The first poll of the year comes from Essential Research, and it shows Labor’s two party lead up from 58-42 in mid-December to 59-41. Also featured: leadership approval (Rudd steady since late October, Turnbull up five points), economic expectations, ranking of issue importance and the conflict in Gaza.
The worst PM and Ministry? Surely Howard and his final term with WorstChoices. Stephen Smith, House of Representatives, 2 November 2005, on the proposed WorkChoices:
[This bill attacks the living standards of Australian employees, the Australian way of life and the balance between work and family. This is a monstrous attack on the wages, salaries and conditions of Australian employees and on the characteristics, values and virtues of Australian society. This is a monstrous attack on the notion of a fair go, which has held Australia dear as a federation for more than 100 years. … no less than a massive attack on the working conditions, salaries and entitlements of Australian employees.
… to seriously and substantially tilt the bargaining power in the workplace from employees further in favour of employers.
… measures which seek to reduce their wages as a matter of public policy, measures which seek to remove their conditions and entitlements as a matter of public policy by abolishing the no disadvantage test, measures which seek to reduce their job security by removing unfair dismissal rights from nearly four million Australian employees]
And on the big money Howard was beginning to spend on this stinker …
[… $55 million of taxpayers’ funds splurged on a Liberal Party advertising campaign, using Liberal Party mates associated with Liberal Party federal and state elections … raping and pillaging of the taxpayers’ purse to the political benefit of the Liberal Party]
An absolute bloody disgrace, in the way they gagged debate on it and restricted Opposition access to the proposed bill before “debate”.
The second reason for my choice: the appalling biased Speaker, David Hawker. What a disgrace he was. I doubt there has ever been someone so biased in that role.
Possum
[Possum many ppl on here believe Rudd will win in 2010 because he is popular….]
[At the moment he is – but that won’t last.
Never does.]
That’s not really true, in the US at least. Look at these beautiful graphs of President’s Approval ratings.
Bill Clinton kept increasing his popularity (although it wasn’t ever huge). FDR was always popular and kept getting more popular. Reagan’s and Eisenhower’s are pretty flat lines.
Nixon, Bush 1 and 2, Truman, LBJ, Carter and JFK all show a distinct downward trend.
I’m sure a regression analysis would show an overall trend downwards in popularity with increasing time in office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating
Gun Laws:
An over reaction to a tragic event perpetrated by mad person. But I loved the bullet proof vest.
Waterfront:
The means do not justify the ends. But it led to Work Choices 🙂
ruawake @ 83 – you credit the Whitlam government for replacing “adversarial divorce laws”, but my (rusty) memory is that the Family Law Act went through as a private member’s bill, with (I think) government members having a free vote: Kim Beazley Snr spoke in the House in opposition to at least bits of it.
Glens earlier nonsense about Menzies caused me to look up Wikipedia on our past PMs and I found this gem about dear old “pig-iron Bob”:
“When World War I began Menzies was 19 and held a commission in the university’s militia unit. Menzies resigned his commission at the very time others of his age and class clamoured to be allowed to enlist.” – wikipedia
Isn’t it always the way, that the biggest war-mongers turn out to be cowards at a personal level, never daring to risk themselves what they are happy to force others themselves. Menzies was a lot like Bush on this one; derision intended. Ever serve yourself Glen?
As for Keating and reform, there was a lot more not mentioned. Keating oversaw the floating of the dollar, deregulation of banking (still with equity requirements that prevented insolvency), capital gains taxes that forced better investment, crackdowns on expense rorts etc. Government infrastructure contracts were changed to competitive tenders, rather than simply handed to public agencies, greatly improving efficiency. Keating’s problem was arrogance and not being able to admit he had put interest rates too high, but he was a great reformer.
In Whitlams economic defence, it should also be pointed out that many of the reforms he did attempt were defeated by either a coalition Senate or a partisan High Court dominated by the notorious Garfield Barwick, the man who said that citizens had no obligation to pay tax. And what idiot sent a Kerry Packer-in-silk to the Court? I’ll give you a hint; it wasn’t a Labor PM. As history shows, conservatives saying they seek to reform or even protect principles is just spin; history shows that their first and usually only priority is protecting the priveleges they enjoy for themselves. Conservatism is all about entrenched power protecting itself; nothing more.
Socrates
A lot of those Keating reforms were as Treasurer. Most of his best work was already done by the time he was PM IMHO.
Dio
True but Keating still did the tendering reforms, APEC and greater links with Asia, and working nation as PM. He also overhauled TAFEs and workplace training. But overall no, he did more as Treasurer.
Keating manged to “steal” an extra term for labor, a lesson that Rudd and the Labor party has learned.
Despite the media waffle about Julia and a leadership challenge, Rudd will stay for 3 terms then hand over to the next young gun, it will not be Gillard.
ruawake
And that person could be almost anyone, including someone we have barely heard of. Nine years ago, Rudd had just been elected to Federal Parliament and his most prominent concern was a parallel runway at Brisbane Airport.
It could even be Matthew Hayden, he shares a dream with Ruddie. I’m sure Labor could find him a seat in OLD. They could run him against that National party great white hope who is looking for a House of Reps seat 🙂
From Hayden’s retirement speech
[I share the dream with Cricket Australia, the Federal Government, the honourable Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin, the Federal Minister for Indigenous and Multicultural Affairs, and the Macquarie Bank Sports Foundation in creating greater opportunities within indigenous cricket communities throughout Australia in their quest to find our next indigenous Australian cricketer to don the Baggy Green.]
http://inhome.rediff.com/cricket/2009/jan/13hayden-i-am-retiring-from-cricket-not-life.htm
Why do we go through the same Whitlam vs. Howard (As it usually boils down too) every few month? Gets tedious.
And it ALWAYS ends with Glen talking about the waterfront and gun laws to which the the general consensus is gun laws good, waterfront bad -> IR reform under Howard bad -> WorkChoices -> Kevin Rudd is a hero -> Contemporary politics.
Oz
You too young to remember?? 😛
OOoops Sorry Oz
Bob Brown rules and a 5% ETS is criminal – OK ? 😉
Idiot to the end. Did anybody pick up Dubya’s uttering during his “farewell’ press conference that the media has “MIS-UNDER-ESTIMATED” him.
Amigo Ronnie, have u been tutoring him?
[And it ALWAYS ends with Glen talking about the waterfront and gun laws to which the the general consensus is gun laws good, waterfront bad -> IR reform under Howard bad -> WorkChoices -> Kevin Rudd is a hero -> Contemporary politics.]
And Glen’s worst nightmare will be replayed tonight with a repeat screening of Bastard Boys at 9.30pm on ABC1 🙂
diog
My top 10 aussie PM’s in #71 had Whitlam at number TWO , a centrist , keynes type econ , universal health , schools suport , equity , TPC , & if CC was around then Gough wuld hav tackled it head on as well
Whitlam simply modenised lites on th hill core left policys , and neither th culteral warriors of th right nor intelectual elitists can weaken them Hawke Keating & Rudd follow Whitlams template , beit recogmnising a global econamy My top 10 list is there
diog you then swing to culture wars in USA you lost I ALWAYS said no US politcan compared to our core left policys of Labor in full , but of those who took just 3 of th key bits…Keynes type econs , universal healthcare & suporting CC Ktoto ratification ….there was only Gore , Hillary & Edwards & not your change man
To me they were just all names in th nite , it was there 3 few core left policys that counted in there bags , and had your change man had them and not H , then your change man wuld hav been my da man with H dustbinned Now we hav Obama in white Houses and yes he has switched policys to our side , keynes type and isn’t that great Now all he has to do is get that Kyoto raitifcation and uni healthcare & his transformaton complete to who…to some core left bits
Then those intelectual elitists will be looking at there man who will look th same but wuld hav lost there culture wars man & all those politcaly corect libertarien words he spoke in primarys now dustbinned Diog join th centrists , we ar always right and our core left principals never lose cause they ar folks directed
Ronster
You’ll have to prise my membership card to the Intellectual Elitists Ivory Tower Liberal Progressive Party out of my cold, dead hand. 😉
Hmmm, those pesky scientists are at it again. They simply don’t get it. From today’s Crikey:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4221039/Climate-change-fears-spiral-as-warmer-seas-absorbing-less-carbon-dioxide.html
“Climate change fears spiral as warmer seas ‘absorbing less carbon dioxide’
Scientists have found evidence of a sudden and dramatic drop in the amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the sea, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating.”
As those of you know who have an interest in climate change (other than how it will affect the outcomes of the next Federal elections), oceans are a major natural sink for CO2.
My follow-up questions are: ‘Is this phenomenum unique to the Sea of Japan (where the study was done), is it due to some temporary factors that will smooth themselves out? or is it simply symptomatic of a global phenomenum?’
Scientists have speculated for some time that the CO2 absorption capacity of the oceans would decrease with warming. The reasons have been varied. One was that increasing acidification would negatively affect all those CO2 fixing bugs which use lots of calcium. (I think they correctly predicted the rising acidification but I am not aware of any connected studies on impact on CO2 fixing marine fauna – happy to be corrected on these points).
The interesting pattern about the climate change models is that they have fairly consistently underestimated various positive feedback loops (eg minimum summer Arctic sea-ice extent), so that interactions between Earth and humans is generating an ‘unbalanced’ and ‘impractical’ outcome a bit faster than originally modelled. There is thus an increasing mismatch between an unbalanced Earth and the ‘balanced’ and ‘practical’ responses being generated by Earth’s master politicians.
The Pine Bark Beetles are delighted with the news about the oceans’ decreasing capacity to absorb CO2 and are trying to figure out how to get to the Eurasian land mass before they have destroyed all of the north american conifer forests, thus eating themselves out of house and home.
Boerwar
Can we buy shares in the Pine Bark Beetles franchise?
As the ocean gets more acidified, it dissolves more carbonate, as it’s more soluble in acid solutions. The calcifying organisms (coral, algae etc), which use CaCO3 to make their skeleton, need the CaCO3 in a super-saturated solution. So the skeleton dissolves away releasing sweet, sweet CO2 into the atmosphere.
If you’re a Pine Bark Beetle, it all good! 😀
118 – The purist’s delight. Unfortunately most people are not purists, a sad but true fact, one you seem to have difficulty grasping obviously, given the constant sarcastic asides that feature in your posts. People like myself are not the people you should be sniping at. What is and what should be are two different things.
Have you ever thought that if the population as a whole thought like you and those “pesky scientists” much more would be being done on CC by those in power and you and people like myself wouldn’t be having the purist/reality debate?
Please keep providing the info that reinforces what I, and most here would suspect is true but how about saving the sarcasm for all of those many out there who are either sceptics or just plain don’t care. They’re the ones that need enlightening.
Diogenes
Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
“Ronster
You’ll have to prise my membership card to the Intellectual Elitists Ivory Tower Liberal Progressive Party out of my cold, dead hand. 😉 ”
I hav hope for you diog , you will not be abandoned to intelectual rustheaps its not th “left” way , anyway mrs diog a greenie at hart told me you were worth saving
starters , grab an auto biog of gough reel 700 pages of what he did , changed completly this coiuntry socialy & equitably from ramshackles of 23 years of instatutionalized darkness of fairness principals to 20th centurys you knows diog that way your premier Rann th man if doesn’t measure up dustbinn him , but principals remain And everytime you or kids go to a doctr there’s one of thems medicare care forms they’re Goughs legacy , and in 30 years times it will be there , but where will Howies legacy be
.
by way , you say your new year resulution new Gravator & moniker from diogenes greek philosogher lived in tube , well new research shows his less well known brother Diogrones had limelite hogged by th greedy diogenes in ancient Athens , but now true greek equitay libery philosophies now discoverd were work of brother diogrones (with gravator ?) Lucky i’m on your side here
Bird of paradox @ 41
“They got 3 last time (Libs and Greens one each), so I wonder where that’s coming from.”
There are a few reasons some clear others abit more subtle. Firstly the third seat held by Paula wreight was the last decided if my memory serves me correct and took a long time to decide as it was extremely close. The federal redistribution alone will give the liberals that seat as it removes the Labor stronghold of Bridgewater and adds marginally liberal Richmond. More subtlety Paul Lennon would have had some people who voted for him simple because he was the premier and where they will go or how many of them there are, I’m not qualified to say. A degree of demographic change may be a small factor. Possibly a sympathy vote, due to the death of former Premier Jim Bacon also inflated the numbers.
Hope that helps.
Diogenese @ 119
Unfortunately, there is a cloud for every silver lining. My investment advice would be as follows:
1. There is almost no sovereign risk because the master politicians will continue to generate balanced and practical responses, that is to say, nothing that will seriously inconvenience pine bark beetles for the foreseeable future.
2. Industry-based responses to Pine Bark Beetle control (spraying, cutting and burning of infected trees, and so forth) have all failed.
3. Current massive industry salvage operations are unlikely to affect Pine Bark Beetle Futures because they are focussed on forests that Pine Bark Beetles have already killed.
4. There is an unknown risk of competing organisms also suddenly reaching a climate-based variable threshold and becoming effective competitors of Pine Bark Beetles. (This is typical of the variables and unknown thresholds that make investing in climate change futures such an uncertain prospect. This risk premium is being factored in by global re-insurers but master politicians have yet to twig to it.)
5. There is an unknown risk of a parasitic organism, or disease, suddenly finding that the Pine Bark Beetles are a huge lunch. As we all know, nature obhors a vacuum.
6. There is also an unknown risk of increased wildfires. Wildfires in forests recently killed by Pine Bark Beetles are in themselves irrelevant to Pine Bark Beetles because there is nothing left for them to eat. However, there have been instances of wildfires from these dead forests spreading to forests where Pine Bark Beetles are currently having lunch. It needs to be kept in mind that wildfires in forests killed by Pine Bark Beetles are more difficult to control because of all that dead standing timber.
7. There will be downturns in the Piine Bark Beetle Futures markets coincident with natural climatic variability. This will create some short-term buying and selling opportunities for day traders, but medium-term investors will need to hold their nerve at such times.
8. The major problem with Pine Bark Beetle Futures is that it is one huge Investment Bubble. I have seen footage of literally clouds of beetles. Their population graphs would look very, very geometric. Unfortunately, when the final few north american conifers die, there will be a massively-leveraged overhang and there will be nothing but grief for investors still holding Pine Bark Beetle Futures. It is not far off being a massive coleopteran Ponzi scheme. The human communities that used to rely on north american conifer forests will not be very happy either
9. However, there is a way to fox the market. Pine Bark Beetle eggs are virtually udetectable by the customs folk. It would be ridiculously easy to transfer these to the eurasian land mass, not that any profit-based multi-national would even think of doing anything as destructive of the environment as that.
Putting it altogether: Buy for massive short- to medium term profits.
A close watch should be kept on the amount of conifer forest left and the rate of spread of bark beetles. Timing your exit will be crucial for maximum realization of profits. Investors should consider exiting earlier rather than later, because by the time the Pine Bark Beetle Crash happens, alternative climate change investment opportunities will have presented themselves.
Socrates Menzies 2 brothers served you dolt this happened in many families during WW1 get that through your thick head!
Boerwar
“Unfortunately, there is a cloud for every silver lining”
Good for me i cann’t see either a cloud or a silver lining
What i can realistacly see is a 4th updated IPCC Report containing 6 climate & levels scenariois which world is in varyng degrees addressing for coppenhaggen
What i can also see is theorists unrealisticaly thinking world Leeders will NOT ALSO consider either econamic politcal or social consequenses of dramativcaly altering there economies for CO2 emmissions mitigaton
Such thoerists ar part of th problam in finding solutions , not part of th solution …ditto CC skeptic Th IPPCC Reports already provide details of th problam , its managng solutions and bringing people with you is dificult part , and pine bark beetles will add no orotorial eloquense to those high level negotiations
glen
have just finished curtins bio, very sad at the end
anyhoo re menzies,curtin actually found him a bit difficult to deal with,but I cant remember any direct reference by curtin re menzies ww1 non-service that I can recall.
Curtin was a complex mixture of idealism and pragmatism,so I suppose that Menzies actions were part of the “times” and in isolation shouldn’t be held against him
btw my granpa served in both ww1 and 2,In those times duty to empire was the driving imperative
Ron @ 125
Hmmm, the economic and political rationalists? The same people who have always treated the environment like an irrelevant externality. Old habits die hard. They are now trying to finesse the environment with ‘balanced’ and ‘practical’ solutions.
It will not work.
Glen
and Menzies failed this country , first as Pig iron Bob suppliying raw material that came back fired as weapons at us oz , then worser in our darkest hour WW2 potential invasion by Japanese Menzies dismelly failed us with Leadership , even lost PM-ship ….then where did he spend rest of War , with us aussies oh no …with th Lords of th manor in UK as an adopted englishman
Its partly why in my #71 i rated Menzies at no 6 best oz PM , after Howard just before Fraser….but did tink about putting chifley & Fraser abov him ecscpet for 1950’s stability factor brought
.
also Glen , socrates is a elite Greek philosogher here , so a thick head is a complement …it means he’s bursting with wisdom , but soft heads mean an echo
Boerwar
“political rationalists? The same people who have always treated the ENVIRONMENT like an irrelevant externality”
sugest you go to th Franklin river & Strachan …its reel world environment , and it was saved ….and it was not saved by inner Sydney suburbs latte words , but by Labor politcans & Brown
Bob Hawkie went to a dificult 1983 electon on a promise of stopping damming th Franklin river ….KNOWINGLY knowing this promise ofended Tasmanian voters KNOWINGLY in advance it wiuld lose Labor ALL 5 Tasmanian federol seats…and it did
th franklin was saved by exposure by Bobby Brown and politcal ticker principals FOR th environment by politcan Bob Hawke
9ps/ last year was 25th annerversy , an upp thatFranklin on a boat party together was Bob Hawke , Bob Brown & botologist Belamy
ron
actually the “pig iron’ bit was mostly spin
and curtin was in charge when the sons of nippon threatened our fair shores
besides that I agree with your earlier PM rankings BTW.
info i had was
“In 1938 (as deputy leader of the UAP) he was given the pejorative nickname “Pig Iron Bob”, the result of his industrial battle with waterside workers who refused to load scrap iron being sold to Imperial Japan.”
Menzies resigned in late aug 1940 , Pearl Harbour happened early December 1941 and reckon by late august 1940 our pig iron bob had been used pretty alot to build weapons (even though by december 1941 and 1942 Curin was by then in charge)
And GLEN , not only do i make above charge , but failed oz i said , well mmore like prepared to sell this country out to save his precous england empire Menzies as PM wanted to send aussie troops to england to0 save th empir….Curtin refused , wanted trrops here to protect us aussies , it was KEY issue in Menzies losing his grab for a conbined war canbinet with him as PM , Curtin said no & 2 indepenfents backed curtin so an “Australian priority thinking PM in curtin took over , and asked for USA co op , just as well that occured….had Menzies NOT later been elected in 1949 , he’s be rated th worst PM in oz histary , like from 1901 to 2009 , worse than even th guy , maybe forde or sometink who had only 24 hrs as PM So when I put Menzies at no 6 , i thought that was faily fair taking his stability contibuton of 50’s into calcs
CORRECTON
Menzies resigned in late aug 1941 , NOT 1940
‘the result of his industrial battle with waterside workers who refused to load scrap iron being sold to Imperial Japan.’
as I said spin (Ron he actually didnt profiteer or commit treason) we werent at war with japan
Ron menzies said of curtin
“at least all his attacks were from the front”
I will let you draw your own conclusions on how many in his own faction “knifed” him in the back.
The late 39-41 period was a state of constant flux-in retrospect menzies was only acting as per his “realpolitik”
Ron @ 129
Good point. I should not have said, ‘always’. I should have said, ‘nearly always’.
I very much wish we had Bob Hawke now. He was prepared to lead.
Gusface , was unaware of profiteering or treason alegatons against Menzies , so was not thinking that when posting , just tinking that pig iron bit shipments to Japan and wharfies resisting
and “re in retrospect menzies was only acting as per his “realpolitik” ”
I agree , but reckon Curtin’s “realpolitik” for australia first was correct , and Curtins priority was Australia re WW2 , and Menzies re th Empire …I’m for Curtin’s view
[and Curtins priority was Australia re WW2 , and Menzies re th Empire]
both were for the empire
curtin had the foresight to see that the USA was the new big brother-though only in a materialistic sense-we were still “sons of britain” even in Curtins eyes
yes , but criticaly in august 1941 PRE PEARL HARBOUR , PM Menzies wanted to send Ausssie troops to england to sav th empire , Curtin would NOT agree he wanted to keep them here to protect Australia without being aware of Pearl Harbour coming
PM Menzies resigned PM ship mainly over it in august 1941 , Curtin took over…so in cruucial action taken , Curtin chose australia over Empire despite his Empire words , Menzies chose th Empire first consistent with his empire words
Winston Churchill used his old Army connections to get himself to the trenches and served as a Tommy at Flanders after he was wracked with guilt for his part in the planning of Gallipoli as First Lord of the Admiralty (he was blamed for Gallipoli and the Tories sacked him from office).
