Letters to the Editor August 27
Decision about trees in doubt
Judging by the response from the community to the announcement of the impending removal of trees at the Pioneer Settlement, perhaps the Swan Hill Rural City Council could be more definitive (read transparent) by releasing information as to the real reasons why this should be happening.
Although the lame excuse is that the trees are unsafe according to the Arborist’s report, it is unfair to hide behind that very fair report when in fact it stated that only one tree needed to be removed in the near future.
So why the urgency when under lock down conditions and why more than one tree?
It strikes me that the expensive legal assistance employed, in extending the time before the Heritage Council hearing to December, was for reasons other than to allow time for preparation of legal argument.
Perhaps this would be a good time for SHRCC staff to remember that they are servants of the community and they should be responding to the ratepayers’ concerns.
It would also be timely to remind Councillors that they are a conduit to convey those concerns when making decisions in Council.
David Quayle, SWAN HILL.
Should allocations be changed?
AT the time of writing Hume Dam was at 92% and Menindee Lakes at 80%.
We have an abundance of water flowing down the Murray River, to the point where 45 gates are open at the barrages, with massive volumes of water pouring out to sea being wasted.
It will only take one big rain event for Hume to spill and we risk another catastrophic flood event, with predictions that the Menindee Lakes will fill by October.
Yet the humble food producers closest to the storages are told they are getting a mere 30% allocation, and don’t expect much if very little more.
Can I be excused for thinking our bureaucracy and governments have gone totally mad?
In a supposedly civilized country, how can we waste massive volumes of water through transmission to the sea and have it sit in dams for evaporation, then tell our most efficient farmers they can only get a 30% allocation?
Of course there is a long list from the NSW Government and its highly paid bureaucrats giving us their ‘reasons’ for the low allocation, including that our farmers have to ‘repay’ water for the environment, despite the environment being the biggest water holder in the country. It has also benefited from unregulated high flows over the past two months, so how much more does it really need?
It is such a shame that our region’s leaders (community and government) continue to lack the unity and strength to fight on behalf of our hardworking irrigation farmers for a fair and equitable share of the drenched water resources.
Unless this changes soon, I’m concerned that staple food production in the ‘Murray Irrigation Ltd’ footprint may become a thing of the past for family-run irrigated agribusiness.
Wake up water bureaucrats, and allow the nation’s most efficient irrigation communities to grow fresh clean staple foods that the city folk demand.
James Sides, DENILIQUIN.
Tough calls for Central Rivers
I WOULD hate to be in the Central Rivers Board position.
Imagine trying to keep senior football clubs, netball clubs, junior players, umpires, Melbourne players, NSW players, parents, supporters, grandparents etc. all happy?
If ever there is a no-win situation, the board is in that position.
I sincerely hope that when a decision is made, the football community will be get behind this decision.
Even it doesn’t suit you, or your football/netball club.
Anthony “Max” Carroll, TYNTYNDER FOOTBALL NETBALL CLUB & CRFL UMPIRE.
Questions about the MDBA and constitution
THE comments below are that of the writer and stated without prejudice.
In an enquiry to the Minister of Water (Minister Pitts) as to the status of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, the Minister’s reply stated that the Murray Darling Basin Authority is an independent corporate Commonwealth entity.
The question now is that are we, as citizens of the Crown, subject to the Articles of Association of this private, corporate entity called the Murray Darling Basin Authority – or conversely, are all Australians being excluded from our rights and privileges under the constitution by the Basin Plan and its private structure?
Validity of the Basin Plan now needs to be examined by the judiciary on grounds of constitutionality and the legal structure of the Basin Plan’s supporting legislation.
Matters that need to be brought to the court:
– Can the Murray Darling Basin Authority act as a private entity, advocating the demise of the Sovereign assets of water, irrigation systems, dams, rivers and streams for the purpose of privatising Commonwealth assets?
– Can the Executive transfer statutory bodies of the Crown to the private rights and privileges of the Corporations Act?
– Is the Murray Darling Basin Authority, as a private entity a third arm of government, acting outside the constitution and outside the Westminster system?
Going forward it is imperative the above anomalies are examined by our legal system.
B Fletcher, DINGWALL.
Good to see Victorian pilots at airspace
LOCKDOWNS and curfews because of COVID have not delivered anything beneficial to Swan Hill, but at least they have given us back control over our airspace.
Mildura was to benefit greatly from the introduction of Chinese trainee pilots (we’ll let them be the judge of that) but there is no benefit to Swan Hill as far as I can see.
The introduction of another Victorian-based training school to join our own local training school is a good move and I congratulate Council on that decision.
Surely that will be enough to deter other flying schools from monopolising our airspace.
Greg Whitler, SWAN HILL.
