Prev
Next

Opposing river reform puts us on a slow boat to nowhere

Amanda Rishworth

by Amanda Rishworth

02 Nov 05:45am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

76

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

66

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

41

Filed under: Agriculture, Drought, Environment, Farmers, Murray Darling River

55 comments

The release of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s guide to the Basin Plan has ignited discussion about how we manage this critical system for the long term. It has been disappointing to see over recent weeks the Coalition now walking away from reform in the basin, reform that even the previous Howard Government saw as necessary.

Cartoon by The Australian's Jon Kudelka.

Coalition members are now arguing that taking action in the basin will be tantamount to choosing the environment over rural communities. This argument is based on a false dichotomy. Reforming the Murray Darling system is not a choice between the interests of producers and the environment- reform is in the interest of all those who rely on this vital river system, to secure its long-term health and viability. Indeed the aim of the Water Act is to manage our water resources in such a way as to optimise environmental, economic and social outcomes.

The worst thing that could happen for everyone in the Basin, whether it’s someone who cares about the environmental assets of the river system or a farmer wanting to continue to make a sustainable living, is for the Government to do nothing. An unmanaged and unhealthy water supply is no use to anyone.

Take for example the issues of salinity and poor water quality in the basin. Water quality degradation in this river system is caused by a number of factors such as the production of toxins by blue-green algal blooms exacerbated by low inflows, erosion, turbidity, clearing of vegetation and the natural occurrence of large quantities of salt.

In particular, high salinity levels can radically alter the composition of localised and down-stream ecosystems, and the consequences of this for the over-all health of the river system are severe.

Frequent and extended rises in salinity levels cause damage to the eco-system of the river and, ultimately, reduce the suitability of water for both drinking and irrigation purposes.

The Lower Lakes in South Australia provide an unsettling reminder of what can happen to primary production as a result of poor water quality. Over recent years, dairy operations in South Australia who have relied on water from the Lower Lakes have been decimated by high salinity levels in the system. This has resulted in the reduction of local dairy operations from 23 to 3, and this example clearly demonstrates that an unhealthy river reduces the capacity for agricultural production.

Water from the Murray-Darling Basin is used for a variety of purposes including the supply of drinking water, recreational use and agriculture. Without appropriate salinity and water quality management, this precious resource will cease to facilitate any such activities.

If we allow water quality degradation to continue and ignore the need for effective management of salinity levels, then the health of this vital river system will rapidly deteriorate and the impact of this on the environment, human consumption, and agriculture alike will be devastating.

The Murray Darling Basin Authority Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan has been independently drafted to bring our basin back to health. The Authority will conduct public consultation on the Draft Guide to the Plan over the next 12 months, and there is no doubt there will be adjustments made to the plan in light these consultations; however there is no denying that a mix of measures will be needed to return the basin to health.

This will involve the purchase of water for increased environmental flows, investment in water saving infrastructure, placing sustainable limits on the quantity of water removed from the Basin and strategic management of water quality. Some of these principles of reform have already been adopted and implemented as part of the Government’s Water for the Future initiative such as buying water and investment in irrigation infrastructure, but there is still more to be done.

Reform will require difficult decisions to be made because, putting it simply, there is just not enough water to go around.

For the last century we have treated the Murray Darling system as an unlimited resource and we are now paying the price. Reform is not a choice between the environment and rural communities – it is a choice between a sustainable healthy river and a dying river in decline.

Reform is critical. I hope that Coalition members will stop their political opportunism and work constructively on this issue so that future generations may too enjoy this precious resource.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

55 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • CJ Morgan says:

      05:42am | 02/11/10

      Well said.  As someone who lives in the headwaters of the Darling system it’s quite apparent that irrigators all along the rivers and creeks regard the taking of water as their right, regardless of its effects downstream.

      Unsustainable irrigation and land clearing will continue unabated until it is regulated to a sensible level.  Unfortunately, short term greed trumps long term sustainability for too many individual enterprises, which is why urgent action is needed.

