Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Public interest or political interest?

By Kerry Corke - posted Friday, 2 February 2007


However, when questioned at the Press Club, the PM agreed that subsequent governments may not allocate the promised funds. Mr Howard was also critical of state governments for not commencing some dam projects because of environmental concerns. So, it is presumed the Feds will plough ahead with dam proposals and damn the political torpedoes.

However, older readers may remember how the Feds stopped the Franklin Dam project in the 1980s - in the name of the environment. Some would say that it was a Labor Government. But it might be recalled the current government dumping ideas of selling its share of the Snowy Hydro, because of its iconic nature - and because of pressure from Alan Jones.

As the Sydney Morning Herald reported on June 2, 2006:

Advertisement

“The sale of the Snowy Hydro scheme is off after Prime Minister John Howard bowed to public opposition and said the federal government would not now sell its 13 per cent stake.

“That forced NSW and Victoria, who own 58 per cent and 29 per cent respectively, to then announce they too would pull out of the sale.

“NSW Premier Morris Iemma said Mr Howard had ‘pulled the rug’ out of the deal.

“While Victorian treasurer John Brumby said Sydney talkback host Alan Jones was behind the turnaround.

“‘Alan Alan Jones said it was a bad idea, so the prime minister thinks it's a bad idea,’ he said.”

The point of this is merely to note that the federal government is just as likely as any state government to act in its own political interests when it suits. A political entity will always act in a political manner.

Advertisement

Water management is simply the issue of the day. A government coming up to a tough election has acted politically to protect its own interests. If other public policy issues requiring the expenditure of big dollars come up, or the economy declines, the $10 billion over 10 years promised simply may not materialise.

And the idea that it will invariably act in an abstract public interest, rather than its political interest - like a grubby provincial government - is simply a matter of fantasy.

Before forever yielding control of water management - an issue the constitutional responsibility of the states, they should seek to implement the highest level of guarantee possible that the promises made by the Australian Government in its National Plan for Water Security are discharged.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Kerry Corke is principal of K.M. Corke and Associates, a Canberra based public law consultancy.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Kerry Corke

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Kerry Corke
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy