In response to Helen Reynolds' letter ( Country News November 18) criticising me for opposing the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment (River Red Gums) Bill 2009.

The Victorian Coalition opposed this bill for a number of reasons, including the fact there is little in this bill that does anything to protect our beautiful river red gums or our forests.

Simply changing the status of the land and public use does not generate better outcomes.

Unfortunately, the government has failed to make any meaningful commitment to properly fund the river red gum forests and is actually taking water away from them.

Instead the government intends to pump environmental water down the north-south pipeline to Melbourne.

After Ms Reynolds' criticism, I was surprised to read her comments in the The News (December 14) stating that, alarmingly, there is nothing in this (VEAC) document for Victoria's new river red gum national parks.

Ms Reynolds finally understands what the coalition has known for some time: rhetoric alone does not save our river red gums or forests.

There are also no provisions in the bill to address the heightened risk of fire or to provide the funding necessary to manage additional land.

Ms Reynolds says the legislation will create opportunities for traditional Aboriginal owners in our region, but this is not the case.

The government has appointed the Yorta Yorta people as part of the traditional owner majority boards of management - while this is a positive move they have once again ignored the Bangerang people, also traditional owners. This has divided the indigenous community, in much the same way as the establishment of Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs).

The Brumby Government has a bad reputation as a land manager and there is nothing in this bill to show that has changed.

Jeanette Powell

State Member for Shepparton

`Renegade' skew to committee story

I refer to the article written by Geoff Adams and published in Country News, "Committee barred" (December 14, 2009).

I presume that, being a journalist and a professional, you would expect the article to be thoroughly researched and fairly compiled.

At least, this is the expectation placed upon all journalists by the Code of Ethics espoused by the Australian Journalism Association (sic) on their website.

And yet, the Boort-Pyramid Hill Water Services Committee stood down by Goulburn-Murray Water because it had the integrity to speak for, and on behalf of, the irrigators it was elected to represent, has not been fairly treated by your article.

Why should a committee be silenced for raising concerns or objections to policy or finding fault with procedure?

And, why should a journalist present this group as some sort of renegade group simply for exercising its right to freedom of speech?

Perhaps it is high time that G-MW and groups like it became much more transparent.

Perhaps the Boort-Pyramid Hill Water Services Committee was only acting as a conscience to fight for just decision-making.

When was that a crime?

Dani Blain

Wyuna