Prev
Next

Weird green science sells the people up the river

Bronwyn Bishop

by Bronwyn Bishop

26 Oct 05:29am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Environment, Greens, Mdba, Murray Darling Basin Authority, River Murray

48 comments

The green people consulted “the science” and demanded human sacrifice to the river to make it well.

Up the creek: what price saving a river? Photo: Getty Images

The writer of the Murray darling Commission draft report, that suddenly became a guide to the draft report (yet to be seen), declared that the legislation establishing the Commission required him to ignore the socio-economic effects of taking away irrigation entitlements and first concentrate on the wellbeing of the river – very green.

Trouble is the Water Act establishing the Commission in fact did require the Commission to consider the impact on people, communities and livelihoods. Section 3 (c) of the Water Act clearly sets out that the objectives of the Act include economic and social considerations.

Clearly the Commission headed by Mr Michael Taylor simply chose to limit their interpretation of the legislation and ignore the plight of individuals and families whose livelihoods are threatened by bureaucrats who say they know better.

Enter the Minister, or rather exit the Minister.

Tony Burke is paid a ministerial salary to be responsible for administration of his department and creation and development of policy. Under the Westminster system the Minister makes the policy and the bureaucrats carry it out. Not the other way round.

And yet as thousands of victims of the Government’s policies and the Commission’s draft report (sorry guide) who are refusing to be destroyed without a fight, the Minister refuses to face them like a man (sorry Minister) and instead hides behind the bureaucratic Commission and its bureaucratic Chairman.

The result is that the bureaucrat who interpreted the legislation in accordance with Government policy, which in turn was designed to appease the Greens, is copping the flak the Minister should wear and deal with.

Give back the Ministerial salary – you are not earning it!

Next – the Ministerial Statement, full of weasel words, implying empathy with the victims of the policy. Try this quote from the statement “… we all know the beauty of our landscape is inseparable from how we view ourselves”!

Or – “the river is woven into the lives and psyches of proud communities who history is etched into our nation’s story, and part of the lives of any Australian who likes to eat”. Give me Dorothea Mackellar’s words in ‘My Country’ anyday.

Minister Burke’s Statement is a backdown. He uses the Australian Government Solicitor as the excuse to say Mr Taylor’s interpretation of the legislation, repeated frequently at the public meetings Minister Burke refuses to attend, was wrong.

Mr Taylor, obeying the policy of Mr Burke, repeatedly said the Water Act was the work of the previous government (Howard), and made no provision to consider the social and economic repercussions on equal footing with the welfare of the river.

Well now the Government Solicitor says this is wrong and Mr Taylor and his Commission should have considered these things – so now he will.

What a mess!

And with all the cries from Minister Combet that industry needs ‘certainty’ regarding a Carbon Tax, what about some certainty for the farmers!

But the Greens are begging for more farmers’ blood. Senator Hyphen (Hanson-Young) tells farmers they have to “do more with less water” and ensure “river communities can be guided through a difficult transition time”. Never a word of feeling for individual farmers and rural businesspeople who work hard to provide food on the table for the latte lot that prefer the environment over people.

As the ALP Government Minister Burke backs away begging for understanding (for him) and consensus for whatever comes out of the Commission’s reconsideration, you can bet the real power in the Labor/Greens alliance will push for more human sacrifice to their avaricious utopian ideology.

Most commented

48 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Herb Holden says:

      05:01am | 26/10/10

      Criticizing a policy is fair enough,however it is incumbent on the critic to offer alternative policy. What I wonder ,would you do Bronwyn.  Obviously bereft of ideas beyond preferring people over the environment, how about realizing that the two actually are the same thing. How about realizing the impact of 14 years of drought. How about realizing rice production is a bad crop to grow over an Australian summer. How about realizing the advantages of winter cropping.How about realizing that coffee is the second biggest commodity traded in the world. How about realizing the mighty Murray should flow to the sea.

      Reply

    • Scot says:

      12:31pm | 26/10/10

      Herb, What rubbish. One thing that the great farmers of this country know is how to get the best Instead of asking Bishop. Ask yourself, go and see for yourself. The rural area has the highest suicide rate in the country and what is being done about this. What we have seen in NSW by Labor is 16 years of inept delivery and large black holes by fools that sit in Sydney and right rubbish about how the farmers should behave. There is an 80 page book of rules. If this was imposed on people in the city their would be blood in the streets. Farmers have not raped the Murray, they have water entitlements they pay for and have had no return for many years. They cannot use the water unless the river levels and flows meet agreed targets and this has not been the case for years, so they pay for nothing? The Greens and the fools in the city will scream when all their food is imported and the cost increase because we no longer grow food for Australians. If the farmers stopped shipping for 6 months what would the city people do? There would be food rationing.

