When it comes to drought proofing the region, what was built for our region was the Burrinjuck Dam and today we have the Murray Darling Basin Plan to take away 43 per cent of water from our farmers for the environment.

Take note that the environmental water comes from the Burrinjuck Dam.

Before the Burrinjuck was built, John Oxley and his party explored our area in 1817 and what he saw was a country of desolation, drought and bareness; they had arrived at Mt Brogden near the township of Yenda.

The cycle of drought in 1862, 1865, 1870 and the big drought of 1895 to 1903, drought was over most of NSW, northern Victoria and south Queensland. Good rains did not come until April 1903 and in 1939 drought then floods.

Blowering Dam was empty 1982-9183. The 1994-1995 dust storm that came rolling over Binya Hills and the big drought 2001 to 2010, the rain brought everything to life.

Burrinjuck Dam was built to conserve water and water is the life blood of the MIA, people made a go of it with hard work, producing fruit, vegetables, wheat, rice, cattle and sheep, the MIA became a success story and you would find a job in the MIA, and now? Buy back of water by the Commonwealth Government for the environment.

August 2018 drought over most of NSW, Victoria and parts of Queensland and up until 2013.

Up until 2013 governments paid half farmers' freight for fodder and water during drought and in 2018 governments see drought is no longer declared a natural disaster, even though it is as devastating as floods and fire.

It is time to think of reinvesting in water to drought proof inland and country towns, the scheme to divert tributaries of the Clarence River to the Murray Darling Basin, the consulting engineer who came up with the scheme, David Coffey in 1984.

Water for the Darling River would provide water for Broken Hill and other towns along the river.

Last Monday night I watched Q&A on the ABC. It was an interesting show, with some good debate and different points of view expressed. However, I was appalled at the treatment and lack of empathy extended by Eric Abetz to a young Indian man. 

The young man asked a question about freedom of speech in relation to the bullying, harassment, intimidation and racial slurs he received every day. Mr Abetz, a Liberal politician from Tasmania, did not address the young man’s issues directly but said that freedom of speech must be upheld. 

This view was supported by the “people’s panelist” who said offence to what is said is due to the attitude of the receiver, not the person who made the comments. I find this attitude utterly appalling. 

In recent years, much has been said by politicians and the media about how bullying in schools must be stamped out and that schools need to do more. Why is it then that once students leave school bullying is allowed because we must have freedom of speech and it is OK to insult someone?

This is an appalling state of affairs.