For background to what has happened in Griffith, NSW this morning,
and the picture of the burning guides ( a guide was burnt in Deniliquin yesterday)
Thursday, 14 October 2010
2 comments:
This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Miss Eagle
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion (for what that's worth) the MDBA has been undermining the credibility of its own report from the first day of its release.
Why would they do that?
The old adage "Cui Bono" (who benefits?) leads me to the conclusion they have realised there will be no directorships on wealthy agribusiness companies for anyone associated with this report - unless they distance themselves from it - and do that fast.
The MDBA people are trying to "blame" the politicians (of both parties) for having passed the Bill setting them up - without debate.
And they are saying "don't blame us - it is only a draft". If you don't like it, tell your politicians.
Mis-handling the "adverse reactions" in Shepparton and Deniliquin is pure amateurism - unless it is secretly designed to give impetus to the protesters.
I think the whole thing is a two card trick to try to make the MDBA people look, if not good, then at least, not as bad as they might be seen.
They want the Politicians to wear the opprobrium.
And of course, a Government with a paper thin majority (minority in fact) is not likely to push hard on this report.
Denis Wilson
Have heard similar opinion expressed.
ReplyDeleteWhen questions get curly (seen in Shepp), MDBA refers to responsibilities to respond to Water Act.This comes out loud & clear in Guide.
Peak bodies i.e. Irrigators take up the line, tis suggested,if this is because of The Act...let's change The Act.
We wait to see if this is resounding cry thru Councils, Federations etc & regions. I find this an odd line to take.
Act originally passed in 2007 w/bi-partisan support.Facilitating amendments passed in 2008.If the agro(aggro)politicians press for changes to The Act, what does this mean?
Firstly, any changes have to get numbers & depending on which way indpndnts go could be interesting-but only in Reps. In Senate,Greens balance of power won't want to see env set-backs in revsd act.
Supposing that still goes ahead,Libs will then have to explain why what was good enough under Howard not good enough under Abbott.
They might want to take all that on in name of cl change deniability which we have seen & which has cost Libs much. Regarding MDB could be different because degradation by ag practice & human interference is visible & documented.
Env orgs could organise tours. What do you want to see? Full dams @ Cubbie,brigalow destruction-Qld,dehydration Macq Marshes,bit of salinity thrown in here & there including the Coorong, & for dessert the mess that is Barmah Forest?
On my tour they would be taken to the one - & there is only one - pristine river in the whole of the MDB, the Paroo. Also see here: http://bit.ly/9wWrh2