They say it will help finance instructional load of two hours per week for primary teachers and win a pathway to permanency for relief teachers.

They also claim increased loading for relief teachers for hard to staff schools.

Their argument falls down on four counts in that many relief teachers are semi-retired and are not interested in seeking permanency.

Secondly, a significant number receive Centrelink benefits and a low-income healthcare card as they don't receive sufficient relief work and earn lower hourly rates.

Many of these relief teachers are single parents and struggle to pay the family bills. Thirdly, the hard to staff argument is laughable as most teachers know how this is being manipulated by some schools that are clearly not hard to staff.

Lastly, since when has it been acceptable to victimise one sector of a profession to finance another.

I would have thought it the job of a union is to fight for and protect employees conditions, not to stab them in the back.

In addition, schools should be properly funded by state revenue and not raided from teachers pay packets.

I have a better idea, let's sack the department's HR staff and allow principals to directly higher teachers and use the savings to finance primary teachers after all HR staff don't teach in the classrooms.

WHAT sort of a union is the AEU which is prepared to sacrifice conditions of one section of their membership in order to gain benefits for another section?

Relief teachers have become the sacrificial lambs in negotiations between the AEU and the state government.

Perhaps the union thinks relief teachers are easy targets.

What they forget is that relief teachers play a key, and often unappreciated role in keeping our state schools functioning.

They allow permanent staff to undertake professional learning activities, and also time for sick leave and carers leave.

Many relief teachers are highly experienced practitioners who provide a valuable contribution to improving student educational outcomes.

Shame on you AEU.

HOW an argument is framed is often telling.

For the pro-coal lobby, it is a coal market exists, we have plenty, stopping Australian coal mines will not address climate change one iota whilst the demand for coal is strong.

For the anti-coal lobby - all coal is bad - no more mines.

For the average punter, it is far more complex.

With Adani, in particular, there are a host of issues around water, native fauna, the barrier reef and finance. Adani if developed is predicted to operate for up to half a century.

At some stage well before the life of such a mine ends we will have to address a declining coal market and increasing developments and opportunities in renewables.

This is, in fact, our reality right now.

So we will continue with coal for the time being because we do not have an immediate replacement, and that is a sensible option.

Recognising at the same time that renewables are becoming increasingly more viable.

In terms of jobs lost with Adani, there is huge conjecture of the projected number of people to be employed.

At the higher end it is 10,000 plus and at the lower end once built around 1500.

With driverless trains and increasing, automation one suspects the lower estimate is much nearer the mark.

Jobs are important, not just mining jobs.

How many jobs would this project place in jeopardy if the environmental concerns, particularly around the barrier reef were to materialise?

Who'd be a politician?

HYPOCRISY peaked at a new height recently when Michelle O'Byrne aided the call against Health Minister Michael Ferguson.

It is amazing when there is an election, state or federal both parties find the waiting lists of our hospitals.

Ms O'Byrne and Lara Giddings, both previous health ministers, came into parliament promising major reductions in the waiting lists for elective surgery.

However, both left after years in the portfolio with not one iota of difference.

There is a saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

And the vote for no confidence against Mr Ferguson was an absolute joke on Labor's part.

Short memories or hypocrisy?

INSTEAD of whining about car drivers, why don't you cyclists use the specifically made cycling paths made just for you?

Alternatively, why don't you pay to use the road as motorists do?

AT 9.30am on Friday, May 10 I followed three motorcyclists on Westbury Road.

They turned into Mt Leslie Road and then again into St Patrick's College.

Can I congratulate these three young riders for their responsible riding with their separated distance and speed and the manner in which they were travelling.

They were setting an excellent example to other road users.