Millions of people living in the eastern seaboard cities are being told the Murray-Darling was on the verge of collapse and only the amendments could save the river system.
Dire predictions forecast by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek were copied and pasted by some of the bigger media companies, who have joined in the catastrophising of the Murray-Darling’s future.
While it may be understandable that the ALP would project a pessimistic view of the current state of the Murray-Darling and seek to blame the former Coalition government “for years of neglect”, it is difficult to understand how the media could swallow the ALP party line.
There is a certain amount of breathlessness in how Ms Plibersek is described as rushing to the defence of the Murray-Darling.
In fact, it took her a year, to get around to asking for a report from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on whether the basin targets were going to be met. Then, she gave the authority just a month to come up with a report.
Very few media reports (and certainly not the minister) contained a reference to how much water had already been recovered for the environment: 2100 Gl. The ABC and Australian Geographic were two exceptions.
Here’s a few gems from the national media:
“After years of neglect, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was thrown a lifeline as laws to salvage the arrangement passed the Senate.” (AAP, December 2)
“After years of gridlock there was a breakthrough this week for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.” (The Guardian, December 3)
“A $13 billion scheme to recover 3200 gigalitres a year of water for the ailing Murray-Darling river system looks set to be saved after the government struck a last-gasp deal with the Greens to ensure the national environmental reform is completed.” (The Sydney Morning Herald, November 27)
Read carefully the language of the background offered by The Sydney Morning Herald article:
“The $13 billion basin plan was created by the Gillard government in 2012 to restore the river’s health by boosting water flows by 3200 gigalitres a year – more than six times the volume of Sydney Harbour – after experts found the Murray-Darling system was in peril due to excessive extractions for irrigation.
“But water recovery was slow under the Coalition government between 2013 and 2022, partly due to strict rules imposed to halt buybacks.”
This is straight from the ALP’s talking points. The actual recovery was 2100 Gl. How about giving the reader the facts and letting them decide if it was slow, or fast?
Here’s a more realistic summary from Australian Geographic:
“Since the Water Act was agreed, there has been some progress, with two thirds of the water recovered (2107 Gl) and with more than two thirds of the funding spent. While no overall general improvement in the condition of river systems has been observed, there have been local improvements in river flows, salinity, water quality, and the condition of freshwater species in river reaches receiving additional water.” (Australian Geographic, November 22)
But superficial examples abound in the national press:
“Labor has wrested support for its legislation to save the Murray-Darling Basin with concessions to ...” (The Saturday Paper, December 2)
Again, Labor has ‘saved’ the Murray-Darling Basin.
Particularly disappointing is the content of long form journalism, like The Conversation, where crucial figures are omitted, and there is no excuse of tight deadlines and insufficient space.
A piece in the online Conversation site, by Celine Steinfeld, director of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, and Michael Vanderzee, from the Australian National University, repeat Ms Plibersek’s line about only 26 billion litres having been recovered out of the extra 450 billion litres being sought.
Again, no reference to the 2100 Gl already achieved under the plan.
The real situation of water recovery for the Murray-Darling is well documented in public places, so do we attribute the slanted views to laziness or simply following the crowd?
If we have 2100 Gl already recovered for the environment, and the Murray-Darling is in danger of dying, what effect has the 2100 Gl delivered? Not much? Then another 700 Gl or 1000 Gl won’t save it.
12°C