News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 SA lashes Victoria on water rights 

SA lashes Victoria on water rights

20 Jan, 2010 11:06 AM
SOUTH Australia has accused Victoria of making its controversial water trading rules even more restrictive and blocking millions of dollars of interstate water purchases in a move it says is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

In documents lodged with the High Court and obtained by The Australian Financial Review, the SA government says that rather than relaxing the restrictions as promised last year, the Victorian government has actually tightened them by applying them to a broader range of interstate water trades.

The stoush comes as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd faces questions at a community cabinet meeting in Adelaide today over whether he can end the interstate bickering and enforce a plan for sustainable water use in the Murray-Darling Basin, after Opposition Leader Tony Abbott last week called for a federal takeover of the river system.

The 119-page statement of claim, lodged by SA's Solicitor-General, Martin Hinton, QC, in early December as part of a High Court challenge that was flagged last March, says that Victoria's restriction on water trading is unconstitutional because it "imposes on interstate trade a discriminatory burden of protectionist character".

The statement alleges that Victoria's annual 4 per cent limit on water trades from each region is "preventing the water shares from moving to more productive and profitable uses for the greater good of the Australian community generally".

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Who do these croweaters think they are! Why should the rest of the states have to bail them out? Let them build a desalination plant and be done with it!
Posted by Tigerdicky, 20/01/2010 9:24:51 AM, on Stock Journal
Are they the same productive and profitable uses that have been talked of for many years and that now see the over supply of grapes and the sales of un profitable managed investment schemes.
Posted by Panky, 21/01/2010 4:36:23 AM, on Stock Journal
Perhaps it should stay with dairy farmers so they can lose even more money?
Posted by Janus, 21/01/2010 8:13:47 AM, on Stock Journal
tigerdicky and panky need to pull their heads out of their collectives and make an effort to understand that restriction of trade for any good or commodity is illegal and should rightly be challenged if it is seen to be occuring. If they look at it closely they will see that it is not the seller of the water bailing out the buyer but exactly the opposite. Money is trasnferred elsewhere in the system to someone who quite likely cannot make a productive living from the water they own, and they by definintion are being bailed out by those growers/producers who can make a living from their use of this precious resource.
Posted by Sam J, 21/01/2010 8:31:19 AM, on Stock Journal
Samj, Let them drink wine!
Posted by Tigerdicky, 21/01/2010 10:18:04 AM, on Stock Journal
Grizzling and squabbling over the available water is the wrong approach. It's just plain dumb. The south east of Australia is where the majority of the population lives. Put MORE fresh water into all the systems so there is enough for everyone to do whatever they want. Sure it's a big enterprise but it can be done. We can turn this whole continent into a garden. It is possible for us to make this place better than it has ever been. We need Australians with vision, foresight, guts and determination to carry this out, not grandstanding jetsetting politicians whose only aim seems to be to sell the country out from under us and apply ad hoc band aid solutions. We cannot reasonably continue as we are and expect to maintain and improve our standard of living with an increasing population. We must think big and out of the square. Some suggestions: dam headwaters of NSW northern rivers and turn them back through the great divide, pipe waters of Ord river to Murray Darling, pipe far N Qld rivers to southern areas. Create an 'Amazon" river and rainforest in WA desert. Now THAT would absorb carbon. Moist air traveling east as rain would water the whole of the interior.
Posted by ozfirst, 21/01/2010 11:04:04 AM, on Stock Journal
While some of the suggestions made by Ozfirst almost smack a little of C.E.C policy, it is also encouraging to see some people "thinking big" as a possible response to our problems.. We do indeed need people with vision such as Playford and other statesmen to help us get through this. Nowadays our pollies cringe and snipe at each other with one eye on the next election. I understand the call for Commonwealth control, but by the same token it is an unconstitutional move (contravening Sect 100) not to mention I doubt that there would be an improvement for the lower states with the current crop of self interested party hacks in power-considering the majority come from the East and will always consider their chances of re election over the national interest. Our nation has so much potential-with leadership that places the needs of Australians and our long term future first.
Posted by Andrew Phillips, 6/02/2010 7:08:29 PM, on Stock Journal

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
18 January, 2010
19 January, 2010
POLL
Q: If a referendum were held this weekend, would you vote in favour of the Commonwealth taking over from the States the management of Australia's river systems?

Yes
(72.6%)

No
(19.9%)

Undecided
(7.4%)

Total Votes: 647
Poll Date: 17 January, 2010

Most popular articles




Stock Journal







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...