I looked hard for evidence in the quotes that Mr Birrell, National Party candidate for Nicholls, knows what “up-water” means and how he plans to “shoot it down”.
Actually Mr Birrell is not alone in his confusion (although Steve Brooks gets it).
“Up water” is a political fix for a political problem, with dire flooding consequences for those on the Goulburn and Murray.
So let me briefly explain.
South Australia would not agree to sign on to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan if there was “only” 2750Gl of water for the environment.
They wanted much more down at the mouth of the Murray, to, among other things, help supply Adelaide, given the huge cost of running their diesel plant.
So in early 2013, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Environment Minister Senator for South Australia Penny Wong passed legislation, with the help of the Greens, to push another 450Gl down the Murray and Goulburn and elsewhere despite the impacts of the man-made flooding.
It was readily acknowledged the floodings would follow as the natural constraints like the Barmah Choke and the low-gradient Goulburn were overwhelmed with the extra volumes released from dams.
This amazing piece of legislation requires that the extra 450Gl of water be pushed down the Murray, so that it flows out to sea 95 per cent of the time without dredging; $200 million of the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan funding was allocated to mitigate the flooding problems on farms, riverside towns, public infrastructure and the environment.
The so-called “up water” created by the constraints strategy only benefits South Australia.
That is what Mr Birrell needs to understand and where he should direct his energies.
The shame is that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan ever passed parliament in the first instance.
The then Liberal members for Murray and Hume, Sharman Stone and Alby Shultz, stood against their party and voted against it.
Only one member of the National Party, Michael McCormack, voted to oppose the plan.
It’s all on the parliamentary record.
— Robert Watson, Numurkah
Myanmar question
Over recent weeks you have profiled two candidates for Nicholls, Brooks and Birrell, in the upcoming Federal election and I hope all other candidates will be afforded the same opportunity.
What I noticed was that they are two young talented men.
Apparently, despite all the rhetoric, neither Nats nor Libs have been able to find a suitable female candidate.
It’s a pity that the focus was on water as there are several other pressing issues, and I hope their views on other issues are given prominence in the future.
But of course both are standing for a party and in reality we only get the party line.
I would like to know what they think and would try to do about the situation in Myanmar.
Yarrawonga has several doctors from Myanmar, so the situation there is of interest to at least some of us in the town.
Australia at best has been wishy-washy about Myanmar; do the candidates have any stronger opinions?
I look forward to learning the real thoughts of the candidates and not just the party propaganda — but then maybe I am just dreaming.
— Norman Welsh, Yarrawonga
18°C