Research Report Water in Australia A Drought of Action: A Flood of Politics, Vested Interests and NIMBYism
Contents
Executive Summary 5 Key Findings 5 Conclusions 6 Recommendations 7 Quantitative Analysis 8 Coverage by State 9 Press 9 Radio 10 TV 10 Internet 11 Leading Media 12 Press 12 Radio 13 TV 13 Leading Bylines/Comperes 14 Journalists/Bylines 14 Comperes 15 Qualitative Analysis 16 State Breakdown 17 Primary Story Focus 18 Leading Issues 19 Issue Categories 19 Rivers 20 Desalination 22 Water Storage 24 Recycling 26 Restrictions 28 Irrigation 29 Leading Messages 30 Message Categories 30 Water Storage 31 Recycling 32 General 33 Leading Spokespersons 34 Leading Media 35 Leading Bylines 36 Appendix – Methodology 37 Water in Australia
Introduction Methodology
This report examines public debate in Australia over water Debate was examined using quantitative and qualitative – its supply, storage, management and usage. Debate was content analysis of relevant media news, current affairs analysed through the forum of media news, current affairs, and commentary. Media content analysis is a recognised columns, letters to the editor and commentary. Editorial methodology for examining debate and discourse that has media coverage is recognised a primary site of discourse been used for analysing the content and effects of propaganda that both reflects views and opinion through reportage of and portrayals and effects of violence, pornography and what various organisations and individuals are thinking, gender stereotypes for more than 80 years. saying and doing, and influences public opinion and potentially political opinion and policy. Content analysis was undertaken using the CARMA® system, an internationally recognised Computer Aided Research and Media Analysis methodology developed by CARMA Analysis includes discussion of: International in association with leading universities and licensed exclusively in Asia Pacific by Media Monitors. » Dams; Media content from 1 January to 30 April 2007 was » River management; monitored and analysed.
» Irrigation; Quantitative analysis was conducted of coverage of water issues in all of Australia’s national, metropolitan, regional » Desalination proposals; and specialist press, radio and television news media, and in a selection of online and citizen media, using the national » Recycling schemes such as sewage use; media monitoring resources of Media Monitors. This revealed a vast amount of reporting and comment. » Home rain water tanks; In-depth qualitative content analysis was conducted of » Water-saving devices in homes; 1200 articles that appeared in national and metropolitan newspapers and magazines during the period. This sample » Restrictions to lower usage; represented the most widely circulated press coverage in Australia. » Other strategies to address Australia’s water shortage. More details on the quantitative and qualitative content analysis methodology used is provided in the Appendix – Methodology.
MEDIA content ANALYSIS by
Executive Summary
criticism. In many respects, the debate is log-jammed Key Findings with near equal argument for and against most strategies. » The Australian public is likely to be confused by the current debate as it presents dire warnings of a chronic water » It is unlikely that any adult or child over the age of reason shortage, but little by way of agreed practical solutions to deal in Australia is unaware that there is a water crisis, with more with the problem. than 80,000 media news reports, features articles, columns, letters to the editor and radio and TV program segments » The ‘Yuk factor’ is stymieing adoption of recycling. As well discussing water between 1 January and 30 April 2007, as some emotionally charged headlines conjuring up images providing a total of 3.5 billion Opportunities to See1. of “drinking sewage”, some politicians have talked up negative images of sewage for their own political gain, such as during » What is less clear, however, are the most effective the March NSW election campaign when the pro-desalination solutions to address Australia’s water shortage. plant Government attacked Coalition proposals for recycling.
» Much of the discussion of water in Australia aired in the » While there is rational scientific and economic opposition media continues to be in relation to the problem – rather than to some proposed solutions such as desalination plants, many solutions. After 200 years of experience living in the driest proposals to address Australia’s water shortage are being inhabited continent on Earth, there is no cohesive bipartisan blocked by ‘NIMBYism’ (Not in My Back Yard). For instance, strategy in place to manage Australia’s often scarce water residents in the south Sydney area have vocally opposed a resources. Rather, there are competing State interests over planned desalination plan at Kurnell and the fishing industry issues such as irrigation rights and quotas and Federal-State on Bribie Island has “angrily vowed to fight any move to build politicking, as discussed in the next key finding. a desalination plant in the area, warning that such a project would demolish their business (The Courier-Mail, 12 April 2007). » State-Federal politics are a significant ‘roadblock’ to a Similarly, many of the objections to building of new dams are cohesive national approach on water management. Numerous based on local farmers and agricultural interests not wanting media reports on water feature State Premiers criticising to lose land holdings. the Federal Government and other States, advancing local interests and passing blame. On the other side, the Federal » While water restrictions seem to be an inevitable part Government is accused of seeking to usurp the power of life in Australia for some time to come, if not permanently, of the States and gain political advantage. The Australian hardline approaches on water restrictions and heavy fines for electoral tendency to elect Labor State governments and a users who exceed restrictions run the risk of creating conflict Liberal-National Coalition Federal Government, or vice versa, and hostility between governments and their electorates, exacerbates this dichotomy. as many consumers believe governments have failed to invest in essential infrastructure. As reports emerge that governments » Most media reporting and commentary is focussing have failed to act on warnings and research reports over on the policies, proposals and viewpoints of politicians a decade or more, consumers are feeling that they are being and vested interests. This report could well be titled ‘The asked to bear the brunt of government failure and are likely Politics of Water’. Some media have devoted space and to resent strong punitive action directed at them. time to presenting the public with simply explained factual and scientific information on water usage, storage and » There is surprisingly little media coverage of domestic water- management. However, the vast majority of debate and saving techniques, water tanks, more efficient irrigation and discussion comprises contradictory claims and counter-claims reducing industry’s use of water compared with coverage by various Federal and State politicians, environmentalists, of the ‘big four’ – rivers, desalination, recycling and dams. farmers’ groups and other vested interests, such as Scientific evidence suggests that considerable gains could landholders affected by proposed dams or residents potentially be made from more community and industry-based action and, affected by infrastructure projects. There is very limited therefore, public communication on practical solutions and objective information and education for the public to make actions that individuals and businesses can take such as water- informed decisions. With a Federal election due later this year, saving techniques in the home and in industry is desirable. the ‘politics of water’ are likely to increase rather than subside, unless a bipartisan approach is agreed. » The media have improved in their understanding that scattered periodic rainfalls, even when heavy, do not end » In the debate over the best option to increase water the drought and the water problem. But there is still a lack supplies, recycling is winning over desalination plants in terms of understanding of the underlying systemic and endemic of favourable comment and support. Building new dams runs problems and a risk that when the drought breaks the water a distant third, mired in most cases in local politics. crisis will be seen to be resolved.
