Water … a failure by successive governments

The proposed water grid connecting the various water storages in the southeast is a good idea but is an extremely limited concept being constructed within what could be called an area of “single weather influence”. What has to be done now is to expand this concept to other normally wetter environments to vastly increase the reliability of the overall water scheme.

Hence, the revised Bradfield Scheme … a National Water Grid, an infrastructure asset owned and operated by the Federal Government on behalf of, and in the best interests of, the people of Australia.

The Bradfield Scheme was included in the $640 million 5-Year Bicentennial Water Resources supplementary program specifically to further investigate the advantages of massive amounts of additional fresh water supplies for Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, via Queensland's channel country, which feeds into the Murray-Darling delta.

The incoming Queensland Labor Goss government in 1990 scrapped the feasibility study of the revised Bradfield Scheme citing the project cost as being prohibitive … so the current tragic water crisis began, and the rest is history.

The problem with the recycling concept is that in theory it works. In practice all things have their failures and more so those associated with governments.

A current example would be the upgraded Melbourne rail system. Connex, a multinational based in France is managing the operation, the rolling stock having been purchased from Siemens, regarded as one of the best engineering companies in the world. This rolling stock has been put on a rail infrastructure that has stood the test of time and has been upgraded over a century.

In reality the situation is that Melbourne commuters will be experiencing a reduced service in sub-standard carriages for quite a while. The best of plans and implementation has just failed. Similar recent examples would be Melbourne's automatic tram ticketing system and a road tunnel in Sydney. In these instances it is pointless for the public to apportion blame. All we know is that the projects have problems and all we have to know is that these grand, theoretically impeccable and safe systems can fail.

And so it will be with Mr Beattie's "pure" recycled sewage as public drinking water. The public's role here is to stop this "economical" shortcut and demand the development of a secure and reliable public drinking water supply system, one that minimises the chances of failure rather than encourages it. This can be achieved by greatly expanding the embryonic water grid to areas that have the continuing ability to supply.

A further cause for concern is that the proposed recycled sewage distribution system will be operated by a foreign (French) multinational and I am hard put to accept that even with the best of intentions on the part of the company that their involvement will enhance their duty of care. Particularly if restraints are placed on the price the company can charge for its services.

It has already lost $10 million in profits last year because of delivery failures and it really will be looking to recoup these losses. The sorry history of multinationals controlling drinking water around the world is well established and is contrary to anything most Queenslanders would want. The whole thing amounts to a serious case of double jeopardy.

Apart from those two hazards there is the always-present increasing distance of user recourse from the supplier. This is probably the most dangerous and insidious aspect of all. The usual story is that the price goes up, the service or quality goes down and no one, absolutely no one, is accountable.

Why is the Beattie Government out-sourcing Queensland's water management?

Perhaps it's a precursor to the privatisation of Australia's water resources, and the sale of taxpayer's most precious asset, which, I believe, some Federal politicians have already suggested.