The Forum > Article Comments > Selling us down the river > Comments
Selling us down the river : Comments
By Bernard Eddy, published 29/7/2010Last week Australia was told, for the first time in a decade of subterfuge, that the privatisation of water is the aim 'moving forward'.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Manorina, Thursday, 29 July 2010 9:08:59 AM
| |
I echo Manorina's thoughts. There are concerning implications in the privatisation of water and indeed in the energy and agricultural sector in regard to foreign ownership.
The Greens are calling for an agricultural register to keep track of who owns our food resources to maintain a grip on biosecurity - perhaps this should be extended to essential resources like water as well. Profit should not be the motivator for community resources - there is an important place for profit and innovation but not at the expense of community wellbeing and sovereign rights as we choose to define them. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/28/2966825.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/selling-the-farm/part1/ The Centre for Public Integrity website outlines some of the consequences and one has to ask why our leaders are refusing to represent the people on these important issues. Water security is very much tied up with biosecurity and food supply. Posted by pelican, Thursday, 29 July 2010 9:56:41 AM
| |
I agree the issue of water security is vitally important and yes I believe water should be controlled by the Government for the people not as a source of revenue from corporations.
What I don't agree with is the approach of this article rather the excessive hyperbole and hysteria should be substituted by facts....the point is almost lost by the chicken little hissing and spitting. 10/10 for raising the issue. 2/10 for the presentation. Posted by examinator, Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:10:08 AM
| |
the timeliness and urgency of the topic of "who controls water and what's it going to cost us in the end?" is just right.
why is water a non-issue in the coming election? Because we're such wastrels when it comes to water it's as if there's no tomorrow. we assume cheap water will always be around, and when it isn't one of these days, and we're paying top dollar, we'll be "raising questions in parliament" but the horse will have well and truly bolted by then. we'll be well and truly "sold down the river" for a farthing then and wonder how that could have happened to such an egalitarian mob like us! Posted by SHRODE, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:16:59 AM
| |
150 SENATE Thursday, 9 August 2007
(Question No. 2971) Senator Bartlett asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, upon notice, on 29 January 2007: With reference to the Government’s water policy— (1) In Australia, is the water that falls on a person’s roof, the property of that person or the property of government. (2) If it is not the property of the individual person, under what legislation in Australia, are rights to water that falls on a person’s roof vested in governments, as claimed under clause 2 of the National Water Initiative (NWI) agreement. (3) Under clause 2 of the NWI agreement, can governments, at their discretion, set entitlement regimes for the use of water that falls on a person’s roof in Australia; if so, under what circumstances would state and federal governments issue a specific entitlement to persons who capture water from their roof and what would that entitlement be. (4) What magnitude of rainwater collected from roofs would be sufficient to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water as has been proposed by the National Water Commission. (5) Does the Government rule out setting an entitlement regime for persons to use water collected from roofs in rainwater tanks; if so, will the Federal Government ask the state governments to amend the NWI agreement to make clear that no rights to water that falls on a persons roof are vested in governments. (6) Is it correct that section 7 of the Victorian Water Act 1989 states, ‘The Crown has the right to the use, flow and control of all water in a waterway and all groundwater’; if so, is it the Commonwealth’s view that, for the purposes of the NWI, water from a person’s roof comes under this definition. Posted by Greg Cameron Posted by GC, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:54:54 AM
| |
(7) Is it correct that section 392 of the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 states, ‘the rights to the control, use and flow of…all water occurring naturally on or below the surface of the ground, are States water rights’; if so, does water from a person’s roof come under this definition.
(8) Is it correct that section 19 of the Queensland Water Act 2000 states, ‘All rights to the use, flow and control of all water in Queensland are vested in the State’, where: (a) ‘water means … (a) water in a watercourse, lake or spring; (b) underground water; (c) overland flow water; (d) water that has been collected in a dam’; and (b) ‘Overland flow water does not include … water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks’; if so, does water from a person’s roof come under this definition. (9) Is it correct that section 124 of the South Australian Natural Resources Management Act 2004 states, ‘the occupier of land is entitled to take surface water from the land for any purpose’ and does surface water mean ‘water flowing over land’. (10) Is surface water in South Australia: (a) water that is not captured and controlled; and (b) no-one’s property. (11) Can water that falls on a person’s roof in South Australia be surface water. Senator Abetz—The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) It is difficult to apply the concept of ‘property’ to naturally occurring water. It is better to look to the various ‘legal rights’ which arise in relation to that water. All states and territories have passed legislation which provides that the state or territory has primary rights of access to water, though these primary rights vary from state to state. Subject to these state and territory primary rights, and other relevant laws, the owner of the land will have certain rights in relation to water which falls on their land, including roof water. Posted by Greg Cameron Posted by GC, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:55:39 AM
|
I think the best outcome of this coming election would be a hung parliament - ie,Greens and independents holding the balance of power in both the House and the Senate.