» However, all solutions presented, including recycling and 1 Circulation and audience numbers of media containing coverage multiplied by the desalination, are encountering considerable opposition and number of articles in each to provide the total potential audience of media coverage. Water in Australia
Conclusions
» It can be concluded from this analysis that, while public » Rising water prices, which social services groups are warning awareness has been raised, the Australian public is being will particularly disadvantage poor families; bombarded with mixed messages in terms of solutions, with almost every potential solution presented receiving as much » Rising electricity prices as water shortages affect power criticism and opposition as support. The public is likely to stations as well as the Snowy hydro-electricity scheme. be confused about what should be done and which water Economic modelling conducted for the Australian Climate conservation and management strategies are best. Change Institute predicts that electricity prices could be 75% higher by the 2020s; » There is a danger that when the drought breaks and dams fill, many Australians will believe the water issue is resolved as much » Power shortages could also become a regular occurrence discussion has focussed on drought – i.e. natural disaster – as the in towns and major cities. For instance, the Queensland cause of drying dams and river systems. There is still insufficient Government has warned it will be forced to mothball two power recognition of the long-term deep-seated inadequacies in stations that produce a quarter of the State’s electricity if dam Australia’s policy, infrastructure and management systems levels continue to fall (The Courier-Mail, 8 February 2007); in relation to water. The breaking of the drought, which will inevitably come, hopefully in the near future, will see political will » Rising food prices as agricultural industries such as fruit and dissipate unless a national commitment is in place. Formulating vegetables are affected by loss of irrigation water; and adopting a national water management plan supported by all States and all sectors of industry and the community is a crucial » The collapse of agricultural industries, such as those along imperative and the Federal Government is right to pursue this the Murray-Darling, and the economies of towns dependent agenda. However, in the interests of being bipartisan, it could be on agricultural industries. The Federal Government is reported asked why it took so long. to be discussing compensation to farmers for lack of irrigation water that could cost $1 billion (Australian Financial Review, » Water management, beyond responses to recent drought, 28 May 2007); is one of the most pressing national issues in Australia, requiring a concerted and cohesive approach at both a policy and practical » There will also be significant impacts on the lifestyle enjoyed level. A wide range of negative impacts are forecast that will by Australians if water shortages continue. Shady green gardens fundamentally affect the economy and lifestyle enjoyed by and backyard swimming pools are no longer sustainable unless Australians unless water management is effectively addressed. substantial and permanent solutions are found. Some of the implications include: The Australian public is being bombarded with mixed messages in terms of solutions. MEDIA content ANALYSIS by
Recommendations
It is difficult to make recommendations based on analysis research papers from national and international experts. Political of media debate alone. However, the seriousness of the issue speeches and ‘pork-barrelling’ by vested interests should be and the large amount of data gained in this analysis indicates excluded from the Summit. It should run over as many days as that decisive actions are required in a number of areas. required and be tasked with achieving a consensus or majority view on key issues and potential solutions, which Federal and » Some of the Federal Government’s substantial State governments should commit to implementing. Leading communication budget should be directed to a national public scientists could also be involved in speaking more on water education campaign on water to present the Australian public management issues. with factual balanced information on issues such as recycling sewage and storm water, desalination and domestic water- » With Brisbane already on Level Five water restrictions, saving techniques. While some water authorities and State Melbourne’s nine major reservoirs at their lowest levels in 40 governments are conducting public education on water usage years with less than 30% of capacity, Australia’s largest city, and conservation, this pales into insignificance compared Sydney, fast running out of water, and some towns facing with $40 million spent on communicating the first stage of evacuation and closure, it is time for strong decisive action and WorkChoices alone, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, leadership. While the States have, subsequent to the period of and $52.8 million over five years reportedly allocated for raising this study, agreed to cooperate in relation to the Murray-Darling awareness of climate change generally (Australian Financial River, there remains a need for a more widely based bipartisan Review, 30 May 2007). Engaging public health officials in approach to water management in Australia. providing assurances to the public, as has occurred with Western Australian proposals for recycling sewage, is an important step in gaining support.
» A neutral scientific body such as the CSIRO could play a bigger role in reviewing options and providing objective information to policy-makers and the public. For instance, while there have already been national meetings such as the national water conference in Canberra in February 2007, CSIRO could host a National Summit on Water attended by all relevant Federal and State bodies, water user groups and consumer representatives who would be presented with
One letter to the editor perhaps best sums up public feelings:
“...Surely now is the time for a true coalition. They should all work together, not snipe at each other. There is more at stake than the future of the political parties, we are talking about the future of Australia.. It’s not that important who runs the country, as long as it is done well. Don’t let Australia die while you fight among yourselves” (Letters, Daily Telegraph, 24 April 2007). Water in Australia
Quantitative Analysis
Water has emerged as one of the most discussed topics in Australia. In the period of this research from 1 January to 30 April, there were 81,894 media reports discussing water. Table 1 shows the breakdown, with the vast majority on radio (more than 55,000 mentions). In addition, water was discussed in almost 15,000 TV reports and in almost 12,000 press articles.
Chart 1 shows the number of articles/reports in press, radio and TV. Tabel 1 shows the Opportunities to See (the total audience and circulation of media items reporting on water). It can be concluded that it is unlikely that any adult or child over the age of reason is unaware that there is a water crisis in Australia.
What is less clear, however, is the solutions available and which are the most effective to address the problem.
Chart 1. Volume of Media Coverage by Media Type
51 Internet 0.1%
11,819 Press 14.4%
14,824 Tv 18.1%
55,251 Radio 67.4%
TABLE 1
Media Type Volume of Items Opportunities to See
Press 11,819 1.785 billion
Radio 55,251 580 million
TV 14,824 1.152 billion
Total 81,894 3.518 billion MEDIA content ANALYSIS by
Coverage by State
Press Chart 2. Volume & Circulation of Press Coverage
VOLUME 3200 800 000 000
CIRCULATION 2800 700 000 000
2400 600 000 000
2000 500 000 000
1600 400 000 000
1200 300 000 000
800 200 000 000
400 100 000 000
0 0 QLD VIC NSW National WA SA ACT TAS NT Volume Circulation
Most press coverage appeared in Queensland, followed by Victoria and NSW. The high circulation metropolitan newspapers based in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney also resulted in the highest circulation/audience reach in these States by far, as shown in Chart 2. 10 Water in Australia
Radio Chart 3. Volume & Audience of Radio Coverage
VOLUME 20 000 250 000 000
AUDIENCE 16 000 200 000 000
12 000 150 000 000
8000 100 000 000
4000 50 000 000
0 0 NSW QLD VIC SA WA ACT TAS NT NZ Volume Audience
NSW had the most radio and TV coverage but, significantly, the second-most radio and TV coverage occurred in Queensland – ahead of Victoria.
NSW press seem less interested in water issues than their colleagues in radio and TV, with NSW having less press coverage than both Queensland and Victoria. South Australia showed more concern over water than Western Australia, with substantially more radio and TV coverage despite similar volumes of press reporting on water.
T V Chart 4. Volume & Audience of TV Coverage
VOLUME 5000 500 000 000
AUDIENCE 4000 400 000 000
3000 300 000 000
2000 200 000 000
1000 100 000 000
0 0 NSW QLD VIC SA NT WA ACT TAS NZ Volume Audience MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 11
Internet Chart 5. Volume of Internet Coverage
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
IBIS World Industry Market Crikey New Matilda Research (Summary) Volume
The most vocal Internet media was Crikey.com, which published a number of reports such as those listed in Table 2.
Table 2
Crikey.com Headline Volume Total Volume 44 Comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ckups 17 State of the planet 9 Where does Planet Ark washing powder come from? 1 A picture of global warming? 1 Fiddlesticks to the planet: the winners 1 How brown is your garden? 1 John Howard turns climate pessimist 1 Morrisiemma.com -- the Libs go cybersquatting to build trust 1 Recycled water: you know you’re drinking it 1 Regulating the rain 1 The Crikey Water Diet: Part I 1 The Crikey Water Diet: Part II 1 The Economy: Steady, soaking rain 1 Wake us when the drought is over 1 Want a water tank? Get in line 1 12 Water in Australia
Leading Media
Press Chart 6. Volume & Circulation of Leading Press
VOLUME 800 320 000 000
Circulation 700 280 000 000
600 240 000 000
500 200 000 000
400 160 000 000
300 120 000 000
200 80 000 000
100 40 000 000
0 0 A ge S ydney A ustralian ( A delaide) A dvertiser Herald S un Courier-Mail D aily Telegraph Canberra Times Morning Herald Gold Coast Bulletin Volume Geelong A dvertiser Circulation MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 13
Radio Chart 7. Volume & Audience of Leading Radio
2000 120 000 000
1750 105 000 000
1500 90 000 000
1250 75 000 000
1000 60 000 000
750 45 000 000
500 30 000 000
250 15 000 000
0 0 SA SA 2 UE 4BC 5 AA 2GB A BC Coast R adio N ational F M – Gold Coast BC West Coast A BC West A BC R iverland SA orth & West A BC N orth & West Volume A BC S outh E ast SA Audience
T V Chart 8. Volume & Audience of Leading TV
200 20 000 000
180 18 000 000
160 16 000 000
140 14 000 000
120 12 000 000
100 10 000 000
80 8 000 000
60 6 000 000
40 4 000 000
20 2 000 000
0 0 W IN W IN W IN Coast P rime P rime A rmidale S unshine Channel 9 Tamworth Gold Coast W IN A lbury S hepparton P rime Taree Toowoomba W IN Mildura Volume P rime Moree Audience 14 Water in Australia
Leading Bylines/Comperes
Journalists/Bylines Chart 9. Volume & Circulation of Leading Bylines
VOLUME AUDIENCE
70 14 000 000
60 12 000 000
50 10 000 000
40 8 000 000
30 6 000 000
20 4 000 000
10 2 000 000
0 0 Herald E xpress Geelong A ustralian A dvertiser S un Herald Courier-Mail Courier-Mail Central Coast S ydney Morning Gold Coast S un Gold Coast S un D aily Telegraph West A ustralian West West A ustralian West Craig Graham Bicknell Johnstone L eah Hallett Wendy F rew Wendy Greg R oberts L ara Caughley S imon Benson A lison Branley A manda Banks Jodie Thomson Volume Thompson Tuck Circulation MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 15
Comperes Chart 10. Volume & Audience of Leading Comperes
VOLUME AUDIENCE
4500 90 000 000
4000 80 000 000
3500 70 000 000
3000 60 000 000
2500 50 000 000
2000 40 000 000
1500 30 000 000
1000 20 000 000
500 10 000 000
0 0 A M Today Today S unrise A crosss N ightlife N ightlife A ustralia E arly A M Mornings Mornings Mornings The World The World A fternoons John L aws Tony D elroy Tony E leanor Hall Tony E astley Tony Tim Webster Tim D avid K och & Bernie Hobbs Melissa D oyle & D avid Bevan Charles Wooley S arach Murdoch & K arl S tefanovic Volume Matthew A braham Audience
NOTE: The zero values for audience shown in the blue line in Charts 7, 8 and 10 are because audited audience data was not available for these media. 16 Water in Australia
Qualitative Analysis
More important than simply looking at the total volume of media optimism. A wide range of negative impacts are being discussed coverage is examining what the coverage says, as this reveals if Australia’s water shortage is not effectively addressed. the main issues and messages that are being reported and circulated in public debate. This public discourse both reflects These include: what various organisations and commentators are saying and doing, thus providing insights into thinking and policy, and informs » Rising water prices, which social services groups are warning and influences future public perceptions and possibly behaviour. will particularly disadvantage poor families;
In-depth qualitative content analysis was conducted on a sub- » Rising electricity prices as water shortages affect power sample of 1200 press articles in national and metropolitan stations as well as the Snowy hydro-electricity scheme. Economic newspapers and magazines during the period 1 January modelling conducted for the Australian Climate Change Institute to 30 April 2007. predicts that electricity prices could be 75% higher by the 2020s;
Qualitative analysis found a quite divided split between favourable, » Power shortages could also become a regular occurrence in unfavourable and neutral content, with 44% unfavourable, 36% towns and major cities. For instance, the Queensland Government neutral and 20% favourable. While significant unfavourable has warned it will be forced to mothball two power stations that comment could be expected in relation to drought, reduced produce a quarter of the State’s electricity if dam levels continue river flows and falling dam levels, and announcements of plans to fall, according to the The Courier-Mail, 8 February 2007; and initiatives to address the ‘water crisis’ could be expected to contribute favourable coverage, the predominance of unfavourable » Rising food prices as agricultural industries such as fruit and media discussion indicates that focus remains more on the vegetables are affected by loss of irrigation water; problem rather than solutions and that adequate solutions have not yet been presented. » The collapse of agricultural industries, such as those along the Murray-Darling, and the economies of towns dependent on The high proportion of neutral coverage is partly the result of agricultural industries. The Federal Government is reported to be ‘straight’ factual reporting, but more the result of an equal mix discussing compensation to farmers for lack of irrigation water that of favourable and unfavourable comment. could cost $1 billion (Australian Financial Review, 28 May 2007);
What Chart 11 suggests is that, while there are clear signals » There will also be significant impacts on the lifestyle enjoyed to the Australian community and governments that there is a by Australians if water shortages continue. Shady green gardens pressing need to address water issues, there is no consensus and backyard swimming pools are no longer sustainable unless or direction for a concerted and cohesive approach and little substantial and permanent solutions are found.
Chart 11
241 favourable 20%
530 Unfavourable 44% 429 neutral 36% MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 17
While there are clear signals to the Australian community and governments that there is a pressing need to address water issues, there is no consensus or direction for a concerted and cohesive approach and little optimism.
State Breakdown
The sample of 1200 media items analysed in-depth appeared approximately in proportion to population spread across all States and Territories of Australia with most, as could be expected, in the national, NSW, Victorian and Queensland media.
Chart 12
87 12 ACT TASMANIA 7% 1%
NORTHERN 14 TERRITORY 1% 206 NATIONAL 17% WESTERN 65 AUSTRALIA 5%
SOUTH 142 AUSTRALIA 12%
188 NEW SOUTH 295 QUEENSLAND 16% WALES 25%
191 VICTORIA 16% 18 Water in Australia
Primary Story Focus
The most prominent focus of media coverage in relation to water stormwater is being discussed slightly more favourably than is desalination plants and proposals, with more than 300 articles other potential solutions, but discussion of water recycling was primarily focussed on the reclaiming of seawater. Desalination is also divided with an average favourability only slightly above a vexed issue, with 30% of coverage of desalination proposals neutral (51.6). unfavourable, compared with just 22% favourable, despite several governments committing to desalination projects. Almost Water restrictions were reported predominantly unfavourably 50% of media discussion of desalination was neutral or balanced, due to several cities escalating from Level Three to Level Four sometimes indicating ‘straight’ factual reporting but, more often and even to Level Five during the period of research. There were the case, an even split of favourable and unfavourable comment. also calls for stricter policing of water usage and steeper fines for over-use. Some commentary suggests that water restrictions are Water storage, principally dams, and rivers were also major enough to deal with Australia’s water shortage, but the majority topics of discussion. Recognition of major problems was evident of comment supported the need for other more constructive in relation to storage and rivers, with 58% of coverage of and long-term initiatives. comment on Australian rivers unfavourable and 51% of media discussion of water storage unfavourable. Just 11% of media The key arguments for and against on these topics are examined reporting and commentary on Australia’s river systems and use further in the following sections of this report, which discuss of them was favourable. Recycling of water from sewage and each of the key issues.
Chart 13
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
500 55.5 51.6
50.1 400 49.3 50.0 48.1 46.8 47.8 46.0 49.2 45.4 309 44.1 45.0 300 264 259 45.0
92 134 200 151 40.0 145
148 33 95 100 46 35 35.0 89 26 25 23 80 57 13 66 6 69 25 0 41 28 30.0 R ivers S aving P ricing I rrigation R ecycling R estrictions D esalination of R estrictions Business U se D omestic U se Water S torage Water omestic Water D omestic Water Volume P olicing/ E nforcement Favourability MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 19
Leading Issues
The following charts and analysis report on the most widely discussed water issues.
In terms of the number of mentions, Australia’s river systems was the most frequent topic of discussion, particularly the Murray- Darling River system. Desalination was also a frequently mentioned and prominent issue, along with water storage, recycling, water restrictions and irrigation.
Issue Categories
An overall finding from this analysis is that most media reporting Only one independent article, written by Dr Toze, principal and commentary is focussing on the policies, plans and researcher scientist at CSIRO Land and Water, discussed viewpoints of politicians, governments and vested interests. the facts of recycling and desalination in a non-partisan way This report could well be titled ‘The Politics of Water’. (Canberra Times, 16 April 2007).
While some media have devoted space and time to presenting The Federal Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the public with simply explained factual and scientific Malcolm Turnbull, said “water is too important to be the subject information on water usage, storage and management, the vast of narrow-minded parochialism. All of us have an interest in the majority of media debate and discussion is contradicting claims water security of every part of Australia. We must be prepared and counter-claims by various Federal and State politicians, to share our water resources and respect the needs, including environmentalists, farmers’ groups and other vested interests environmental needs, of communities in other states” (The such as landholders affected by proposed dams or residents Australian, 16 April 2007). potentially affected by construction works. There is a lack of objective information and education for the public to make However, parochialism is at the forefront of much debate on informed decisions. water in Australia.
Chart 14
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
1250 55.5
50.5 1000 49.2 50.0 47.7 46.4 45.8 46.7 45.3 45.2 750 43.7 44.1 45.0 560
500 480 40.0
326 329 151 250 203 35.0 209 169 156 81 177 56 68 60 48 45 65 105 120 109 53 0 82 30.0 P ricing R ivers S aving I rrigation R ecycling R estrictions D esalination of R estrictions Business U se Water S torage Water omestic Water D omestic Water Volume P olicing/ E nforcement Favourability 20 Water in Australia
Rivers
The World Wildlife Fund has warned that “the Murray-Darling 1901, the Prime Minister’s plan involves bringing national river river system is one of the world’s 10 most endangered because systems such as the Murray-Darling under Federal control. The governments have failed to protect it from invasive fish and plan also includes spending $6 billion to improve the efficiency plant species” and stated that “excessive water extraction has of irrigators and $3 billion to buy back water licences in areas led to many of the problems now facing the Murray-Darling” that cannot support current levels of irrigation. However, the (Sydney Morning Herald, 20 March 2007). change requires the agreement of all States and, in the tradition of Federal-State politics in Australia, unanimity has not been The announcement by the Prime Minister, John Howard, of a forthcoming. One newspaper reported on a national water $10 billion national water plan to rescue the Murray-Darling is conference convened in Canberra to discuss the proposal the major focus of attention in relation to river systems. With saying: “Who controls the water supply of river towns and Australia’s rivers being under State control since Federation in guarantees on environmental flows are among points to be Prime Minister Howard has stated it would be a “tragedy” if the States knocked back the package for political reasons.
Chart 15
Favourable 320 70.0
Neutral 282 280 65.0 Unfavourable
Average Favourability 240 60.0
160 200 55.0
160 50.0 47.5 46.4 46.2 45.7 44.0 120 114 43.4 44.0 45.0
90
80 70 40.0 91 49 45 40 15 35.0 27 28 10 36 31 10 4 17 0 5 16 30.0 R iver F low D arling D amage S alinity P rogram Murray- P roposal/ I nadequate R egeneration S nowy R iver E nvironmental Volume Murrumbidgee Favourability MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 21
clarified. But the diverse reactions of the Labor Premiers proves licences. In a sign of the political sensitivity over the buying out Mr Howard’s case of the inefficiencies in managing rivers” of water rights and of policy ambiguity even within the Federal (Herald Sun, 3 February 2007). Coalition, Mr Vaile said the $3 billion allocated in the plan for this purpose should be used only as a last resort (Sydney Morning South Australian Premier Mike Rann initially rejected the Herald, 6 March 2007). proposal and called for a new entity to control the Murray- Darling basin, although South Australia has subsequently given Prime Minister Howard has stated it would be a “tragedy” if the guarded support to the proposal. States knocked back the package for political reasons. Even if the plan is eventually adopted, it seems likely that Federal-State Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has been the most vocal and politics will plague its implementation. stalwart opponent of the national scheme, saying in one interview: “We know that the bulk of [the water] will go to Farmers have been among the strongest critics of a number where the water is over-entitled and that is NSW … I won’t be of water proposals. Queensland Farmers Federation chief signing up to anything that doesn’t mean a real policy difference executive officer, John Cherry, said farmers would oppose buy in water flowing down the Murray. If it’s just simply to fix up outs of irrigation licences, including that of Cubbie Station, problems in other States, of course we won’t be in it” (Sydney because studies had shown the Queensland section of the Morning Herald, 19 February 2007). Murray-Darling Basin was not over-allocated: “If the Federal Government is serious about getting more water into the Under a headline “Hard task to win over all premiers – water Murray-Darling Basin, they have to look at improved water revolution”, the national daily reported on the minefield of efficiency in NSW and Victoria where there are unlined irrigation Australian Federal-State politics: channels and dairy farmers who are flood-irrigating pastures (The Courier-Mail, 2 February 2007). “A united and smooth transfer of control of the Murray- Darling basin from the States to the Commonwealth appears The Victorian Farmers Federation also has spoken against the unlikely with sharp divisions between the Labor governments Federal Government national water plan with its president, of the four states along the river’s course” (The Australian, Simon Ramsay, saying: “We will not agree to hand over full 26 January 2007). control of Victoria’s resources. This has been our position from day one” (Australian Financial Review, 4 May 2007). The article went on to report that South Australian Premier Mike Rann was critical of the plan: “What he [the Prime Minister] seems There is also some opposition from scientific and academic to be saying … is we should hand over all of the functions of the areas. An Australian National University study warns that public River Murray, all the powers over the River Murray, to politicians money is being put at risk by the Federal Government’s national in Canberra who of course are dominated by the Eastern States water plan. Professor Quentin Grafton told the media there because of their numbers. What the Prime Minister is asking were better ways to spend such a large amount of money than South Australia to do is to remove its seat at the table when changing irrigation practices: “I’m arguing that we can think we’re considering River Murray issues, even though we’re the smarter and do better. If you’re going to spend $6 billion, make downstream State” (The Australian, 26 January 2007). sure you spend it where it has the highest potential pay-off” (Canberra Times, 5 April 2007). Victorian Premier Steve Bracks further rejected the national water plan in May and compared “the row over control of Nevertheless, some signs of progress and commitment are water” with the 1901 debates on the Federal Constitution. appearing. The South Australian government has pledged to The leading business newspaper reported: “He has consistently return 1500 gigalitres of irrigation allocations to the Murray- opposed the Federal offer, claiming it would disadvantage Darling (The Australian, 24 March 2007). irrigators without boosting river flows” Australian( Financial Review, 4 May 2007). A week later, the national daily reported that the NSW government was expected to announce a $20 million deal with The Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, has attempted to Murray Irrigators Ltd to buy back almost half of its supplementary position himself favourably for the next Federal election as the water licence to recharge key environmental systems in the leader who can get the State Premiers to agree. For instance, in Murray-Darling Basin. Murray-Darling Basin chief executive, an interview he said he would “be as positive and constructive Wendy Craik, welcomed the sale. Similar buybacks have also as possible in narrowing the gap which currently exists between been completed in Victoria (The Australian, 30 March 2007). the States and Canberra”. However, Federal Labor has not to this point facilitated any cohesive national policy on water in Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has again floated a long- Australia or even achieved agreement between Labor Premiers held idea to pipe water south from high-rainfall northern areas (Sydney Morning Herald, 19 February 2007). of Australia. Drawing on a plan partly inspired by work done in the 1930s by John Bradfield, the engineer who designed National Party leader, Mark Vaile, has called for the the Sydney Harbour and Brisbane’s Story bridges, Mr Beattie Government’s proposed $10 billion takeover of the Murray- proposed diverting water from northern Queensland and Darling Basin to concentrate on improving the efficiency of northern NSW into the Murray-Darling system (The Australian, existing irrigation rather than buying out over-allocated water 19 February 2007). 22 Water in Australia
Desalination
The NSW Government announced during the 2007 election that it was proceeding with a $1.9 billion desalination plant at Kurnell south of Sydney (Australian Financial Review, 1 March 2007). The plan has drawn considerable criticism, however.
The Australian Water Association has refuted claims by the NSW Government that the $1.9 billion desalination plant will be a cheaper source of potable water than recycling. NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, presented Sydney Water figures indicating a recycling system would cost $4 billion. The Water Association’s chief executive, Chris Davis disagreed: “The energy it takes to Criticisms play on the desalinate water is substantially more than it takes to recycle water” (Australian Financial Review, 13 February 2007).
NIMBY syndrome Other criticisms of the desalination plant for Sydney raise public alarm that “a maze of pipes and tunnels will be bored under the homes of southern Sydney residents and hundreds – people wanting of streets dug up in at least 15 suburbs … to carry water from the proposed desalination plant to the city”. There also have been claims that “Sydney Water attempted to cover up the infrastructure and plans so residents would be oblivious to what was coming when construction begins” (Daily Telegraph, 2 February 2007). These criticisms play on the NIMBY syndrome – people wanting facilities but infrastructure and facilities but ‘Not in My Back Yard’.
Criticism of desalination has also come from the academic ‘Not in My Back Yard’. who helped draft the NSW Government’s water policy, Professor White, head of the Institute of Sustainable Futures
Chart 16
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
240 70.0
210 65.0
180 60.0 162 150 55.0 58 50.5 50.4 52.0 49.8 50.0 49.8 120 48.5 49.4 50.0 49.6 46.1
90 71 45.0
71 50 60 23 37 40.0 11 29 28 30 30 9 23 22 35.0 28 15 9 7 19 10 33 8 7 8 18 13 15 11 9 10 0 11 12 6 5 5 7 6 30.0 W lant lant NS P Coast olicies of of olicies P roposal esalination esalination P P olicies of – A delaide – Brisbane Technology D D esalination D esalination D esalination D esalination D esalination roposal – Gold Gold – roposal – Melbourne P lant roposal P lant roposal P lant roposal esalination esalination P P roposal – erth D Government – V I C D esalination P lant D esalination P lant D esalination P lant P roposal – S ydney Volume – Government Favourability MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 23
at the University of Technology Sydney, who said the State in progress to examine cost and possible locations for a plant. Government should only build a desalination plan if dam levels He said “a panel of experts … is already deep into its inquiries fell below 30%. “I have been most concerned by media reports and is due to report by the end of the year”. Victorian media that there is a real intention to construct this plant regardless of were encouraging and supportive, with The Age saying: ‘It is storage levels. This would be a significant burden on the public encouraging the Government has gone this far: that desalination purse and is in direct contrast to the advice that was provided could produce more than 300 megalitres of fresh water per day to, and accepted by, the NSW Government in 2006,” Professor is worth the possible investment this represents … as well White said. as determining a long-term environmentally sustainable future” (7 April 2007). A study commissioned by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Environment Victoria and the Australian Conservation Plans for a $1 billion desalination plant twice as big as one Foundation, conducted by economists Marsden Jacob already at Kwinana are reportedly being drawn up in Western Associates, argues that desalination plants could be put on hold Australia as a contingency. Warning that WA was reaching crisis and better results gained by rolling out rain water tanks to 5% point, Water Corporation chief executive, Dr Jim Gill, said the of households each year in conjunction with other water-saving State Government had to tap the Yarragadee aquifer or build measures. The study argues that rain water tanks are more a desalination plant (Sunday Times, Perth, 1 April 2007). than five times as energy-efficient as desalination plants and a cheaper solution (The Courier-Mail, 16 April 2007). Support for desalination to supply Australia’s coastal cities also came from business leader, Richard Pratt, chairman of Nevertheless, desalination is gaining political and industry Visy Industries. In addition, Richard Pratt raised an interesting support. The South Australian Government announced approval incentive with his claim that business could benefit from multi- in April for construction of a pilot desalination plant to begin billion dollar opportunities if it embraced technology to address almost immediately. South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, said climate change (The Australian, 16 February 2007). the plant will help reduce the amount of water being taken from the ailing River Murray (The Advertiser, 3 April 2007).
Victorian Water Minister, John Thwaites, said that desalination was inevitable for Melbourne and that a feasibility study was Business could benefit from multi-billion dollar opportunities if it embraced technology to address climate change. 24 Water in Australia
Water Storage
The public in most major cities and towns has been given a daily dose of reports of falling dam levels, with serious consequences reported for many. For instance, there have been warnings that some towns, where trucking water in is The public in most too expensive, may have to be evacuated once their dwindling water supplies run out.
major cities and towns Amid criticism for lack of investment in infrastructure including dams, there also has been opposition to the building of new dams. For instance, in their NSW election policy platform, The has been given a daily Greens opposed building of Tillegra Dam to supply water to the NSW Central Coast. The Greens also opposed desalination plants on the Central Coast. Greens Upper House candidate, dose of reports of John Kaye, said cancellation of these projects would result in savings of $351 million in capital costs, plus $14.6 million a year in operating costs: “These are expensive and unnecessary. falling dam levels. Tillegra will not produce water until 2013 and the dam may never fill” Daily( Telegraph, 7 February 2007).
Chart 17
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
320 70.0
280 272 65.0
240 60.0
143 200 55.0
160 50.0 47.1 47.2 48.1 46.2 46.5 46.3 120 45.0
86 80 40.0
40 19 17 35.0 9 8 43 10 10 4 0 30.0 L akes – S mall – L arge R eserves D ams and R eservoirs Home R ain Water Tanks Water U nderground F arm S torage F arm S torage Volume Favourability MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 25
The media also personalised opposition to dam projects in An article headlined “Dry argument” stated that, as residents human interest and profile stories. An example is a feature prepare for Level Five water restrictions, the Beattie article that reported: Government has ignored valuable advice. The article referred to Israel’s Water Authority Professor Uri Shani’s advice on drip- “The forest, mountains and rivers of the Tillegra Valley have irrigation systems and management structures for water supply been home to the McDonald family for generations. Anne, systems: “No other country possesses Israel’s desalination her husband, Malcolm, sons Peter and Christopher, and their and recycling expertise. While Shani was in Sydney, Federal families still live and work on the diary and beef cattle farm. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull signed a declaration But a decision by the state Government in November to flood of intent with his delegation to ensure more collaboration on the valley and build a $342 million dam on the Williams River, water research between Israel and Australia. But what of his north of Dungog, poses a threat to the McDonalds’ property reception when he visited Queensland, the place where water and way of life”. scarcity is the prime focus of public policy, dam levels are down to about 20 per cent and billions of dollars are being thrown at The article continued, asking: “How much prime farm land do hastily built desalination plants and recycled water pipelines? we sacrifice for our new water supply? In the UK, you wouldn’t Lukewarm would be the least embarrassing description” (The do it. You would recycle water … If the government was Courier-Mail, 7 April 2007). serious about water management then it would be mandating recycling targets for the water authorities around the state and Home rain water tanks received less media coverage than increasing the rainwater tank rebates” (Sydney Morning Herald, expected. This affirms the finding of this analysis that there is a 5 January 2007). lack of clear practical solutions being promoted amid the raging debate on water. Building of the Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River in Queensland to supply water to Brisbane has triggered a major In the cacophony of debate, some ideas and proposals verge campaign of public opposition from land holders arguing it will on silly. For instance, without any thought to health issues or take away valuable farming land, environmentalist arguing it will child safety, one article suggested: “Local councils have old destroy habitats, and a number of community and specialist wheelie bins available with either broken wheels or lids, which interest groups claiming other alternatives have not been make wonderful small tanks” (Sydney Morning Herald, adequately investigated. Also, Queensland Government plans to 10 April 2007). build a desalination plan and recycle water have been criticised as rushed and not based on adequate consultation. Amid criticism for lack of investment in infrastructure including dams, there also has been opposition to the building of new dams. 26 Water in Australia
Recycling
Recycling of water from sewage and stormwater is being stymied by the ‘Yuk factor’ and political point scoring. State and local governments are wavering in their views on recycling because of opinion polls showing public concern over treated sewage and an unsuccessful referendum in Toowoomba in which residents rejected recycled water from sewage. Meanwhile, a number of politicians have been talking up the ‘Yuk factor’ for political advantage.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma told voters during the NSW election that under a Liberal Coalition Government they would be forced to drink “recycled sewage” (Daily Telegraph, 19 February 2007).
The Sydney Morning Herald published a strong condemnation of Labor opposition to water recycling, and also delivered a broadside at the Coalition’s policies, in a noteworthy attack on the ‘politics of water’, saying:
“Two years ago, the then utilities minister, Frank Sartor, released some research on attitudes to water. The Government had
Chart 18
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
160 70.0
143 140 65.0
120 39 60.0
100 55.0 52.1 52.5 50.8 50.3 50.0 80 49.4 50.0
47 60 45.0
40 40.0
57 24 20 6 17 35.0 9 5 9 8 2 9 10 0 30.0 U se S ewage S ewage S ewage S ewage for Toilets R ecycling R ecycling R ecycling R ecycling R ecycling S ewage for for D rinking for Gardens for Business Waste Water Waste S howers/Baths Volume R ecycling Home Favourability MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 27
Recycling of water from sewage and stormwater is being stymied by the ‘Yuk factor’ and political point scoring.
been getting kicked by the environmentalists about its lack (The West Australian, 2 January 2007). Proponents of recycling of commitment to recycling and Sartor wanted to put a lid point out that references to drinking ‘treated sewage’ are on it. The survey of 600 people found that 68 per cent were misleading as water reclaimed from sewage is 100% pure and uncomfortable with drinking recycled water. But more revealing is no longer sewage. was the question. Respondents were asked whether they were ‘very comfortable, mildly comfortable, mildly uncomfortable or A number of media have supported recycling, however. For very uncomfortable with drinking recycled sewage, including instance, one report pointed out that: “It’s feasible to clean toilet water, that is treated to drinking-water quality’. On the up recycled effluent to the same health standard as dam basis of this survey, Sartor raged against the Coalition, which he water. In fact diluted sewage is arguably easier to process than said had plans to make Sydneysiders drink their sewage. It was seawater with its high salt content. Membrane technology typical of the cowardly debate that passes for political discourse takes out most of the nasties, and treatment with ultraviolet in NSW. The Government’s research might have been different provides the final sterilisation” (Sydney Morning Herald, 5 if it had asked: ‘Would you be prepared to drink recycled effluent February 2007). if we could ensure that it was cleaned to the same standard as water drawn from our dams?’ The survey gave some hints. The Daily Telegraph has strongly opposed the NSW Labor About 48 per cent supported the ‘shandying’ option, with only Government plan for a $2 billion desalination plant at Kurnell 44 per cent opposed. Since July 2005 people have become south of Sydney and argued that recycled water would be a acutely conscious of the water issues facing Sydney. Sartor’s better option. cheap political stunt set back sensible debate immeasurably; but so, too, have the glib proposals from the Opposition. It’s there “Recycled sewage is shaping as Perth’s next major source with a superficially attractive policy to recycle the entire outflow of drinking water under Water Corporation plans to boost of one of the ocean outfalls during its first term of government” water supplies in addition to the expected development of (Sydney Morning Herald, 5 February 2007). the Yarragadee aquifer,” media reported. Water Corporation chief executive Jim Gill announced a plan to pump treated The Herald also cited a February 2007 AC Nielsen poll on effluent into the Gnangara aquifer north of Perth from which it attitudes to water recycling, which it said “shows how shallow will later be extracted for drinking water. The WA Government the State Government’s approach to water has been. It gives seems to be taking a softer, slower approach and gaining the lie to the Government’s repeated claim that householders support. Gill said: will not accept recycled water. Four out of five respondents in NSW said they would support it. Most importantly, the question “If this project is not proved up to the satisfaction of the entire was not posed in a way that was likely to skew the responses community we can’t go ahead with it. If you try to rush it you’ll – unlike the 2005 survey which the Government has relied upon end up with results like Toowoomba’s referendum or campaigns to reject recycling” (Sydney Morning Herald, 13 February 2007). being run that can be fairly emotive because the idea of drinking someone’s sewage, well you can imagine the sort of pictures The AC Nielsen poll during the NSW election found voters that can paint” (The West Australian, 2 January 2007). support both desalination and recycling proposals. Research director of AC Nielsen, John Stirton, was reported saying: The WA Government is also offering strong public assurances “Both major options for supplementing our water supply are with its Health Department speaking publicly on the issue. popular with voters, but when asked for a preference, recycling For instance, under a headline “Health assurance on sewage is picked by more voters than desalination” (Sydney Morning water”, The West Australian reported: “The Health department Herald, 28 February 2007). is confident contaminants such as potent chemicals found in the contraceptive pill can be filtered out of sewage as part of A survey by Sydney Water also found that Sydney residents a recycling proposal by the Water Corporation. Communicable increasingly support the use of recycled water including disease control director, Paul Van Buunder, said the Water stormwater harvesting and stricter water restrictions Corporation’s plan for a four-year trial which would pump 1.5 to address the city’s water problems (Australian Financial gigalitres of treated effluent into the Leederville aquifer would Review, 1 March 2007). not go ahead without Health Department approval … ‘I have no doubt that this is do-able, I just want to make sure that The media have not been universally helpful on this issue with the restrictions I place on to protect the public’” (The West headlines such as “The plan for us to drink treated sewage” Australian, 3 January 2007). 28 Water in Australia
Restrictions Chart 19
Favourable 160 70.0
Neutral 140 65.0
Unfavourable 120 60.0
55.0 Average Favourability 100 55.0
80 77 50.0 45.9 60 44.1 45.0 42.4 42.5
38 40 34 40.0 58 24 20 20 6 35.0 11 1 11 10 0 8 3 4 30.0 S tage 5 S tage 4 S tage 3 S tage 2 S tage 1
Volume Favourability
The toughest water restrictions in Australia, as well as State impact on the lifestyle enjoyed by South-East Queenslanders. Water Commission threats of heavy fines and cutting off water “This is the direct result of a government which has not wasters, came into effect in Brisbane, the Gold Coast and 10 invested in water infrastructure for nine years,” he said (The other shires from 10 April. Level 5 restrictions represent a major Courier-Mail, 5 April 2007). Other capitals, including Australia’s escalation of the water crisis in that State. The moves also major population centres of Sydney and Melbourne, also are represent an escalation in the approach taken. Infrastructure on water restrictions of Levels Three or Four. Minister, Anna Bligh, said restrictions must become part of living in the region: “We are not planning for a time when we go A number of commentators and some water authorities believe back to the high levels of water use. We are assuming a level water restrictions should be linked to pricing of water and that of water efficiency and water conservation way into the future” pricing is a major strategy to reduce usage. Under a headline (The Courier-Mail, 7 April 2007). “Prices set to triple for guzzlers of Melbourne’s ‘blue gold’”, an Age article reported that “Melbourne’s top water guzzlers The Queensland Water Commission is reported to be would see prices almost triple” under a radical overhaul being negotiating with local councils about “meaningful” fines up considered by the State’s largest retailer. Yarra Valley Water to several thousand dollars for users who do not comply with has foreshadowed a “premium” charge on households that restrictions. Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, who previously use more than 880 litres a day and major industrial users that ruled out fining excessive water users, said he now had an exceed an annual consumption target. Managing director, Tony “open-mind” on fines The( Courier-Mail, 5 April 2007). Kelly, said: “We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do what most western cities have not been able to … establish a pricing Such hardline approaches run the risk of placing governments structure that rewards consumers for conserving water, while in conflict with their electorates. While strict measures may at the same time protecting low-income households.” He said be inevitable now, many feel that governments should have that there was “currently almost no financial incentive to save acted long ago to improve infrastructure. Opposition Leader water” (The Age, 7 April 2007). Jeff Seeney said the water restrictions would have a significant Essential Services Commission Productivity Commissioner, Neil Byron, has spoken out saying pricing is the best way to cut consumption. Also, Victorian Council of Social Services executive director, Cath Smith, said weighting price increases towards high-income consumers made sense. But she warned that financially strapped families who used a lot of water needed protection, including renters who could not install water-saving devices (The Age, 7 April 2007). MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 29
Irrigation Chart 20
Favourable 32 70.0
Neutral 28 65.0
Unfavourable 24 22 60.0 21 Average Favourability 20 55.0
50.0 16 14 50.0 46.4 46.1 46.3 46.7 12 43.9 43.6 45.0 9 8 8 14 40.0 16 6
3 10 6 4 4 3 35.0 5 3 3 1 4 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 30.0 I rrigation F ruit Growing R ice I rrigation S pray ystems Wine I rrigation F lood I rrigation Cotton I rrigation P asture I rrigation Volume Favourability Some debate is being presented in a confrontational way that is unlikely to garner wide support.
Fruit and cotton growing were the main focus of discussion of to continue using 32 megalitres of artesian water daily even irrigation and there is rising concern over crops that rely on high after it completes construction of a proposed 100 megalitres a levels of irrigation. day desalination plant on Spencer Gulf to support its expanding Roxby Downs uranium mine (The Advertiser, 3 February 2007). However, some debate is being presented in a confrontational In comparison, the city of Adelaide uses around 820 megalitres way that is unlikely to garner wide support. Union leader, Bill of water a day. Greens MLC, Mark Parnell, has criticised BHP’s Shorten, called for cotton and rice growers to be forced out of use of artesian water saying: “it is time that the free water business and their water-intensive crops replaced by less thirsty stopped flowing and HB P Billiton should be paying for its supply” options such as hemp. Not surprisingly, Mr Shorten’s comments calling for renegotiation of the “ridiculously generous” indenture were challenged by farmers and some scientists who said annual deal. The Prime Minister, John Howard, appears to support a crops such as rice and cotton were an important part of the crackdown on use of water in mining saying “everyone’s got to irrigated agricultural industry (The Australian, 1 March 2007). make a contribution” and announcing limits on artesian water extraction as part of the Federal Government’s $10 billion national An issue that received less coverage than farmers’ use of water water plan (Australian Financial Review, 8 February 2007). for irrigation, but which is highly controversial and noteworthy is use of water in mining. An instance of mining’s use of water Labor environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, said “there’s no that has received media attention is the 1982 Roxby Downs doubt that we can’t continue to extract water out of groundwater (Indenture Ratification) Act of South Australia that allows the systems at phenomenal rates for very, very low return” (The Roxby Downs mine to draw water from the Great Artesian Basin Advertiser, 8 February 2007). at no cost. One media report claimed that the operation has been drawing 32 million litres a day and that it has a permit to The Australian Conservation Foundation’s David Noonan said extract up to 45 megalitres a day. BHP Billiton, the current owner, BHP should spend more money, build a bigger desalination is the Great Artesian Basin’s biggest water user and BHP Base plant and leave the basin alone” (Sydney Morning Herald, Metals spokesman, Richard Yeeles, said the company planned 3 February 2007). 30 Water in Australia
Leading Messages
Message Categories Chart 21
Favourable Unfavourable
140 135
120 111 106 103
100
80
60 57
44 42 40 35 30 24
19 20 18 8 10 16 6 9 5 6 3 3 4 1 0 R ivers P ricing S avings General P olicing/ I rrigation R ecycling R estictions R estrictions D esalination Business U se D omestic U se E nforcement of Water S torage Water omestic Water D omestic Water Volume
Most discussion containing specific messages focussed on discussion of water in Australia is in relation to the problem water storage, recycling, water as a problem generally, rivers, – rather than solutions. desalination and water restrictions. Furthermore, reporting and commentary on potential solutions, Comparatively fewer messages appeared in the media on such as recycling and desalination, featured considerable irrigation, business use, domestic use, domestic water saving, negative comment – particularly the latter. Opinion is polarised policing of restrictions and pricing issues. on many issues, as shown by the mix of both favourable (supportive) and unfavourable (opposed) messages, and this As shown in Chart 22, most water storage reporting focussed is likely to lead to public confusion. on falling dam levels and most general messages were in relation to Australia having a shortage of water and a lack of A detailed breakdown of the leading specific messages water management. Reporting on rivers also mostly focussed communicated through the media is provided in the on reduced flow. In other words, the main thrust of media following charts. MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 31
Water Storage Chart 22
Favourable 140
Unfavourable 120 111
100
80
60
40
22 20 18
6 2 0 D ams D ams L ocated R ecovering D ams L evels A re ot Well D ams A re N ot Well A ustralia Has dequate D ams L evels A re F alling Volume A ustralia Has I nadequate Reporting and commentary on potential solutions, such as recycling and desalination, featured considerable negative comment.
A large amount of media reporting focussed on drought as the cause of falling dam levels and water problems. However, some writers have pointed to the deeper problems that have been exacerbated and highlighted by Australia’s severe drought, for instance:
“Across the continent the dry has highlighted a catastrophic mismanagement of water. At first officials and irrigators blamed the drought but the longer the dry has continued the more baldly have the mistakes of water resource management been revealed” (Sydney Morning Herald, 7 March 2007).
Rainfalls led to some reports that dams are recovering, but most such reports were shown to be premature. 32 Water in Australia
Recycling Chart 23
Favourable 45 41 Unfavourable 40
35
30 30 29
25 21 20
15 13
10 6 5 5 4 1 0
I s A cceptable I s A cceptable A Good O ption I s A Good Thing Water R ecycling Water Water R ecycling Water Than D esalination Than D esalination I s N ot A cceptable Number I s N ot A cceptable I s N ot D one E nough Water R ecycling I s N ot Water D rinking R ecycled Water of Media D rinking R ecycled Water D rinking R ecycled S ewage D rinking R ecycled S ewage R ecycling I s A Better option Mentions O ption R ecycling I s A Worse In the debate over the best option to increase water supplies, recycling is winning over desalination plants.
In the debate over the best option to increase water supplies, Adelaide toxicologist, Ian Falconer, who said recycling systems recycling is winning over desalination plants. However, the could be safe and had worked well on most continents (Canberra vexatious nature of debate is evident in 29 instances of the Times, 30 March 2007), Professor Collignon claimed that treated message that drinking recycled sewage is not acceptable and 13 human waste should never be added to Canberra’s drinking water instances of messages suggesting that recycling is a less efficient supply, saying it was “dangerous, unaffordable and unnecessary” option than desalination. (Canberra Times, 30 March 2007).
The mixed messages being received by the public are evident Professor Collignon also provided an example of the in an attack on recycling of waste water by Canberra Hospital’s antagonistic and divisive approach sometimes being taken in director of infectious diseases and microbiology, Peter Collignon. the debate that will inevitably hamper progress when he stated Following launch of a campaign by ACT Chief Minister, Jon that the national capital should take the water it needed from Stanhope, to ask Canberra residents whether they are prepared “inefficient” farmers downstream of the ACT. The professor’s to drink recycled sewage, and despite supporting statements by reported statement that “350,000 people in Canberra are more ACTEW Corporation director Michael Costello that a proposed important than a few hundred rice farmers” angered farmers $150 million advanced treatment plant “would produce the highest and farmer groups (Canberra Times, 30 March 2007). quality drinking water in the world” (Canberra Times, 22 March 2007), and statements by chair of an independent expert panel, MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 33
General Chart 24
Favourable 56
Unfavourable 49 48 45
40
35
32
24
16
8 8 1
0 S olution of Water I ncreased S hould Be Number S trategies I n A ustralia With E xisting f Water Cost O f Water Can Be S olved Well Managed Well Water P roblem Water of Media P roblem Water A ustralia I s S hort N eeds A Creative Mentions I s N ot Being Water Despite widespread views that addressing Australia’s water problems requires a creative solution, there is little evidence of one.
Despite widespread views that addressing Australia’s water In another article titled “Warning on dams debacle ignored”, problems requires a creative solution, there is little evidence Beaudesert Mayor, Joy Drescher, said: “It [the decision not of one. to build a dam earlier] was probably one of the worst political decisions ever made. We knew this corner needed the water. A key unfavourable message in much media discussion It was made on political grounds, not on needs, costs, or suggests that governments have been aware of a looming anything else. It was a failure of forward planning and building water shortage but did nothing or very little to put plans in place infrastructure” (The Courier-Mail, 29 March 2007). or build infrastructure to prevent it. For instance, an article titled “Water crisis they knew – State accused of ignoring its own Despite an article titled “Brumby budget to target water crisis” early warning”, stated that a blueprint for shielding South-East reporting that increased spending on water-saving measures Queensland from a looming water crisis was handed to the in Melbourne and the bush will be a key feature of the 2007 State Government six years ago but ignored. The extensive Victorian budget (The Australian, 23 April 2007), The Age report was commissioned by the Department of Natural reported a “Secret Bracks plan to slash spending on water”. Resources and made wide-ranging recommendations to reduce Cabinet documents allegedly seen by The Age revealed that the spiralling water usage (The Courier-Mail, 7 March 2007). Bracks Government secretly planned to slash spending on its ‘Our Water: Our Future’ program by up to $28.8 million in the lead-up to last year’s election (The Age, 25 April 2007). 34 Water in Australia
Leading Spokespersons
The NSW election campaign during the period of analysis The most positive spokesperson was Victoria’s Water Minister, resulted in former NSW Liberal Leader, Peter Debnam, being John Thwaites, who spoke optimistically that Melbourne the most prominent spokesperson on water, followed by the “would not run out of water” and talked up solutions including NSW Premier, Morris Iemma. a desalination plant.
Prime Minister John Howard spoke frequently on water during Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, was the most unfavourable the period, expressing the Federal Government’s concerns spokesperson, speaking mainly in opposition to Federal and views, and promoting its $10 billion national water plan Government proposals for a $10 billion national water plan. to address problems of the Murray-Darling river system.
State Premiers in Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, and the Queensland Minister of Infrastructure, Anna Bligh, were also prominent spokespersons.
Chart 25
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
75 55.0 52.1 50.6 50.2 50.6 60 47.8 47.9 50.0 47.7 45.5 44.4 43.3 43.8 45 39 45.0
32 30 14 40.0 23 14 22 18 9 7 17 16 15 9 35.0 8 14 9 7 7 8 13 11 10 4 16 3 2 5 4 10 8 3 0 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 30.0 Minister Victorian Victorian Water C EO Water SA P remier S pokesman Corporation Q LD P remier Q LD Minister NS W P remier Water Minister Water A ustralian P rime for I nfrastructure Victorian P remier Victorian S ecretary for Water NS W L iberal eader F ederal P arliamentary NS W S tate O pposition Mike John John Bligh R ann A nna P eter P eter S teve Morris S toner I emma Bracks Beattie Jim Gill Tumbull A ndrew Howard D ebnam Malcolm Volume Thwaites Favourability MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 35
Leading Media
The Courier-Mail in Brisbane published the most articles among Among local State water issues in Queensland, the national and metropolitan media and the most critical articles. Traveston Crossing Dam proposal for the Mary River has Other prominent media publishing 100 or more articles on been widely criticised as a knee-jerk plan adopted without water issues in the four-month period were The Australian, adequate consideration of alternatives, and that’s likely to the Daily Telegraph, The Advertiser in Adelaide and the Sydney cause environmental damage and the flooding of valuable Morning Herald. farming land.
Most media content on water issues is a mix of favourable, unfavourable and neutral reporting and comment. Unfavourable coverage includes reports of water shortages as well as criticism of initiatives proposed including the Federal Government’s national water plan, desalination projects and recycling proposals.
Chart 26
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
350 55.0
50.5 280 49.0 50.0 48.0 48.2 48.3 48.4 47.6 45.8 46.3 47.4
210 45.0 188 175
140 140 121 40.0 104 83 116
62 37 99 45 87 67 70 35.0 53 55 55 39 55 51 61 39 29 31 31 29 26 29 39 27 32 30 0 23 13 19 19 15 30.0 A ge Herald A ustralian ( A delaide) A ustralian A dvertiser Herald S un Courier-Mail D aily Telegraph Canberra Times West A ustralian West S ydney Morning F inancial R eview Volume Favourability 36 Water in Australia
Leading Bylines
Chart 27
Favourable Neutral Unfavourable Average Favourability
60 60.0
50 55.0
52.2 52.1 51.4 50.8 50.0 40 48.9 50.0 45 46.5 44.8 44.6 30 43.3 45.0 26 23 40.0 5 1814 14 20 16 40.0
32 16 14 13 13 12 14 10 5 35.0 6 11 9 8 4 7
5 4 9 1 1 3 5 7 5 6 6 0 5 4 2 30.0 ydney ydney ydney ydney ydney A ge A ge D aily West West S S S Telegraph A ustralian A ustralian A ustralian A ustralian Courier-Mail Morning Herald Morning Herald Morning Herald Morning I mre Tuck Tuck Greg F rew A nne Banks S imon D avies R achel Wendy Wendy Warren Benson R oberts A manda Matthew Thompson S alusinzky Volume K leinman Favourability
Chart 27 shows the leading national and metropolitan press writers on water during the period, with The Courier-Mail’s Tuck Thompson the most prolific. Other prominent journalists were Amanda Banks from the West Australian; Greg Roberts, Imre Salusinszky and Matthew Warren from The Australian; Anne Davies, Wendy Frew and Rachel Kleinman from the Sydney Morning Herald, with Wendy Frew also writing for The Age; and Simon Benson from the Daily Telegraph.
Charts 9 and 10 show the leading writers and comperes overall across all Australian media. MEDIA content ANALYSIS by 37
Appendix – Methodology
CARMA International’s media content analysis methodology is From this multi-variate analysis, an aggregate score is derived internationally recognised as one of the most sophisticated and and presented on a 0-100 scale where 50 is neutral to provide rigorous commercial systems available and its executives are a sophisticated overall rating of the favourability or otherwise foremost specialists in media research and analysis worldwide. of each article, each media, each source and each writer for the client or issue concerned. Average favourability is also CARMA International analyses media coverage of companies, calculated for issues, media, writers and sources, providing organisations, products, events, campaigns, trends and issues valuable data for identifying trends and for comparing with quantitatively and, most importantly, qualitatively. benchmarks or previous data. This aggregate score is called the CARMA® Favourability Rating. Quantitative analysis is relatively straightforward. However, in addition to simply counting the total number of articles and The CARMA® Favourability Rating is much more than a positive column centimetres/inches or minutes of air time, CARMA or negative description that is the basis of some simplistic International is able to calculate the total Opportunities to See (univariate) media analysis systems. It provides a precise overall (the total circulation or audience reached by media coverage). qualitative rating that reflects the likely impact of coverage.
Also, where competitors are analysed, CARMA can report Quality control to ensure rigour and reliability of analysis is editorial ‘share of voice’. achieved in four key ways:
Importantly, CARMA International analyses media content » First, most of the variables analysed by CARMA International qualitatively taking into account multiple key variables that – e.g. media name, page number, positioning, sources’ determine the impact of media coverage. These include: names etc – are objective criteria;
» The media in which articles appear (with weightings » ‘Issues’ and ‘Messages’ (somewhat more subjective) are applied for priority and target media); identified by either (a) exact word or phrase matching or (b) presence of acceptable synonyms. A list of acceptable » Positioning (front page, front of business section etc); synonyms and coding instructions is provided to analysts in Coding Guidelines to maintain consistency and rigour » Prominence (size or length of articles, headline (e.g. ‘Innovator’ can = “cutting edge products”, “ahead of mentions, photos etc); competitors”, “first to market” etc);
» Issues discussed; » CARMA International uses multiple coders on all projects to minimise individual subjectivity; and » Messages contained in articles (positive and negative); » CARMA International conducts intercoder reliability » Sources quoted (favourable and unfavourable); and assessment.
» Other textual and contextual factors such as tone, Media Monitors – CARMA Asia Pacific is a member of the headline, photos etc. Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC), the leading international organisation for communication and media research based in the UK and fully complies with its strict standards (see www.amecorg.com/amec). Media Monitors
Level 3, 219–241 Cleveland Street Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012 Australia
Phone: (02) 9318 4000 Fax: (02) 9318 4111 Freecall: 1300 880 082 [email protected] www.mediamonitors.com.au
CARMA Asia Pacific www.carmaapac.com
© Media Monitors – CARMA Asia Pacific 15 June 2007