    • Jay says:

      02:46pm | 26/10/10

      Herb why should the Murray flow to the sea?This is the problem with you Green intellectuals, it all sounds good in theory, a little like Communism did, it is when you put it into practice that you discover it does not work. You have no interest in people at all and could not give a stuff.A gay man gets bashed in the City and you will howl about the injustice. Hundreds of farmers get thrown off their land, and lose their livelihood which has been passed from generation to generation, and you and Mr Brown just shrug your shoulders.Gay marriage is a much more important issue rather than concerning ourselves about the livelihood of our country folk, so quick let us get on with that debate.

    • persephone says:

      06:16am | 27/10/10

      Scot

      one could say the same about your piece.

      One of the reasons for the high suicide rate in the country is that we encourage - through the provision of cheap interest and income support - farmers to stay on unviable farms through years of drought.

      This means that these farmers accumulate huge debts which they can never pay off. They have almost nothing to do, because they’re not farming, and they’re dependent on welfare (which is depressing in itself).

      Far better to take a more practical view, determine which farming areas are viable into the future and discourage continued farming in areas where it can’t be sustained.

      Farmers have water entitlements, yes, and they pay fees for water infrastructure - infrastructure which needs ongoing maitenance regardless of the climatic conditions. (So I assume that you’re arguing for even more subsidisation, if you don’t want farmers to user pay).

      The whole point is that water entitlements have been over allocated, so that more water can theoretically be taken from the river system than it actually holds in a good year.

      According to you, farmers haven’t been producing anything for years. Therefore we must have been importing the food which they haven’t been producing . Therefore food prices must already be increased. Therefore withdrawing water from the system won’t see any change in this.

      The facts are that, even at the height of the drought, we were exporting 66% of the food produced in the country, so there’s a long way to go before we have to import all our food.

      Finally, an 80 page book of rules? Well, don’t farmers get it easy. Small businesses have to be aware of far more complex and detailed legislation than that - OH&S, Workplace relations laws, consumer standards, taxation laws, local council regulations, food safety legislation, etc etc.

      Jay

      It will surprise you to know that, in fact, the river flowing to the sea is not some crazy untested Communist idea but something which has occurred on frequent occasions in the past.

      It did appear to work in practice.

    • Scot says:

      07:24pm | 27/10/10

      Herb. There are no Greens intellectuals? That is an oxymoron. They want to destroy the agricultural and minerals base in this country and turn us all into vegetarians. Well I for one will not be following their mantra as it is all lies and deceit. Even what they teaching in schools is all lies by Al Gore. He has 35 lies in his film that have now been found out.

    • Scot says:

      07:28pm | 27/10/10

      Persephone. When you own and run large country properties as our families are doing and have done for over a 100 years I will listen to you. Until you have then I will not. Put your money where you mouth is. You have no idea what it takes to run and support rural industry in Australia.

    • Ryan says:

      08:39am | 28/10/10

      Persephone is just spouting the Labor/Greens party line, and what she is telling you as a staffer is that “Labor and the Greens blames the farmers”!

    • CJ Morgan says:

      06:39am | 26/10/10

      What a snarky, childish and illogical piece.

      At least the Gillard government is doing something about over-exploitation of the MDB, unlike the government of which Ms Bishop was a member.

      Can’t the Opposition do anything positive at all?  Seems to me all they can do is whinge and snipe.

      Reply

    • Scot says:

      12:42pm | 26/10/10

      CJ. So you are an expert on the bush. When as the last time you lived or spent any time there. And for those that may not know history the first irrigation system in Australia was designed and built by the Chaffey brothers. China and Libya have built some of the largest irrigation systems in the world. China is moving water on a grand scale from the south to the Nth and Nth east. CJ maybe you and your mates should go and see what people with vision can do.

    • The Badger says:

      05:54pm | 26/10/10

      Pretty simplistic view of the problems the MDB is facing scotty boy.
      What a snarky, childish and illogical comment by you.
      This ain’t china and we certainly don’t have the Himalayas feeding the MDB. 

