Victorian MLC Moira Deeming: the pretty face of…

“I can’t wait until I’m legally able to hunt you down.” This curse…

Science & Technology Australia welcomes National Reconstruction Fund

Science & Technology Australia Media Release The nation’s peak body representing 115,000 Australian…

Calculated Exoneration: Command Responsibility and War Crimes in…

Being the scapegoat of tribal lore cast out with the heavy weight…

The Voice: Remember When The Liberals Were Still…

At the moment we're witnessing the Liberal Party at their absurd best.…

Nazis on our streets: don't judge protesters by…

On some level, it is straightforward for a Neo-Nazi protest to be…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

A Hazardous Decision: Supplying Ukraine with Depleted Uranium…

Should they be taking them? Ukraine is desperate for any bit of…

Murdoch's Zero Sum games: divisive propaganda meant to…

The Murdoch media drives resentment with propaganda as constant as drums of…


Imagine the uproar if the government shut down the water supply to a ‘white’ community

How quickly things change.

In the 1990s the government’s National Homelands Policy encouraged Indigenous Australians to return to their traditional lands where they could live in an environment that provided them with their social and spiritual needs. All that the government expected was that they had secure tenure over this land, that this homeland was their principal place of residence, that support from resource agencies was available, and most important, that the homeland had a permanent supply of water.

Without water there was no funding. Nobody can live without water.

Fast forward to 2015. Western Australian premier Colin Barnett has announced plans to shut down up to 150 remote Aboriginal communities because they are ‘unviable’. Canberra has backed this plan, offering a $90 million enticement to ‘to aid the transition’ in ‘handing over responsibility for infrastructure and municipal services in these areas’.

They were viable in the 1990s, but apparently not so now. The argument is that a number of communities have less than ten residents and shouldn’t be supported. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the communities being small. People were ‘enticed’ to the community under the National Homelands Policy where they could live on the traditional lands that provided them with their social and spiritual needs, which is a far cry from Tony Abbott’s farcical and troublesome claim that it was all about ‘lifestyle choices’.

These attacks on remote Indigenous communities from both Colin Barnett and Tony Abbott have been widely reported in our media. Sadly, the actions of the government in the way they are going about their business in shutting down these communities hasn’t attracted a whimper.

A resident of one community – Coonana – contacted me with the disturbing news that the government has cut off the water to the community even though people are living there.

Nobody can live without water.

They are doing this to all the communities they want to shut down because their “lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have”.

So I guess the choice is to participate in Australian society the way the government wants you to, or die. (That’s social engineering in my opinion). And let’s see that this happens with the convenience of being unreported in the mainstream media.

We seem to be turning back the clock to our colonial past. An Aboriginal elder from the Kimberley region told me that a pastoral station – owned by a British lord – had 20 taps for the gardens alone. The Aboriginal community that lived on the station was provided with just one tap between them. All the community’s water for drinking and washing came from just one tap.

But at least they had water. Now the water is being taken away.

And nobody can live without water.

Imagine the uproar if a government shut down the water supply to a ‘white’ community. But it would never happen: white people are allowed to make lifestyle choices, have a tree change, have a sea change, or live wherever they like.

And all without government, media, or public criticism.

And with water, of course.

 460 total views,  2 views today


Login here Register here
  1. stuffme

    Another nail in the coffin of this fascist government.

  2. Lyle Upson.

    how rude

  3. Florence nee Fedup

    To conservatives, we all make life choices. Those who do not have sufficient self discipline, make the wrong choices. That is our own fault. They go further. They believe that taxing those who are successful as punishing them for being able to achieve. They do not believe those who fail, should be rewarded for doing so.

    Yes, convoluted thinking, but when one listens, this is what one hears. They believe they make sense.

    If one taxes the rich they will not produce. The wealthy will stop working.

    What I cannot see, is why they believe those on the bottom should go to work for poverty wages. Why one should pay big GST on the goods we buy. Would not we stay home, buying nothing?

    Convoluted comment, but no more that what neoliberals are spruiking.

  4. Florence nee Fedup

    I have a bigger problem with that vast area being unpopulated, with no one available to care for it. Does not make sense.

  5. diannaart

    Leaving people without drinking water is considered an imposition upon Australia’s wealth, but subsidising the mining industry is acceptable.

    There is no bar too low for this government.

  6. flohri1754

    You only have to look at the trajectory of the GOP in the US (as led by the almost farcical Tea Party element) to see where the Australian Liberals are either purposely or inadvertently trying to take this country ….

