Got something you want to say about something on New England Times or happening in our community? Write a letter to the editor here.
Letter: Joyce’s Campaign Against Clean Energy
Dear Editor,
It seems lately that every time Barnaby Joyce gets a chance, he delivers a rhetorical rant against renewables. While there is no empirical evidence to support his ravings, there is, however, a valid reason for it.
That is the time-honored tactic of the Liberal National Party (LNP) of dividing the community, making one group appear the victim and the other the aggressor, with the LNP being the savior.
Joyce portrays urban dwellers as enjoying the benefits of renewable energy at the expense of their rural cousins. He claims that farmland is being ruined and roads destroyed, all to benefit city people. Joyce, of course, will save the rural community if they vote for him.
Classic propaganda. Create an aggressor, a victim, and a savior out of nothing.
He attempts to validate this approach by claiming that, while the Liberals received the drubbing of a lifetime in the recent Federal election, the Nationals came out unscathed. Not quite — the seat of Calare that the Nationals won in 2022 was lost to independent Andrew Gee, a former National. Their deputy leader in the Senate, Perin Davey, lost her New South Wales Senate spot. And, of course, Jacinta Price took her National spot in the Senate and gave it to the Liberals, leaving the Nationals one short of party status in the upper house.
Joyce is trying to save some of the furniture for the next election because the Nationals are worried. The community generally sees the LNP as one party, and the shellacking that the Liberals received was due to National Party policy as much as their own. The Liberal strategy of taking outer urban seats from Labor failed dismally, so at the next election, their best bet is to shed themselves of National Party policies or take National seats for their own. The conundrum being that the Liberals and Nationals need each other to govern, as there has only ever been one majority Liberal Federal government; every other time, it has been in minority with National support.
The Liberals are in a sinking boat with the Nationals and floundering in the doldrums without them.
The Nationals are worried, and they are worried about the Liberals.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.
Letter: The rail will never, and should never, come back.
There’s little to no true economic benefits, and the costs would be exorbitant.
The difference in gauges at the border (as others have said) would be an almost insurmountable problem – and certainly not one that QLD would help us solve. A 3rd line is a nice idea, but who pays for that? NSW and QLD are separate states with separate transport funding and harmonisation isn’t currently a QLD priority for the lines from Wallangarra. All freight would most likely have to (like passengers do) swap trains at the border, thus backing them freight up, and due to this trucks would ultimately be used anyway/instead. Livestock transport also isn’t practically viable for most businesses via train due to the lack of holding yards, ramps, etc.
Not to mention the biggest issue – the costs of re-assessing and rebuilding all the hand-done masonry of the culverts, fallen bridges, etc. under modern labour regulations which didn’t exist when the lines were originally constructed. The cement is crumbling between the bricks that are falling out and everything would need to be rebuilt from scratch under modern wage awards.
Let alone the tree lopping! The lines (and access tracks) are covered by regrowth particularly on Bolivia Hill.
And let’s not forget environmental impact studies, endangered animals and plants we’d have to work around, etc.
Again these legal requirements didn’t exist when the lines were originally constructed.
Then on top of all that there’s the cost of locomotive engines, carriages (plus maintenance) and what about the staff to drive them? TfNSW has so much trouble staffing Sydney trains as is and they actually have an economic benefit whereas our lines would not.
The whole idea is a pipe dream, dreamt up by those who have continually refused online to provide answers for these practical issues outside of “where there’s a will there’s a way” which is an asinine answer at best.
Nobody with any understanding of what the whole endeavour would fully entail supports the idea, because of all the reasons I’ve outlined above and more.
Even if the trains came back, they’d run at a loss and not solve the freight issues. We’re better off advocating for better bus services using the existing roads, as well as funding for more intense regular roadworks to shore up the New England Highway volume capacity.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.
Letter: Make The Mall viable again! Council has no problem with ‘inner city housing’.
With towns as popular as Katoomba feeling the pinch due to online shopping, they too have to cope with vacant shops in their Main Street.
We have a similar problem.
I have just received verification from Armidale Regional Council that they have no problem with shops in The Mall being converted to become ‘inner-city’ homes.
All we have to do now is encourage young prospective homeowners to buy up the vacant shops and renovate them to 2025 standards for a home:
Solar panels on the roof; induction stove, electric heating/cooling; upgrade bathroom, kitchen. If I wanted to move from the rat-race and had a couple of young kids, I’d jump at this chance of inner-city living…
- save on petrol (a charging station is soon to be available, behind the shops on the southern side in Cinders Lane),
- a block to a park.
- A block to a supermarket;
- dentist on your doorstep; a hairdresser might even come back…even a chemist…even a gift/newspaper shop (smaller than Carr’s).
- And at night – think of the quiet – no barking dogs,
- no verge to mow.
- No potholes; no noise from cars, motor bikes, trucks etc.
If I were a young parent faced with the choice of paying $400,000+ for an ordinary-looking house with enough room for a garage, a swing and veggie-garden, or $250,000 for a two storey ‘shop’…well, I’d take the shop, thank you. It wouldn’t even cost me $200,000 to upgrade. Plenty of parking at the rear.
To buy one of these shops isn’t that costly…add to that the cost of a reno. It wouldn’t be as expensive as buying a house, particularly if renovations were still needed.
Oh, and D.A.’s are only needed if the outside walls of the ‘house’ are changed. (Gosh, I don’t think Council would like that very much!!)
Council only needs to put in two wrought iron fences (with ‘gates’ in the middle) on either end of The Mall (or is it called Armidale Plaza?) and keypads high enough that can be opened only by an adult (wheelchair uses could ask a passer-by to press the keys … 2350 would be a good code) so that children are kept safe inside The Mall. Access to Cinders Lane and, on the other side, “Perrot’s Arcade” would need child-proof gates…but that wouldn’t cost much.
Here, in the centre of Armidale, the Mall would be the ‘backyard’ for kids…a readymade playground at their front door. Boobooks provides plenty of events to keep the mind active; Granny Fi’s Cupboard is always exciting. I’m sure more shops would open if the foot traffic increased.
Coffee? You want coffee? A couple to choose from…but not after 3pm in the afternoon. Perhaps one of the prospective owners could open up the downstairs part of their apartment as a late afternoon tea/coffee cuppa venue. Nice little income without having to pay extra in rates.
The raised beds which, at present, are home to shrubs, could become veggie gardens…children can help with the plantings.(Stockholm has a veggie garden in their main city roundabout! )
In summer, Evening concerts could take place in The Mall; Markets in the Mall would still happen. Even setting up a screen as Sam did for the tennis, would be an option. Play it again, Sam!
Keep an eye out for The Courthouse…soon to reinvent itself! It would be a good place to store the fold up chairs that can be brought out for a concert et al. It’s not beyond the Solicitor in the Mall to buy and rent out a flat…that should be cheaper and easier for the tenant.
This is mainly a call out to Estate agents to get busy; to showcase this opportunity to young parents about the joys of living in a town like Armidale.
Sure, the Estate Agents won’t get as much commission for one of these shops versus a house, but gee, I bet they’d feel good!
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.
Letter: Severn Shire RATE RISE!!!
I write on behalf of many concerned residents to express our town’s absolute opposition to the proposed 68.50% rate rise, alongside the rise of the rubbish charge.
While we understand that a rate increase may be necessary to maintain essential services, this proposed rise is extreme and will cripple our community. Such a massive hike in costs is simply unaffordable for many families, pensioners, and small business owners who are already struggling with rising living expenses.
One of the key reasons people choose to live in or move to our town is the relatively low cost of living—particularly our rates. A 68.50% increase will not only deter future growth but could force existing residents to leave. It’s an unfair burden on a community that prides itself on resilience, contribution, and a strong sense of place.
There will be a one more community meeting held in Deepwater on Monday, 27th May at 5:00pm at the School of Arts. We encourage you and anyone who is concerned about the proposed rate rise to attend and have their voice heard.
We urge the council to reconsider this proposal and seek a more balanced, transparent, and community-focused solution. The people deserve to be heard, and we ask that the New England Times shines a light on this critical issue before irreversible damage is done to the town we all love.
Sincerely,
Leah Johnson
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.
Letter: Voters pinning their hopes on cost of living relief from a Coalition government should think again.
Peter Dutton’s shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, was asked repeatedly on ABC radio recently to name a single Coalition policy to combat cost of living pressures. Each time he failed to name one, eventually claiming that “good economic management” and “managing taxpayers’ money very, very carefully” were the Coalition’s solution.
