The Bradfield Scheme, in various forms, has long been considered a way to transport abundant quantities of water from Australia’s east coast, to arid inland regions. High profile Queensland politician Bob Katter says it could produce billions of dollars in agricultural output.
However, the scheme has been scrapped following a report to the Queensland Government, which the Opposition has called “a sham”.
Unfortunately, this highlights a problem that is entrenched in Australian politics ie. getting a report that produces outcomes which are politically acceptable. It also undermines our faith in the political process.
Perhaps the starkest example of this in recent history is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was developed to solve political problems, rather than environmental ones. As a result, we have water recovery and delivery targets that were based on politically acceptable numbers, and are therefore unachievable.
If you do not believe this, consider why there is the controversial 450 gigalitres of ‘upwater’, additional to the 2750GL of water recovery in the original plan. It was added only because the South Australian Government refused to sign up to the plan without it. How does that qualify as ‘scientific’? Or anything other than political?
Now, we have virtually absolute proof that this additional 450GL cannot be delivered to SA without dire man-made flooding consequences even if it is recovered, yet there is no-one with the political courage to call this out and make a sensible adjustment to the plan.
So I have empathy for those who support the Bradfield Scheme and the benefits it may bring, because in southern states we continue to see what happens when politics trumps common-sense decision making.
Stuart Hipwell
Wunghnu, Victoria
