Throwing money at climate change 'damage' to the Great Barrier Reef is not going to overcome the real cause of damage. See

http://www.solomontimes.com/news.aspx?nwID=4043

JF Nutrient pollution has been known/very strongly suspected as the cause for some time.
Why else would the cane farmers be spending so much to deny it?

You only have to dive anywhere near places like Dunk Island to see the damage that agriculture does. The further from agriculture, the healthier reefs are. Any reefs close to runoff have been dead for years now. Sadly, the GBR is dying before our eyes and even the outer reefs are now dying off.
Real science has so little respect in our society that any finding that annoys people can simply be whitewashed by "independent studies" as used by the tobacco and oil industries. Another example of corporate responsibility (to profits at expense of all else) in action!

Ozandy, it is the southern city source of nutrient load/supply that is not scientifically known or admitted that is causing the overload, when it reaches GBR waters, the total load sometimes amounts to pollution.

Agriculture has been there for years with little or no impact. Farmers do not waste expensive fertilizer. It is nutrient pollution causing the bleaching, not toxic chemicals that farmers use. It is the oversupply of nutrients that coincide with massive southern city and town population increases. If anything, use of fertilizer has been decreasing due to increased cost and farmers curtailing waste. Farmers would deny it because they are lateral thinkers and know fertilizer use has not really increased, despite perhaps a few more farms.

Science knows the geology of eastern Australia longshore current but the CSIRO for sure does not know the biology of that current system that transports nutrient matter from Victoria to Cape York.

Dunk Islands dumps or soaks nutrients from tourists into GBR waters so increased damage is likely nearby.

The "independent studies" sure are doing damage to real science and I think this is one reason why the subject is no longer so popular in schools. Pity. Lets hope the situation changes with scientists standing up like decent people and coming forward with honest science and relevant solutions before too late.

govt is not only too big[the two party game is avoiding discusion]as i write turnbull into vootes is yet again attacking imaginary numbers[he could be debating the new tax[for egsample] in the co2 tax debate the two parties are chosing not to have

this is because the sponcers of the new_tax..[the finatial system..is..needing a new cash cow..,carbon CREDITS..that the derivitives traders will tade]..

its nothing to do with global warming/cooling change...remember cfc's ruining the ozone..it hasnt rated a mention...in this debate..were also not having by questioning govt PROJECTIONS..recall how they got it consistantly wrong '...constantly under real return..for cost-hello..sloppy joe and howhard

if we dont have a double disolution...this to will become clear this time next year...thus the too big to fail big govt opposition makes hay..before the under predictions become..yet again apparent

the non debates..big..[too big]..govt/public service..hasnt had..[its pretty smart not talking about the white/elephants..in the house..[nor the media loyally changing the topic to people..not dying from the manufactured bird/swine human flue hybred created in briton,..by the drug industry

I do agree with the views of the author.

If we accept there is a “sludge” effect inherent in government:

the tardiness and inertia, engendered from disinterested bureaucrats, versus the driving force of involved and motivated individuals –

Why on earth would anyone expect a government to be more “responsive” (let alone responsible) than those individuals?

I note the author wrote a paper on the wasted monies and resources of labor government motor vehicle strategies and policies.

Such strategies being no different to every other form of government intervention…viz

Tax the consumer to fund ….
Government favoured resource deployments…
Which, ultimately, pervert the product or service supply price in favour of a government sponsored “winner”…

Rather than

Simply letting the product or service live by its own merits before an informed and discerning consumer?

“Smaller Government” was recognized as the better option 30 years ago and it still is today.

All that has happened recently is some smart assed politicians got into the mix and regulated for a disaster, in the name of a political agenda.
The social and commercial basics remain the same, less meddling produces better outcomes because resources are now squandered on pre-ordained “government winners” - as the UK saw with the bungles of socialism in the post WWII years and the old Eastern Blog saw as their "all powerful" governments failed and built walls and fences to stop individuals leaving.

The Australian government - be it Labor or Coalition - presides over a modern monetary economy using a non-convertable fiat currency Col.

Taxes levied by the federal government therefore do not fund anything.