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 > Democracy versus leadership in Poowoomba > Comments

Democracy versus leadership in Poowoomba : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 31/7/2006

The 'Big Question' is: why did John Howard insist Toowoomba vote on the issue of waste water recycling?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. 25
  10. All
This just reinforces the notion of Queenslanders as the dumb and dumber state.
Queensland - Dumb
Toowoomba - Dumber
Posted by feebee, Monday, 31 July 2006 10:13:46 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
In the sure and certain knowledge that they would reject it, plans a foot?
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 31 July 2006 10:27:02 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
I read the whole blog or is that bog and the only pro-environmental statement I could find was part of the last sentence:
". . . the Mayor Di Thorley is now reduced to just praying for rain."
That sentence faces up to reality. Yes the reality is that rain is not falling for what we are doing to the planet.
The reality is there is too little rain for the number of people.
i suggest Jennifer Marohasy re-write her blog again using the new heading "Let us pray for rain"
She then faces, did I spell "faces" right up to the fact we are being over populated for the amount of rain we have. She says that Toowoomba is too far from the coast to have desalination. Hey Jennifer, how much land is there west of Toowoomba before we get to the West Australian coast.
If we get Toowoomba people to drink filtered sewage, what do we do then?
As the population increases the percentage of sewage water to fresh water will have to be increased, won't it, until we are drinking pure filtered sewage.
Then when we get to that future point in a decade or two, what do we drink then?
Fresh air!
Posted by GlenWriter, Monday, 31 July 2006 10:56:35 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
So now people should not have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to drink treated sewerage? Forget that democracy nonsense, the PM should have given the Toowoomba council the money to get on with it?

While the treated water might be safe to drink, why wasn’t it suggested that the treated water be used initially on public and private gardens where it would clearly be accepted? After all, most water is used on gardens, in laundries, bathrooms and dish washing, not for drinking.

The Mayor and other pro-pee drinkers have been public relations morons, who obviously had not the faintest idea how people might react to drinking their own – and others’ - waste. On the others side, the anti-waste drinkers fully exploited the natural disgust most people have for drinking treated sewerage if they are not aware of the safety of the process.

Australians are only just getting used to the idea of using recycled water on their gardens. They are not yet ready to drink the stuff.

Softly softly catchee monkey. This episode is just another blunder in the saga of hopelessly amateur local government.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 31 July 2006 10:59:24 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
Ms Marohasy speculates "These farmers were supported by the Queensland National Party and it is possible that it was lobbying by this alliance that resulted in the Prime Minister insisting on a referendum."

There is no doubt that about that possibility. On the website of The Brisbane Institute, Jim Forbes observes:

" But also unlike Goulburn, Toowoomba's funding is contingent. Turnbull's colleague and local Federal MP Ian Macfarlane initially supported Water Futures but recanted in the face of the Berghofer campaign (along with several councillors and three local State Nationals parliamentarians). Provision of federal funding is now contingent on a 'Yes' vote being carried in a plebiscite to be held under the Local Government Act on 29 July 2006."
Posted by Othello Cat, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:05:32 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
Toowoomba still has a chance to lead the way. It will probably be the first city in Australia to have $4 / kilolitre water, compared to the $1 to $1.50 / kilolitre we are used to paying. If the average water user in Toowoomba cuts his water usage slightly, they will still only be paying about $1600 per household per year for water against about $550 in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The people of Toowoomba might think drinking, what they believe to be cleaner water, is worth the extra money.

Water using industries in the area probably don't have as much flexibility but it doesn't seem like industry campaigned very hard for the recycling plan. Maybe the $4 / kL fee will open up opportunities for other water users in the area to buy recycled water from the Toowoomba Sewage Treatment plant for a lower fee.

Lets hope the environment does not suffer in Toowoomba's efforts to get the water it needs.

This story still has a few more chapters to be written.

Well done Ms Marohasy and OLO on getting this article out so quickly after the election.
Posted by ericc, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:11:35 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. 25
  10. All

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