      Reply

    • Scot says:

      01:37pm | 02/11/10

      Another bleeding heart Psychologist from Adelaide. Knows nothing acout farming and even less about water, and the lack of rain the past 10 years of drought up and down the river system. What you have not reported is the FACT that farmers cannot pump water when river flows and river levels are below and agreed level. FACT farmers have not been able to pump water for years? So bleeding heart, what solutions do you have for the river system besides being a Labor-Greeny from Adelaide and wanting us all to become Vegins? Victoria is looking to gravity feed water from Tasmania to solve their problems. Sounds like a good idea. Like China and Libya and China building a canal system to ship water 1,000’s of kilometres across country. All we have is fools that have words and no plans and yet another POOR outcome. Framers know what is best compared to all these fools that live in cities that do no know where cows milk comes from?

    • Scot says:

      01:44pm | 02/11/10

      C J Morgan. Another of these rural experts living in the City. When you live and own country properties then you will know the truth. Like so many bleeding hearts in the city, if they did not have food, water or gas they would be screaming and getting attention. When farmers scream and many around them in the bush are committing suicide out of desperation the people in the City do not give a toss. If you want to pay more for food imports that you have no idea where they have come from then be my guest. If not then support the farmers. NSW and Federal Labor are destroying our country. Pink Batts, BER, Hospitals, Solar Panels all FAILED.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      02:49pm | 02/11/10

      Hi Scot,

      As it happens I live and own property in the bush - in the headwaters of the Darling system (as I said).  I even raise cattle and own a business that is quite dependent on the vicissitudes of the agricultural and horticultural industries in my district.  I certainly support sustainable farming, but I also recognise that the MDB has been overexploited and that urgent action is necessary to ensure that we can continue to have both agriculture and a healthy environment.

      Where do you live, out of interest?

    • Scot says:

      05:01pm | 02/11/10

      J P Morgan. I disagree about the issue on MDB. It is not farmer issues it is the lack of rain. Not to mention the closing of all the bores. We are involved in agriculture on the Northern Rivers and also Western NSW so we the stupidity form Canberra and NSW Labor first hand. As for city people they are so naive and many do not even know where their food comes from and how. If the MDB stooped food production and forced to import their food they will soon know. What is galling is the stupidity of these so called Government experts to actually come up with plan to solve the water issues as Libya and China have done. Victoria is looking to send water from Tasmania using natural gravity, We waste billions buying back licences in NSW from users who cannot get their entitlements anyway. Billions that could have been used building a water system from the Nth. But this is the stupidity of Labor. So the the tax payer pays three times for the same thing.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      09:41pm | 02/11/10

      So, Scot - you live in the city and work for some agribusiness firm?

    • Scot says:

      11:45am | 03/11/10

      C J Morgan. Family owned agro business for the past 4 generations.

    • Against the Man says:

      05:54am | 02/11/10

      I think it is funny that you think this do nothing/ achieve nothing government will make the hard decisions. Gillard hasn’t achieved anything of significance in her 1st 100 days and her minister’s new policies have bugged it u for future generations but make be that is the master plan -> bugger up medicare, make it go belly up and sell it off to the private sector or Singapore to manage.

      Reply

    • jeffb says:

      01:27pm | 02/11/10

      No government should be judged on such a short time frame as 100 days, you’re just asking for politicians to set their sights even lower.

      The rest of your post makes no sense at all.

    • Smart Fitz says:

      02:24pm | 02/11/10

      jeffb hope the ALP check is in the mail.

      Gillard is a failure, deal with the it.

