Artemis Adare
IT seemed to start with the November 2006 bush fire emergencies. The outlandish (and now discredited) claims by Senator Eric Abetz and fiends — that the fires had been “caused” by conservations who allegedly had “locked-up” tracks of land resulting in high fuel loads.
Despite overwhelming evidence that none of the fires had originated in national parks, including a heated rebuttal from Tasmania’s Fire Chief, the ludicrous statements just seemed to keep coming — from a variety of sources.
Why?
Equally the disastrous water supply problems in Ross, Coles Bay, Scamander and now Bothwell attracted a barrage of silly comments from the “usual suspects”. Again it was alleged that the water calamity is being “caused” by greenies forcing the restriction of water flows from reservoirs. This is despite the fact that the current water crisis has been brewing for years with water supply systems controlled by State and Local Government authorities. The ever-growing stranglehold on Tasmanian water resources exerted by powerful farming lobby groups is becoming a dire societal problem, and again there has been a deliberate media push to blame present environmental woes on green policy.
A plan of inaction
Although some of this nonsense is clearly pre-Federal election Manuovering, the coincidence and frequency of this commentary has the offensive odour of a tactical change by Governments (both Liberal Federal and State Labor) to use reverse psychology in abrogating their environmental responsibilities. As advertisers and psychologists know, if you say black is white often enough (with the aid of a sympathetic media), then people will believe it!
It is clear that one of the greatest strategic issues (possibly the most significant) facing the Howard Government in its 2007 poll will be climate change, water and the environment. Although hip-pockets (mortgage) and hatred (refugees and migration) have featured as key psycho-electorate issues in recent campaigns, there is no doubt that the environment, water and climate change are rapidly escalating in the scale of voter consciousness. The Government is aware of this and it is also aware that this policy area is its weak under-belly. Unlike most other policy areas, the environment and climate change are not easy areas in which the Government can obtain electoral brownie-points. This is simply because most Governments have a more-than-cosy relationship with the climate-changers (big business) and in the short-term of a four-year election cycle, it is far easier and cheaper to engage in spin, PR and general fibbing – rather than to actually tackle the problem.
The fire fib
As we have now seen, the tactic of apportioning blame with regards to the East Coast fires in Tasmania has now been debunked [insert LINK TO FIRE FIBS STORY]. Both fire fighting professionals and the science of satellite imagery have now firmly discredited the notion that the fires originated in national parks or that national parks were significantly affected. It is an established fact that the fires originated on both private and state forest lands (often forestry managed land). On Tuesday 15 January, Tasmania Police arrested a St Mary’s man on five counts of arson – the alleged cause of the fires in the St Marys-Scamander and surrounding areas. The man was described in the Examiner as a volunteer fire fighter. The silence from Senator Abetz is intriguing.
Of course these overwhelming facts have not stopped the constant bombardment of myths in the media – all from the usual suspects. Amongst the most prominent of these myth promulgators has been Dr. Bruce Felmingham, an economist at the University of Tasmania. Bruce used his “opinion piece” in the Sunday Tasmanian on 31 December 2006 to promote the same myths and to justify forestry burning practices. To many it has seemed somewhat outrageous that the management of the Mercury should allow the promulgation of such divisive comments – which are demonstrably contradicted by the facts. This says nothing about the fact that Felmingham has no qualifications in the fields of science or medicine.
Felmingham’s statements regarding the health impacts of forestry burning seemed incredulous – especially given his non-medical background. His statements may also conflict with comments published in the same newspaper a month earlier by Respiratory Surgeon Dr. Jim Markos, President of the Australian Lung Foundation, Tasmania. Whilst Bruce is entitled to his opinions, it would be regarded as standard journalistic practice for an author to include a disclosure statement, particularly if, in this instance, they had worked/still work on consultancy projects for Forestry Tasmania and Forest Industries Association of Tasmania.
Bothwell baloney
There is no doubt that many Tasmanian towns are in the grips of a real water supply crisis. However the recent indulgence of some members of various local councils to blame “greenies” has defied belief. The media have, of course, lapped it up without question. The fact remains that water supply for all of these towns have been known to be in crisis for years and the supply systems are managed by both local and State Government agencies. Part of the recent “concern” for water and energy (after years of denial) is clearly the upcoming Federal election and the hope that some pork-barrel dollars may be directed towards the Local and State responsibilities to supply suitable water. Part of this plan may include the funding of the roll-out of water metres in the south of the State. Yet again, when faced with a crisis of management, our Local and State leaders only have the capacity to drag out the simplest, cheapest (for them) and least bothersome solution – hike up the prices to consumers!
We can only assume that Bothwell is a very thirsty town. Minister Llewellyn’s decision in January to use his ministerial discretion to avoid the law that would otherwise have prevented an additional flow of 12 Megalitres per day from Crescent Lake to supply Bothwell received almost no analysis in the media. However the fact is that 12 ML for Bothwell (population 340) amounts to 35,294 litres (or 35.3 kilo litres) of water per person per day. This is simply enormous! By comparison the average Launceston household would consume about 1 kilo litre per day. It is more than clear that the extra 12 ML for Bothwell is largely a gift from the Tasmanian Government to a handful of influential farmers and graziers (for commercial activities) in the Bothwell area and has little to do with residential water supply. The greenie bashing has simply been a convenient (and untruthful) means by which a few people can get their hands on some cheap water to enhance their profit margins.
In addition to this Launceston residents pay 55 cents per kilolitre for their water, so by comparison the extra 12 ML for Bothwell has an equivalent market value (annualised) of $2.41 million. So Minister Llewellyn’s has essentially provided an estimated $2 million handout to a few local farmers (courtesy of taxpayers).
But who is responsible for managing this water and how has the situation become so critical?
The Water Lords
Bothwell obtains its water from the River Clyde Scheme, one of a number of water supply schemes in Tasmania managed by the Rivers and Water Supply Commission (RWSC). The RWSC is one of those tiny Tasmanian Government Business Enterprises (GBE’s) that we rarely hear about. It is a throw-back to the good old days when water supply and irrigation systems remained firmly in State Government control. This was somewhat useful in guaranteeing water to those vocal stakeholders such as farmers and graziers. Today the RWSC controls a number of key systems in the state such as the Clyde and Prosser River Schemes and the Meander Dam. Although the Clyde River assets are now managed by the Clyde Water Trust in a processes of asset devolution, the responsible entity for the management of the River Clyde Scheme remains the RWSC.
The Clyde Water Trust is in itself an interesting beast. Having been formed 150 years ago it has operated for much of its life as the sole controlling agent for water supply for 21 irrigators in the region who, along with the Local Council, participate in its Board of Management. However things started to go pear-shaped in 1996 with the Water Management Act and the start of COAG water reforms. The Trust became the centre of a Machiavellian power battle between local farmers, the State Government and the RWSC. By 2004 the Trust had a debt of $140,000 with irrigators bickering about the lack of transparency on the new Board, their traditional water rights and attempts to enforce metering of water consumption (no meters have previously been used).
Water allocations via the Trust have traditionally been based on a “policy” originating in the mid 1970s, but seemingly lost in time and subsequently prised out of Hobart solicitor’s vault when questions began to be asked. In 2004 the Legislative Council established a Select Committee to investigate the River Clyde Scheme and the Trust with the resultant hearings producing many colourful stories and a plot to rival any daytime soap opera.
There is no doubt that some farmers in the Tasmania view their water “rights” as a near-devine attribution. It would also appear that recently proposed changes to the state Water Management Act, to remove environmental considerations as grounds for denying dam construction, will be another welcome gift to farmers and may see the construction of a plethora of private dams near the headwaters of major river systems.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Trust is the fact that it does not purchase water from the RWSC who control the upstream lakes. This water is allocated free of charge! The Trust then sets a price for irrigators to use the water – but only to cover the operating costs of supply. Hence in 2004 these irrigators enjoyed prices of $12.50 per ML, or 1.25 cents per Kilolitre (when you and I pay 55 cents- either directly in Launceston, or indirectly via council rates in Hobart).
What has not been well reported by the media is the fact that under the new water agreement for the River Clyde Scheme, local farmers and irrigators quickly gobbled-up their annual allocations. Clearly there was an expectation that, if pressured, the State Government would cave-in and provide more water than agreed to. Hence the convenient (and successful) greenie-bashing campaign. Farmers are now arguing that, in its calculation of their water allocation from the Clyde, DPIWE was flawed. Whilst the allegation of incompetence in managing the States water may not be new to some, farmers seem to overlook that they already gobble between 7000 and 9000 ML from the Clyde annually. This amount of water would typically be enough to service the annual residential needs of a town of 22,000 people! In addition to this these same farmers participated in the development of the water plans that they are now condemning and were able to make submissions of concern to the RWSC by 11 March 2005.
How can a few farmers and graziers so easily influence the State Government with regards to the supply of a vital community resource?