So what was the Coalition’s record on “good” economic management and their “very, very” careful management of taxpayers’ money when they ran the show from 2013 to 2022?
Here are some reminders: $20 billion of JobKeeper funds went to firms whose revenue was actually rising during Covid; blatant rorting of the NDIS; car park rorts and sports rorts.
And billions of dollars blown away on Scott Morrison’s bungled French submarines; big delays and massive cost blow outs on the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project; $30 million handed over for a property valued at $3 million near the western Sydney airport and the failure to properly organise the vaccine roll out in the initial stages of the pandemic.
Also the disgraceful Robodebt scheme and cover-up; many billions of dollars spent outsourcing public service work to large private consultancies; the bungling of our relationship with China resulting in $20 billion trade bans on Australian exporters; and inflation at more than double the current rate under Labor.
Best of luck if you’re relying on Mr Joyce’s party to help you with cost of living.
For more information or to get involved, please visit laurahughesnewengland.com.au.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.
Letter: Barnaby’s legacy just rotten policy
Regarding Barnaby’s legacy vs Dutton ideology story published by New England Times 15/4/2025.
Barnaby Joyce was told it was a bad idea to move the pesticides regulator (APVMA) to Armidale and he did it anyway.
The move has been found to have been disastrous. It’s been a hotbed of regulatory failure, incompetence, industry capture and extensive allegations of staff misconduct. And its failures are down to one man: Barnaby Joyce.
A damning review of the agency was released in July 2023 https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/APVMA%20-%20Strategic%20Review%20Report.PDF
Among the findings:
- The APVMA was too supine in its use of enforcement powers for fear of upsetting the industry and too inclined to see its role as helping industry, not regulating it;
- Its review program was so poorly resourced and conducted that some chemicals had been under “review” for two decades;
- It can’t do the public service’s basics in areas such as procurement and financial management;
- It has an extraordinarily high volume of complaints from staff, ranging across all areas, including allegations of nepotism, mental health concerns, failures of complaints-handling and inappropriate behaviour.
The chair and CEO both resigned.
Not only did taxpayers have to stump up $25m for relocating the APVMA, but time and again the independent report identifies Joyce’s decision to move the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale in 2016 the key reason for many of the problems.
Another review, by Ernst & Young in 2016, spelled out just how ill-advised the move was. Despite the report being commissioned by Joyce’s own department, at Joyce’s request, it still found “the economic benefits for the Australian economy associated with moving the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale are modest. This is because the strategic and operational benefits of having the APVMA operate out of Armidale appear to be limited”.
The move would be a net cost to the Commonwealth, and the “risks associated with moving the APVMA are significant”.
For consultants being paid to give Joyce a reason to move the agency, it was a remarkable report — they told him it was a terrible idea instead. And the biggest risk was that “the APVMA may be unable to relocate, or recruit and replace, key APVMA executive, management and technical assessment staff”.
That’s exactly what happened, according to the report, which found “less than 15 of approximately 140 full-time employees stayed with the APVMA”.
“Only a small proportion of previous APVMA staff moved from Canberra to Armidale,” the report found, “and it may be inferred that the new staff and lack of previous APS [Australian Public Service] knowledge and experience impacted the operations of the APVMA.”
Overall: The relocation of the APVMA’s main office to Armidale fundamentally changed the APVMA — if for no other reason than the APVMA had a very significant turnover of staff, including a change in CEO, associated with the relocation. This turnover of staff would have inevitably resulted in a loss of corporate knowledge, a loss of corporate culture and a loss of experience and knowledge of what it is to work within the APS. This may include practical awareness of foundational public service principles, such as the need to adhere to the APS values.
So exactly what Joyce was told would happen if he moved APVMA to Armidale happened, and it trashed the agency.
The Nationals are renowned for shameless pork-barrelling. Usually, the only victims are taxpayers and the public interest. But the victim here is an agency with the important task of regulating the chemicals that enter Australia’s food chain at the source, an agency that was used as a pork plaything by Joyce, despite clearly knowing what would result.
The New England Times talks of the APVMA move as Joyce’s legacy and it being a positive thing. It was nothing more than a rotten piece of public policy.