      Maybe you and your mates (if you have any) should go to the big smoke and get some learnin? Then you can help fix up your country cousins problems.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      09:21pm | 26/10/10

      Hi Scot, I didn’t claim to be an “expert on the bush”, but I’ve live here for quite some time - as it happens, in the Border Rivers area that is often acknowledged as the source of the Darling.  It’s one of the reasons I’ve had a deep interest in this subject for many years now.

      I agree that irrigation is an essential technology in food production, but you’d also have to agree that we’ve overdone it in the MDB.  If you have any firsthand knowledge of it, that is.

    • acotrel says:

      09:25pm | 26/10/10

      Scott, you’re obviously NOT a farmer.  You’d know that the farmers in the Murray Goulburn had their fruit quotas cut by 25% this year, and that McGuigans renegged on their contract to buy wine grapes. We export 60% of what we grow overseas!  And if the Greek citrus crop fails we’re rapt, it means we have a market.  We’re obviously in overproduction, and anyway the Coalition just don’t care if we buy all our food from O/S.  We get plenty of money from the resources boom. That’s where they see our future, and they cannot see beyond that!

    • TrueOz says:

      06:41am | 26/10/10

      If section Section 3 (c) of the Water Act has been breached in the preparation of the report, why doesn’t one of these action groups use the courts and serve a Writ of Mandamus on the bureaucratic air thief directly responsible for its production. Public servants love courts order telling them to do their jobs!

      Reply

    • Ted N says:

      07:19am | 26/10/10

      A far right shoe thrower missing the audience smile

      For more than 10 years your government did nothing on the biggest agricultural issue of our time Brownyn!

      And what nutcases advocate the industry standard of “flood irrigation” or open air irrigation where more than half of all irrigation water evaporates into thin air without seeing a crop? Might as well flush it down the dunnie and then go and find a hypen greenie to kick for your childish unscience tantrum!

      If you can’t even land punches on the Greens Brownyn it’s time to retire.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      07:21am | 26/10/10

      Section 3 of the Water Act (only in the interests of informed debate).

      3 Objects
                  The objects of this Act are:
                    (a)  to enable the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the Basin States, to manage the Basin water resources in the national interest; and
                    (b)  to give effect to relevant international agreements (to the extent to which those agreements are relevant to the use and management of the Basin water resources) and, in particular, to provide for special measures, in accordance with those agreements, to address the threats to the Basin water resources; and
                    (c)  in giving effect to those agreements, to promote the use and management of the Basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes; and
                    (d)  without limiting paragraph (b) or (c):
                          (i)  to ensure the return to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction for water resources that are overallocated or overused; and
                          (ii)  to protect, restore and provide for the ecological values and ecosystem services of the Murray?Darling Basin (taking into account, in particular, the impact that the taking of water has on the watercourses, lakes, wetlands, ground water and water?dependent ecosystems that are part of the Basin water resources and on associated biodiversity); and
                        (iii)  subject to subparagraphs (i) and (ii)—to maximise the net economic returns to the Australian community from the use and management of the Basin water resources; and
                    (e)  to improve water security for all uses of Basin water resources; and
                    (f)  to ensure that the management of the Basin water resources takes into account the broader management of natural resources in the Murray?Darling Basin; and
                    (g)  to achieve efficient and cost effective water management and administrative practices in relation to Basin water resources; and
                    (h)  to provide for the collection, collation, analysis and dissemination of information about:
                          (i)  Australia’s water resources; and
                          (ii)  the use and management of water in Australia.

      So, without descending into a treatise, the bits in (c) are subservient to giving effect tto the international environmental agreements that underpin the Constitutionality of the Act and which are referred to in (b).  Mr Taylor’s interpretation may be found to be wrong (I am not the High Court), but there is a pretty reasonable argument for his interpretation.

      Apart from that, this is the usual Bronny combination of vitriol and non sequiturs.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      11:49am | 26/10/10

      It doesn’t matter too much in some cases how wrong an interpretation is ian, as long as it gets corrected before being too late.
      and c) is less subservient than not to be ignored.
      ” (d)  without limiting paragraph (b) or (c): “
      Just from another bush lawyer.
      So a politician writes a piece on ministerial performance with a draft that is now just a guide according to the government that is back pedalling as fast as possible and you consider it vitriol and non sequiturs!
      Not so strange from you.

    • David C says:

      07:25am | 26/10/10

      watch out Bronny soudn to me like someone is going to throw a shoe at you

      Reply

    • LeapingLeroy says:

      07:34am | 26/10/10

      So now science is “Green and Weird”, sounds a bit ‘tea party’ to me.