The water strategists
The RWSC is so small that it only has 6.9 FTE staff and is housed in the salubrious quarters of the Salamanca Arts Precinct. It has a board of four Directors, all appointed by the Minister, with the Chairman being Mr. G. Scott Ashton-Jones. Mr. Ashton-Jones does not have a degree in water science or hydrological engineering but he is a farmer who runs the property “Ashton” near Ouse. He was prominent in the media in 2000 as a vocal Derwent Valley land owner warning of the problems of declining water supply. He is an ex-Geelong Grammar Old Boy and the Senior Vice President of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) – the peak lobby group for farmers. When Mr. Ashton-Jones is not chairing the RWSC (for which he is paid sitting fees of $35,000) and running his 10,500 acre property, he is a Director in a company called National Strategic Services (NSS). This company specialises in a range of services including “Industry and political representation and lobbying”. The NSS includes in its list of achievements, its role in the Duke Energy (now PowerCo) Gas pipeline roll-out.
Fellow Director of NSS is the former Member for Pembroke, Hon. Peter McKay, who was first elected as an Independent in 1976 and declared himself a Liberal in April 1991. He resigned from the Legislative Council in 1999, having served as Minister for Health in the Rundle Liberal Government between 1996 and 1998. The third Director of NSS is Mr George Rance who was for 13 years the Chief Executive Officer of the TFGA. He also sits on the Board of Greening Australia and the Board of Clarence Recycled Water – a water authority owned and operated by Clarence City Council and formerly known as the Coal River Recycled Water Scheme (CRWRS).
Whilst there is no suggestion of wrong-doing or impropriety by these gentlemen, one must question the judgement of the Minister and Tasmanian Government in appointing board members to statutory water authorities who clearly have demonstrable links with political lobby groups (TFGA) that have vested interests in water management and policy. This is particularly the case where the same members may also be (or have been) acting as private consultants to the same stakeholder groups.
The great public water give-a-way
In this day and age when water is an increasing precious resource, it is hard to believe that any water utility could possibly run at a loss. But this is Tasmania.
In 2006 the RWSC had a loss, before tax equivalence, of $1.9 million – a marked improvement on 2005 where the loss was $3.2 million. In addition to this the RWSC has been engaged in an active debt-reduction strategy – it was carrying an accumulated loss in 2004-05 of $13.2 million (that’s public money!). How can anyone in the water business be losing money? Perhaps an answer to this is related to the fact that in 2006 income from water sales was only $1.2 million! In the same year the River Clyde Scheme provided 7,105 ML to crop irrigators whilst the South East Scheme provided 2,600 ML. This means that, based on irrigation volumes alone, the sale price of water per kilo litre must have been less than 12.3 cents – however we know from the Clyde River Scheme that pricing is not standardised with some irrigators paying next to nothing for their water. How sustainable is this and why is the Tasmanian taxpayer subsidising the private profits of a few farmers?
Liquid gold for the Landed Gentry
Water and water trading is increasingly becoming the currency of the new economy. Those who control this precious public resource will ultimately hold a license to print money. With the onset of Commonwealth reforms to water management we are now facing the era where farmers, who have and still enjoy generous water rights, will continue to obtain their water for a pittance but be able to on-sell the same water allocation to residential consumers for hefty profits. It is arguable that proposed changes to the Tasmanian Water Management Act have less to do with the considerations of consumers and more to do with whom will control the “rivers of gold”. The issue has now progressed beyond that of drinking water supply and agriculture. With Great Lake falling beneath 16% capacity and Poatina power station on a 300MW cutback, it is becoming clearer on a daily basis that Basslink is now in trouble and will put increasing demands on our already overstretched river systems.
Water control in Tasmania has always been seen to be a necessary function for the Agricultural, Forestry and Electricity industries. This may have been justified 100 years ago when these industries were the main players in the Tasmanian economy. This was the era when the Tasmanian landed gentry enjoyed privileged water rights and had an overbearing control on the Legislative Council. But economy and society have moved on – even if government policy has not.
Tasmanian Agriculture and Forestry have been in decline since WW2 and by 2005, these combined industries only employed 15,500 Tasmanians generating a gross value of $0.93 billion. In comparison Tourism related industries (retail, accommodation, restaurants and recreation) employed 71,300 Tasmanians in 2005 with a related value of $4.3 billion, of which $1.09 billion is directly attributable to visitor expenditure. That’s right, despite the Governments reluctance to admit it, the “Green” industries in the Tasmanian economy have now well and truly eclipsed the old cargo-cult of forestry and agriculture – the same industries which are so diametrically opposed to the green economy.
As with all aspects of the Tasmanian economy, now is the time for the Government to extract its head from the antiquated sands of water allocation policy, to stop the Green bashing and fibbing and to look for new answers for all citizens.
