The present impasse on the state’s northern beaches of NSW on whether nets or new technology is the answer to a spate of sharks attacks, continues unabated.

Beach holidays and local use of the ocean are a long time enjoyable pastime for individuals and families in Australia.

An overseas visitor once told me whilst visiting a beach in Sydney that, “this is like a huge playground”.

My experience early in my life when swimming, was that shark netting was there but not on my mind. However, when my children and grandchildren started using the beaches, netting was foremost on my mind.

I understand people’s concern on the well being of sea life and we see the large improvement in the whale population following efforts to stop whaling.

However, the question has to asked of people who object to shark netting, “would they and their families go to land wild animal areas, like Dubbo’s Western Plains, or even a Zoo, without ensuring they had good protection?”

No doubt technology will overcome everyone’s concerns in the future but here and now there is a very serious human and economic problem to face.

Shark netting is the only proven present answer and the sooner action is taken the better.

Otherwise we will all be beached!

Tom Cornforth, Port Macquarie

Beware the minor players on our political main stage (The Sydney Morning Herald 24 October 2016)

According to Tim Dick of the Sydney Morning Herald, a minority party, the National Party, is holding Australia to ransom in terms of setting the agenda for the Coalition National Government and controlling national debates.

Dick identifies issues important for National voters such as importing the Adler shotgun. 

A divisive issue within the National Party is greyhound racing, which was initially banned by the NSW National Party (including our local members, Williams and Pavey) who were staying loyal to Mike Baird, but who backed down after the Federal Party leader, Barnaby Joyce, weighed into the debate. 

Dick blames the National Party for the lack of action on climate change in Australia, despite farmers being among the most at risk from this lack of action.

Also the National Party is blamed for the debate on marriage equality languishing and no vote being allowed in Parliament.

A National Party politician in Victoria, Andrew Broad, has threatened to bring down the government if it allows a parliamentary vote on marriage equality. 

With a majority of only one in the House, the Federal Coalition government could be brought down by only one member.

Apparently the Nationals’ constitution starts by promoting in Australian ‘a society based on Christian ethics and loyalty to the Crown’ thereby making it a religious political group.

Dick describes the National Party as a party for guns, for killing dogs, for interfering in people’s personal lives and for promoting Christianity. 

Is this a Party trying to bring down the government?

Is this a fair reflection of the National Party or locally is there a different set of  important issues?

Can someone please advise?

Colleen Carmody

Country Labor