      If you haven’t read the newspaper to realise why Roxon has buggered up medicare and why it won’t exist in the next 10 years thanks to the ALP than you need to get updated before you say things don’t make sense. It only makes sense to the well informed and the non-ALP stoogers smile

    • Dash says:

      03:29pm | 02/11/10

      jeffb, this government has been in office for 3 years and has done nothing but waste tax payers money, lie to the electorate, force up interest rates and inflation and failed to deliver on most if not all election promises from 07. If you want to read the list of lies, follow this link and choose the first item “Labor party broken promises”:

      http://www.warrentruss.com/record.php

      Amanda can you please show me where the coalition is saying “do nothing” or is it that they just don’t agree with the ALP’s approach? Will you subsidise me and my family for the increase in food prices which will be a direct result of the ALPs policy on this one? Grocery Choice must seem a long way away now hey Amanda? Another broken promise from 07 that served it’s purpose. What did that pile of nothing cost us? $23mill? Do you still think people believe the ALP? What about the carbon tax we were promised wouldn’t happen? Another well thought out inflationary ALP policy deceit.

      If the ALP cannot deliver on insulation schemes, grocery choice, fuelwatch, 260 childcare centres, public ownership of hospitals by July 09, the ETS, green loans, the not negotiable profits tax, and the East Timor lie, how can we trust them to deliver anything meaningful on this one?

      I love the way you say this has been “independently drafted”. Is that why the authority has a .gov.au web address? About as independent as the “root and branch” tax report where Henry was directed not to include the GST. Or the “independent” climate change committee. Or the independent “treasury” who couldn’t even cost the impact of the back down in the profits tax. Not to mention the very independent ALP backed builders with their noses in the taxpayers trough over the school halls program!

      This government is a waste and a failure and is continuing to follow policies which needlessly increase the costs of living of all Australians.

    • jeffb says:

      03:43pm | 02/11/10

      Dash, I’m clearly responding to someone passing judgement on the Gillard government after 100 days, no more, no less.

      I’m well aware of the failings of the Rudd government and the ALP in general. I’m also not interested on Warren Truss’ opinion on anything, do you seriously think a similar list of promises broken by the Howard government wouldn’t look any different?

    • Nicole says:

      04:11pm | 02/11/10

      Dash, where have you been? And you’re soooo correct. As per usual.

    • acotrel says:

      01:12am | 03/11/10

      Well that really added something to this discussion?  Perhaps you should call yourself ‘Against the Woman’?

    • Luke says:

      06:35am | 02/11/10

      I think you will find it’s the Gillard Government who are too scared to make any river reform according to this mornings news, deciding again to put off and delay any decision. I must have some psychic ability I could see them doing this.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      07:22am | 02/11/10

      A while ago, we had governments with policies about decentralisation of industry.  Now a lot of our industry has gone offshore, and left little to decentralise.  A problem with living in the bush lies in finding work.  There are few jobs in the towns, and those are jealously guarded.  Farmers, and their families, usually have jobs in the town to subsidise their efforts on the land.  The fact is that now we’re part of the global economy, companies buying food from farmers often cut the supply quota to fit the market.  We export 60% of what we grow anyway, but the problem lies with the big picture, not with problems such as limitted water supply.  The viability of every country town is at risk until we rationalise our approach to the free market economy.  We need a government with vision anf a lot of answers.  I don’t like committees but I’d expect more answers from the Productivity Commission and the ACCC.

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      12:10pm | 02/11/10

      A while ago…
      A while ago we didn’t export our beef and buy it back as tinned food. A while ago we didn’t export our fruit and buy it back as cordial. A while ago we had profitable industries based in every country town. A while ago Australian textiles were the best in the world, cause we grew our cotton and sheared our sheep to supply local manufacturers.
      Then…a little while later the city based unions decided to spread their wings and expand…a little while after that regional industries became unsustainable and it all went offshore.
      Keep living the dream acotrel…it’s entertaining in a weird, pitiful way.

    • mags says:

      07:28am | 02/11/10

      The is no argument that a plan for sustainable use of the water from the Murray-Darling Basin be made. What there IS argument about is that the guide concnetrated on the environmental issues with barely a mention of the human and economic cost of implememnting such a plan.

      Measures have been taken to protect flows already and the changes to irrigation methods have been in place for years.  The buying of water allowances does nothing to increase flows at all. Also many farmers were charged for water they didn’t even get. So let’s not get all hysterical over the issue.

