The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Selling us down the river > Comments

Selling us down the river : Comments

By Bernard Eddy, published 29/7/2010

Last week Australia was told, for the first time in a decade of subterfuge, that the privatisation of water is the aim 'moving forward'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
(2) Historically, under the common law, rights to water were incidental to owning land (riparian rights and other related rights). Over time laws have been enacted by states and territories to vest the water in the Crown and provide for sensible water sharing in an arid continent. The reference in clause 2 of the NWI is to these concepts in the state and territory regimes.
(3) State and territory governments could establish entitlement regimes in order to regulate the use of water that falls on a person’s roof. These entitlements to use the water would be issued pursuant to legislation in each jurisdiction. The circumstances under which state or territory governments might issue specific entitlements in
relation to the capture of water from roofs, and the nature of that entitlement would be a matter for those governments.
(4) This decision is a matter for each of the states and territories. It has not been proposed by the National Water Commission.
(5) The Government sees no need for such an entitlement regime but as stated in response to part (4) of your question above, this is a matter for each of the states and territories.
(6) (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) These questions go to the legal interpretation of state legislation. The Commonwealth is not in a position to provide an interpretation of these provisions for the purpose of answering these questions as these are not matters which are currently the subject of Commonwealth responsibility or policy development.

Posted by Greg Cameron
Posted by GC, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:56:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is all very worthy and all.

But certainly in NSW, governments have consistently shirked their responsibilities in this area. As a result, we have been in a constant water "shortage" situation for many years.

There is plenty of water available, if we are prepared to pay for it to be collected, cleaned up and delivered to our houses.

If the government can't, or won't do it, then it seems reasonable to put it out to tender.

Granted, the price might go up, if you want to fill your swimming pool or hose down your driveway every weekend. But that would have to happen anyway, if by some miracle the government got off its fat backside and invested in the necessary infrastructure.

Which would you prefer, as much water as you can afford, or be kept in a state of permanent shortage by incompetent bureaucrats?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree Bernard and Manorina with everything you said.

Something like this would be by miles THE most critical policy to look out for- and judging by the history of both Liberals and Labor (and judging by the similar shallowness of the candidates today), neither would have any qualms doing such an abhorrent act.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 29 July 2010 2:31:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles you leave out two very distinct possibilities:
1- that there would be a competent government or public entity to take over management (easier to do if the public got off their backsides and simply voted for someone else).
2- that a private company would not be equally incompetent as the government, and if given control would change absolutely nothing but the price tag, knowing well that they cannot be held accountable if they own it. And judging by the sale of Telstra, Sydney Airport, Qantas, and the numerous public/private or fully-private ownership grants on infrastructure like the Lane Cove tunnel, I'm most definitely not holding my breath on water being the first success story. Especially considering the entity most likely to step up is our dear friend Macquarie Bank.

It would more come down to the possibility of better management from a different party or public entity to be voted in at some point, or the likelyhood of finding someone honest- BUT willing to take control over public infrastructure (such a thing to me seems like an oxymoron), and this entity continually remaining in competent hands (a trust, perhaps?).
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 29 July 2010 2:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a news blog, today.

>> The United Nations General Assembly has declared that access to clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right.

40 countries failed to support the resolution that led to the declaration, including Australia.

Some of those who abstained were concerned that the resolution did not clearly define the scope of this new human right and the obligations it entailed.

Many states also worried that the vote would undercut an ongoing process to build consensus on the issue currently underway at a different forum in Geneva.<<

The forum in Geneva is about the capitalisation of water as a resource, this time it seems the U.N. is on our side.
Posted by sonofgloin, Thursday, 29 July 2010 3:17:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
29 July 2010

Mr. Bernard Eddy

Lynne Kosky, ex Victorian Minister for Transport, on leaving her position last January, to a pertinent question replied; “who wants to run a railway”?

She had just frittered one thousands three hundred and fifty millions of taxpayers’ dollars on a ticketing system that will never perform the task for which it was intended.

All politicians we elect to administer our resources cannot be but like Ms. Kosky.

If these people cared about the wealth of our nation, if these people were trained to seriously work, they would not trust patently interested gamblers near that wealth.

Really, the ones I cannot understand are not the politicians, but those who elect them unconditionally, just on their words.

Take the new girl Gillard and her opponent Abbott. Where are their leadership qualifications?

What about penalties if they are not fit for the job despite their claim.

Or is our voting just a game of chance.

‘Until we start questioning ourselves first and then the ones who aspire to a position that implies our personal and collective future, we cannot call ourselves responsible humans nor ask responsibility from others’.
Posted by skeptic, Thursday, 29 July 2010 4:48:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy