The end result of Mr Turnbull's big splash into a shallow pond with a very hard bottom can be expected to be a broken promise. Too much water and financial engineering on the brain? The Short term gain of a good idea badly implemented will become evident once it becomes obvious He and His party think that environmental problem solving is simple . The libs have had a chance to spend well - what have they done with the telstra money ? more waste would be a vote loser - as are all big quickfiz's -when the heat goes out of them .

Remove the spin and we are left with an old tale. Mr. Turnbull the politician is not putting up a solution but just shuffling the old marked deck. The smaller spreads alongside the river will be "resettled elseware" and the larger spreads will be given their land. That is the substance.

We probably agree then that nothing much will change . Similiar spreads and small card holders squashed. My point on other blogs such as http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com is that "the conservatives have an advantage with their constituency while they adopt realistic approaches to problem solving" . While someone may argue Howard knows what he's doing ( spending on infrastructure in rural areas? ) i think their increasingly unrealistic compromises over natural resource management and the high stake and high damage games played now at rural autralias expense , risk that support .

http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/politics/25539/#msg_25539

Section 100 of the Constitution gives in fact legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers to determine “reasonable use” of WATER from rivers! I know as Author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book on CD series and Grandmaster “constitutionalist” I publish about these matters.So, the Federal Government now desires to obtain further State legislative powers regarding WATER, even so they haven’t bothered to use their existing powers. It is the Federal Government that failed to control the over-supply of water, not the States.I grew up on drinking recycled sewerage in Rotterdam, and as such do not seek to express any views about its usage, but the moment the Federal Government can expands its legislative powers then those who oppose drinking recycled sewerage may just find that the federal government can use its new legislative powers to force anyone to drink recycled sewerage water!The State Premiers can claim they will set conditions, but constitutionally, once the Federal government obtains the legislative powers then it can do whatever it desires and ignored whatever conditions the Premiers pursue!Don't wait until it is too late. Pursue that the States keep their legislative powers!

AS Rudd and Garret found out today - if they didn't know before, the Libs are leaving the door wide open on credibility in rural and environmental issues .So wide Hanarahan had the simple task of to quietly reminding the visitors of a few home truths about what's really worth worrying about in water policy. (http://hanrahan.blogspot.com)
Having encouraged most of the best independant scientific infield advisers to leave their offices and get jobs in the private sector , the simplistic and anti public service conservatives are left to rely on their own wisdom or that of their paid " consultants " on those big picture views of water, carbon, and ecocycles. Clearly its not enough , when having indavertantly silenced the truth they too are at the mercy of a very noisy and well heeled media and hungry water industry sector.
The Market , of course "knows best" ..... how to make enough noise to silence " those poor bastards who make their living off the land " . Labor is set to win lots of votes in the country even it just listens , because the incumbenets have been mesmerized by itching ears and loud noise coming from the winners direction ....doing B....all for the country.

Thanks Gerrit for the detail.Your example shows the ephemeral value politicians put on their own words. Why would a thinking public take any other view of the value of their words when they do this ?
Better to keep the purse closed and thought ignorant and in doubt than open it and remove all doubt about both issues -- allow a whole lot of confused and ignorant conversation to fall out of the purse to get the said " money" .

Not long ago John Howard wanted legislative powers over “ports” but Premier Peter Beatty opposed this. The Federal Government seeks powers in education. They took Industrial Relations. Now they want WATER. What is next?

And, if Howard get the WATER then he can dictate Peter Beatty on the ports!
Howard could charge ships entering the port for a levy using the WATER!
With the “never ever GST”, his WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and a lot more I deal with reality not what they claim.
As for a 5-year SUNSET CLAUSE, obvious the premiers and their legal advisors don’t understand that once they sign over legislative powers then that is the end of it. A SUNSET CLAUSE isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

Hansard 27-01-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Sir GEORGE TURNER.-Will you briefly restate the point?

Mr. DEAKIN.-My point is that by the requests of different colonies at different times you may arrive at a position in which all the colonies have adopted a particular law, and it is necessary for the working of that law that certain fees, charges, or taxation should be imposed. That law now relates to the whole of the Union, because every state has come under it. As I read clause 52, the Federal Parliament will have no power, until the law has thus become absolutely federal, to impose taxation to provide the necessary revenue for carrying out that law. Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.

The blog is located on the Internet at this web-address;
http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_Q

And further;

Malcolm Turnbull already stated that he is not going to cut down the over allocation, then obviously nothing is going to change other then a change of politicians who make decisions.

Premier Michael Rann claims that John Howard is making concessions. What concessions I ask?
He has no general power in regard of WATER and now he might get it, using taxpayers money. Some kind of concession, I say!

Soon the Federal Government is going to dictate you must have a water tank and pay tax on it. Pay tax for the rain that falls on your property, and a whole lot more.

I challenge all Premiers and the Federal Government to come up with their best lawyers and seek to defeat me against my claim that constitutionally the States cannot refer legislative powers of WATER without a Referendum, despite what Subsection 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution may stand for.
They better keep in mind that I defeated the Federal Government lawyers on 19 July 2006 (after a 5-year legal battle) totally, on all constitutional issues I raised in the proceedings, and so they better know what they (the lawyers) are talking about before even contemplating to take me on.

PEOPLES POWER: protect and defend our constitutional and other legal rights and hold politicians and judges accountable.