  7. Florence nee Fedup

    This man was on RN. Has much interesting to say.

    The Language of Conservatism

    Conservatives like to make fun of liberals, claiming that liberals just don’t speak their language. Again, the conservatives are right. There is a language of conservatism, and it’s not just words. The words are familiar enough, but not what they mean. For example, “big government” does not just refer to the size of government or the amount spent by it. One can see the misunderstanding when liberals try to reason with conservatives by pointing out that increasing the amount spent on the military and prisons increases “big government ” Conservatives laugh. The liberals have just misused the term. I have heard a conservative talk of “freedom” and a liberal attempt a rebuttal by pointing out that denying a woman access to abortion limits her “freedom” to choose. Again, the liberal has used a word that has a different meaning in the conservative lexicon.

    Words don’t have meanings in isolation. Words are defined relative to a conceptual system. If liberals are to understand how conservatives use their words, they will have to understand the conservative conceptual system. When a conservative legislator says, in support of eliminating Aid to families with Dependent Children (AFDC), “It’s alright to have a soft heart, but you’ve gotta have a strong backbone,” one must ask exactly what that sentence means in that context, why that sentence constitutes an argument against continuing AFDC, and what exactly the argument is. In Dan Quayle’s acceptance speech to the Republican convention in 1992, he said, in a rhetorical question arguing against the graduated income tax, “Why should the best people be punished?” To make sense of this, one must know why rich people are “the best people” and why the graduated income tax constitutes “punishment.” In other conservative discourse, progressive taxation is referred to as “theft” and “taking people’s money away from them.” Conservatives do not see the progressive income tax as “paying one’s fair share” or “civic duty” or even “noblesse oblige.” Is there anything besides greed that leads conservatives to one view of taxation over another?

    Here are some words and phrases used over and over in conservative discourse: character, virtue, discipline, tough it out, get tough, tough love, strong, self-reliance, individual responsibility, backbone, standards, authority, heritage, competition, earn, hard work, enterprise, property rights, reward, freedom, intrusion, interference, meddling, punishment, human nature, traditional, common sense, dependency, self-indulgent, elite, quotas, breakdown, corrupt, decay, rot, degenerate, deviant, lifestyle.

    Why do conservatives use this constellation of words and phrases in arguing for political policies and exactly how do they use them? Exactly what unifies this collection, what forms it into a single constellation? A solution to the worldview problem must answer all these questions and more. It must explain why conservatives choose to talk about the topics they do, why they choose the words they do, why those words mean what they do to them, and how their reasoning makes sense to them. Every conservative speech or book or article is a challenge to any would-be description of the conservative worldview.

  8. mike

    I thought these people could live off the land.
    All of a sudden they need everything to hand
    What a waste of money for 10 people

  9. Loz

    Deplorable treatment from a deplorable government.

  10. M-R

    Of course I don’t actually ‘like’ this post one little bit, Michael; but it has to be promulgated.
    I’ll be posting a link to this on my blog, for what that’s worth.

  11. Michael Taylor

    Mike, let’s see how you’d go living without essential services or water.

    Good luck with that.

  12. Coachman on the Box

    Mike… oh never mind; you’d never understand.

  13. Rosemary (@RosemaryJ36)

    Playing the devil’s advocate – how did our first people survive before the colonisers came?
    I think the government is behaving badly, don’t misunderstand me, but the fact remains our first people survived on country before white men came. Now when the money is gone they cannot buy food.
    Sooner or later a decision has to be made by them – do they want to live like the rest of the population tries to do, trying to find a job, earning a wage to pay for their needs, having water from a tap, electricity from solar or other sources to run a fridge, a TV and a radio, modern medical services, schools and so on or do they want to live a traditional life on country?
    And Florence is right – we actually need them to live on country so we need to help them make decisions, not bully them.

  14. Michael Taylor

    And when Europeans arrived here in 1788 they didn’t have gas, electricity, cars, supermarkets, etc etc etc. If you expect Aborigines to live like they did 220+ years ago, then might I suggest that we white people give it a try too?

  15. kate ahearne

    When the ‘whities’ came in 1788, the Aboriginal peoples had the run of the land. When water was scarce in one place, they simply moved. When food became scarce in one place, they moved. And Mike, injustice, if it’s ‘only’ for ten people, is still injustice. And, of course, it’s not just one settlement that is being threatened, but 150. Oh, and by the way, water is a basic human right. Perhaps we could make this disgusting thing look a whole lot better by cutting off water to ALL long-term unemployed people.

  16. Möbius Ecko

    And the water wasn’t taken away back then for large scale irrigation projects, massive mines, dams and piped to the cities and large towns for thirsty rural European gardens. Nor were massive areas of forests clear felled also taking away water and destroying the environment. The water holes they relied on drained as aquifers were pumped for every last drop.

    But of course it’s all their fault they can’t live off the land the white man destroyed, altered, plundered and poisoned.

  17. Roswell

    How can Aborigines hunt in lands that were stolen from them?

  18. brickbob

    Where are are all the influential Indigenous leaders like Pearson and Uncle Mundine? they should be screaming from the rooftops about this outrageous decision to deny these people the most basic but vital source of survival,namely water’
    I hate the term ” Uncle Tom” but in the case of some of these so called Indigenous ” Leaders”, i will make an exception,for God sake stand up and defend your own people instead of feathering your own nests.””’

  19. Mercurial

    One big problem with that link Florence:

    They say we have to bail out businesses and individuals when their choices lead to failure.
    We say let them fail.

    What about the bailing out of the failing banks during the GFC?

  20. Matters Not

    mike said:

    I thought these people could live off the land.

    Mike your knowledge of the ‘past’ is spot on. And they did so for thousands of years. Go to the top of the class.

    But you did you use the word ‘could’ which is the past tense of ‘can’. Today things have changed. Including the environment. Take the time to drive the Canning Stock Route and see how much

    (Simplistic I know, but I am talking to Mike).

    Shakes head.

    For more on this subject can I suggest this link.


    on the West Kimberly region with three remote communities, but only the two indigenous ones under threat of being shut down. The non-indigenous community is not under threat, with its signs proudly displaying its share of the $6.5bn of regional royalties pumped in to prop up the region. It is true that indigenous unemployment is high in the region with only 44% in employment and participation rates of 48%. But non-indigenous employment is hardly any better at 49% and 50% respectively. Nor would shifting indigenous people from remote regions necessarily reduce the cost of unemployment benefit. In fact it would probably increase given that indigenous unemployment rates in outer regional areas are higher at 20% versus 18% in very remote regions (and a not exactly sparkling 15% in inner city areas).

    So there is little real economic rationale to the move. It is more a political agenda than anything else. It should be easily opposed without even the need to resort to economic reductionism, but simply by being against unequal treatment.

  21. Lyle Upson.

    150 communities, of at least ten people, that is at least 1500 people suddenly ripped from their present life affairs versus the cost of pumping water through a pipe that i can assume already exists

  22. Annie B

    @ Michael …. a poignant, valid and excellent article. ……. and your comment ( at 6:01 pm ) …. well said – a good suggestion – ” why don’t we whites give it a try too “.

    @ Florence nee ….

    Your comment – – – “They believe that taxing those who are successful as punishing them for being able to achieve.” and … “If one taxes the rich they will not produce. The wealthy will stop working.”

    I take it that ‘they’ are the Conservative Government to whom you refer. …. If that is so, why don’t ‘ they ‘ tax properly and appropriately the ultra-mega-rich mining companies ( a la Gina ) for all THEY have achieved – and boy have they achieved – lotsa loot for themselves at the expense of ? …. you name it !!! .

    …. Oh no … the Gov’t couldn’t do that, could they ? A right pack of mongrels, this Government. …. I have to wonder how much ‘mining money’ goes directly into certain pockets. ( am I allowed to say that ? ).

    And the wealthy will NEVER stop working …. they are way too greedy to do so. …. God forbid they get down to their last $40 million in assets, ownership and value.

    Your other post ” The Language of Conservatism ” was interesting. ….. and why indeed, should rich people be considered to be the ‘best’ people. …. So often they are anything but.


  23. stephentardrew

    So we take Aboriginal lands, destroy their culture, murder them and then rip the feat from under them.

    Just when you think the doyens of conservative greed and immortality have reached a new low they sink even further into the mire of victim blame and hateful retribution.

    Move them here, move them there, put them on reservations, steal their kids, shut the reservations, send them back to traditional lands blame them for infrastructure cost then tell them they have to move because the white Gods of greed and opulence can’t afford the cost of reparation for the land and culture they stole from Aboriginal people.

    These evil bastards call themselves Christians and claim to support democracy in the revised guise of fascist style corporate totalitarianism.

    I am as mad as hell.

    Meanwhile we bleed morally and ethically while the masses sit in numb and dumb stupefaction incapable of thinking their way out of a delusional lie that we have tried to help indigenous people. Sure as long as the cost is not too high, you know like a fraction of what they are owed due to theft, cruelty, brutality and murder.

    What was stolen is priceless and to complain about supporting these people is a travesty of justice.

    Wake up Australia you are turning into the worst example of fascist corporate greed on the planet.

    I never thought I would say it but as of now I am ashamed to be and Australian.

    The fair go is dead and buried.

  24. Damo451

    First ,let me say ,i am happy to support indigenous people living their traditional ways in Australia.
    In my view ,if we can afford 6 Billion in subsidies for miners ,we can afford to subsidies the traditional owners who want to live and carry on their culture where they have lived for hundreds of years.
    I would be interested on your thoughts on this proposal Micheal Taylor given your experience in the area.
    Firstly i dont believe any one here would be silly enough to suggest that in some of these communities alcohol and domestic violence is not a problem.
    So my proposal is this ,people in communities that are working to maintain their culture and traditions are supported both financially and with appropriate infrastructure ,and those who have no interest are encouraged and supported to find gainful employment closer to bigger regional centres and cities. Carrot AND stick ,not just stick.
    However there is one proviso ,if any traditional owners decide to move back to their communities after finding gainful employment ,because they want to help carry on the culture and traditions of their people ,then we also support them to do so as well.
    The elders of the communities would have a large amount of input into who was and was not serious about carrying on the culture.
    Given that many other cultures have risen and fallen over the centuries ,this would put the ball fair and square in the court of the indigenous population ,as to whether their culture survives or not.
    This is not meant to be a dog eat dog idea ,but more along the lines of self determination so the idea may need a little more finesse than i have put.
    I have no problem at all with my taxes being used to support this ,but i do have a problem with my taxes being used to pay for someone who just wants to sit around drinking or using drugs and not contributing to their community or mine ,and that goes for people of all colors and creeds.
    Obviously people with more experience at policy making would need to add the appropriate checks and balances ,but i feel we are running out of options.

  25. stephentardrew

    People do not chose pain and hardship if they can help it. To presume that drug and alcoholism is self inflicted after we willingly imposing our drug regime upon Aboriginal people is just another cop out. Blame the victim, blame the victim. They don’t need your taxes simply a fair share of the resource profits of this nation and a concerted effort to meet their needs not ours. We disrupted their culture completely and torment them for hundreds of years and all of a sudden they should pull themselves up through effort of will while the doyens of financial greed feed upon the country that is the foundation of their bodies and dreaming. We are such ignorant fools. Too simple to listen and learn; too arrogant to admit attempted genocide. Our sorries come at a cost, not as fatuous statements of little consequence, but as a responsibility to act out of fairness, humility and compassion..

  26. Annie B

    Good for you stephen t ….

    Hear hear …. to all you’ve written here. – – – How very right you are … in every respect.


  27. Florence nee Fedup

    No fences back them, preventing them from entering the best of the land. Free to move, within their society where the wanted too. Move with the seasons. No foxes, toads and other vermin wiping out the animals that roamed among them.

  28. Andreas Bimba

    The only answer is socially responsible governments but we can’t get that without socially responsible and engaged citizens. Just look at the recent NSW election, the vast majority still voted for the rubbish Liberals, Nationals and half rubbish ALP. It can’t just be Rupert’s fault. The Greens need to lift their game, they have the policies, they have the vision, they have the solutions, but they don’t have the hearts and minds of the electorate, 9.7% of the legislative council vote is not good enough. The Greens increased their number of lower house seats from two to three (plus Lismore still undecided but Nationals are ahead) which is a good result for those seats especially when one considers the rotten ‘first past the post’ electoral system but it is still a crap result over all. The Greens may not know it but they can be the federal government in 2016 as the lead party of a loose coalition.

    The Greens need to deliver a positive message (not just a save this, stop that message), they need to broaden their appeal base to working people, Howard’s battlers, farmers, people of the country towns, conservative middle Australia, not by compromising their core values but by promoting those strengths that the Greens have in a way that is appropriate to those target voter bases.

  29. Andreas Bimba

    Great comment Stephen T. I just hate those that blame the unemployed for being unemployed, the victim blaming has to stop and well thought out solutions that involve the people that are disadvantaged should be trialled and continuously adapted and improved. Making democracy, from local to state and national, work in the best interests of citizens would also be a good first step.

  30. Andreas Bimba

    Damo451, I think your comments have merit and could be worth trying but it really is up to those affected to decide (not you or I) after all we are a democracy (or at least we should be) and all good ideas need to be looked at from all angles, decisions reached by consensus and can’t just be imposed by outsiders or governments. Just look at nations like Singapore, they only really took off once the paternalistic colonial master left and they were free to come up with their own solutions. These remote Aboriginal communities are generally not self supporting, nor could they be in most cases so our governments must also play an ongoing role. The unemployed non-aboriginal people in remote and rural Australia also need a much better deal.

  31. Florence nee Fedup

    “the unemployed for being unemployed, ”

    Seems t worry everyone that they are not employed. Kids not being educated.

    Is it really true most are not fully employed? I think it is truer to say, they are not receiving a wage, being paid money. That is a little different. Mothers are raising kids and keeping there communities going, like most do elsewhere. Just not going out to a paid job.

    It is said, that many have left the more settled areas to get away from the grog.

    Who are we to say the lifestyles are not productive. I believe many carried out the role of rangers, caring for the environment. Do we really have any idea of how these people fill in their day, how the communities work.

    Children would be learning, not necessary how to read and write, but how to read the land.

    Just a thought. It is arrogant of us, to judge by our values, as if others have no worth.

  32. Anon E Mouse

    Large Indigenous protests around the country against these closures have not been mentioned in the media MSM or alternate media.

    Apparently the one in Melbourne closed down the city centre for a while.

    One encouraging thing is how many non-Indigenous Australians are outraged at the closures as well.

  33. Jexpat

    “And with water, of course.

    Not once the filthy coal and coal seam gas corporations have their way.

  34. Pingback: Imagine the uproar if the government shut down the water supply to a ‘white’ community – » The Australian Independent Media Network | winstonclose

  35. Damo451

    Obviously i am not blaming those unemployed for being unemployed ,if some of those living there have no wish to continue carrying on their culture then maybe they would benefit more from having a job and trying to live in our culture.
    I believe working as rangers ,Florence ,is very important work ,but i also think that they need to learn to read and write as well as learn about ,and maintain their culture.
    After all there is still a need to communicate with white people at times.
    I have been employed for many years in many different jobs ,and i see racism in the fact that i have only worked with one indigenous man at one job.

  36. Florence nee Fedup

    Damo451, you believe, they obviously do not agree others knows what is best for them.

  37. Barry Thompson.

    Excellent comments StephenT,you sound like a top bloke.

  38. Florence nee Fedup

    I have worked with many Indigenous people. Many with qualifications higher than mine. The majority have become a part of the every day community. Do people realise the number of the people who abstain from alcohol is higher in their communities than ours. Sadly alcohol id deadly for those that do.

  39. Kerri

    Take it to the Hague! This is a denial of the communities human rights!

  40. totaram

    To those who complain about “money not being available for the aboriginal remote communities”: Colin Barnett is expecting about $6Bn in royalties for this year’s budget. Who should have the first claim on that money if it is not the traditional owners of the land?

    Do people like “mike” have any idea about what goes on? I read another comment somewhere about how these communities were being “supported by hard-working australians”. These people are just so uninformed, but hey, they have a right to have an opinion, and they “have a right to be bigots” !

  41. Richard

    Taking the mining companies out of it, i agree with both sides, more indiginous side, but both sides

  42. VitalStatistic63

    Many white people live without town water. Farmers and people living in outback towns use tanks off their guttering to collect rain. Just saying

  43. Möbius Ecko

    And VitalStatistic63 many farmers also have bore water as one reason they chose to farm where they do. But when there’s drought and they have no water, tank or bore, they have it trucked in or have governments build pipelines, dams, alter waterways and install irrigation systems.

    So here’s two suggestions:

    1. Truck water into the Aboriginal communities as they now don’t have any.
    2. Allow them to move onto farming land where there are natural water supplies or government built infrastructure for water supplies.

    Or how about we just leave things as they are instead of attempting to engineer a deliberate disposition of a native people for the likelihood of turning over that land to mining or nuclear waste dumps. Something Howard’s intervention was leading towards.

  44. vitalstatistic63

    Of course Mobius, you’re 100% correct.

    And that’s exactly what my ex father in law does when the rains fail on his farm. Him and others in his town. They pay to have water trucked in to fill their tanks. Had to do it 10ish years ago in the big droughts back then. The government doesn’t pay for it. He also has a small dam on his land. Guess who maintains it. Guess who owns and maintains the pumps and pipework to get that water to the house for showers and flushing. I’ll give you a hint. Not the government.

    Buxton NSW. About 2 hrs south of Sydney. Yet they don’t have pipelines or bores to their property paid for by the government. Living in the water catchment area for Sydney’s dams. The water Southern Sydney drinks runs across their land. They are not allowed to run certain types of livestock because it is a catchment area for drinking water. And yet, despite being white Australians that have owned their farm for over 50 years, and paid taxes and property rates that whole time, they do not have a government sponsored pipeline running to their property from the dam their land feeds.

    As far as choosing to live on his farm, well hellooo.

    The people in these remote communities, like all of us, choose where we want to live. We weigh up our wants and needs with our ability to support our desired lifestyle, and we choose a place to live to suit. If you can’t afford the lifestyle, you move. Maybe I should ask the government if they will sponsor me to move to Vaucluse or Blues Point. I’d really like to live closer to the action, a beach suburb. Wonder how that would go?

  45. Roswell

    Mobius, you always make so much sense. Impressive.

  46. diannaart

    Imagine if we had the type of clever technology that would enable remote communities to become self-sufficient, tech such as solar or wind… imagine instead of trucking in water, water-tanks were built and potable aquifers protected from mining degradation or storage of nuclear waste…

    Of course all of the above is simply fanciful – far better to whine about people living on land that sustained their ancestors and culture for aeons – which is just a life-style choice like moving to the coast.

  47. Annie B

    @ diannaart ….

    Imagine indeed. !! …. and it’s not ‘simply fanciful’ at all. …. It’s a damned good suggestion.

    Renewable energy ( that thing that this Government hates so much ) … would be a wonderful answer – especially solar – in remote communities. ….

    Would give many people jobs – continuing as well ( maintenance etc. ), and would obviate many many of the problems that could beset the true owners of our land – the Aboriginal / Indigenous peoples.

    But then – we have a Liberal ( LNP ) Government don’t we….. so don’t hold your breath.

    Well said though dianna.

  48. Cosmic

    Isn’t it true that Coonana only has ONE resident, and has done so for a number of years?

  49. Möbius Ecko

    Cosmic can you tell us why there is only one resident in Coonana, and if the same thing happened to any small white community would it have been ignored by the authorities?

  50. Möbius Ecko

    vitalstatistic63 I can tell you that in the rural areas around me and many other places around the country there is government paid for water infrastructure, and let’s not forget that many farmers, especially those like Cubby Station, got their water for an absolute song. Then there are the river systems either completely destroyed or severely degraded by governments to give rural areas and industries water.

    Also the comparison between your farming example and an Aboriginal community is specious. A farmer

    As to your analogy of having the government paying to move to a better lifestyle. Isn’t that the excuse the WA and Federal government is making and giving millions to those Aboriginal communities to supposedly do, yet they prefer to stay in their current locations. Because of that they should still be provided with the services to enable them to continue to remain, just as those services are provided to so many other remote communities and properties around the country.

    If you believe the State and Federal governments have only the motive of cost for doing this then I believe you are being fooled, only time will reveal the truth of that if the communities are closed down, just as time revealed the NTER had ulterior motives and was based on deceptions.

    Plus I believe we live in a society not in an economy. If a Western country such as ours can’t look after the indigenous peoples they dispossessed and marginalised whilst giving billions to the well off then there’s something very wrong with this country.

  51. Möbius Ecko

    Sorry inserted paragraph cut off as I was called away for a minor emergency.

  52. diannaart

    Thanks Annie

    Instead our government will claim that they have spent too much for no improvement and use this as an excuse to, yet again, relocate the first Australians.

    I get so angry at the lack of vision from both major parties – I could cry, well actually I do sometimes.

  53. diannaart

    More imaginings:

    Amazing Pop-Up Solar Power Station Delivers Energy Anywhere it’s Needed

    combines several of our very favorite things in one easy-to-transport package: shipping containers, off-the-grid solar power, and clean drinking water generation. With their new Ecos PowerCube, the company can deliver a shipping-container-sized, self-sustaining solar power station by air, sea, rail or road to anywhere in the world it is needed.

    and this

    New Tesla battery could take your home off the grid

    Tesla’s new stationary battery could be the gateway that finally links renewable energy to everyday consumers in a way that makes sense.

    All operated and owned by local communities, just imagine!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: