I'm with you Perseus.The over regulation and incompetence of this Labor NSW Govt knows no bounds.Totally arrogrant ,out of touch,ignorant and absolutely stupid.

Just look their new proposal for a desalination plant in Sydney.It will use the energy of 250,000 cars per day,cause pollution and use our vital energy resources.They won't consider recycling of water because they assume people won't drink their own waste.A private company had to take Sydney water to court to gain access to our waste sewerage.They fought tooth and nail to deny access because this would break the Govts monoply on water supply.That's why they want to sell us bottled electricity in the form of a desalination plant!

Well guess what,sewer poors into Warragamba Dam and that's why we have problems with guiardia and cryptosporidium.They use the same logic to shut down the operations of farmers and the logging industry.What a bunch of hypocrites!

Either this Govt is totally stupid and bereft of common sense or they have become totally corrupt.

Arjay I agree with you that there lots of really bad directives undertaken by various state governments and the feds. The water issue in Sydney, Perth, and many other places across the country is one of them. My biggest gripes are their unified promotion of continuous expansion of population and economy, thus taking us rapidly away from sustainability and over the precipice into a very different and much uglier society. The water issue is really just a subset of this.

But when it comes to tree-clearing, they are at least on the right (the good) half of the spectrum. It’s a long way from perfect, but then I have never said it was nor anywhere near it. As I have said before, even with all its imperfections and lack of fairness, it is a million times better than no tree-clearing or vegetation management regulation. Even Perseus won’t touch this part of the argument.

You could rest assured that if Perseus got his way with a new state, and became premier of it, he would run into a lot of the same problems of governance that he is so condemning of current governments over. A new state or regional rural government would achieve practically nothing, all else being the equal. He is not big on offering realistic alternatives.

I gave up debating with him last year after it became patently clear that he was incapable of sensible debate, being just totally polarised at every opportunity and often strongly misrepresenting of those that he disagrees with. For example, in is last post he says; “unanimous support from farmers for the veg leg”. Did I say there was unanimous support? I’m not sure whether it is deliberate misrepresentation or a really basic thought-process problem that leads him straight to extremes, but it’s chronic whichever it is. And he is always strongly offensive to boot. This is the signature of a very poor debater. I’d be very careful about aligning yourself with him.

I agree, Arjay. The amazing thing about water recycling is that effluent is more valuable to a farmer with the sewerage still in it than after it is "treated". Primary treated sewerage has $9 worth of nitrogen per megalitre and a high volume of soaps and other alkalis that can improve soil PH with lower use of Lime. So a simple swap of the farmer's good irrigation water for the city's fertiliser laden water would avoid the need for secondary treatment altogether. But that wouldn't create any urban water jobs for the boys, would it.

Ludwig, put any spin your departmental boss wants you to put, but the facts are that good, workable plans were developed in both Qld and NSW, by local Veg Planning groups, and in both states, they were thrown out by the urban political elite because they did not fit the view of the world from Glebe or Windsor.

So which part of "callous disregard for the rights of regional communities" do you not understand?

And history will show that both States acted on gross misrepresentation of the facts in relation to the character, scale, intensity and frequency of the range of vegetation change.

And in relation to Peter Spencer's district, if a principle of no-net-loss of native vegetation is to apply, why does the legislation fail to recognise HIS NET GAIN? If his forest has expanded during the period of his tenure, why do the clearing controls prevent him from making even minor adjustments to his veg cover? The clearing controls should only have applied to his property when or if the vegetation cover returns to the level it was when he bought the place.

What your comments have demonstrated here, Ludwig, is that both yourself and your department are too ignorant, and too malicious, to be trusted with any power over the interests of the regional community.

It would be very useful for the small number of correspondents who so vehemently lambast governments and bureaucrats to watch Landline (Sundays at noon on ABC TV) and listen to Bush Telegraph (daily at 11am on Radio National) to get a feeling of just how farmers are working with government people and scientists for the improvement of their lot and that of the country.

There is a great deal of goodwill out there. Sure there is criticism directed by all groups at every other group, but only very few people – only those that are really bitter, warped or simple-minded – level blanket condemnation at other groups.

In the interests of clarification, I tow no party line and I am by no means a lackey of my employer. My views are expressed entirely of my own volition based on my own knowledge and 23 years experience in north and central Qld. As far as tree-clearing matters are concerned, these views are pretty well in line with those of my employer but as far as sustainability matters go, I am vehemently critical of my department and state government.

One particular correspondent goes on like a broken record about me being a departmental officer (always expressed in very ‘colourful’ language) as though I should be embarrassed or ashamed of this - as though it is the sin of the century! Well, I am very proud to be have been able to make a career out of my passions – botany, ecology, geology and big-picture environmental issues, to work in a very positive manner towards sustainability and to have had the opportunity to really get to know many farmers, graziers, developers and consultants through my work.

So, may this person keep on letting every OLO reader know that Ludwig is a state government ‘bureaucrat’…. in fact much more of a field-based scientist than a desk-bound shinybum. (Oh no, not a scientist as well! Now I have reeaaaally put myself in the firing line!!)

As a former regular contributor to ABC Bush Telegraph, Ludwig, I can report from my own first hand experience, and those of many other rural opinion leaders, that the ABC is involved in heavy censorship of the content. It, like Landline, is a joke. It is a sickly, sacharine sop to the urban publics desire to see some sort of buccolic rural idyle. Anything that might clash with the green curtains is edited out quick smart. The preference is for "positive" stories, which is code for ensuring that the real perspective of the regional viewer never gets to air.

Even more sinister is the fact that the ABC now splits its news coverage. With one set of reportage going to the regions with some semblance of balance while the metropolitan coverage runs a blatant left/green party line. Many country people are not even aware that the same news gets two different treatments. In this way the urban bias and ignorance is reinforced at election time while the rural minority is left wondering why they are treated with such contempt.

And I don't have a problem with you being a departmental officer, Ludwig, but people have a right to know the context of your statements. Besides, you'd probably cause even more damage in a real job.

C'mon Perseus, be fair. Peter Spencer has had a pretty fair run on Radio National's 'Counterpoint', even to the extent of weekends at Shannons Flat being well publicised by Michael Duffy. And Duffy did a whole series, which seemed to last forever, but was, I think, four weeks, attacking green and bureaucratic attitudes to land-clearing. Not to mention interminable quoting of listeners' letters and emails thereafter.