Last week we were asked to provide community feedback on delivering the basin plan by Federal Water Minister Tanya Plibersek.
These are the latest in a never-ending stream of meetings and submissions relating to the basin plan, in which our communities have continued to engage with respect and a level of expectation.
But we could be forgiven for asking: Why do we bother?
Throughout the basin plan process the attempts at consultation appear to be nothing more than ‘tick a box’ bureaucratic exercises with no intention of taking notice, even though some excellent alternatives and solutions are continually presented.
Anyone who bothered to study the numerous reviews and reports that have been undertaken would come to an unequivocal conclusion: The basin plan was built on false modelling and as a consequence there have been numerous unintended consequences, including more significant social and economic damage to rural communities than was anticipated.
All the evidence tells us that water buybacks damage communities, especially small ones. As a logical extension it would be reasonable to assume that due to the evidence that has been gathered, these devastating buybacks would be off the table for good.
The evidence also tells us that trying to force the original modelled volumes of water down the Murray River is not physically possible without causing unnecessary environmental damage.
And then we have the issue, proven time and time again, that South Australia’s unrealistic demands for more upstream water are not to protect its environment, but rather to ensure it has unlimited volumes for recreation, urban and industrial use.
None of the above can be disputed. And so any reasonable person would conclude that it is necessary to review the basin plan modelling, review the true volumes that are required to protect the South Australian environment, and seek to achieve the right balance in water management so this precious resource is not wasted.
But no, that’s not what we get. Instead, the Albanese Government insists on recovering water that is not needed for the environment, nor can it be delivered downstream. It wants to press ahead with buybacks, despite the proven damage they inflict on our communities.
And, like governments before it, Albanese and Plibersek are continuing with ‘tick a box’ exercises that cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time, but do not give us any positive result because the political imperatives outweigh the environmental ones.
Our communities will continue to engage in these processes, in the hope that one day someone will listen and common sense will prevail. But I won’t be holding my breath.
Robert Quodling,
Yanco, NSW
The true cost
The original budget for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was $13 billion, much of which has been expended and has achieved positive environmental results.
Many scientists believe enough water has been recovered to provide us with a sustainable basin.
That being the case, surely the Albanese Government will not proceed with water buybacks to recover more water as per original targets, which are acknowledged as being poorly modelled.
Especially when water experts are telling us this could cost $20 billion.
If this occurs, it will likely go down as the biggest and most expensive mistake in Australian political history.
Pam Beer,
Mayring
Responsible pet owners should be appalled
Often I see dog owners happily walking their pets, getting valuable exercise for both human and animal.
Many of these couplings also have the decency to carry, and also utilise, the doggy bag provided in numerous areas to clean up after they defecate.
But these groups should be absolutely appalled at the others who exhibit no sense of responsibility associated with being a dog owner.
Consciously allowing their pet to leave a trail of faeces in their path for unwitting pedestrians to trample on, and entrap in their shoes.
Regularly I have witnessed owners make no effort to remove the excrement, walking over it to continue on their journey.
One can even point it out to them and remonstrate and in return be yelled at with profanities.
Worse still is the owner who takes their pet to the park and allows them to firstly run amok off their lead, then purge themselves of their waste in the very area where my grandchildren are expected to play. How disgusting is that?
Let’s just utilise a simple parallel.
What decent minded parent/citizen would permit their children to ‘take a dump’ or urinate in the playground sandpit.
It is purely unthinkable, yet some pet owners do not give the activity a second thought. Obviously far too many, if you have visited the playgrounds in my estate.
All humans are entitled to give love, attention and care to a pet, but with that comes, at the very least, a modicum of responsibility to the general public and especially the young children who should gain enjoyment from a sanitary play area.
Paul Richardson,
Shepparton
Delivering mental health benefits in your local community? Apply for a $10,000 grant from Australia Post
At Australia Post we’re encouraging not-for-profit groups with the primary purpose of improving mental health and wellbeing in local communities to apply for a Community Grant.
Each year there is diversity across our Community Grant applicants and the valuable services they provide their community. From after-school programs that help teenagers navigate loss, to groups supporting people experiencing loneliness while living or caring for someone with dementia.
The common thread running through all the projects Australia Post supports as part of this grant is a primary focus on improving mental health and wellbeing.
As a society we’re making strides towards improving our collective mental health and wellbeing, but we know communities need bespoke, localised approaches if we want to make a real difference at a local level.
Our Post Offices are at the heart of Australian communities, so we’re deeply connected to the impact of locally led initiatives. As such, we’re incredibly proud of our Community Grants program and its role in supporting groups as they work to deliver positive mental health outcomes across Australia.
If you’re interested in applying, please do check our Community Grant Guidelines at — you have until 11.59pm on July 2 to get your application in.
Tanny Mangos,
Australia Post executive general manager of community, sustainability and stakeholder engagement
Australia fails to protect young people amid growing smoking prevalence
New statistics released by the Department of Health and Ageing last week paint a disturbing picture of increased smoking by young people.
The report found that smoking among children between 14 and 17 years of age has increased dramatically, with these finding now being used to justify harsh crackdowns on vaping across the country.
This is a mistake.
The increase in youth smoking rates in Australia stands in stark contrast to other western countries where youth smoking is declining at an accelerated rate. Why does Australia differ? The answer lies in our regulatory approach to vaping.
Australia’s draconian policies have normalised a black market selling unregulated disposable vaping products and illicit cigarettes freely, away from government oversight and without age verification. Scare campaigns and misinformation about vaping encourage young people to take up smoking if vaping is seen as harmful.
Cheap cigarettes are also freely available for children on the black market as a result of Australia’s high tobacco taxes. The price of legal tobacco in Australia is the highest in the world and is still increasing. Black market sales are thriving.
Without requirements to adhere to basic consumer laws around the sales of adult products, nicotine products are more widely available to children than we’ve seen in decades.
Last week, Professor Wayne Hall and I published an assessment of youth vaping, which examined research in other western countries including New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the US. Every one of these countries has legalised and regulated vaping as an adult-only consumer product. Studies suggest vaping is actually displacing smoking among young people in all of these countries.
Vaping does not cause young people who have never smoked to take up smoking if they would not have otherwise done so. Young people who experiment with vaping are simply more likely to experiment with other risky behaviours, such as smoking, alcohol and drug use anyway. The often-cited ‘gateway theory’ is unlikely to be playing a significant role overall.
Australia is an outlier among western countries when it comes to vaping and is quickly becoming an outlier when it comes to youth smoking as well. The black market has undone years of tobacco control policies, and Australia’s current approach — heavy restrictions targeted exclusively at the legal vaping market — will only fuel the fire.
We need to recognise that overly restrictive policies intended to reduce youth access to vaping can have counterproductive results. Vaping nicotine is the most effective quitting aid available. The Health Department report found that adult smoking rates had not declined at all in Australia over the past five years. Doubling down further on this failed regulatory approach to vaping will simply make things worse.
Now, the government’s stubborn policy stance is putting the lives of Australian children at risk. This needs to change.
The Federal Government has an urgent need to implement evidence-based policies on vaping that have proven successful in other western countries. This means an adult consumer regulatory model, which allows access to lifesaving vape products by adult smokers, with strict age verification to ensure young people cannot freely access these products.
Kids also need honest education about vaping and smoking, without fear and exaggeration.
If the government doesn’t urgently change its approach, more young people will be unnecessarily exposed to vaping and smoking, and Australia will face a national health crisis in years to come.
Dr Colin Mendelsohn,
Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association founding chairman
OPINION POLICY
The Riverine Herald welcomes letters to the editor.
All letters must carry the writer’s name, address and telephone number for verification purposes.
Preference will be given to shorter letters emailed to [email protected] or you can post your letter to Riverine Herald, 28 Percy St, Echuca, 3564.
The editor reserves the right to edit all letters, either for length or legal reasons, or omit letters.
The views of the letter writers don’t necessarily reflect the views of the paper.