Howard's Federal Water Initiative

[ho-hum]

A thread to post information & impact of Howard's water initiative. It is early days yet so post information and perspective here as it arrives.

Talking to my local senator about this issue it arose for a number of reasons but mainly because the aborted sale of the Snowy Mountain Scheme. The fact that this sale was seriously considered by Victoria & NSW appalled many in the Federal Government.

Personally and politically I am very much a Federalist [not a Centrist] and do not like to see Federal governments increasing their powers but on this issue I am inclined to agree with their strategy.

Three big issues spring to mind. I didnt think [as a Territorian] that I had any right to tell a Tasmanian what to do with the Franklin River. The same for the Daintree area, that's Queensland. I was equally appalled at the bullshit that flew [from points south] over the Northern Territory's Coronation Hill dispute and the Koongarra & Narbalek Uranium mines.

I believe on the issue of the Murray-Darling that someone had to break through the political inertia that was killing this system. I hope this does it only even if it's on the basis that - ''You cant keep doing the same thing and expect the results to change''!

I think the states will concede rapidly on this issue. Most people are not aware that the Federal Government is not a ''big spender'' of this type of funding. It invariably hands it to the States to administer with riders & provisos. Often along the lines of money given to children. ''Yes, you can go to the pictures but spend any of this on cigarettes and alcohol and you wont get any more.''

The States all received massive, unbelievable windfalls of cash from the GST a lot of which has been turned into monuments to politicians. Things like bridges, tunnels and roads, all big ticket items that look good on the drawing board and in a political resume for achievement. One of the joys of being a politician is the right to spend near uncontrolled amounts of someone else's money on things you are interested in.

I would dearly like to see farmers financially assisted to maintain biodiversity in a much bigger way, it is starting to happen but this barely offsets the bureaucratic land grabs that occur on many farms. I am talking about the issuance of covenants and instruments over sections of land that a bureaucrat decides they need to conserve. Sadly, this economically threatens only those farmers who had actually been conserving and maintain pristine areas. I have never heard yet of a wildlife covenant being slapped over a piece of land that had been cleared, lasered and piped.

Anyway, I have probably said enough poorly researched and opinionated things to kick a thread off.... :shock:


Cheers

floot

[Jim Bob]

Just another federal government power grab. Sheriff Johnny's only concern about water is that the National Party-voting wasteful cotton and rice farmers will keep voting for the coalition.

[ho-hum]

Jim Bob,

It is early days but I believe the Nats are threatening to block this for the very same reasons you mention.

floot

[Richard on Maui]

Floot, I would contend that it is every human beings right and responsibility on behalf of all earthlings to respond to developments such as the damning of wild rivers, and the mining of uranium and its attendent risks over hundreds of millenia in the sternest and staunchest opposition, regardless of parochial affiliation. We are all a part of the same planet. Its high time we recognise that, as a start.

[ho-hum]

Rich,

You missed my point a bit. It wasnt the rights & wrongs of the issues per se. It was about who gets to make the decisions. I support local consensus.

As I have said before we [aussies] have now 'saved' nearly any slope in Australia you can build a ski lift on and we did so for the 'environment' and tossed the cattlemen out. The cattlemen were highly regulated as to what and where they could graze and were a very effective management tool for the relevant fire authorities. Now all they can do is hope to backburn once a fire has started. I dont think they can light precautionary fires now for fear of litigation.

All I have seen since this time are devastating fires, increased logging, more weeds and more ski runs.

