Dissenting Report
I dissent from the majority of the Committee
in both tenor and fact in two key areas.
1. The
Living Murray Initiative and the 'First Step' water recovery project
The Committee
has favoured the "Wentworth Group" view of the state of the
Murray. That is, the Murray is near
death. This view has been promoted in
order to justify huge increases in environmental flows.
In
paragraph 2.16-2.17, the Committee confirms their view that the river is stressed and supports
the view of Wentworth Group scientist, Professor Young, that river flows will
probably continue to decline over the next 20 years.
I
dissent from the weight given by the Committee
report to only one point of view regarding the health of the Murray. The Committee
Report only gives a passing reference to other points of view that the
Murray-Darling is not really so stressed as widely thought and a great deal
more science is required to make informed views.
There
are equally prominent public figures with different points of view to the
Wentworth Group that do not appear prominently in the report. For example:
Paul
Weller, President of the Victorian Farmers Federation, who said "The
Worldwide Fund for Nature is funding the Wentworth Group, who have unashamedly
promoted the view the Murray River is dying in order to justify huge increases
in environmental flows"; and
Dr J Marohasy
from the Institute of Public Affairs, who stated that her basic position is
that the quality of water in the Murray is not in decline, and that claimed rises
in salinity levels are not true.
Given
the above, it follows I cannot concur with the Committee's
statement at paragraph 2.18, which states: "In light of these figures the
aim to recover 500 gigalitres for the environment seems too little rather than
too much"
While
the Government acknowledges the release of 500 gigalitres as a first step, it
is by no means a small amount. To the
contrary it is a historic step and a major step towards achieving significant
environmental benefits for six key ecological assets:
-
Gunbower
and Perricoota-Koondrook Forests
-
Chowilla
Floodplain (including Lindsay-Wallpolla)
-
The
Murray Mouth, Coorong and Lower Lakes; and
The
water for the environmental flows required under this first stage is expected
to come from a combination of engineering works, better management of river
flows, on-farm water efficiency savings and some purchase of water from willing
sellers.
While
the Committee begrudges this significant policy announcement, I praise
it.
2.
Example of over allocation: the Lower Balonne
I dissent from the Committee's report and conclusions regarding the lower Balonne River
if for no other reason the Committee takes an unbalanced view of this vexed issue. It takes a particular New South Wales point
of view and does not consider properly the Queensland point of view. It is incumbent upon the Committee
to report both sides the case.
Moreover, the Committee should have deferred its report by a few days until it
could have received the final report of the Condamine-Balonne Water Resource
Plan by the Queensland Government. This
would have allowed the Committee a chance to incorporate Queensland's position.
The following points present a more balanced case:
Firstly that
the Lower Balonne irrigation community support the creation of proper concise
and accurate science, which stands the test of peer review. The irrigation community would be first to
make changes to practices, with compensation, if the science showed there were
unsuitable impacts.
As well as the irrigation community, the businesses who are
supported by irrigation, totally oppose the use of emotive untested claims and
assumptions, that do not have the backing of accurate science that stands the
test of peer review.
The second issue
to note is that Professor Peter Cullen and his scientific committee assessed
the river system to be ecologically sustainable at this time and the irrigation
community are committed to undertaking reviews into the future to monitor and
ensure that they maintain ecological sustainability.
The third issue
to note is that the Queensland and New South Wales Governments established a
Ministerial Council Forum to manage issues associated with the sharing of water
resources in the Border Rivers region.
This would seem to be the primary Forum for addressing water sharing in
the Border Rivers region.
Fourthly, the
Federal Government has announced a $195,000 Natural Heritage Trust funded
scoping study into the Lower Balonne Floodplain to provide ecological, social
and economic information for determining the sustainable flow needs for the
Floodplain and the needs of stakeholders in the region. The New South Wales and Queensland
Governments have agreed to provide two government representatives for the
Project Steering Committee overseeing the study.
There will also be one Australian Government representative on the Committee.
The abrasive approach taken by the majority report towards
the Queensland situation is counter-productive to finding a resolution. Furthermore it creates a situation of those
in glass houses should not throw stones.
It is common knowledge that many of the New South Wales rivers and
underground water resources are overallocated.
As one Queensland farmer put it "the more water that New South
Wales can ensure runs over the border from Queensland the less pain New South
Wales has to endure in any clawback of overallocation."
The Committee report relies too much on personal opinion and assumptions. For example, I reject outright the following
statement at paragraph 5.59:
"It is now clear that the government of the day was at
best shortsighted, at worst reckless and overpowered by self-interest, in
allowing this level of development."
It is critical that future strategies be undertaken
according to the science of the matter and with the cooperation of the parties
and the above comments work against this aim.
There is no doubt the situation between New South Wales and
Queensland needs to be resolved and the Federal Government can play an
important role in bringing about a resolution.
However I further reject the Committee's
comment that the Commonwealth could legislate control over the matter using the
external power (section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution).
It is a grand over-reaction that would bring about
unnecessary political and social division.
The signing of the National Water Initiative shows that cooperation
between the States and the Federal Government in this area of competing
interests can be achieved in the national interest.
Senator Julian McGauran
11
August 2004