Too much information
Its all in the brief mate . If you make it too simple ,thinking people walk away , and if you ask for everything ,people will only stay if they have a lifetime available to listen to YOU .
Tony Burke must be wondering what he's got to do to get the discussion back on track about the Murray Darling . He needs to look no further than Europe - paid public servants who expand agendas instead of expounding on the short one.
Never trust someone whose ideas don't stand still . Tony Burke won't ask Wong because she's mooved on to solving ecocrises of another kind.
The point is , there is an air of esoteric around - "we can do this ". Sorry, but the truth is when you don't KNOW enough , you know neither the problem FIRST or the solution still way down the track somewhere. You write rotten briefs . Good for roving consultants , but as clear as only invisible clothes can be.
No sorry mate, without knowledge you can have a budget as big the USA's and still blow it finding out things.
Tony Burke must be wondering what he's got to do to get the discussion back on track about the Murray Darling - after all we all agree, "its ALL a mess" isn't it ? .
Well NO ..sorry we don't agree about that . Its not ALL anything . Its SOMETHING We agree that , for one thing its " flows - just from time to time" and "just in relation to the channel involved" or "whether the States should prevent people taking water at very specific times " :
As always, the polys set too wide a brief and get too general an answer. In attempting to solve everything they solve nothing .
Burke can't win on this either unless he sets the brief in believable terms - eg . what infact is an environmental flow and when should they occur , and how big ? . Not in numbers but in terms a diversion officer or instrumentality can understand .The States used to know and its only with a revival in them that the Feds will have a place to go ( Its also naked stuff to stand around in a stiff breeze " in charge ....but with no one to blame" )
Credible improvement is best managed by supporting diversion inspectors, not paper legislators and GRAND PLANS .With a few principles to hand, its PEOPLE ( not PLANS) who know enough to effect change .
In Heaven and on earth , we have angels , In Canberra they believe they can do it all themselves
Tony Burke must be wondering what he's got to do to get the discussion back on track about the Murray Darling . He needs to look no further than Europe - paid public servants who expand agendas instead of expounding on the short one.
Never trust someone whose ideas don't stand still . Tony Burke won't ask Wong because she's mooved on to solving ecocrises of another kind.
The point is , there is an air of esoteric around - "we can do this ". Sorry, but the truth is when you don't KNOW enough , you know neither the problem FIRST or the solution still way down the track somewhere. You write rotten briefs . Good for roving consultants , but as clear as only invisible clothes can be.
No sorry mate, without knowledge you can have a budget as big the USA's and still blow it finding out things.
Tony Burke must be wondering what he's got to do to get the discussion back on track about the Murray Darling - after all we all agree, "its ALL a mess" isn't it ? .
Well NO ..sorry we don't agree about that . Its not ALL anything . Its SOMETHING We agree that , for one thing its " flows - just from time to time" and "just in relation to the channel involved" or "whether the States should prevent people taking water at very specific times " :
As always, the polys set too wide a brief and get too general an answer. In attempting to solve everything they solve nothing .
Burke can't win on this either unless he sets the brief in believable terms - eg . what infact is an environmental flow and when should they occur , and how big ? . Not in numbers but in terms a diversion officer or instrumentality can understand .The States used to know and its only with a revival in them that the Feds will have a place to go ( Its also naked stuff to stand around in a stiff breeze " in charge ....but with no one to blame" )
Credible improvement is best managed by supporting diversion inspectors, not paper legislators and GRAND PLANS .With a few principles to hand, its PEOPLE ( not PLANS) who know enough to effect change .
In Heaven and on earth , we have angels , In Canberra they believe they can do it all themselves
Canberra , at its worst believes,that they can do everything themselves and therefore want us to listen and coat THE PLAN in concrete. They forget that they and others in the future will assemble in Parliament, to not consider plans but to consider propositions from professional people. We need wisdom and a way to know how to get it. James 1:5
ReplyDelete