Beware the political motives lurking behind the science

Forgive my scepticism, but as a multigenerational food producer in southern NSW I have to question the motive behind recent CSIRO warnings about reduced Murray-Darling Basin inflows.

Unfortunately, over recent decades we have seen science manipulated to suit political objectives, and while I acknowledge the risk of reduced inflows, I question whether specific periods in time have been used to suit the scientific and government agenda.

We all know that Australia is a country of extreme variables, so it is not surprising we are in a cycle of reduced rainfall.

When making the calculations to support its finding of reduced inflows in recent times, the CSIRO has compared the last two decades with data from 1910 to 2000. However, this conveniently (perhaps deliberately) includes the millennium drought but excludes the Federation drought.

As such, the final analysis will be skewed to suit the result that I suspect was trying to be achieved. As we all know, it is not difficult to get a pre-determined outcome, you just have to find the set of numbers that suits your goal.

Many scientists have long had food producers in their sights, as we saw from their incorrect claims that the Lower Lakes were traditionally a freshwater system and therefore needed to be constantly filled with freshwater from upstream dams.

As we now know, they were traditionally estuarine — but governments have gone too far down the path of promoting the freshwater narrative to acknowledge the error and rectify it.

Each year the Lower Lakes evaporate 1.6 Sydney Harbours, which is a monumental waste.

With a growing population can we really afford to cut off staple food producers closer to the water storages? The most recent drought and COVID-19 pandemic have proven we are not sustainable in some staple foods.

Government departments need to stop cherry picking data to appease their political masters.

Instead, we need to start mature conversations about the best ways to manage our water.

These discussions will benefit from accurate, non-biased scientific analysis that does not use a specific time in history to provide the answer the scientists or politicians are seeking.