Corpratising the Snowy Mountains Scheme: hijacking environmental concerns for commercial gain

The inquiry was conducted by the NSW Government, and was made to appear like a royal commission. That was part of a cynical and elaborate deception. The report of the Inquiry is essentially a political report, giving credibility to quite weird and unsubstantiated claims. But the objective was clear from the start, and that was to reduce the electrical output of the Snowy, even if that meant taking water away from farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. In the meantime, the Victorian Government was planning for a Bass Strait cable, which would have a similar function on the grid as the Snowy, and negotiating with private sector interests as if the reduction of Snowy output was already an accomplished fact.

The response to the NSW "Inquiry" by the Australian Government, in the Draft EIS on Snowy corporatisation, simply shows that Commonwealth had been successfully intimidated and had swallowed the bait. This whole issue is vitally important to the national economy and the future of the nation. It is not about the environment, but all about competitive development at state level versus national responsibility for national development.

Australia has long reached the end of state-based development. The future lies in national development, directed to expanded production and competition in a global economy, not competition of state against state, or states against the nation.

The Snowy Scheme, with its great water diversion tunnels and water storages, can be regarded as eternal. It was planned and built for the nation. It should be owned and operated by the nation. There are many outstanding examples around the world of similar national water development projects.

It is quite inappropriate to consider that the management and future development of the great dams and tunnels of the Snowy Scheme should be placed in the hands of the private sector. The Snowy Scheme is not like ephemeral investment activities such as telecommunications or thermal power stations, which have a limited life and suit private investment.

The Australian Government should now introduce legislation to formally place the ownership, management and future operation of the Snowy Scheme firmly in the hands of the Australian Government only, that is without any participation by the private sector or state governments.

The States of NSW and Victoria may be tempted to challenge the Australian Government on this issue, but I believe they would find that the weight of public opinion would be strongly in favour of the Australian Government retaining full ownership and control of the Snowy Scheme.

If there is any challenge in the High Court, which I doubt, it would provide the opportunity for the Australian Government to correct some constitutional impediments to national development, and to introduce some new interpretations better suited to a modern nation in a global economy.