      This continues a liberal theme recently of shooting the government department messenger where departments like Treasury (costings scam), BOM & CSIRO ( Global Warming) show them up.

      We the Neo-Cons only like the bits of science that excludes Darwinism and Global warming because they don’t fit with our ideology or narrative.

      Reply

    • Daniel says:

      07:38am | 26/10/10

      “But the Greens are begging for more farmers’ blood.”

      What a ridiculous line. What rubbish. The Greens have had a policy on the river for years and people had the chance to view and digest it. What are you jumping up and down for Bronwyn? Murray river is a long way from your northern beaches Mansion huh?

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      08:07am | 26/10/10

      It is actually the Guide to the Draft PLAN from the Murray-Darling Basin AUTHORITY. An inability to get such simple facts correct should lead any reasonable reader to regard any further comments you provide as highly questionable.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      08:26am | 26/10/10

      My understanding is that the Murray Darling commission have released only volume 1 of their report.  Volume 2 contains details of the science which led to the recommendations contained in volume 1.  Volume 2 must be released. 

      Just as in the climate change arena, where science and politics meet simply saying “Science Says” without detailing exactly what science is being relied upon is completely inadequate.  It will of course really annoy those who want to see action to see the science supportive of action contested but to have any sort of sustainable policy position contested it must be.

      A further point.  I think its worth noting that Man has got to the position we now find ourselves through the exploitation and modification of the natural environment.  This has historically been considered acceptable.  All of us using the internet and living in houses are beneficiaries of this position.  At what point did it change?

      Reply

    • Macca says:

      08:54am | 26/10/10

      And wasn’t Volume 1 released at 4pm on a Friday?

      That doesn’t smell like ALP spin at all

    • Oppertunism? says:

      08:29am | 26/10/10

      We have had record rainfalls, the river is being flushed naturally and we are still being told to cut back by 60% in some areas.
      What is the problem with the greenies. Are they now backing Water Corporation who have invested heavily in water?
      The Hume weir is full…. Forecasted weather of rain should be substantial…
      Land grabs?

      Reply

    • Red says:

      09:17am | 26/10/10

      Don’t confuse weather with climate.
      Make a graph of your average annual rainfall for the last 50 years in Excel. Go to layout and Click trendline.
      Last year in WA - record winter inflows into dams
      This year hardly any
      Trendline heading south east.

    • Ted N says:

      09:57am | 26/10/10

      Yep and there is an additional hundreds of thousands of hectares of lost (prime) farming land to salinity since the drought began. Will the welcome rain reverse that too Professor? The River slid further into it’s death throes in the last decade.

      People like you are part of the problem.

    • Duncan says:

      10:37am | 26/10/10

      Oppertunism

        “We have had record rainfalls, the river is being flushed naturally and we are still being told to cut back by 60% in some areas.”

      What about next year, or the year after that?
      Do you expect these “record rainfalls” to become the norm?

    • watty says:

      08:42am | 26/10/10

      Sounds like another Wong “special”  like her “Global Warming” obsession. Trust me…the science is ok…just sign on the dotted line.

      As for the so called policies of the Church of the Latter Day Luddites a.k.a. the Greens and complying with so called “international conventions on water”...give me a break.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:53am | 26/10/10

      Relax Watty, the farmers have the situation in hand! They know something must be done about global warming, they’ve been coping with it for years. Most of them up our way get out and fight bigger bushfires every season.

    • Oppertunism! says:

      09:47am | 26/10/10

      Climate? According to some the Sun is actually getting hotter. This could be the major trend. But at this point everyone is getting on board to profit from the “Trend”. All have snake oil and vested interests to sell their snake oil. Confusing the whole issue. I would suggest we look at whats happening currently, ignoring so called trends which we cant do much about…..Realistically.
      Trust but verify may be the answer. It cannot be verified. we cant even trust Al Gore it seems. Others are overstating facts, or distorting facts. Does that tell you something?

    • Duncan says:

      07:15am | 27/10/10

      “But at this point everyone is getting on board to profit.. All have…oil and vested interests to sell their…oil.  Confusing the whole issue, others are…distorting facts.”

      Pretty accurate description of the reasons behind GW denial, you really nailed it Oppertunism.

