But these imprudent arrangements were made without any mandate.  No candidate last election said “my policy is to punch holes through our aquifers in order to maximise our gas exports”.  No candidate said “I will allow miners to build access roads, fences, pipes and wastewater storage all over farmland”.

Australia already exports more than double our total domestic gas consumption. There is more than enough gas already being produced in Australia to meet our domestic energy needs. Our choice is between fracking and gas exports, not between fracking and blackouts. We do not have a duty to maximise gas company profit.

Mr Turnbull/Abbott say that opposition to fracking is economically irresponsible. But true economic irresponsibility is to put gas industry exports ahead of agriculture.

Australia’s capacity to grow enough food is threatened by climate change, topsoil loss, population growth, urban sprawl and overseas land sales. Australia is getting hotter and drier. We need water to grow food. Damaging aquifers and adding to greenhouse gases is as silly as giving water to Adani.

Apparently fracking is the best option this government can think of. Apparently it is impractical to make all our hot water with solar power. Or to collect energy from existing gas exhaust from coal mines and landfill and industry. Or to make biogas from agricultural waste. Or to build more renewable energy and storage. 

But no. Predictably, this government chooses digging ourself up and selling bits of ourself. With profits going to tax havens.

Rowan Huxtable, Mangerton

Lyle Shelton from the No vote supporting Australian Christian Lobby is telling us that if the Yes vote is successful and same sex marriage is allowed, then children’s first words will no longer be Mum or Dad they will be forced to say ‘’Dear significant non-gender specific parent person’’ as their first words.

Is this a real possibility or it possible that such a good Christian gentleman could be telling us lies ?

Doug Steley

In response to Dave Cox (Letters, October 5) ‘Need for affordable housing’.

The Corrimal Chamber of Commerce in fact supports the building of any new residential and commercial property within the local area within reason.

In relation to the proposed structure at the Corrimal Leagues site, the chamber has not had any formal input into this development as there are no commercial properties included, it is entirely residential. I am at a loss why Mr Cox thinks that the chamber is in dispute of the structure when it has nothing to do with us.

This is why we, along with others have been in discussions over the past three years with the owners of the old Corrimal Coke Works to make sure that the development of the site will be a credit to the area and it is with the chamber’s suggestion that boutique commercial properties would be included within the proposed structure. 

I and the committee of the Corrimal Chamber of Commerce tirelessly volunteer to make Corrimal and its surrounds a better place to live, work and play and I am more than happy to receive constructive criticism as long as the criticism is true and correct.

I invite Mr Cox to contact me or to attend one of our community meetings, as to be actively aware what the chamber and associated groups are doing to revitalise the township. Mr Cox may have some great ideas and we’d love him to share them.

Paul Boultwood, President, Corrimal Chamber of Commerce