Dear Barnaby,

The water act needs to be abolished and the whole MDB plan thrown in the bin - it is all crap and is devised to depopulate Australia .

The reality will be the farms etc will be devalued and the the Banks / Financiers will call in the loans and a few will make a killing on cheap land and then we will be a net importer of food.

You need to read the Rizza Report if you have not done so . See quote from Land Clearence in MDB

In fact, that mass foreclosure
process is already well
under way, as is abundantly
documented in the MDBA’s
own recently published “Rizza
report”.
Aided by former Babcock &
Brown water speculators and
the so-called Wentworth Group
of Concerned Scientists, and
cheered on by Prince Philip’s
Australian Conservation Foundation,
the MDBA and most of
the nation’s banks have been
involved for many months in a
plot to use this past October’s
release of the MDBA’s Guide
to the proposed Basin Plan, to
trigger what are called “Material
Adverse Event” (MAE)
clauses written into almost all
loans. These MAEs empower
the banks to immediately call
in those loans, if they deem the
borrowers’ prospects of repaying
the loans to have changed
as a result of an MAE, and that
is now happening.
When surveyed by Rizza
(himself a merchant banker
and water speculator by
trade), all of the banks stated
that they would regard water
allocation cuts of 20 per cent
or more as the equivalent of
“permanent drought”, and as
such, would invariably trigger
the MAE clause in most loans.
The banks can classify whatever
they feel like as MAEs, including
even the prospect of
an MAE as one, whether or
not the prospective event even
happens. But, as they have informed
the MDBA, at the top
of the list of prospective MAEs
is the release of the MDBA’s
Guide itself, which thereby
renders virtually every farm
and small business loan in
the Basin legally defenceless
against immediate foreclosure
by the banks—regardless of
whether or not they are repaying
their loans.

Thanks for the information, Chris. Make sure you spread it far and wide so all Australians will know that we have a grossly undemocratic government in place that doesn't give a stuff about its constituents.

Surely this is all about the United Nations Agenda 21, which in essence is about, in their words 'sustainability' which in part means moving people out of regional areas, then turning those regional areas back into wilderness areas. This is happening in the US right now. Think back to the Labor Government not wanting to support students from regional areas, why?

Vivienne:

Yes, you're right. Labor wants to move the farmers, graziers and their families from the land back to the cities.

While there is some merit in your idea of a nexus occurring between Agenda 21 and the mistreatment of rural students, not all of the land will be turned over to the montrous proliferation of possums and bats.

I'm sure Labor/Greens still intend to allow Chinese operators to farm large tracts of land for their own benefit, and remove the produce from under our noses via privatised rail and port.

In NSW Kristina Keneally has taken a colossal thumping from the Coalition, with a repetition of the same expected here in Queensland some time very soon.

I'm sure Anna Bligh wants to go to election before 1 July 2011, that's before passage of a Carbon Tax suffocates her chances, or she gets her rotten agenda buried by her own Waste Levy in January 2012.

We need to make the government aware that Queensland says a resounding "NO" to toxic levels of taxation.

What disturbs me is the idea that human beings have no right to use the free gifts of Nature. All economic progress has been built on using and adaping Nature to Man's needs. The idea of "sustainability" seems to be used in some quarters as an implicit requirement that people must pay though the nose before they are to be permitted to use any resource. It is fair and proper that scarce resources be paid for at a market rent, it is not rational that they be simply locked up or sent down river to evaporate unused without regard to the value lost by doing so. If people in Canberra (where water falls) are paying $4.01 cent per kl to water gardens (even after floods), why should the Rann Government in South Australia not be be paying at least $4.01 cent per kl for water sent to them to evaporate in Lake Alexandrina? There is something profoundly irrational in all this - if not profoundly anti-human.

That's right, Doctor.

According to Labor/Greens, it's about empowering the tree and the animal and treating the human being like unwanted garbage.

One minute we are being told that we are but one species of "animal", and then we are expected to treat animals as if they are humans.

Then these animal activists say we may not eat an animal because we are too brutal in its housing and slaughter, but they don't care that wild animals rip each other's throats out or eat each other alive!

Are they going to charge animals to breathe the air or drink the water? It seems to me that human beings are to be treated like second class animals and housed at their own huge expense in high rise cubbyholes.

Are we going to take this lying down, while rampaging possums and bats rule the nation?

Or are we going out to buy expensive feather beds for the vermin?

Could not agree more - the real issues are that the Basin can provide for both. Maybe a simple question needs to asked - What is the water inflow this year. How does it relate to the past 170 000 years. There is a paper on my web site, www.soilmaster.com/reading.htm which gives some date data for the argument. This indicates a rising sea level for past 7000 years of around 3 metres - makes a bit of a go at the types of estimates made by the proponents. I don't like being called a skeptic - maybe that is the only way that people who have "got the money" for research can justify their $'s