Knights fans have a simple message ahead of Rabbitohs finals clash
by Letters to the Editor · Newcastle HeraldSHARE YOUR OPINION
Email letters@newcastleherald.com.au or send a text to 0427 154 176 (include name and suburb). Letters should be fewer than 200 words. Short Takes should be fewer than 50 words. Disclose political party roles or affiliations. Correspondence may be edited in any form.
Knights, believe you can beat any team, starting with the Rabbitos on Friday night. Newcastle, let's go. We're right behind you.
Alan Harrison, Warners Bay
Shoulder charge call missed mark
We all watched the ref send Jacob Saifiti off for a shoulder charge, yet the NRL golden boy Latrell Mitchell got nothing and could play on. It looked to be the same tackle to me. Maybe others will see it differently.
Greg Lowe, New Lambton
Club should have fought Saifiti ban
I read with interest North Queensland Cowboys' intention to appeal against Reuben Cotter's suspension. I believe the Newcastle Knights should have done likewise in the case of Jacob Saifiti's four-week penalty. Saifiti's arm missed the ball carrier, whose body position was lowering as a result of a ball fumble. In sending Saifiti from the field the referee gave "intent" as the basis. In contrast, the Latrell Mitchell shoulder charge, there was no attempted use of the arms, where a much smaller Toby Rodwell was flattened after being targeted like an Exocet missile. That was lauded as a wonderful tackle. I found it interesting that the NRL recently used television news media to show a roundtable discussion where refereeing performance is analysed and reviewed. Oddly enough, this internal self-analysis came up with a high percentage of correct decisions.
Marvyn Smith, Heddon Greta
E-bike vandal crackdown overdue
Great to read that Newcastle councillors agree to target e-bike hoons ("Council targets e-bike hoons", Herald, 7/8). Liberal councillors Callum Pull and Jenny Barrie deserve recognition for instigating this move. Our parks and sporting fields are being constantly vandalised which, as a society, affects us all both financially and inconveniently. Certainly tougher penalties and punishment have to become law and the offenders made to cover the costs of the damage they cause. As hard as that may be, there has to be a deterrent of some kind.
Col Parkins, Wallsend
Protest vote feels good, but will you get burned?
Recent letters to the editor such as Grahame Danaher ("Blasting One Nation just firms its voting base", Letters, 4/9), suggest the electorate is seeking change.
The suggestion seems to be that the electorate is not seeking to compare policies and political skills when deciding who to vote for, that people are going to Pauline Hanson's personal political group just out of protest and a desire for change.
This mindset, that we would not seek the best candidate for the job but just vote for someone as a protest, is very disturbing. What is to say we are not burning down and totally ruining the poorly-maintained house out of spite?
None of these people appear to be prepared to put in any brain work for a good investigation to consider if voting for Pauline's party will be any better or any worse. I would encourage workers, retirees, businesses and members of the general public to see who is the best person to represent them.
Will Pauline support you if your employer pressures you to work unpaid overtime and sacks you if you don't? Will she ensure your finances will support you in retirement? How will she ensure the aged pension - one of the biggest burdens to the federal budget - will not increase massively to further weigh down that budget? How about support if you are a victim of domestic violence? What will she do about the threats from sovereign citizens or white supremacist groups? Can she balance the budget to your satisfaction, or is she just a 30-year career politician like many others?
I urge people to consider in detail the candidates' policies before voting, and whether you can trust them to honour the promises and to run their party well. The bottom line for me is that people should choose who they think is the best candidate for their electorate - or in some cases the least worst - rather than just voting against those they don't like. There is a big difference between those mindsets.
Glen Wilson, Cardiff
Auckland route unlocks the world
Christine O'Mara's case for direct Newcastle-Auckland flights ("This Hunter airport route would save a fortune", Letters, 20/8) is right, but the real opportunity is network integration, not just convenience.
Auckland isn't just a destination in itself, it's also Qantas and Air New Zealand's shared long-haul hub. Qantas's Sydney to New York service already routes through there, going daily from June 2026. Air New Zealand's own Auckland to JFK service, alongside its US and Pacific network, is on the same trajectory. A timed Newcastle connection, on a standard 737 or A321 already flown by both airlines on comparable routes, would feed Hunter passengers straight into international departures that already exist. It's the same model Qantas uses for same-day Auckland connections from Brisbane and Melbourne.
The demand is there. I'm a Hunter business traveller flying to Auckland quarterly and the US twice yearly, and I'm far from alone. The region's defence, mining services and export sectors generate real trans-Pacific travel alongside family and holiday markets.
Newcastle Airport CEO Linc Horton has rightly championed regional connectivity. I say it's time he picked up the phone to his Auckland Airport counterpart, Carrie Hurihanganui, and made the network case together.
Will Lewis, Waratah
Basketball bill demands answers
The news that the proposed Newcastle basketball stadium has now blown out to an estimated $102 million should concern everyone. When this project was announced in 2023, we were told it was a $30 million basketball stadium. My question is very simple: where is the additional $72 million coming from?
Has this money actually been committed by the NSW or federal governments, Newcastle Basketball or another funding source, or are taxpayers ultimately expected to pick up the difference through future government grants? If the money has not been secured, why are we progressing a $102 million project without knowing where the funding will come from? I have no problem with Newcastle having a modern basketball facility, although I could think of better ways to spend $102 million. But there is a very big difference between supporting a $30 million project and a $102 million project.
Ratepayers and taxpayers deserve complete transparency about where this money is coming from. If the answer is that the additional funding will eventually come from the government, then the public deserves to know which government, how much, and when that money was actually committed. We all deserve an answer before another dollar is committed and more time is wasted.