Finley High School principal Bernie Roebuck is so incensed by the latest development that is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, he sent the SRN this letter to air his frustration.
Dear Editor,
Surprise, surprise that on the eve of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority Plan hitting the Federal Parliament that ‘‘fresh evidence and modelling’’ has been obtained by the Authority that would suggest that its proposed 2750 gigalitres (GL) water diversion target is in fact not enough to save the environment.
But a target of 3200GL would make significant improvements to the health of the system, as well as improving the health of numerous forest and wetland areas.
Not so surprising, however, is that we have no validation of this new evidence and modelling, nor has it been effectively disseminated for wide public scrutiny.
One thing is certain, however, it has the Environment Minister Tony Burke seemingly quite excited. He made it abundantly clear this week that this new ‘‘evidence’’ gave him real hope of significant environmental outcomes.
But there was a simple but significant problem with this new proposal — to divert 3200GL by the admission of the new modelling would in effect cause very significant man-made flooding of vast areas of the basin that would inundate many existing properties, roads and other infrastructure.
Not surprisingly, this new modelling of course did not shed any light on the potentially negative impact of even more diversions than appears in the Draft Plan on the communities in the Basin, whose livelihoods have and are dependent on the water from the rivers.
Nothing about this should surprise anyone who has been following this impending crisis. The underlying urban myth about the Murray-Darling Basin is that every irrigator is an environmental vandal driven by self interest, and the views of rural people are clouded by their emotions and irrationality and their inability to see the big picture.
In the past years I have been to any number of meetings on the matter and heard the full range of views.
Clearly there are many fair and reasonable people in rural communities who are prepared to look at compromise and ‘shared pain’.
There is acknowledgement that long term sustainable and productive rural communities are in the best interests of those communities and the nation as a whole.
The agricultural sector has a vested interest, but it is smart enough to clearly understand that attaining sustainability means some level of compromise.
But what level of respect and importance do we pay the agricultural sector in this country and those communities that support it? Why does it continue to be acceptable to say that there will, by necessity, be some human collateral damage?
In the mania for urban and mining development how often are environmental concerns given scant regard because it is in the national interest or the cost is deemed acceptable because it creates jobs?
To use but one example, every day bar none there is a government rushing to build additional urban road networks in front of public transport improvements at an enormous environmental cost. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
The rural sector understands the need for change in water policy and usage. But the truth remains that we live in a land of extremes — there will always be droughts and no-one, not even the Environment Minster, can make the basin drought proof, and to try and do so is sheer madness.
Making improvements in how we use water, how water is delivered, how water waste is avoided, how best we can sustain our wetlands and forest, how technology can best support improved farming methods, within the context of a nation that is fast approaching 30 million people, without the need for inordinate man-made flooding events, on the contrary, makes sense.
There is nil problem with the Minister calling for additional modelling but it must be modelling of not only the environmental issues but the human and social ones as well — indeed just how many times do we have to say this?
This is the same minister who has been to numerous communities in the Riverina and other parts of the basin and promised them that he would listen to their concerns.
This is the minister who is well aware from the work the Authority has done that the impact of such large diversions of water on those communities would be at the least very, very significant, and as the Authority already has stated would result in the demise of some communities in the basin.
I strongly suspected that we will be duped again. I suspect that the Environment Minister may soon become the Minister for Rural Disintegration.
They come from Canberra and Sydney and say they care, and they will listen.
They do the honourable thing and attend the odd rally and go to the breakfast meetings with the ‘‘key groups’’. But then it is back to the big smoke with its immensely talented new thinkers, progressives, and academically gifted scientists and scorn is poured upon the bleeding heart simple rural folk.
Once again rural communities are treated with a total lack of respect.
Why is it that in Europe and North America and many parts of Asia the agricultural sector is seen as an absolutely vital and significant part of the nation and huge value is placed on its sustainability, its heritage, its traditions, and its role in the cultural development of those nations?
In our country, rural people continue to pay higher food and fuel prices, have the poorest medical and education facilities, the worst transport and communication facilities, and all of that is deemed as acceptable.
Add to that the fact that no government of any description over the past three decades has missed the opportunity to rip out any agency or department from rural communities citing budgetary constraints.
I do not believe that rural communities are afraid of taking on the big challenges, after all that is what they do all the time.
If only someone from Canberra would actually trust them and work with them in a genuine and respectful way, so much could be achieved that in the long run would be in the best interest of the whole nation.
How many times do we have to say this — it is an absolute no brainer that food production will be the single biggest challenge by 2050 when the world’s population has gone way past nine billion.
Our agricultural sector can turn that into massive export earnings for the nation. No irrigator with even a smidgen of a brain wants the river system to be destroyed. But once again we run the risk of desktop decision makers knowing all.
I live in hope, but that is a commodity that is fast disappearing in rural communities. In all the argy bargy that lies ahead the minister would do well to remember that there are real people out here.
We are not some dispensable commodity and we are entitled to the same standard of living as anywhere else in the country — something that is continually forgotten by governments of all persuasions.
But at least I now feel some optimism at the prospect that at my end of year Presentation Night I can tell my students and their parents and their community that they should feel really excited.
As a result of the huge environmental gains that will be guaranteed by the new MDBA plan at last there are some real job prospects for them.
They can gain employment making new bridges and roads and levees, and move machinery and stock for the man-made floods that will make the basin such a better place to live in.
And they will know full well that it is their hard earned tax contributions that is actually paying for their wages — now wouldn’t that be a great use of public money at a time when budgets are so tight.
Ah yes, this is the lucky country and indeed how fortunate we are. It’s time for the collective voice of rural Australia to be heard.
Yours etc,
Bernie Roebuck
Principal
Finley High School
No comments:
Post a Comment