Will his­tory be re­peated with cricket prac­tice nets?

The Cobram Courier - - NEWS - — Adrian Ben­nett Ba­rooga — Brian Mills Grif­fith

Will his­tory of the 1980s be re­peated about 35 years later in Moira Shire with the con­struc­tion of cricket prac­tice nets?

The 1980s saw the place­ment of cricket nets at Scott Re­serve in the cor­ner ad­ja­cent to res­i­den­tial homes and, due to the noise and dan­ger prob­lem and pub­lic protest to the shire, the prac­tice nets were re­lo­cated to another area, elim­i­nat­ing the noise and dan­ger prob­lem.

The new cricket prac­tice nets now be­ing con­structed in the north-west cor­ner of the Co­bram Show­grounds at the Bank St en­trance and less than 10 m from res­i­den­tial homes is cer­tainly on a col­li­sion course in the fu­ture.

The shadow prob­lem of the house on the west side could also be a prob­lem if when the ball is bowled or played through the shadow and played either to bat­man or bowler, then who would be re­spon­si­ble for any in­jury or li­a­bil­ity that could oc­cur.

The con­struc­tion of the nets did not re­quire a per­mit from Moira Shire due to the de­sign of of the nets and cage and there­fore there was no need to ad­vise the pub­lic of con­struc­tion.

This area on the Co­bram Show­grounds and sta­dium com­plex plan pro­duced by Moira Shire sev­eral years ear­lier was the area al­lo­cated for the Me­ichel/Ritchie art and craft pavil­ion which has now passed its use-by date and needs to be re­placed.

The con­struc­tion should be halted and these is­sues be fronted by the Moira Shire coun­cil­lors and the pub­lic who use the Co­bram Show­grounds and re­moved to another area in the com­plex. Leader. The head­ing is ‘Open Let­ter to Barn­aby Joyce’. Edi­tors of two news­pa­per are in­volved and nei­ther of them will com­mu­ni­cate with me.

This morn­ing I sent a let­ter to the edi­tor of the news­pa­per in Co­bram be­cause I am dev­as­tated about what the Na­tional Party is do­ing to the Victorian elec­torate of Mur­ray.

Four years ago a pro­fes­sor from Monash Uni­ver­sity in Churchill said:

1. Aus­tralia has no fu­ture in fruit grow­ing.

2. The re­duc­tion in tar­iffs since 1970 has been good for Aus­tralian man­u­fac­tur­ing.

This has min­imised tra­di­tional man­u­fac­tur­ing to pro­vide a tran­si­tion to cap­i­tal­based ac­tiv­i­ties.

The only ex­am­ples he could give were niche air­craft man­u­fac­tur­ing (two weeks later the com­pany which he re­ferred to was in the news­pa­per as be­ing in free fall) and in­no­va­tive de­sign of an­i­ma­tion.

We are still wait­ing on ex­am­ples from So­phie Mirabella.

One of Barn­aby’s min­ders re­ferred me to Barn­aby’s eco­nom­ics ex­perts for dis­cus­sion and de­bate. I am still wait­ing for any re­sponse. With noth­ing from Matt Cana­van, how does Barn­aby re­spond to Aus­tralia has no fu­ture in fruit grow­ing?

When there was a cri­sis in stone fruits, Joe Hockey in­sisted that it was up to Coca Cola to in­vest and save what re­mained of the in­dus­try. Where was Barn­aby? Mean­while the Coali­tion has leg­is­lated free trade agree­ments where the small print ad­vises that if multi-na­tion­als can­not get prof­its that they can ex­pect worldwide, then they can sue the Aus­tralian Govern­ment.

Re­cently Coca Cola ex­pe­ri­enced a drop in profit.

What are the im­pli­ca­tions for Co­bram and the stone fruits in­dus­try?

Would it be ap­pro­pri­ate for me to call for a five-way de­bate in­volv­ing Barn­aby, Matt Cana­van, Sus­san Ley and Damian Drum (the mem­ber for Mur­ray, Vic­to­ria in­clud­ing Co­bram) and me?

It will be of in­ter­est to see how many edi­tors re­spect my rights of free­dom of speech.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.