Victor P Taffa
When former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser brokered a deal to establish independence for the British Colony of Rhodesia and become Zimbabwe new President Robert Mugabe was seen as a hero for his people.
As time went on President Mugabe’s distrust and dislike of the former colonial master, Great Britain took hold and coloured his decision making ability. President Mugabe seized control of white Pro-British farms in the name of ‘redistributing fairness.’
The new ‘owners’ of the farms were not as experienced as those who were displaced and poverty and inflation increased with the country descending into chaos as Presidential election after Presidential election became a charade.
When the Rudd Government introduced its water buy back scheme it appeared on face value as a way to solve the water crisis afflicting South-Eastern Australia. The water buy back scheme maybe harmless now but what does the future hold for a less caring Government who may decide to seize control of farms or worst still buys farming lands?
Should the buyback of water continue as is the policy of the Rudd Government then all farmers will end up solely reliant on the Federal Government and we will all be the losers because unprofitable farms will be sold and ‘the bread basket’ of the Pacific will be the ‘begging bowl’ of the Pacific.
As John Bradfield sought to build inland water pipelines in Queensland in the 1920’s had this occurred then we would not be requiring a socialistic buy out of farms or water. As new railway lines are built water pipelines can be laid alongside the corridors. Pipelines also need to take water from the flood prone areas to the drought affected areas. New railway lines should be electrified and a new power station
Notwithstanding water buy back the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (E.T.S.) is being touted as the saviour of the planet. In theory if a Trading Scheme were imposed on Industry then they would change their nasty Emissions emitting practices. The reality is that the E.T.S. is simply another tax that will place the future of many industries in jeopardy. If the Rudd Government were really serious about changing industry practices so as to improve emissions output the Government would implement new industry regulations and legislate for a better outcome.
Furthermore if many countries are going to Copenhagen with a ‘wait and see’ attitude why should the Rudd Government place at risk Australian industry unnecessarily?
Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce recently referred to the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme as the Employment Termination Scheme. Others have called it the Emissions Taxation Scheme. Either way every Australian is right to be concerned about the impact of such a large scheme that takes the nation into the realm of the unknown.
Previously socialism was regarded as the Bogey so the left wing forces throughout the world had to come up with a new mantra that was acceptable to people. Along came the Greens movement and now you have the modern day socialist mantra called global warming and the emission trading scheme. Coal fired power stations would be closed tomorrow if the greens had their way.
Should this occur unemployment will head into the stratospheric levels. How will we pay Medicare payments to people when mass unemployment develops? The workforce of the Hunter Valley would like to know about the likely effect of the E.T.S. on the Hunter Valley Coal Industry. Broken Hill is a great place but as with Wollongong and the Hunter Valley the proposed Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme will devastate Industry throughout Australia. The E.T.S. will have a significant impact on the Railway Industry.
While the 2007 Federal election decisively elected the Rudd Government I would defy anyone to suggest that everyone who voted Labor in 2007 were actually up to speed with the detail of the E.T.S. The most important question about the E.T.S is if it will have no impact on Industry why do we need it? It seems as though that the people who support an E.T.S. also support an Australian Republic and the abolition of State Governments.
There is a saying about change and that unless the change you wish to embark upon is as good as what you have now and does not improve the situation then ‘if in doubt, don’t
Is change to the unknown really worth it?