DEBATE CHALLENGES NEVER ACCEPTED
I contested five elections and not once was I able to engage in a debate.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Thousands of times I have delivered a leaflet Ten Water Policy Debate Challenges.
Two days after the Federal election on 20th May I hand delivered a challenge to Sussan Ley and on 21st a challenge to Helen Dalton. Helen responded but not in a way which I feel was logical.
Almost everyone I talk to seem to agree that the separation of water from land is killing small and medium sized farmers.
I found a book with the sub heading How Free Trade Will Cripple Australian Agriculture which stated that the effect of separation can be reversed and must be reversed.
My favourite statement is:
"Governments must ensure that the water markets for agriculture, urban, industrial and environmental uses remain separate markets, with separate prices based on delivery costs."
I wrote about separate markets:
- Agricultural
- Environmental
- Social
- Industrial
My maternal grandparents came to Griffith to farm in 1915 in semi-desert country. Water had arrived and for two generations Griffith was regarded as a paradise.
The cost of water is now killing us. Now I believe that I have the answer but cannot debate this.
My response is to go back to university after more than 50 years and study philosophy.
What is knowledge? What is critical thinking?
If there is only one answer to an apparent solution to the separation of water from land, why should it not be debated?
University classes start near the end of July. My plan is to send this to various people and groups.
Brian Mills, Griffith
ROSE GARDEN'S ALTERNATIVE
I personally would prefer to see the continuing upgrading and improving of the Memorial Gardens.
This land is prime real estate and a rose garden would have continual maintenance costs and perhaps the employment of a further gardener.
Jan Alexander, Griffith
ROYAL COMMISSION IS NEEDED
We need a royal commission into water.
But just as the banks would never have voted for a royal commission into themselves, expecting politicians to vote for a royal commission into the decisions they have made, which may incriminate themselves and their parties will never happen.
In fact, one must wonder if those arguing against a royal commission are the very people with something to hide.
If we ever do get a royal commission, I hope it can identify;
- If the States water sharing agreement needs to change?
- If 2000Gl of fresh water needs to be sent to the Southern Lakes each and every year?
- Why environmental water is released in drought years, when in a drought there would be no environmental water.
- Why dams built for irrigation are holding environmental water which reduces the capacity available for irrigators.
- Identify if water reserves in the Snowy Mountain should be used to supply South Australia's drinking water - or should Adelaide be forced to turn on it's Water Desalination Plant.
- Why there is no transparency in the transactions around water.
- If there has been $13 billion dollars worth of environmental benefits because of the scheme?
These are serious questions which are currently not being answered. I believe bring on a royal commission into the Murray Darling System.
William Cooper, Griffith
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?
Email your letter to the editor to letters@areanews.com.au or drop it in to 11b Banna Avenue in Griffith, or use the form below...