      All anyone asks is that the people charged with presenting this report to the government take a more realistic approach to the report. After all, the MDBC has no actual experience in the science or the food production that takes place there. Commonsense should prevail over environmental rhetoric.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:47am | 02/11/10

      Mags

      The buying of water allowances does increase flows. It can’t do otherwise.

      At present, there is more water allocated than there is in the river system in even a very good year.

      If some of that water is bought back, there is more for everyone else.

      This means that, once the buybacks are complete, the farmers remaining in the system will have improved water security.

      This will allow for long term planning and open up more markets (reliability of supply is always an issue there).

      So a buyback is a win-win; it means that farmers who are burdened with debt can pay some of this off (and perhaps leave with dignity), those who have already made water savings can cash in on these, by selling some of their current entitlement and those farmers who remain (because they can see that they can make a living in the long term) will be more secure.

      Farmers were not charged for water they didn’t get. They paid to keep their water license valid.

      The fact is, irrigation systems need maitenance even when they aren’t in use (in fact, that’s a brilliant time to do maitenance on them). Even if you don’t make a single telephone call, for example, you’ll stil have to pay something on your phone bill - to maintain the service.

      If the MDBC has no actual experience in the science or the food production, then it’s good that they’re consulting. Those attending the consulation centres should take the opportunity to educate them, not abuse them.

      Of course, one could argue that farmers also have no understanding of the science or the economics behind the plan - does that mean they shouldn’t have a say?

      I’ve never known a plan for anything which has been taken out for consultation and come back unaltered. Farmers and farming communities should be taking the opportunity offered to them to make their concerns heard, rather than over reacting.

    • Tom says:

      09:59am | 02/11/10

      If you want to sound like you are intelligent and know what you are talking about Persephone at least get your acronym right!

      The MDBC was abolished and has been replaced by the MDBA not that you have ever let the facts get in the way of a good story.

      Ms Rishworthless this is a hopeless story full of the ridiculous prejudices which are hampering any real meaningful discussion on the future of the MDB.

      The simple fact of the matter is that we are going to a political decision made on whether country communities will survive.

      The MDB, particularly the southern basin is so altered from its natural state by man that man now plays god and despite the MDBA’s so called independence the Government will make the final decision on which wetlands, towns, communities, and farms survive and which die.

    • CaptainCrunch says:

      01:42pm | 02/11/10

      Pers says:

      “The buying of water allowances does increase flows. It can’t do otherwise.

      At present, there is more water allocated than there is in the river system in even a very good year. “

      So how does buying back water that does not exist, increase water flow?

      “If some of that water is bought back, there is more for everyone else.

      This means that, once the buybacks are complete, the farmers remaining in the system will have improved water security.”

      Only if it continues to rain and enough farmers are sent back to the cities to pay penance for their water crimes.

      “So a buyback is a win-win; it means that farmers who are burdened with debt can pay some of this off (and perhaps leave with dignity), those who have already made water savings can cash in on these, by selling some of their current entitlement and those farmers who remain (because they can see that they can make a living in the long term) will be more secure.”

      How about we build a few dams and kill a few frogs instead of making farmers leave with dignity (as you say)?

      You are so condescending and superior in your writing with no cause for you to be so.

    • persephone says:

      06:39am | 03/11/10

      Captain Crunch

      the aim is to buy back enough water entitilements so that a point is reached where not only can all exising entitlements actually be allocated but there is then extra for the environment.

      This is perfectly possible.

      It is also possible to buy back enough water so that, even if it doesn’t rain, those left in the system have enough water to keep going.

      (And you’re right; one of the drivers of this is the recognition that traditional rainfall patterns can no longer be relied on. It is thus even more important to try and stabilise the system).

      Dams don’t solve the problem; by definition, they hold back water that was going to go somewhere else. They also further disrupt natural systems, which is precisely what this whole thing is designed to restore.

      If anything, dams lead to over exploitation of exisiting resources, because they make users complacent and encourage them to over extend their water use in good times - which means in bad times, they are left with unsustainable crops.

