It is now time for our mayor and local member to hang their heads in shame for peddling the Tamworth Water security mantra and hiding behind a veil of secrecy for so long. Now let's seriously look at the rejected options and spend tax dollars more wisely.

Peter Wright, Moore Creek

Carl Stevenson wants nuclear power and as he writes from Dora Creek (right behind the soon to close Eraring Power Station) yet I wonder if he thinks Lake Macquarie is a good spot to build a plant?

We could wait a few years till his local power station is closed, then a couple more as the site is cleaned up (while getting nuclear plant designs and approvals in place) and then at least another decade as a nuclear plant is built.

Carl does know that it takes this long to build nuclear energy plants I hope. Look at Hinkley Point C in Britain which is currently under construction. They are much more complicated than coal or gas power plants and nowhere near as simple as solar power or wind power farms. And at a cost of just a lazy $45 billion it is terribly expensive and produces the most costly electricity ever.

Only takes about 20 years to decommission when the life of the nuclear station is over.

Andrew Brown, Nundle

Professor Francesco Paolucci's contribution 'Economist shoots down calls to split health district into two' in The Armidale Express (July 29) demonstrates the exact problem that we in New England have with the Hunter New England Local Health District. The economics are obviously important, but they are far from the only consideration.

It is no solution to consult a distant economist when you have no doctor in a nice new hospital - or GP nearby.

It is no solution when you ask a perfectly reasonable question and are told that no one locally has permission to answer it.

And if you persist you finally receive a form letter from the public relations department in Newcastle assuring you that all is well with the system, but not, in fact, answering your actual question.

Bureaucracies perform their functions but where lives are at stake and the exhausted staff who care for them are not listened to - it's time for other people to make the policy decisions.

The Labor government's climate change bill has passed the lower house of parliament, committing Australia to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 43 per cent by 2030. While it will send a clear and welcome signal to the business community to encourage further investment in clean energy, this target is ultimately too modest. Science dictates that Australia needs to reduce its emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 to minimise the effects of climate change. While the Labor government has assured that "the 43 per cent emissions reduction target was a floor and not a ceiling", this "floor" needs to be raised rapidly if we are to maintain the liveability of our planet and protect the future of our children and grandchildren.

Ching Ang, Magill

I have been a keen observer of the debate over electricity supply and would like to offer this anecdote. In the mid-1970s, while working at the University of Newcastle, I had the good fortune to spend some time on No. 2 Oval with professor of physics Colin Keay, pictured.

During our discussions he predicted that in 50 years' time every Australian household would have its own power generator because we would not be able to provide sufficient electricity through conventional means to power our homes. He believed the only answer was nuclear power and expressed his frustration that no-one would listen to him, least of all politicians. In 2014, not long before he died, we crossed paths at Waratah Village. He told me he had recently had one of his most satisfying experiences - he had received approval to place reading material on nuclear power in the Members' Reading Room in Parliament House. I look back now with admiration at his foresight all those years ago. He was an amazing man.

While academics, bureaucrats and politicians try to speak for teachers and their problems, none of them really understand about the lousy pay and nightmarish accountability workload of classroom practitioners.

Training new teachers rather than addressing the real issues is a cheap, short-sighted and ultimately wasteful solution to the problem of teacher shortages. But snow-jobbing and retraining existing teachers, many of whom are dissatisfied and burned out, is also doomed to failure.

This is especially the case at present, when there are so many other well-paid jobs available without the workload and the stress of teaching.

Until the once-noble profession of teaching is elevated in the minds of members of society, such that they are prepared to pay higher wages through higher state taxes, teachers will remain underpaid and overworked.

Until work requirements are determined by practitioner associations, and wages are determined independently rather than by state budget constraints, the problem of teacher shortages will continue.

There has been a lot of talk in federal parliament driven mainly by the Labor Party and the Greens about the need for an integrity commission similar to the NSW ICAC. While I am very much in favour of just such a commission, I would hope without the fiasco the NSW ICAC has become.

While Labor talks big on the subject of corruption, they believe the federal parliament is full of corruption and things need to change and they do. What I do find amazing is that the Labor want to abolish the Australia Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). While the Federal Court and the High Court have found that the CFMMEU shrug off the payment of fines, as the Australian Financial Review has reported, there's apparently no need for the ABCC - or so say Labor.

Maybe the very first case to come before this new federal vision of ICAC should be an inquiry into the relationship between the Labor Party and the CFMMEU and the union movement in general. While they're at it, throw in the donations paid by Industry super funds to both the union movement and the Labor party for scrutiny as well.

I have been and still am a fan of Serena Willams's tennis playing; she's beautiful; she's strong; she's awesome! And this confuses me totally:

"I never wanted to have to choose between tennis and a family. I don't think it's fair." [Williams, 10 August]

"If I were a guy, I wouldn't be writing this because I'd be out there playing and winning while my wife was doing the physical labour of expanding our family."

Is "a guy" physically built to "do the physical labour" of having children? Not last I checked. How does "fair" enter into the biological body into which one is born? Should women be able to sue the biological father for having stronger female-making sperm then male-making, thus relegating women to child-bearing versus, say, continuing to play tennis? If Williams's chosen career did not involve such intense physical activity, she could have worked during pregnancy and after giving birth; I know many women who did, who do, who will do. Would she complain about "fair" then?

We all make choices about what to do and when to do it. Some are gifted, talented, hard-working, professional tennis players whose athleticism I admire. Others are gifted, talented, hard-working women who take time-off from their professional careers to do something men can*not* do: Bear children and nurture them early-on. I admire them too. It's a matter of career choice; it has nothing to do with "fair."

Judy Bamberger, O'Connor ACT

No need for a jobs summit when our leaders both state and federal have amply demonstrated the best way to get a high powered job is to be either a parliamentarian, a staffer or bed partner.

Graeme Harris, Calala