Labor says no science for Tableland irrigators
Bligh State Labor last night said ‘NO’ to science-based decisions for Tableland irrigators.
In State parliament, Bligh Government Members voted down LNP’ amendments to the Barron water resource plan to allow sustainable use of sub-artesian water in Area B.
LNP Member for Dalrymple Shane Knuth told parliament Tableland irrigators had had enough of the Bligh government and the Minister for Water Resources’ politically-driven attack on Tableland farming.
Mr Knuth called on the Minister to undertake a technical review of the Douglas Partners’ report and look at the science of the issue rather than the politics.
“The government encouraged irrigators to explore sub-artesian water in Area B and a lot of money and effort were put into drilling …new entitlements were issued in the water resource plan … then the government slammed on a moratorium …resulting in a number of court cases and costing irrigators hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Mr Knuth told parliament.
Mr Knuth said the Bligh government had been strongly criticised in the Land Court for its actions – especially for ignoring expert, independent hydro-geological advice.
“The government’s claim that expansion in Area B would be detrimental to the iconic Curtain Fig tree is ridiculous because the fig is uphill (from Area B) and its roots draw water from only the top couple of metres,” he said.
“The actions of Labor Members in voting down the LNP’s commonsense amendments prove they’re not interested in sound science – only politically-driven policy that’s contrary to the sustainable economic development of the Tableland.”
Mr Knuth said the fight was not over and he would continue to press the Minister to answer the expert opinion of leading hydro-geologist Ian Hair of Douglas Partners.
“The Minister, if he has an ounce of honesty, would undertake a proper technical review of the Douglas Partners’ report, especially as the Land Court of Queensland ruled the evidence provided by the Department’s hydrologist and principal policy officer could not be safely relied upon.”