      Oh, and frogs quite like dams. So do ducks.

    • Muzz says:

      07:38am | 02/11/10

      I thought the Murray Darling Basin Authority was independent of the Government. You seem very determined to agree to what ever they come up with, and anyone who doesn’t agree fully with their plan should shut up and just agree. I don’t think I have ever heard the Coalition say they oppose river reform as your missleading article and headline suggest’s.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:27am | 02/11/10

      The Coalition will oppose or not, according to what gets them the most votes, and ultimately power! They have no interest in what’s good for the dumb punters. Many farmers are already conservative in their politics.  They hate unions, and any government which will stop them from exploiting people or the environment. You have to look at what their businesses depend on for economic success.

    • jim french says:

      07:54am | 02/11/10

      And so the talk- fest continues and deep down we know that nothing will actually be done.  Why not form another study group and do another feasibility study, that should fool the public long enough for the issue to fade away.  Is anyone else out there sick of politicians feeding us nothing but continuous spin?  Please pass me the Prozac.

      Reply

    • Charles says:

      08:02am | 02/11/10

      Where are the coalition walking away from Murray River reform?  I see the ALP/Greens running away from their distastrous plan and putting it out to the ‘never never’ with another of their committee recommendations.

      Water quality management is a live issue, but it would help if the proponents had some understanding of how it is arrived at.  Water allocation is actually a relatively small part of the issue, while catchment managment is the more important component in this problem.

      Try to see that it is actually the inflows which are more important than the out-takes, and rather than making vacuous political points, try to do something positive with the issue.  Although I do realise that being positive and the ALP are mutually exclusive items

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:41am | 02/11/10

      Charles, perhaps your expectations of thr ALP are higher, because you’ve become accustomed to constructive politics from them?  When has the coalition ever expressed any positive/constructive policies, since Abbott started displaying his brilliance?

    • Andy says:

      08:36am | 02/11/10

      Everyone agrees there has to be water reform, even the irrigators and the Coalition agree. No new news there. It’s you guys who need to act and have the courage to do something and stop blaming the Coalition for your nervousness to act. Maybe your Leader could show some guts and leadership and stop wasting time on trying to discredit the opposition and blaming past Governments. The election campaign is over.

      Reply

    • casba says:

      08:53am | 02/11/10

      Welcome back Persepone.  Are you back now that Kevin is back? Did you lose your job when Kevin lost his “other” one? We missed your know all approach to everything!  Why won’t you just tell us you are connected with the Labor Party and be done with it?

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      10:57am | 02/11/10

      I do like the implied flattery - no, I am not paid to do this. The high quality of my posts is simply due to the fact that I’m well read and well informed.

      I have, on numerous occasions, too boring to mention, declared that I am an ALP member and do work for them on a voluntary basis.

      As for ‘back’, I’ve been in and out.

      You will be delighted to know that I’ve had a (alas temporary) increase in my working hours over the last few months (nothing to do with politics) which hasn’t left me much time for other activities.

      Besides, I’ve been finding this blog fairly boring and predictable.

    • MarK says:

      11:48am | 02/11/10

      “Besides, I’ve been finding this blog fairly boring and predictable. “

      Became a lot less predictable while you were away. Never boring regardless of your presence or not.

    • The Badger says:

      09:06am | 02/11/10

      “I hope that Coalition members will stop their political opportunism”

      well keep hope alive and don’t hold you breath.

      This conservative opposition is the party of NO. The main principle that drives the conservatives is to oppose and be obstructive in all things.  They do this in hope that somehow this will translate itself into being acknowledged as the rulers they believe they were born to be.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      10:46am | 02/11/10

      Speaking of no

      Gillard…

      “Since entering Parliament in 1998, Gillard added her vote to entrenched Labor opposition against reforming legislation. She opposed legislation to reduce the lowest marginal tax rate from 17 per cent to 15 per cent and increase the top two personal income tax thresholds.

      She opposed an increase in the income threshold for the Medicare Levy, and she opposed the introduction of the 30 per cent Private Health Insurance rebate and the abolition of the 15 per cent superannuation surcharge.

      She was opposed to the GST.

      Those employers politely applauding her remarks on Tuesday should have been aware she opposed legislation to ban secondary boycotts and to ban compulsory union fees.

      She opposed proposals to toughen welfare to work requirements, and to give protection to the right of Australia’s 1.9 million independent contractors to remain self-employed.

      This self-proclaimed reformer worked with the historically corrupt MUA to block waterfront reforms which have seen productivity levels escalate beyond what she, and the trade union movement she represented, claimed possible.

      Gillard opposed every single Coalition Budget measure that turned Hawke-Keating Labor government deficits into surpluses and left the Rudd government with a bomb-proofed economy that enabled Australia to ride out the global financial crisis”

      See if you can a hole in that Badger.

      If no is so bad why is Gillard not the target of your mockery?

      PS….catch up with BoltA getting Laker sacked yet?

      Any comment eh?

    • Jim says:

      12:03pm | 02/11/10

      Facts, logic, and use of multi-syllable words MarK…you know Weasel won’t get past the first paragraph! His wit is limited to personal attacks and snide comments which only he finds funny….

    • jeffb says:

      03:49pm | 02/11/10

      “She was opposed to the GST.”

      So was Howard. Your quote sounds like it could be from any politician in Australian history, yet somehow its special because its about Gillard?

      Jim, you’re easily impressed, perhaps you could master the art of copy and paste yourself one day.

    • MarK says:

      08:03am | 03/11/10

      Oh dear jeff you are a duffer aren’t you.

      Just so we have all our ducks in a row.

      Howard was against a GST

      Howard then changed his mind and actually had the courage to go to an election and fight for it (juxtapose the coward Gillard and the carbon tax but I digress)

      Gillard voted against the GST when Howard put it foward.

      See son? Gillard voted against a government bill that had been an election issue. She is a wrecker. A no girl.

      In other words she is a hypocrite.

      Of course she has the right to vote how she wants. Doesn’t change the fact she is a hypocrite.

    • Sally Q says:

      09:11am | 02/11/10

      The ALP do something sensible about the Murray-Darling? Ha it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

      Reply

    • Sally Q says:

      09:11am | 02/11/10

      The ALP do something sensible about the Murray-Darling? Ha it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      09:31am | 02/11/10

      @Sally Q: I am sure that it will be the same cold day in hell when the ALP/Greens doing something other than break promises and actually represent the will of the people who elected them.

    • acotrel says:

      09:36am | 02/11/10

      I believe the North-South pipeline is an admission of defeat.  Sensibly the government would stimulate industrial development in northen Victoria, and move the demand for water back there, by transferring the population explosion.  Growth in Melbourne must be ultimately unsustainable, there is already difficulty in providing decent public transport.  The traffic and housing situation is ultimately self-defeating. Perhaps the first home-owners grant should only apply in country areas?

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      10:03am | 02/11/10

      Will never happen acotrel…Victoria, like the Hunter Valley, is full of rusted on mouth breathers who will voter Labor regardless of how poor and corrupt they are. Labor won’t waste their time in these areas, and neither will the Coalition. And Victorians are drifting closer to the Watermelons and their socialist ideas with even more power to the union thugs, without thinking about their policies on industrial development.

    • Harry says:

      10:00am | 02/11/10

      The Coalition don’t oppose water reform.

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      10:21am | 02/11/10

      Farmers have for years adapted towards getting more out of their land with less…30 years ago open ditch irrigation was the norm, as was the slash and burn approach to land clearance, constant tillage and over-use of chemicals. Now they use trickle irrigation mostly, leave wildlife corridors, practice in-stubble tillage. There are many other examples of farming moving towards more eco-friendly practices.
      Through it all they have been hit by drought, floods, fire, cheap imports. They have seen local processing factories forced offshore. They have been ripped off by supermarkets.
      This whole thing has been handled very badly by the government;
      1) The ‘consultative’ government we were promised appears to only consult behind closed doors,
      2) Simon Crean is despised in regional areas - his name is synonymous with unions, which are the reason why industry is decimated in regional areas,
      3) The farmers were told how much they were to lose with no warning. Straight out, ‘here it is boys’...no mention of providing any means of reducing water consumption (THAT would have gone a long way)
      4) It’s a thinly veiled attempt to keep the Watermelons feeding out of the ALP’s hands.
      There are two mines in north Queensland that together take about 6.3GL a month out of the artesian basin…for free. How does that compare to what the farmers take and pay for?

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      11:06am | 02/11/10

      Hmmm fun stuff first eh?

      Your bio doesn’t mention that you a Labor politician. Just a member of parliament. I know it might be embarrassing to admit it but do you think you can update it. Or are you sliding more to the Greens these days?

      Also I see you you did work as a surf life saver and as a swimming instructor. Laudable work. Thank you for you contribution sincerely. Can I enquire what type of swimwear you wore to complete those two functions please? Just for the record of course.

      That was fun.

      Now to the meat.

      I see you are out here busily spinning the guide to a draft of a plan.

      Leaving the plan aside for a moment since it is not finalised and we are consulting still so it is hard to ask questions on thin air the real question that needs to be answered is why has Labor and Gillard backed away from her pledge to implement the plan - before it became a guide to a draft of a plan - sight unseen before the election.

      The usual calls for the coalition to jump on board and rubber stamp and stop blocking a plan not written sort of sound silly when in reality the government and it’s current PM gave an unequivocal message of support before the election for the plan - as distinct from the guide to a draft pf a plan that it morphed into.

      While I am on the question front why was the report not released before the election? Was that a political decision? If not who made it?

      Howling at the moon about the other side not sharing is all well and good but first you have to show you have a set and are prepared to swing them.

      So

      1. Why was the release of the plan, sorry guide to a draft of a plan, delayed until after the election?

      2. Why has Gillard and Labor walked away from a clear unequivocal promise to follow the plan, sorry the guide to a draft of a plan, given a few weeks ago?

      3. Why will you not show a set and back the plan - sorry guide to a draft of a plan?

      4. Since we are talking about a plan - sorry guide to a draft of a plan, that is still under consultation (all of a sudden) what do you mean by this “Reform is critical. I hope that Coalition members will stop their political opportunism and work constructively on this issue”. How pray tell can they work destructively on something not yet produced to which your own party has yet to commit?

      5. What swimwear did you use when surf lifesaving and what swimwear did the male life savers wear?

      Pointless piece Amanda. You used the plight of the Murray to ensure we all knew the plan was now a guide to a draft of a plan and you don’t like the opposition. You seek to paint them as the bad guys when it is Labor that again has shown political cowardice on the issue.

      Well done.

      What a shame that meanwhile the relevant thing is Gillard and Labor lied pre election and now will not follow through. We will have to wait AGAIN for an outcome undoubtedly that will go to committee for consultation.

      The pattern is so obvious it hurts.

      No wonder Labor Party is not in your bio. It must be embarrassing.

      Reply

    • Hugh says:

      11:33am | 02/11/10

      What are the authors credentials to speak on the topic?

      Farmer? Irrigator? Agriculture expert? Demographic expert (to discuss employment consequences with some authority)

      Please dont let it be inner city hippy…. please! No one gives a rats arse about your opinion on this matter if you aren’t directly affected by the proposed changes.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      12:24pm | 02/11/10

      Read her bio.

      She is a parliamentarian.

      Her bio doesn’t say it but she is actually a Labor pollie.

      As I pointed above she is probably embarrassed by he connection which is perfectly understandable.

    • Jim says:

      12:41pm | 02/11/10

      She also fails to mention her union involvements at uni and with the SDA. Another embarrassing connection methinks…

    • Andy says:

      12:50pm | 02/11/10

      Wasn’t she the one that used to sit behind Rudd in QT and her job was to do alot of nodding? No matter what he said she had to nod and nod and nod for the camera. I didn’t see that part of her occupation in her BIO either.