I still maintain the Franklin River was none of my business and the same goes for Coronation Hill [which was a gold/platinum mine]. I am no fan of mining but I myself will admit to having used bentonite, lime, gypsum and vermiculite in the past. If you happen to live somewhere like Sweden then sadly nuke power is something you have to live with.

floot

[Richard on Maui]

I understood your point, but I disagree that Sweden or anyone else has a right to subject the planet to 250, 000 of concentrated radioactive waste...
I would prefer to live in a world where the poorer countries were able to take part in the decisions as to how our natural resources were managed. To think that we own the water in one country when we know that it is the same water that cycles all over the planet is just ignorant. The same goes for the atmosphere which is obviously greatly effected by things we dig out of the ground.
To my mind, our global responsibility trumps any local "rights", even or especially national ones. If our use of our local resources is at the expense of our planets regulatory systems (or Gaia), surely that construes misuse of the public domain, or a "crime against humanity" at the very least.
I think that the problem isn't necessarily governmental power being local or central. Local governments don't necessarily make good decisions for the environment. They are just as good at overexploiting and mismanagement as central ones. Examples abound. In the 1800's the Hawaiian elite thoughout the archipeligo, with coercion and collusion from North American and European interests managed to deforest most of the southern (dry) mountain slopes of the whole island chain, and rainfall patterns and the ecology have never recovered. In all cases it was local government that facilitated the disaster.
So, the Australian federal government has fucked up regarding bushfire management in National Parks... it doesn't follow that National Parks are a bad idea. It just means that they didn't have sufficient knowlege and wisdom to implement better management... I'm not sure I buy your argument that pastoralist were such great managers. Plenty native species extinctions on their watch, I would guess. Probably better than toasting the entire countryside, I'll grant you, but still...
I don't know much at all about Howards plan for the Murray, I would be interested to read anything you can report on it. I did hear a report on Radio National that suggested that a lot of money has been spent on opening the Murray's mouth, when it has naturally been closed at many times in its life, including when the first Europeans explored it...
I am sure I probably agree with you that it is a shame that huge monocultural agribusiness is decimating biodiversity and can dupe city pollies into thinking their "best practises" save water. Still, this is more to do with the people in office and those that elect them, than the office itself.

[heuristics]

Floot, didnt see this post till after I had a big spray on the other "water"post.
I am extremely concerned at what might be the "hidden"agenda with the $10b water plan.
while urgent action has been needed for the Murray-Darling system for some decades, and I would love to see the "politics" taken out of the issue, I have real fears this drought is providing the cover the Feds (Malcolm Turnbull) needs to corporatise ALL of Australia's water systems.

I think we all need to take a deep breath and REALLY look at all the detail and fine print. Once the power is handed from the States to the Feds, there is no going back.

I detested Howard's appraoch of hey eastern states, he's my suggestion to fix the water mess - oh, and if you dont agree I'm off to the High Court to force it down your throats - not very consultative !!!
If he is prepared to threaten force as a first option - why is he frightened of discussion and full evaluation of the proposal???

[ho-hum]

I am concerned about the National Water Initiative for one very big reason. Howard is in fact 'nationalising' water yet this same group are idealogically committed to privatisation.

Are we going to take water sovereignty of a 'nasty queensland/nsw etc farmer' and eventually sell those rights probably to an overseas company?

I bloody hope not.

floot

[heuristics]

yep Floot that's EXACTLY what's niggling me about the so-called ïnitiative""
Once something is private it can be sold to anyone anywhere in this global world.
Howards fine-print and details are slim and patchy for this huge change to our system of government.

I think the states are buying a "black box" with little idea of what's inside.

After 10 years of Lib Govt I just dont trust Howard and his elves. And Malcolm Turnbull - merchant banker - he'd sell his navel lint - profit and the market are his gods.

[Plumtree]

The water issue is above all a political gambit. The sort of thing all politicians latch onto when they feel it will gain them points. Above all, the issue is 'huge' and needs a solution. The Murray/Darling needs immediate attention that has been impossible to activate at state level.

This country's Prime Minister Howard has recognised both of these issues and, whatever the reason, has taken on the responsibility. Turnbull, the man in charge, has all the personal charm of a 'pit viper' but he does achieve! He seems capable of doing big jobs and this is what is needed.

Gawd knows what has to be done or how it should be done. Even Mr Turnbull must be bewildered at this early stage. I for one am pleased that it that it is now a Federal issue. One state leader is still bickering about how it should be organised! I am also pleased that the man in charge is a proven 'doer'.

I hope it is not too late for him to 'do' it!