    • The Badger says:

      08:55am | 26/10/10

      The messenger of Dr. No, and backup band the deniers (that live in the rusted chemical drum at the bottom of the garden) are returning to Burke for one last gig at the coalition Inn.
      They’ll be playing some of their new releases such as:
      What about me?
      Hand me the boat-phone matey
      Drought ain’t draught
      and some of the oldies but goodies:
      Cry me a river
      The night they drove Ole Johnnie down
      Let’s just keep on using till we will use it up


      Tickets on sale now from Packer internet enterprises - “charging you more for your tickets just cause we can”

      Reply

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:12am | 26/10/10

      We seem to be missing the bigger picture here. The rest of the world is debating the need for increase in food production that is required with a world population expected to reach 5 billion by 2050. Billions of dollars world wide are being spent on how to increase food production as there are already growing indications of the trouble this is going to cause. They are also looking at new farming methods to deal with the increase of fuel costs and eventual lose of oil based farming technologies.

      Yet in Australia we are preparing to abandon giant tracts of land used for farming to keep a river pretty. Not only does this sound idiotic I do not believe we have the moral right to be looking at such wanton abandonment.

      The lose of this farming land will probably be short term in the long run anyway as the call for it’s reopening due to food shortages will occur. We need to look for alternative methods to bring the MDR system back to life and possibly increase production in this area. Transporting water from the east coast would be a great first step. Yes expensive but food prices can only go up and if we have the area to farm you would expect that these costs would soon be met.

      Australia was built on the sheep’s back and that is our heritage perhaps it is our future as well and should not be squandered because of weird green science and latte swilling lawyers who can nit pick the actual meaning of Section 3 of the Water Act .

      Reply

    • Ted N says:

      05:11pm | 26/10/10

      More unscience! Will you pray to God or dance for a miracle to reverse the main issue MDR issue of rising salt - salinity, too? Water and Irish optimism won’t bring many parts of the River back.

    • ZSRenn says:

      10:09am | 27/10/10

      @ Ted N No I ask that we get the water from somewhere else like the east coast or the Argyle dam to help the river not give up valuable food production which our children will require. The river needs help the current solution is not a resolution.

    • Paul C says:

      09:30am | 26/10/10

      Ah, Senator Alliteration (Bronwyn Bishop), what a load of nonsense you write. Trying to ensure the future of a natural resources does not equate to ‘human sacrifice’. Sure, some farmers may suffer from changes to water usage rights or water allocations, but you know what? People adapt. They find alternatives. That’s something you and your party could learn - instead of bitching and moaning why don’t you offer up an alternative to the MDB plan and work with the Government (and the Greens you hate so much) to come up with something better? But you won’t will you? It’s much easier to criticise thatn it is to actually contribute.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:43am | 26/10/10

      To the Liberal Party, all science is weird and not to be trusted. Which is why the Liberals Party cut the CSIRO budget and abolished the company tax break for R+D…...

      Reply

    • Mick says:

      09:52am | 26/10/10

      Good one Bronwyn.  We all know the MDB usage needs reform, but what the greens are blackmailing Labour into doing is ridiculous.

      Reply

    • They ignored it! says:

      10:17am | 26/10/10

      On water rights. The constitution: Section 100 [Federal laws must not abridge State water rights] The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.
      They MUST comply with the constitution by law. The Water Act must comply with Federal laws….. Yesterday Mr Burke tabled legal advice in Parliament which showed that the Water Act “allows” the authority to equally consider social, economic and environmental factors. They were told they must! The act in itself was powerless without the Constitutional compliance.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      10:52am | 26/10/10

      Why does Adelaide need water anyway?

      Let’s just let Qld, NSW and Vic suck it all dry if the constitution allows it.

      Maybe we’ll let a little through, but it’ll be mostly phosphorous and pathogens that runoff from the farms most excellent practices. Hey, the less people in Adelaide, the less noise we’ll hear from downstream.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      11:40am | 26/10/10

      The farmers need water.
      Us city folk have enough.

      Reply

    • CountryGirl says:

      12:13pm | 26/10/10

      Unless you city snobs have a true understanding of whats its been like to live in a rural community for 13 consecutive years of drought, then you have no say.
      The same applies to policy makers in Government at both state and Federal levels.
      These farmers, and the townships they live near, need this water. This is the first year of decent rain, we can finally start planning for the future, instead of scraping by, hoping this year’s crops will be enough to feed the family and keep the farm going another year whilst waiting out the drought.
      It is ludicrous to think that because they have got by without proper water until now that this will be sustainable in the future.
      No, it will instead force farmers off the family farm, and vast anounts of land that could be used to feed our growing, aging population, will lie empty.
      We need the water, having the “mighty Murray flow to the sea” is a waste. That water could and should be used for crops, livestock, people!