    • Jim says:

      01:04pm | 02/11/10

      Ah - The Nodders! the carefully arranged set of female ministers positioned like a halo around KRudd…all sagely nodding. Shame they were clueless….who was the blonde nodder? Yvette D’Arth? The one that didn’t know we had a deficit…haha

    • steviep says:

      11:53am | 02/11/10

      Rishworth - you have to be joking! Why did the Labor party actually delay the release of the report till after the election? Why does it delay everything - why didnt it release the Henry review and countless other reviews. Get real.

      Reply

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:17pm | 02/11/10

      Amanda !  Amanda !  Amanda !  How I miss seeing your head nodding away madly in agreement with everything that Gillard, Swan & Co utter during Question Time.

      Stick to the physical nodding.  Your written “nod” isn’t half as convincing !

      I worry for the country that one day may not be able to feed itself thanks to policies such as this.

      Reply

    • Shawn says:

      05:54pm | 02/11/10

      Amanda, I have been to Kingston many times and I cant even remember there being a river there. Certainly not any good ones.

      Sure, it has the potential for some quality waterways, but if my understanding is correct, under the current federal government, I dont think we can expect to see spending for river construction rise any time soon. Youve had 3 years so far, so its a sad endightment for your side Amanda, very sad indeed.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      06:08pm | 02/11/10

      Amanda I disagree
      Not enough water to go around eh. There is as much water now as there was 1,000 years ago.
      The reason water isn’t always flowing is part cyclical (Remember Nancy Cato’s All the Rivers Run?) and because water is now owned and flows are proxy controlled by a foreign conglomerate. These people want to claw back the money they spent in their shadowy public/private partnerships by creating a series of water panics.
      Who are we buying the water from – From God?
      We seem to have two agricultural sectors in Australia, primary producers and irrigators. Read primary producers good and irrigators bad.
      In South Australia our seasonal droughts used to augmented with Water from Lake Victoria, which is just over the SA border, in NSW. I doubt if many people in South Australia know it exists because it is never mentioned in the news. It is 4 times the area size of Lake Bonney and was built by our forefathers to protect the river Murray when S.A was in drought.
      It is interesting that the foreign owners of Australia’s water not only expect us to pay triple the price for our water, but our tax has to cover the cost of fixing their delivery infrastructure.
      A foreign corporation exercising control over our water gives control over the land and our means of production and could soon prove to be a force more powerful than an invading army in making us submit to some invisible hands controlling our destiny. If we accept this state of affairs without resistance, we will have more than dead lawns, dirty cars and expensive food to worry about.
      We should support our Australian Farmers and onl;y vote for polititians who represent Australian Interests.

      Reply

    • Colin J Ely says:

      08:03am | 03/11/10

      I went to the MDBA meeting in Melbourne recently. Got the impression there had been a sharp backpedal since the release of the guide. Think all the pollies had noticed the well positioned lamp posts outside of their electorate offices? I asked about the $5.5B allocated to water buybacks versus the current costing of $3.5B for the great Dr J J C Bradfield’s scheme of adding more water to the system. I was told that such things were not in the ‘terms of reference’. They also said there were many things in the same boat and they would be added as an appendix to the government when the report is finalised.

      Yes we are a ‘dry continent’, but don’t forget that we get 20 times the precipitation per capita than they do in the UK?

      Reply

    • Martin says:

      10:42pm | 03/11/10

      amanda your piece was well written and contrary to what people here have said she is actually one of the smarter members of the parliament who does a lot of hard work so just because she’s a psychologist doesn’t mean she knows nothing about the problems in fact she knows quite a lot which is what every south australian member of parliament should know about the water crisis since it affects them more than another other state in australia. go amanda!

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 27 May 12 04:24PM

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 02:08PM

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

132

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

17

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

2

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed