So book banning is back in fashion for local councillors?

Despite not having read the book that he highlighted as unacceptable, Mr Christou suggested, without proof, that children would be "sexualised" if they chose to read such books.

Given this very specific parenting focus, will all novels be trawled through painstakingly and discarded if they contain any overt and covert references to same-sex parents and their family lives?

It would also seem that any books that tell stories about or provide guidance on "same-sex relationships" can stay on that shire's library shelves.

Two climate stories swirled around Australia's media last week.

Both were equally difficult pills to swallow. First, that April was the 11^th month in a row to set the record for the hottest ever recorded. And the past year has been, on average, 1.6 degrees above pre-industrial temperature levels and we're heading for over 2.5 degrees this century. Second, throwing fuel on the fire, Albanese's Labor announced their "future gas strategy".

What part of part of "gas is a fossil fuel driving climate change" do politicians still not understand? As one of millions of climate-conscious Australians who is deeply concerned about the future my children will inherit, I am flabbergasted.

When will the major political parties stop being part of the climate problem?

The report "PM maps out plan to power future" (May 9) states that the plan is to "illuminate" areas of critical mineral and rare earth deposits. It will also "identify locations in offshore areas ... for carbon capture and storage and possible sites for clean hydrogen projects".

As a former field survey geologist with the predecessors of Geoscience Australia, I can state that it is only possible to identify the sub-surface areas most likely to contain mineral deposits. Exploration drilling is needed to pinpoint and assay them. Carbon capture and storage is still unproven at an economically feasible scale.

The government's plan is a good start to a long and costly process.

It's ironic that farmers will get a suck on the public teat to deal with global warming when they have done as much as anyone to prevent remedial action.

Would it be too much to ask that preference be given to farmers who grow crops which need less water? A friend has recently introduced me to millet, which is much like white rice but needs a fraction of water to grow, is more nutritious and also cooks in eight minutes. Or will we continue to dole out public money to farmers who piss it up against the wall?

Rice was a new thing for Aussies until the 1920s so they can adapt to a new crop and so can we.

In response to the letter from Thomas Mautner, ("Houthis' strange choices", May 7), I agree it does seem strange at first sight, that the impoverished Houthis would decide to attack shipping connected with the war on Gaza.

However, it appears that after many years of being bombarded themselves, the Houthis simply decided to do whatever they could to impede this war.

There is an interesting historical precedent for such altruism. During World War II, when occupied by Nazi Germany, the government and people of the largely Islamic country of Albania did their utmost to protect Albanian and refugee Jews from the Nazis. Albania became the only country in Europe with more Jews at the end of the war than they had at the beginning.

They were later highly commended by Yad Vashem in Israel.