Conserve & Protect, or Develop & Destroy

The north of Australia is, we are told, not suited to be a major food source for the world. Why not? There just isn't enough water. This is what we are told in a report by a government-appointed taskforce.

Paul Murray begs to differ.

In Lies, dam lies and statistics (The West, 13 Feb 10), Murray points out the faulty assumptions of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce. It takes as a given, that there will be no more dams because state governments of WA, NT and Qld have said that there will be no more dams. Then there is the lack of actual, scientific data on water availability.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Murray quotes from the report: "A key limitation on the project lay in the lack of water-related data for northern Australia." Apparently, the report "relies on computer modelling of the small amount that is known." Murray continues, "Sounds like a version of Climategate."

From the report's admission that they have built models based on limited data, Murray leaps to the conclusion that the entire report must be wrong! From an admission of weak data, to an unsubstantiated implication that the entire report is wrong! Talk about lies, damn lies and ignore the statistics!

Murray has now dismissed the entire report, on the grounds that the writers admit that data is scarce. On the other hand, Murray has no data whatsoever, yet is absolutely certain that his own conclusions are correct... To be fair, Murray's report is headed as "Opinion". It is not claimed to be either truth or journalism.

Damn the north of Australia

The other key thread of Murray's opinion is, that the Taskforce report is biased towards conservation. "Frankly, the final report is a national embarrassment on such a fundamentally important issue. It reads like an undergraduate thesis on green and indigenous ideologies. However, if adopted, it will impose tight controls on any agricultural development in the north."

Did Murray not read his own Opinion piece? Murray quotes Joe Ross, the chair of the taskforce, that they were no longer "simply looking for new agricultural ventures" but were now "charged with considering indigenous futures, the potential market for ecosystem services, improved governance arrangements and the potential impacts of development, among other issues".

Feel free to read that again. The taskforce was not simply looking for new agricultural ventures. A kind reader could almost believe that they were looking for cultural sensitivity, potential green markets, better land management and protection of the natural environment against over-enthusiastic development.

Murray, it would seem, just wants to build big dams, clearfell the bush, flood the land and the market and make a heap of money. Dam the rivers. Damn the environment.

Is there a basis for decision?

It all boils down -- in my opinion -- to our point of view. Do we want to develop the north as a new source of agricultural income? Do we want to preserve the north as an environmental showcase? Murray goes one way, the Taskforce report goes another. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in between.

One thing for sure: Once you clear the land for agriculture -- it will never return to its original, natural state. The impact of agriculture is irreversible.

Do we want to develop? Do we want to preserve? Do we want to set rules for some intermediate compromise? The Taskforce report seems to want to support the status quo, to preserve what is left. Murray appears to want to get in there and clear the land.

Let's try to agree our intentions before we send in the first bulldozers.

One thing I do like about Paul Murray's Opinion pieces. He provides enough information, within his own articles, to hang his own ideas out to dry.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com