      Reply

    • Red says:

      01:04pm | 26/10/10

      You first paragraph highlights the dilemma of the climate change argument. One side reckons the next 13 years of drought will happen shortly the other side reckons we will have 13 years of “normal” rain.
      I think your last paragraph eptomises an “I’m alright Jack” outlook. What about the people further down the “Mighty Murray”?

    • contrarian says:

      02:29pm | 26/10/10

      Hey Country Girl, us city “snobs” have provided you with 13 years of drought assitance with our taxes so you can continue living the lifestyle you have chosen rather than retrain and find another job. Thanks for your gratitude, I’ll be sure to buy only imported products from now on.

      If we had true proportional representation in this country you’d barely have one MP in parliament. As it is you vote for people who grant you huge amounts of financial assitance whilst arguing against financial assistance for any other sector of the economy.

      For you Agrarian Socialists it’s fine to bludge off the taxpayer for 13 years, but us city-slickers, well we should just get off the dole and work down the mines hey? Double standards, well that’s fine as long as you get what you want, no matter how much damage that does to the environment through salinity, pollution and waste.

    • CountryGuy says:

      03:07pm | 26/10/10

      Unless you country snobs are in SA drawing ~%5 of the MDB and providing ~  of the produce from the MDB, are using proper water provision methods rather than your lovely open channels, then you have no say.

      Please stop it with the wide brushes, CountryGirl. You’re not helping anyone.

    • JA says:

      03:41pm | 26/10/10

      Wrong - Red, the dilemna of climate change is that one side falsely predicted that the drought would continue and get worse including all the dams in all the cities drying up.  They then influenced politicians who reacted to the shrill by enacting such crap as MDP, built useless and wasteful desal plants etc.

      The other side predicted continuation of the variable rain cycles that Austrlai has eveloved with and no real reason for alarm.  The latter side is correct and you are wrong.

    • Joe says:

      01:53pm | 26/10/10

      Good on Mrs Bishop.  Labor’s sell out of our farmers is sugarhill disgracefull.

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      03:13pm | 26/10/10

      The Murray is full and the mouth opened again to the sea… Yet the zealots scream not enough we need to destroy the evil humans who toil to feed this nation of ours.

      10 years ago the river was being eroded and salinity was going to kill all life, then when that did not happen the zealots saw a drought and screamed ‘climate change’ take the water off them.

      Green madness, they would rather steal the water from the farmers, destroy livelihoods and families and for what to have increased ‘environmental flows’ whatever the hell that crap means.

      Enough is Enough and the people of the bush need to push back on these urban dwellers who think that all a river stands for is a place for them to camp once a year, not the life blood of our towns and farmers.

      The MDBA plan is based on false assumptions and dodgy economics, it is part of the Green plan to destroy business in the bush and must be defeated at all costs, failure to do so will see the death of Australia’s food bowl and this is a battler we simply cannot lose.

      Reply

    • David says:

      12:30am | 27/10/10

      HURRR, Bronwyn made a funny because someone has a hyphen in their name, HURRR. Do you even have to try to write these anymore? Why not just go straight for “Oooga Booga Greens and Labor, Hooray Liberals and Nationals.” Flesh it out to 800 words and you’re done. (Actually, on re-reading your article, you don’t need to follow this advice, you’ve already got it down pat.) How do you even sleep at night after penning this garbage?

      And what the hell is with you people and your fascination for the latte? I voted Greens (after the Secular Party and the Sex Party - thank god for the preference system) because they have a vision for Australia that I share, and I can’t stand lattes. Does this mean I should vote Liberal? Ohhh… THAT person likes really milky coffee, which tells you you so much about THEM. Petty epithets and broad sweeping generalisations are SUCH a huge voter turn on.

      If the Liberals could cohesively deliver a vision for Australia that didn’t revolve around giving tax breaks to corporations, selling off public infrastructure and demonising people for what type of coffee they like, maybe you’d get more votes.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:59PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

tory_maguire

_Tors 25 May 13 12:42PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:03PM

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 25 May 13 11:09AM

@benpobjie @jessadamson7 @jhwakelin kinda creepy from a high school cheerleader #misheardlyrics

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter