Extract from The Guardian
Marine experts exasperated by ‘disturbing nature and tone of the hearings’ in ‘a shameless misuse of the parliamentary process’
Last modified on Fri 9 Oct 2020 17.26 AEDT
Coalition senators have criticised scientists and misrepresented evidence given by Australia’s main marine science agency at the close of a “politically motivated” Senate inquiry looking at water quality on the Great Barrier Reef, scientists claim.
More than a year after the Coalition-backed inquiry was launched, a final report was released in parliament on Thursday evening that backed the links between farm runoff – water from farms that flows into the ocean – and impacts on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, but called for better relations with farmers.
The spark for the inquiry was the Queensland government’s introduction in 2019 of laws to control farm runoff into reef catchments, mainly affecting graziers and sugarcane and banana growers.
The government had said voluntary take-up of programs had been too slow, and progress on water quality targets unsatisfactory.
Conservationists and the Greens said at the time the inquiry was politically motivated and designed to attack the state Labor government’s reef regulations in time for the Queensland election at the end of this month.
In the lead up to the inquiry’s confirmation, some farming groups, in particular sugarcane growers, backed a speaking tour by contrarian scientist Dr Peter Ridd to try to undermine the decades of research that backed the need for the regulations.
Ridd has controversially claimed that water quality on the reef is not an issue and that the reef – which has been hit by three severe coral bleachings in the past five years – is in good health.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s latest five-yearly reef health report, released last year, downgraded the outlook for the world’s biggest reef system to “very poor”.
Many of Australia’s leading science agencies and reef scientists – including the CSIRO, the Australian Institute for Marine Science, the Australian Academy of Science and the Bureau of Meteorology – made submissions and gave evidence.
Previously unreported comments from Australia’s former chief scientist Prof Ian Chubb, Queensland’s former chief scientist Dr Geoff Garrett, and leading reef expert Prof Ove Hoegh-Gulberg described the inquiry as a “politically motivated charade”.
Chubb and colleagues responded with exasperation in September to a long list of follow-up questions from Liberal senator Gerard Rennick, saying they first believed the inquiry was a genuine attempt to understand the complexity of the reef.
But “given the disturbing nature and tone of the hearings in Brisbane”, they wrote, they “choose not to engage further with what appears, to us, to be a politically motivated charade”.
After giving evidence in August, the three said the hearing was “a shameless misuse of the parliamentary process by elected public officials”.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science twice wrote to the inquiry saying some of the evidence it had given, including statements about the impact of pesticides on inshore habitats, had been repeatedly misrepresented in subsequent hearings.
Three Coalition senators who took part in inquiry, Rennick and Nationals members Susan McDonald and Matt Canavan, issued a dissenting report late Thursday that called for an “office of scientific review” to “evaluate the existing science of the Great Barrier Reef and how it informs policymaking”.
Ridd, who is challenging his 2018 sacking by James Cook University through the courts, has called for such an office.
The dissenting report said the comments from Chubb and colleagues were an “unsubstantiated attack”.
The report also suggested the “precautionary principle” that shapes legislation covering the management of the reef’s marine park be reviewed.
In comments written to accompany the main report, Queensland Greens senator Larissa Waters said: “It is beyond regrettable when evidence is ignored or its weight diminished because it doesn’t fit the apparently predetermined view of a couple of senators.
“We welcome the committee’s findings that the evidence shows strong linkages between agricultural practices and declining water quality, and the committee’s confidence in the rigour and the quality of research.”
The main report recommended this precautionary principle should be retained. The report also called for additional scientific research into the impacts of the banana and horticulture industries on water quality, improvements to stakeholder engagement and a forum to bring all parties together on water quality.
Richard Leck, WWF-Australia’s head of oceans, who gave evidence, told Guardian Australia: “There’s a need here to respect the strength of the science behind water quality and respect the scientists presenting that evidence.
“I expect there’s always going to be some rough and tumble, but for scientists who are presenting their life’s work and the work of others – and then have that treated with disdain as we saw through this inquiry – is simply not appropriate.”
Leck said the report’s main recommendations were about increasing consultation and outreach to farmers, which had merit.
David Cazzulino, Great Barrier Reef campaigner at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said political posturing did not erase the “settled” scientific evidence on the reef.
“The final report confirms what scientists have been telling us for decades,” he said.
“Poor water quality is a major threat to our Great Barrier Reef and we must work together to reduce water pollution, especially in the face of rising ocean temperatures.
“From the start, we said this was a politically motivated inquiry, wasting taxpayer dollars to murky the waters on settled reef science.”
Labor’s environment spokeswoman Terri Butler called on prime minister Scott Morrison to apologise to the scientists and say if he supported Rennick’s conduct “because his silence on this issue is tacit endorsement”.
“The reef deserves serious advocates, strong protections and a long-term plan,” she said.
She added the inquiry had “provided a platform for one of his own senators to mount an anti-science crusade, to denigrate the work of leading Australian scientists, and to undermine the science at the heart of protecting Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.”
No comments:
Post a Comment