There is something that is correct in a river having rights. now the rivers are looked after by parks, EPA. Unless the perpetrators of a crime against a river are caught red handed, its a hard task for a rivers carers to take action.

When you have a river like the Murray: in SA property owners own to the middle of the river. In NSW property owners own to the waters edge. In VIC property owners own to 60 ft back from the high water level.

This is an ongoing argument when someone drowns or someone is caught doing the wrong thing to the river. Who pays the cost of clean up or whose court will be used.

Massive blues are continually ongoing as to navigation or mooring on the waterways. All due to inconsistency of rules, which are largely made on the spot, which does not suite landholders or river users. Not to mention inconsistency of river police who do not know who made what rules for where.

If the river had national rules as to its use or abuse arguments that have existed since the existence of white man would subside.

NSW police will not cross the bridge. and VIC police say the murray belongs to NSW. NSW fisheries patrol the river but can not come ashore on the VIC side to apprehend. They have to get VIC police to apprehend an offender. Vic police can not enter the river because that is NSW territory.

Dear David,

You are right. Babies at present receive rights without obligations.
While I believe that to be wrong, this does not excuse my mistake.
I take back my statement, in which I failed to take into account the realities of the current age-of-entitlement.

I still find it scary for humans to be appointed "guardians" and have the power-of-attorney on behalf of rivers, as if they had even a clue what a river wants, what hurts it and what doesn't!

Don't you find this attitude towards rivers and treating them like babies, a bit patronising?

---

Dear Graham,

«Ironically, it appears the only religion that has to be separate from the state, is the one that gave rise to secularism in the first place - Christianity. All others, no matter how primitive, and/or half-baked, are welcome.»

Being separate from the state is a blessing, not a punishment. By nature, every religion is eventually corrupted, but when a religion has contact with the state, it corrupts much faster. As a Hindu, I always cringe when I see government funds "aiding" the local Hindu temple.

Gawd, it must be the week before the budget as it appears that there
is nothing to argue about !

Hi again Paul,

This might be extremely presumptuous of me (so whenever has that stopped me, you might say), but wouldn't it a sort of sacrilege to Maori traditions to reduce the gods and spirits in the rivers and trees and mountains to mere 'persons' ? Wouldn't they have to belong to particular iwi, hapu and whanau ? How could they be totally without relations, as persons ? Maybe they are rahui or tapu to everybody ? Or, of course, to get around it all, could they be adopted by a particularly important whanau, who speak for them ?

Just trying to tease it all out :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Bazz,

What's that budget of government got to do with us?
Don't you have your own life?
Why argue about things we cannot change anyway?
Just fork out your jizyah and get on with making the best with what you have left!

Oh Yuyutsu, surely you are waiting with bated breadth for our illustrious
treasurer to send down the tablets on which are inscribed all our future wealth ?

I thought why there is there a deathly silence except for someone telling fairy tales !