Hurry Save The Murray!

This week the Fresh Water Embassy came out of summer recess and returned to the steps of Parliament House.

Today we were handing out materials when Channel 7 visited and talked to Diane Bell, David Winderlich and Ruth Trigg about the flood waters that are coming down the Murray-Darling River system.

At that stage we were yet to learn of the decision to bypass the Menindee Lakes (NSW storage) and to run the floodwaters into Lake Victoria (SA storage) whence the SA Government can deliver environmental flows to South Australia’s ailing Lower River Murray, Lakes and Coorong.

See Stop Press: Media Release above.

A change of pace for this part of the website as we find the media is interested in how we understand protests in other parts of the country in particular that of Peter Spencer who has been perched on a wind-monitoring mast on his property in south-eastern NSW on a hunger strike since November 23, 2009.

Diane Bell began her analysis by stressing that we wish the protester no harm and sometimes it takes a lone voice and an act of civil disobedience to bring important injustices to public attention but, she asked, what is what is being played out on the high plains of the Monaro?

Farmer Peter Spencer of Shannon’s Flat near Cooma will not come down until his demands are met: a Royal Commission, $10 billion compensation for the 109 million hectares (for what he calls “carbon theft”) and a meeting with Prime Minister Rudd.

Spencer’s lawyer, Peter Edward King, Rhodes Scholar, Chair of the Australian Heritage Commission (1998-2001), NSW State President of the Liberal Party (1989-92), in 2001 became the member for Wentworth, House of Representatives but, in 2004, was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull, also a Rhodes Scholar, who successfully challenged his endorsement as the Liberal candidate and won the seat and for running in that election as an Independent against a preselected Liberal party member, King was banned from the Liberal Party for ten years. It was a bitter campaign.

Spencer, King and their supporters have variously cast this as a matter of property rights requiring just and fair compensation under Australian Constitution and of farmers, rather than the coal industry, being asked to bear the burden of Australia’s Kyoto targets.The native vegetation on the land in question cannot be cleared. It constitutes a “carbon sink”. But, the restrictions on clearing are state legislation while the targets for carbon sequestration are federal. Over the past several years, without success, Spencer has pursued the matter through the courts.Now the recent deliberations in Copenhagen have once again drawn attention to Australia’s dependence on agriculture to reduce carbon emissions.

Drive a little further north to Canberra and hear Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan thug it out with and Senator Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the National Party, on the steps of Parliament House in front of the crowd of protesting farmers (January 4, 2010). Barnaby is no fan of interventions on private property. Heffernan wants Spencer to come down and to engage in serious dialogue regarding land use. Tensions within the Liberal party and fracture lines with the Nationals are exposed. Step back a pace and factor in the debate re the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and Climate Change. Note current leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbot, climate change sceptic, replaced Malcolm Turnbull, ETS advocate, who warned farmers that cutting down trees and native vegetation would be considered as a criminal act rather than a matter of civil disobedience (Reuters: Protest, 31 May 2007).

And now to the top. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has not taken up the invitation to meet Mr Spencer.

How is the story being cast? David against Goliath; ecology versus economy;conservationists versus farmers; Nationals versus Liberals; climate sceptics versus ETS; State Native Vegetation laws versus Federal emission targets?

Who is paying attention? The Fairfax press is following the story. The bloggers are having a field day.

What is at stake here? Peter Spencer’s protest could pave the way for a serious conversation regarding how we meet our emissions targets. It is a conversation we need to be having as a nation. Australia is a dry continent. Many of our fragile soils cannot sustain the agricultural practices to which they have been subjected. There is not enough “non-productive” land that could be designated a “carbon sink” to meet the reduction targets. There will be winners and losers. What is needed is a decision-making that is open and transparent. What is needed is leadership.

How does a community that has struggled for decades to get governments to focus on the mismanagement of the River Murray, Lakes and Coorong respond when they read in the Sunday Mail that “former Liberal Premier Dean Brown has been paid more than $800,000 for advice to the State Government on how to tackle the state’s crippling drought”? (Renato Castello, 3/01/10)

Suspicion: Why is this story breaking now? We are 77 days out from a state election, an election that should focus on water. Is this a deflection? Could we focus on the real issue please? Water.

Anger: How does a farmer, whose family has spent generations building a livelihood, community and knowledge of the local ecology and who might get up to $150,000 (conditions apply) in an exceptional circumstances exit grant feel?

Frustration: Call that “consultation”?  Over the past few years we have experienced a deeply flawed process. Community questions have languished. Answers have not been forthcoming. We have argued the problem is over-allocation and mis-management, not drought. Local knowledge has been disrespected. At what cost?

Curiousity: What qualifications should a consultant have? Whose interests do they represent? What are their terms of reference? To what levels of public scrutiny are they subjected? What ever happened to notions of “conflict of interest”? How many roles can one consultant play?

See Comments to the Sunday Mail article which suggest many share our concerns. So where to now?

The Big Picture
Q. What is really at stake here?
A. The very future of Australia’s River.

When the Murray Mouth closed for the first time in 1981 that should have been our signal that the system was over-allocated, that we were taking more than was flowing into the River, that our practices were unsustainable. But no, we continued to allocate water. Irrigated plantings increased. Now vines are being pulled up and the land is being abandoned. Under whose administrations did this occur? Are any of our hands clean?

We need leadership, courage and a plan that addresses the health of the whole eco-system and we need it now. If this were a bush fire or flood, we would have declared a national emergency.

Seems we are still living with the dream of the “lucky country”.

Do we still imagine we can live on a waterfront, sail our boats, catch those fish, ski and paddle? The lucky few may inhabit this dream but we are on borrowed time.

The River Murray is ailing but it can be saved if we act now. The floods of the northern basin and the drought of the southern basin are exacerbated by poor past management practices. This is a man-made problem and it can be solved with wise management. Not with more weirs and engineering interventions, but by drawing on the knowledge of local communities, open scientific research and respectful, public, two-way consultation. We can do better.