Not all war politicians are spineless.
Ron
without incurring the moderators wrath- aaargh
the troops in Q were in the Middle East- it was the convoy decision that created the break with churchhill.
plus the fact that India was considered as the alternative base to repulse the japanese from.
Further to my post at #138:
You tube clip from History of Britain by Simon Shama.
Gusface
correct where they were , but
“The Australian Labor Party, under John Curtin, refused Menzies’ offer to form a war coalition, and also opposed using the Australian army for a European war, preferring to keep it at home to defend Australia.”
As i said , Curtin despite hisd empire words in action wanted aussie trioops brought here to oz for oz defense Menzie in words but also in acton was for troops to defend th Empire first …in far away m/e , and on that Menzies lost me
From an English point of view, Australia was quite rightly of very low priority in world war two. England had lost its Chinese markets, was no longer getting tin or rubber from the Malay Peninsula and had access to alternative sources of Australian raw materials.
Bottom line, Australia was more expendable, as were Australians. Given the extremely low levels of investment by Australia in the military during the 1930’s, there was a certain symmetry to this.
Does anyone know the truth of the story I have heard that following lengthy begging by an Australian PM, Australia was finally provided with a sincle Hurricane, the job of which was to fly over Sydney and Melbourne from time to time to impress the punters?
Boerwar
“From an English point of view, Australia was quite rightly of very low priority in world war two”
True , but from an AUSTRALIAN point of view, Australia was quite rightly of number one priority in world war two , and thats what Labor leader Curtin reckoned , whereas Menzies thought th Empire was first priority in Aug 1941 , and so wuld not agree to a combined war cabinet , got th decising 2 independents on his side ….forsing Menzies an empire first PM to resign th PM-ship , and Curtin an aussie first PM became PM ….and he is our greatest PM , leadership under greatest pressure , smart to get americons co op also
Ron
We are going to have to stop this! I agree with you @ 141.
If I remember something right, while all this was happening the English were still trying to stop Australia opening up commercial flying routes with the US across the Pacific.
Boerwar , a revuluton has occured here ….gusface and i hav depossed Adam as histary professor Emporutus”s….not sure how he’ll handle th cuture shock of dethroning , probably with humility as norm
nite Boerwar
nite Ron
Boerwar , suppose to be fair should mention Nats had reins for a month after Menzies , but never counted Nats anyway You never answered my query other nite by way of whether you now got water Boerwar
Boerwar @ 140 – you are correct, only one RAAF Hurricane flew in Australia during WWII. I doubt Australia would have had to beg for Hurricanes though – the British recognised by the end of 1940 that the Hurricane airframe had reached the end of its development potential as a fighter and was offloading them (mainly to the Soviets, who used them very capably – mostly around Murmansk and Leningrad in 1941-42. Ironically, their Axis opponents in that region, Finland, also flew some Hurricanes, having purchased them from Britain during the Winter War of 1939-40)
A couple of RAAF squadrons in N. Africa operated Hurricanes though – No. 3 Squadron was fully equipped with Hurris for a few months in early 1941, and a couple of other squadrons had a mix of Hurricanes and other types (P-40’s probably?).
The lone example flying in Australia was probably for evaluation – presumably the RAAF found it to be lacking, as they received the superior P-40 and Spitfire instead, which began entering service in Australia 1942 (March and August respectively). I recall reading somewhere that that poor orphaned Hurricane 🙂 ended up as a liaison aircraft, but I’m not certain of that.
Ron
Yep, forgot. So far, zero allocation, and not looking too good.
Since we were using the money from selling the irrigation allocation for rehabilitating the river banks (fencing off and planting with natives, with generous set backs – nice to get a good bit of depth in the riparian veg), this may only mean a bit of a delay for us. For irrigators who depend on this for their livelihood, and for the townies who depend on irrigators to make money so they can spend it in the towns, it is a disaster. MDB storages were at 22% in mid-December.
For the sake of Australia I am hoping that there will be very good Autumn, Winter and Spring rains in 2009. It is almost unthinkable what will happen if these don’t arrive.