It’s astonishing that Australia still doesn’t have a proper solar panel recycling industry (“Solar panel recycling plan in limbo”, July 19). According to UNSW Sydney solar experts, up to 95 per cent of the materials in panels, including silicon and aluminium can be recovered. The Productivity Commission estimates that reusing these materials could deliver more than $7 billion in economic benefits. Letting those assets go to waste makes no sense. The wider recycling picture is just as troubling. Our national recovery rate sits at about 66 per cent, with only 12.5 per cent of plastics ever recycled. Sweden manages to recycle 99 per cent of its waste. A circular economy is achievable. Will Environment Minister Murray Watt make waste management a priority? A proper recycling industry would let Australia turn waste into winnings and finally compete for gold off the field as well as on it. Amy Hiller, Kew (Vic)
In the past, products were created and put on the market with no apparent thought given to their end of life. It is only when the waste builds up and becomes an environmental and financial problem that governments even start to act, at what feels like a snail’s pace. This will continue to be the case unless we legislate that no new product can be put on the Australian market until there is a compulsory product stewardship scheme to deal with it at the end of its useful life. Jill Robinson, Randwick
Education now ‘user pays’
Christopher Harris’s report on school enrolment trends reveals that “an analysis of HSC league tables last year found that, compared to 20 years prior, the number of non-selective public schools among the state’s top performers halved between 2002 and 2024” (“Parents pour more than $4.5 billion into private and Catholic schools every year”, July 19). Is that a joke? If we shift the highest performing students out of comprehensive schools and into selective schools while at the same time shifting our most advantaged students into independent schools, what do we think will happen? Clearly, public comprehensive schools have little or no chance of being “top performers”. In fact, a consequence of our divided education system is that some public schools are now “sink” schools, schools of last resort that serve only disadvantaged students presenting with complex learning and social needs. As Harris points out, government policies have shifted costs away from government and onto parents. Education has become a more of a user-pay business instead of an essential service offering equitable opportunity for all, and you get only what you can afford. The days when education offered social mobility and an escape from intergenerational poverty are well and truly over. Irene Buckler, Glenwood
In Christopher Harris’ article about private education, Jack Buckley, principal economist at the e61 Institute, says: “I trust parents are seeing something real which they value”. If I buy a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes for $3000 I’m pretty certain that I’m seeing something real that I value, but are they 10 times better than a $300 pair? Probably not. Is it the best use of my money? Again, probably not. What I am getting, however, is a shoe that makes me feel better and tells the world things about me that I value. I’m somebody. I recognise quality, style and class. I’m successful. It’s the same with private education. Parents believe they’re getting their kids a better quality education in the private system and they’re also flagging to the world something about themselves and what they value. It delivers partly because it’s self-fulfilling. The more children and parents are removed from public education, the more money, talent and time is removed. Public schools become weaker and private schools stronger, and it becomes harder for parents with means to choose the public system. The only reasonable solution, if a solution is desired, is to stop funding private schools and pour that money into public schools. When sending your kids to one of many great public schools announces to the world that you value education, your kids, equality and common sense, the tide will turn. Prue Nelson, Cremorne Point
Stirring the cauldron
Poor old Neil Mitchell, defender of the indefensible, the sad, stale older men who trade in homophobia, sexism, misogyny and bigotry (“These media ‘witches’ are bullies”, July 19). Is he really arguing that Donald Trump’s take on fake news ought to be given any weight as an argument against the puerile, anti-intellectual drivel spouted by shock-jocks? That algorithmic, performative outrage is in any way useful in a modern social democracy? Probably just proves that a handful of feisty women with a social conscience can be quite the threat to the aforesaid sad, stale older men paradigm. Too close to home, Neil? Greg Farrel, Yattalunga
Neil Mitchell confuses accountability with bullying. Advertisers enabled the radio broadcast of material that was denigrating of women and downright vile at times. The fact that many “witches” contacted those advertisers demonstrates how strongly many of us felt about those broadcasts. Hardly bullying – more like calling for accountability. Linda Pettersson, Cremorne
- To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
- The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.
From our partners
Read the full article here
