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 > A solution trickling away > Comments

A solution trickling away : Comments

By George Williams, published 30/7/2007

The dispute between the federal and Victorian governments over who controls Australia's waterways will ensure a less than ideal outcome.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
On Friday July 27 in the morning, it was announced that the Victorian Farmers' Federation had begun negotiating directly with the Commonwealth to try and resolve the deadlock the Murray-Darling basin agreement is in.

That very same afternoon, Steve Bracks the Premier and John Thwaites the water minister both announced their resignation.

In my view, this is not a coincidence. I do not believe that Bracks has resigned to become a better father. I think that the Victorian labor government would not have survived the VFF closing a deal on their own; nor could it remain on its uncollaborative stance; nor could it suddently back up and sign Howard's agreement.

Best to go before the water issue gobbled them alive.

This may be far fetched; the future will tell (i.e. what will be Brumby's position?)
Posted by CitizenK, Monday, 30 July 2007 11:21:51 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
But, but, but -

- that which is corporatised can then be sold, as we saw here in Victoria, especially during the Kennett era.

Surely there are better, superior, newer and more enlightened ways of organising a public commodity for the common good. Therefore why go down that path at all.

We are all on a pathway that leads to an unknown territory. We can't afford to use antiquarian ideas as a panacea for a brand new problem. Einstein pointed out that to use the same techiques that created a problem - in order to try and fix it - is lunacy squared.

Scientists should be in charge of this one, not merchant bankers, lawyers, corporations, or their political pimps.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 30 July 2007 11:50:50 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’m not sure that Bracks ever “asserted the interests of his farmers” as Labor hopeful George Williams says. The last news after the Howard decision to bypass Victoria was that Victorian farmers were eagerly awaiting Federal Government action and looking forward to water security that Bracks would never have offered with his pig-headed attitude.

You wouldn’t need many fingers to count the number of Victorian farmers who supported Bracks or any other Labor politician in this matter on any other
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 30 July 2007 1:49:21 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
chris, i find it a continual source of amusement that you think any special interest group will work for the common good. scientists are no different.

i do note the 'political pimps' with approval. now if you could just take that last step, to democracy...
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 30 July 2007 2:03:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howards move on water is cynical and opportunistic - even the Qland Nationals have the same reservations about the plan as does (did) Bracks.

Howards performance when the VIcs turned their backs on thelast draft gives truth the mans thought processes - he got very petulant indeed - telling all who cared to listen Bracks had had 5 months to come to the party - it seemed self evident that if Howawrd did not get his own way he would attempt a constitutional trump -

negotiation/consultation was tokenistic - not dissimilar to Bracks' approach to the De Sal plant in Wonthaggi.

Managing the MD basin will do little to preserve our water - When we have water we dont know what to do with it any way -

we are in in the driest continent on earth and can shamefully lay claim to being, on a per capita basis, the third highest consumers of water after the USA and Canada - till we learn to value what we've got most of the measures proposed are window dressing - .
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 30 July 2007 2:17:30 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
I agree with the view that scientists should be in charge of the Murray Darling Basin. They would need a clear charter to optimise sustainabile health of the river system and some ground rules in place to ensure that all science based decisions take place with transparency, are ethical and follow due consultation with stakeholders. It's worth trying a new approach.

The MD has been disasterously *managed* by state politicians and their ministerial minders, serving narrow sectional interests for decades.

Our Australian constitution helped to get us into this mess, thanks to the hands off approach by successive federal governments. It's been the sad failure of federalism that National Standards are never even on the radar when states manage infrastructure from rail to energy to water ... just about anything they touch turns to salt.

With a modicum of imagination, the federal government can assume more than ample power to do the job. Establishing or amending an international treaty with a suitable international partner, such as a reciepient of our endangered migratory birds, should not be too difficult to find. It's ironic and poetic justice that the most vulnerable bird species could help restore to health the nation's life giving arteries for all dependent species.
Posted by Quick response, Monday, 30 July 2007 3:56:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would be very interested to hear how the Victorian position on the Murray Darling is different from the Commonwealth. My guess is that it is do with water rights and who owns what.

The invention of property rights and the trading of those rights as a way to solve issues like the use of water is not a happy one. The problems are that when you create something out of thin air that has real value then it is certain to create problems. Every smart operator sees money being created out of nothing and wants to get a piece of the action because they can see how they can get wealthy by manipulating the process not by creating something of value.

The issue that should be addressed is how to build a system that will encourage directly through market mechanisms the development and implementation of technologies that will effectively increase the supply of water through savings and better use and mechanisms that will find the true marginal price of producing "new water" or saving water and of directing the use of water to the most economically valuable. This can be done and the way to do it is address the problem directly.

If you think water rights creates problems imagine the problems that are going to be created with emissions rights (or the right to pollute) where we need to get countries to agree. This whole approach to solving problems associated with community properties (water and air) will not work - or if it does work it will take too long and be too expensive. A new approach is needed that does not depend on inventing property rights for something that is not property.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Monday, 30 July 2007 8:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEMOS, I find it amusing that you describe scientists as a special interest group.

Is there anything that can't be commodified, economised, politicised, pigeonholed and packaged?

That statement says more than I ever could about the pickle we are in. Not only do we face the spectre of population overshoot in the teeth of diminishing critical resources and inclement weather, but we appear to lack the humility required to re-think it all from scratch. Yes, I am guilty too. No, I am not fit to tie Ghandi's loincloth. That's about it for my humility (but you already knew that).

I love the cut and thrust in OLO, but I can't help thinking that one day the excrement that comes out of our bottoms will be far more precious than the excrement that comes out of our mouths.

OK - that's my rant - forgive me.

I need an army of scientists to find out the full extent of the demands that I have been placing upon this planet. I want to know about the best plants to grow, given available water, quirky climate, geography, soil health and fossil energy requirements. I no longer want to be out of the circle of take and give. I no longer want my nutrition to be at the expense of the soil's nutrition. I want to leave rich loams for our grandchildren, and forests for them to dwell in.

It's do-able. It really is!
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 30 July 2007 8:44:21 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
chris, the only body willing to decide for the good of the majority of the people, is the majority of the people.

scientists can gather evidence and create strategies, but they can not decide those strategies without considering the consequences for their own career. they are looking out for themselves, just as we all must in a competitive world.

seek their advice, but choose which strategy through referendum.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 8:05:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris, I spent 4 years of the 6 years it took to develop the Logan & Albert water management plan, on the consultative comity.
We had more than a few scientists involved, & not one of them came without a personal agenda.

We had 3 types of scientist, government, academic, & commercial [consultants], & they all had the same major objective. To secure their joint & exclusive claim to the term "EXPERT". This was obviously critical to their continued financial wellbeing.

I was horrified when I discovered just how little they knew about our little short coastal rivers, & even more so when I found they were more interested in protecting their status as "expert" than learning from the considerable bank of knowledge of the commity members.

We have a dreadful management plan, partly because of the lack of knowledge of these scientists, whos advice was accepted above wiser council, & partly because of a government agenda, which was kept hidden, until the plan was drafted.

If you wish to be controlled by dills, get your scientists on the job. If you want something that will work, keep them in their ivory towers, where they can do less harm.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:37:59 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
thank you hasbeen. chris: like i said...
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 3:43:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You'd think that someone who spent 4 years on a committee would know how to spell that word...
Posted by CitizenK, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 12:27:57 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
Howard or Bracks ,Liberal or Labour ,

People in the Victorian bush who rely on irrigation water to make money in an arid environment and have a future for their children's children, are seeing their futures piped and taken away with minimum compensation to Melbourne and other big centres to ensure and guarantee big city prosperity .

That is simply bad policy and unfair for bush people.
Posted by kartiya jim, Tuesday, 7 August 2007 12:27:37 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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