The farm will be in a Habitat Protection Zone within the largest marine park in NSW [Port Stephens- Great Lakes Marine Park] and even though they considered this a legal development, I would say that there is a moral issue here.

The same government department that supervises this marine park is suggesting that a large industrial fish farm with permanent feed barges in a habitat protection zone surrounded by Ramsar wetlands and pristine islands is quite okay. 

A viable alternative site in Stockton Bight has been proposed. It is within state waters, outside of the marine park and has the required depth.

It appears the only thing DPI doesn’t like about it is the fact that they would have to pay for a new Environmental Impact Assessment. Please explain? 

Frank Future

Marine Parks Association Inc, Nelson Bay

 If real estate agents are allowed to take up to 10 per cent of rent money for managing a property, stock and stations up to 10 per cent for agistment,  and market agents up to 10 per cent for food sales, then it is immoral and rude for electricity agents to keep up to 90 per cent of solar income supplied at peak rates. Despite the government making made it legal.

Solar suppliers need the same protection as everyone is entitled to. Solar power is designed to be used locally so one unit of solar power replaces two units of coal power going into the grid and 20 per cent less coal power is required during daylight peak demand.

 Solar power requires no extra grid management as clouds make absolutely no difference to, nor can be separated from, turning on an electric hotplate.  Solar suppliers are given no money credit or carbon credit for reducing two units of dirty power for every one clean unit of solar power supplied. 

 How can solar suppliers get honest treatment against fact twisting arguments from vested interests?

  Jon Sherwin

Nelson Bay

I must declare that I have no vested interest in former prime minister Rudd's nomination to the UN Secretary-General position nor I belong to any political party.

There are two different issues here: firstly, the criteria for nomination, and secondly, the criteria for the job. Like Foreign Minister Bishop, I do believe Mr Rudd is qualified to be nominated. In any case, no other Australian has put up his or her hand for the nomination. Whom will be selected to the job of Secretary-General, is to be determined by the UN and specially the five permanent members of the UN. Therefore, I find it hard to understand why prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said "Mr Rudd is 'unsuitable' for the job."  

PM Turnbull has single handedly  pre-empted a UN decision, and in doing so, prevented a fellow Aussie to have a fair shake of the sauce bottle on the world stage.

Ernest To

Medowie

Mr Green is correct, (Examiner, July 28) I do not live opposite the proposed 14 – storey tower on Donald Street.

The point I am making is that if we demand growth then something will have to give. We either destroy wildlife habitat or we will have to go up like the Gold Coast. We have to decide whether we should compromise our quality of life and if so, is this continual growth such a good thing?

George Allen

Nelson Bay