; union reps who will benefit from more union jobs, and the perennial environmentalists who love inflicting community wounds from virtue signalling. The current Labor government legislated for 82 per cent renewables by 2030. By my calculations that will require the installation of 20,000 new solar panels every single day, and 40 wind turbines every single month for the next six years, plus the construction of at least 10,000 kilometres of new transmission lines. In the meantime we lose our industry and jobs to China but we reduce our "carbon footprint", to what end? To increase China's productivity, jobs and carbon footprint. If there is some logic in these rallies I must have missed it.

REGARDING calls to progress offshore wind factories, first off let's call them what they are; they are factories, not farms, and a blight on any area where they are built. More importantly, when a group calls for a project to be built or progressed such as the offshore wind farm at Port Stephens, we ask a few questions first.

Is it in your backyard or someone else's? What, if any, financial gain will you get from this project? I say this because many of these projects have large investment by unions and businesses. The wind farm recently cancelled off Hawkesdale, Victoria is a great example; I believe one of the major investors was the union movement.

After all, if a group opposes a project, there is an expectation that they must be open and transparent. Let's know of any agendas.

ROSALIE Collins ("Clear imperative to honour heritage vision", Letters, 3/2), the whining of the Newcastle NIMBY movement is getting out of hand. If it's not races, or poor people moving into the area, now development in a time of housing scarcity is the target because it may interfere with your view.

Bradley Perrett, calm your paranoia or at least learn some history. You can whine about China, but acknowledge how happy the West is to deal with authoritarian governments when it suits them. I believe the Pacific Australia Labour Movement scheme is focused on exploiting cheap labour while cheating them out of the wages.