Climate change is very implicit in the context of the article, even if not explicitly stated.
Was the article incorrect in any specific way? If that is the case, I would love to know where it was wrong, specifically.
If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Australia frequently experiences droughts. They are taken with a high quality camera but all the photos are basically classic Australian bush scenes.
Sure there is. The article talks about non-climate-change human impacts, like the use of upstream water for irrigation. There's discussion to be had around that.
However the article is a puff piece and is at best alluding vaguely to those more interesting issues. It is only inspiring discussion of them as people are trying to find lenses to interpret it that aren't climate related. It'd be lovely if HN suddenly decided to take a deep interest in irrigation systems but I'll wait for a few more articles on the subject to hit the front page before I start believing it. The comment threads look more like we are playing a game of finding links that aren't climate related.