Kellie Tranter quotes Transparency International's 'Global Corruption Report 2008: Corruption in the Water Sector' as saying:

"In Europe, North America and Australia corrupt practices involving or affecting water resources and services are not uncommon. Industrialised countries have their own forms of nepotism in their boardrooms and institutions; fraud and embezzlement feature frequently in the press. Even high levels of regulation and oversight have not prevented corruption from playing out where the public and private sector meet ... When state capture occurs, the decision-making process and enforcement of water policies are manipulated to favour the interests of a few influential water users or service providers at the expense of the broader public ..."

I just wonder to what extent this generalized scenario may have played out with respect to the interests of Richard Pratt.

The author observes that the National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2002, found that of the water diverted for use throughout Australia, on average, 77 per cent actually reaches the consumer, the remainder is lost to seepage and evaporation. I understand that Richard Pratt had made a similar observation some years ago, and proposed to do something about it. This is a link to an address he gave at the Sydney Water Summit on 30 March 2005: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:3mXoeGTj72QJ:www.visyboard.com/uploaded/pdfs/rpwater2005.pdf+Richard+Pratt+and+the+Renewable+Energy+Fund&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Richard Pratt put up $100 million of his own money in an attempt to get the ball rolling a little faster with respect to more efficient, less wasteful, delivery of water diverted for use.

My concern as a citizen is as to whether forms of "boardroom and institutional nepotism" may have in any way been involved in some of the seeming anomalies surrounding the bringing of a prosecution against Visy and Richard Pratt under the Trade Practices Act, and whether those seeming anomalies might reflect corrupt practice. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2625#59625

Institutional and boardroom noses out of joint?

It’s more than likely that more than two thirds of the world’s population will be affected by water shortages by 2025 – simply because of the size of the world’s population, which continues to increase.

Somebody wrote that, when you have to install desalination plants, you know that you have outgrown your natural population. David Attenborough was quoted in today’s media as saying that there is no environmental problem that cannot be solved by having fewer people.

The message to send to our daft politicians is: It’s the Population, Stupid!

Leigh said.....
"The message to send to our daft politicians is: It’s the Population, Stupid!"

Unfortunately, Leigh, the pollies already know the ugly truth about population, but because of big business, particularly developers and agri-business, they're effectively hamstrung by means of political donations so as not to be able to do anything.

Besides, political terms usually last a maximum of 4 terms, or less than 12 years. The chances are that when things start to go pear shaped and the current bunch of no-hopers get tossed out, the next bunch will do no better, but it doesn't really matter to them. All they're concerned about is remaining in power as long as possible.

On the other side of the coin, a vast majority of people have their heads buried in the sand and oblivious to the outrageous lies perpetrated by big business, politicians and local shires who continue to hoodwink the general population into believing that we can continue with unsustainable population growth in order to make a few at the top of the rich list even richer.

Time to wake up sheeple!

One way to have provided an increased water security and also to provide new employment in this Depression would be to subsidies a rainwater tank for all suitable buildings in Australia.
The tanks would be built in steel not plastic to save importing oil, stop them melting in bushfires, cut risk of biphenyl contamination from plastics.
The steel industry would benefit. There would be a large workforce required to install them and necessary gutters & plumbing.
It would save an enormous amount of run off which is being lost out to sea. It would save building more of the power hungry and polluting desalinations plants.

The article reads like the infighting between rodents over their ever decreasing slice of a pie. They rarely discuss why the pie is shrinking. They seem to get far more enjoyment from squabbling over how the shrinking slices should be distributed.

In other words Leigh and Aime, I agree wholeheartedly.

The artical reads more like an application for a yet to be announced consultancy, with a fellow traveling government.

Most of it is rubbish, followong the start where she quoted an activists statements as fact. Our greenies are getting good at building their house of cards on another, as if each new pile of stuff, validates the previous twaddle. They must be taking lessons from the AGW crowd.

Yes Sarnian, water tanks can supply the entire domestic need of most people, if used intelligently. I have supplied a family of 7, including 3 young ladies, with long hair, [the worst type of water users], for years from tanks, without ever running dry. Some of those years had rainfall below 450mm, so any east coastal area could do it.

Of course these type of prophesies can be self fulfilling. Our greenies keep demanding more & more water for the environment. In our area. The invertebrates in the river bed are much more important than the people on the bank, these days.