Letter: Nuclear support melting down; water question unanswered
RE-Alliance has been working with rural and regional communities navigating energy projects for more than a decade. We recently released polling across several proposed nuclear communities, which found support for nuclear reactors in those communities was very low. The polling of 1250 regional residents was conducted by respected research firm 89 Degrees East, which is a member of the Research Society of Australia.
The data revealed only 22% of people in Central West NSW support nuclear, 24% in Central Queensland, 32% in Hunter, 24% in south west WA and just 31% in Gippsland. Interestingly, regional communities also don’t believe that nuclear power is capable of bringing down their energy bills anytime soon (just 13%) while 72% said renewables would bring bills down faster.
Further, a report released by former Land and Water Australia CEO Professor Andrew Campbell has found an extra 200 gigalitres of annual water allocation would need to be acquired from farmers and other water customers to cool the proposed nuclear reactors. The report also found half the reactors couldn’t be built because there isn’t enough water to cool them and another 40% would have to be turned off regularly due to lack of water.
RE-Alliance will continue to push that all energy projects being proposed in regional and rural Australia contribute to the strength and resilience of our regions and that clear information is readily accessible.
Letter: No cost of living relief from the Coalition
Voters pinning their hopes on cost of living relief from a Coalition government should think again.
Peter Dutton’s shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, was asked repeatedly on ABC radio recently to name a single Coalition policy to combat cost of living pressures. Each time he failed to name one, eventually claiming that “good economic management” and “managing taxpayers’ money very, very carefully” were the Coalition’s solution.
So what was the Coalition’s record on “good” economic management and their “very, very” careful management of taxpayers’ money when they ran the show from 2013 to 2022?
Here are some reminders: $20 billion of JobKeeper funds went to firms whose revenue was actually rising during Covid; blatant rorting of the NDIS; car park rorts and sports rorts.
And billions of dollars blown away on Scott Morrison’s bungled French submarines; big delays and massive cost blow outs on the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project; $30 million handed over for a property valued at $3 million near the western Sydney airport and the failure to properly organise the vaccine roll out in the initial stages of the pandemic.
Also the disgraceful Robodebt scheme and cover-up; many billions of dollars spent outsourcing public service work to large private consultancies; the bungling of our relationship with China resulting in $20 billion trade bans on Australian exporters; and inflation at more than double the current rate under Labor.
Best of luck if you’re relying on Mr Joyce’s party to help you with cost of living.
For more information or to get involved, please visit laurahughesnewengland.com.au.
Letter: Parallel elections in Australia and Canada
Since the late March 2025 announcement of election dates, electoral opinion polls in both Australia and Canada have shown dramatic shifts. Prior to these announcements, opposition parties in both countries were consistently leading the polls and were considered near-unbeatable contenders for victory. However, following the official confirmation of election dates—Australia’s for May 3, 2025, and Canada’s for April 28, 2025—the political landscape changed drastically.
In both nations, the ruling government parties have surged ahead in the polls, overtaking the opposition parties as the new frontrunners. This sudden shift has raised questions about the dynamics at play in these two similar democratic systems. While the reasons behind this change are still being debated, it is clear that public opinion can be highly volatile, especially as the election dates approach.
This significant change in both countries highlights the unpredictable nature of electoral campaigns and the critical role that official announcements play in shaping voter sentiment. As we move closer to election day, it will be interesting to see how these trends evolve and what impact they will have on the final outcome.
Letter: Has Barnaby gone quiet on Nuclear?
Peter Dutton says his nuclear power policy is “probably the biggest energy economic policy offered by an opposition in our country’s history.” So why have Dutton and Barnaby Joyce, a man not averse to spruiking, gone strangely silent on nuclear?
Maybe it’s that recent nuclear projects around the world have been plagued by massive cost blowouts and delays. Or maybe it’s that most experts say electricity produced from nuclear is more expensive than renewables. Possibly it’s because it’s actually illegal to whack up nuclear power stations at their proposed sites?
It could be that the Coalition has no idea where it would source the massive volumes of water needed for nuclear facilities. Maybe they don’t know how to store deadly radioactive waste or how to address nuclear’s real health and safety risks.
But the real explanation is that nuclear is not the “the biggest energy economic policy offered by an opposition in our country’s history”. It’s simply the biggest con job.
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.