Mr. Abbott only says he wants control of the Murray Basin. He does not say what he wants to do. What would he do that the present government has not? Has he a magic wand that can produce water out of nowhere? What will his green army do? You do not get much expertise for $50,000. Money would be better spent subsidising the people on the land to improve their environment. In addition, this will not solve the problem of global warming. Mr Abbott's only apparent skill appears to be is the ability to oppose and be negative. He is wanting when asked what he would do. Australians on the whole do not like whingers, and the opposition at this time seem to be nothing else.

Watch Abbott closely. He is a smooth political operator. Never forget that he was the brains behind destroying Pauline Hanson's chance of getting Australia back on track. Involved in the group 'Australians for Constitutional Monarchy' he seems to forget that politicians are supposed to follow 'the will of the people', not tell them what to do. Rudd's a dud, but this Abbott - without Costello - must be watched carefully.

I do not think Diane is correct, when she says that politicians are supposed to follow "the will of the people", other than to gain/maintain the level of electoral support sufficient to be elected/re-elected. Our political system is a representative one, where we elect members of parliament to represent our interests. This implies a role of leadership, sometimes taking unpopular decisions. The concept of "follow the will of the people" is somewhat meaningless, because in most cases, it is not easy to determine exactly what the will of the people is. It is interesting to hear commentators (especially tabloid quality shock jocks) call for governments to follow the will of the people on populistic issues (say boat people), but ask governments to show leadership when they, the shock jocks, are aware that their preferred outcomes are not popularly supported (say, overlooking bribes paid by AWB). Thankfully, when in government, most politicians put away the need to be populistic by ignoring the usually ignorant mentality of the mob. As an aside, if you think Hanson was "getting Australia back on side", you are probably one of the ignorant mob.

Birmingham is a Senator from South Australia. He, like Wong who is also from SA, is not a fit and proper person to hold any post of authority over the Murray-Darling because of his blatant CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It is the first duty of every professional to first recognise every situation where their interests may conflict, or could be seen to conflict, with their formal responsibilities. And they have a very clear responsibility to exclude themselves from all such situations. Both the government and the opposition spokespersons on the Murray-Darling have a duty under oath to represent ALL the people of the Murray-Darling equally, and without fear or favour. And neither Birmingham nor Wong are capable of doing so because they are entirely beholden to the minority interest of SA voters. South Australians have completely "white-anted" the Murray-Darling Basin Authority from the top down. They have failed to present key information on the extent to which past clearing in the basin has increased runoff into the system compared to pre-settlement flows. And they actively suppressed it in testimony to the 2004 Parliamentary Inquiry. Brace yourself folks, this will get very ugly.

This is a terrible idea - does anyone seriously think that the feds could do a better job than the states?

I don't know about everyone else, but I want LESS government involvement in everything I do, not more. As farmers we are being regulated out of existence by unsympathetic, urban-based governments & bureacracies of all political colours. We can feed & clothe the world in a sustainable fashion, if we are allowed to do so. Instead we suffer from increasing regulation that limits our productivity & sustainability. For heaven's sake, get out of the way & let us get on with it!

Politicians past sought to win the votes of the likes of Ben by over allocating water. Todays politicians have a plan to claw back water to reset the MDB. Improvements to the management agreement of the MDB over the last 100 year have been very few and taken too long. Having 4 states and a federal goverment trying to manage the basin through this stressful drought period has highlighted its fatal flaws. July 2008 Premier Rann touted a new "historic agreement" and by January he annouced a plan to take one of the states to the high court over a failure in the "historic agreement". Whether his point is genuine or its just an election stunt the MDB, its irrigators, environment and communities deserve a lot better leadership. One government instead of 5 managing the MDBA could not be worse than now!

Here, here Trev. They (politicians and bureaucrats alike are being allowed to wield too much power - to our detriment. The Commonwealth is specifically excluded from water control under section 100 of the Aust Constitution. In like vein the State Govts have no more rights than any individual although they think they do. Oh for a few spare million to take them to task.