Yet another who wants the tax payer to pay for their personal interests, & expenses. Remember the song" He aint heavy, he's my brother", well I'm getting too many brothers. I am retired, living on a part pension, on 20 acres, with no town water. I spend $700 to $1000 every year controlling "declared weeds" which I am required to by council. I also spend another $300 or so controlling other weeds which are not declared, but are a problem. The thing I bould like the "government" {council} to do, is crack down on these weeds being cultivated in suburbia, so my place doesn't get re infected so quickly. I no longer do anything productive with the land, it doesn't pay. I have a few of the kids old retired horses wandering around. I spent $13,000 on my water supply. Dam pump & piping, tanks, pressure pumps, & gray water system for the house & garden. It was my choice to live here, & I can see no reason why the people who choose to live in town should have to subsidise that choise. They probably have some other use for their money. I do object to loosing control of the number of trees on my property. I object to being unable to do anything about the large numbers of kangaroos, which destroy my fences, & the huge number of ducks, which have made it impossible to have a vegetable garden, they pull every yhing out by the roots. If, as appears to be the case, I am going to be forced to provide a pretty GREEN rural seen, for the city folk to ocassionally drive to on sunday, then I do think I should be subsidised. If however, the effort & cost of living here become too great, I will move to some where else with less effort & cost required. I will not scream for the tax payer to pick up the bill for my choise of life style.
Phil
2
Saturday, 11 February 2006 10:35
john tiplady
These Global Climate changes which the world is facing, and our own country in particular, have never been properly addressed.
I recall, some years ago, when gases used in refrigeration equipment, were identified as being the main culprit in the depletion of the Ozone Layer, but politicians worldwide, decided that they would put in place a TEN YEAR programme to change away from these damaging chemicals. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that this planet doesn't have the luxury of such generous time allowances. Action should have been immediate, and positive, regardless of economic impacts and effects. There was simply no excuse for the world's leaders coming to such lax conclusions.
Phil
I recall, some years ago, when gases used in refrigeration equipment, were identified as being the main culprit in the depletion of the Ozone Layer, but politicians worldwide, decided that they would put in place a TEN YEAR programme to change away from these damaging chemicals. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that this planet doesn't have the luxury of such generous time allowances. Action should have been immediate, and positive, regardless of economic impacts and effects. There was simply no excuse for the world's leaders coming to such lax conclusions.