Senator Bartlett's comments on the Toowoomba sewage water debate ...
Senator Bartlett sees the Toowoomba referendum as a crucial test for recycled sewage for drinking in Queensland and Australia.
He favours a recycled sewage ad campaign along the lines of "sink more piss".
[Note: a certain Senator thinks this misrepresented his views although, in the comment he left, he seems to be relying on the "bad science" argument of unplanned indirect potable reuse as justification for Toowoomba residents drinking recycled sewage. His original blog comment was - "I always figured young lads could be targeted by just selling it like beer advertisements, some of which don’t seem to be much more subtle than a slogan like ‘sink more piss’ anyway. However, I take Dr Williams’ point that this may not work for others."]
See - Bartlett blog - Water off a Premier's back?
Not sure Mayor Thorley needs this sort of help with her floundering recycled sewage project ...
posted by Concerned Ratepayer at 7:36 AM
11 Comments:
Dear anonymous concerned ratepayer
Thanks very much for misrepresenting my views - it is appreciated. Although it doesn't give me much confidence that any your other statements here will be terribly accurate either.
As the conclusion of the post on my website shows, I suggest it is best to avoid advertising campaigns or fancy names that avoid or distract from simple facts - such as that properly purified water is cleaner that what we drink now, or that the drinking water of people and towns downstream is already sourced from reserves containing Toowoomba's waste water.
1:59 AM, June 10, 2006
That is is strange Andrew, your comment - properly purified water is cleaner that what we drink now, or that the drinking water of people and towns downstream is already sourced from reserves containing Toowoomba's waste water.
If this recycled water you think is cleaner then why wasn't Toowoomba City Council utilising or forced to use this technology to clean up the effluent discharge from Wetalla into Gowrie Creek long ago and even now given all the problems our effluent discharge was and is causing to rivers downstream from our city? The technology has been around for decades!
3:13 AM, June 10, 2006
This sort of campaign smacks of what was around before world war 11 when they brain washed the people into believing that they where superior and eventually the monsters were destroyed.
Go back in your hole and leave the people of Toowoomba to make an informed decision base on the fact that we have other water options and we do not want shitty water.
5:39 AM, June 10, 2006
Don't politicians have a sense of humour?
Almost as precious as that engineer from Griffith Uni who keeps insisting on full names on blogs. Pretty soon he'll be asking for copies of your passport.
It is however the classic political broadbrush - I don't like your comment so therefore the rest can't be accurate.
But no-one is allowed to say that certain behaviour in the Senate shows that future conduct won't be particularly stellar either.
And this was a comment from a politician who will not have read the Council's NWC application.
He trumpets his involvement in the Sustainable Cities Inquiry (which recommended an independent review of water source options for major cities and centres) but backs Mayor Thorley's controversial recycled sewage plan for which there was no independent study.
Interesting.
12:48 PM, June 10, 2006
Senator Bartlett wrote another piece on his blog recently which discussed the Toowoomba Water Futures project and the upcoming referendum.
See - Bartlett blog
He helpfully put a link to the Toowoomba City Council's Yes case on his blog - but not to the NO case.
He hopes the Yes case will win but of course doesn't live in Toowoomba so therefore will not have to drink the recycled sewage.
It does raise some questions:
Why are some politicians from outside Toowoomba (Turnbull, Bartlett, etc) so keen to have Toowoomba people drink recycled sewage when there are other water source options for drinking water and other uses for recycled water?
Why do Toowoomba people need to drink recycled water when the Toowoomba City Council proposes to continue to pour bore water on the city's parks and gardens?
Why do Toowoomba people need to drink recycled water when water from other sources is poured on crops just outside Toowoomba?
To most people this just doesn't make sense. But to certain politicians from outside Toowoomba it must - perhaps they just need to explain it to us.
Some of the comments on the Bartlett blog (for which he is not responsible - no more misrepresentation accusations please!) in response to his piece are amazing - and they call those against Mayor Thorley's plan the "flat-earthers":
"This is one time when playing politics is important - recycled treated water is fine - its the fact that it is waste water that scares people - so play politics and just don’t tell them. Its not like they would know the difference anyway."
[That was Toowoomba City Council's plan - until Mayor Thorley let the cat out of the bag.]
"Something most Toowoomba residence do not know is that their treated waste water flows into a creek that eventually becomes the Dalby water supply out on the Darling Downs."
[I thought Dalby was going ahead with the Federal and State government funded gas water project for its drinking water supply. Again, the "bad science" unplanned indirect potable reuse argument.]
"If this is voted down, as most referenda are, then Toowoomba is a ghost town in the making."
[Really? Not when there are other viable options - this is similar to the Council supporters' "water will run out by Christmas" argument. The only way the Council will be forced to look at these options is with a resounding NO vote.]
"However, we have to get use to what the British do: Drink bottled water."
[Ah, the Mayor Thorley approach to community engagement - "if you don't like it, you can drink bottled water". That was a winning argument. Also ignores the environmental impact of the bottled water industry - energy use in making plastic bottles and bottling, energy use in shipping, impact of disposal of plastic bottles most of which are not recycled. Hang on, isn't England one of the recycled water examples trotted out - the 7 set of kidneys argument? But they drink bottled water?!]
There are two sides to every argument but those politicians hoping that Toowoomba residents will drink recycled sewage should perhaps spend some time in Toowoomba and understand the real issues, not the propaganda generated by the Toowoomba City Council as part of its $460,000 ratepayer-funded Yes campaign.
Mr Turnbull's quick visit espousing the benefits of recycling in Israel (where they do NOT use it for drinking) doesn't really count. His trip actually did more for the NO campaign than most - there are quite a few people hoping he makes a return visit before 29 July!
3:10 PM, June 10, 2006
Dear anonymous concerned ratepayer:
I'm all for having a sense of humour - that's why it's sad to see my obviously flippant statements being deliberately misrepresented.
Your further comments show misrepresentation and half-truths are your stock in trade, so I shan't waste your or my time by commenting here again.
However, before I go, for the record:
The reason why I'm keen for Toowoomba to vote yes in the referendum is so it will increase the prospect of further usage of purified water in South-East Queensland, including Brisbane where I live. If Toowoomba votes no, the chances of other areas in Queensland fully recycling water will be minimal, and we'll be stuck with expensive, unreliable, destructive dams instead.
I'd also be interested to see where I've "trumpted my involvement in the Sustainable Cities inquiry". Given that I wasn't involved in it at all, I'd be surprised if I'd said that I was.
9:00 PM, June 10, 2006
expensive, unreliable, destructive dams instead
Mmm! They are almost the only thing keeping us with a water supply at the moment. Pretty damn good considering the drought and all the wastage that had been going on! Open your eyes!
11:21 PM, June 10, 2006
Don't mind wrestling a bit with the Senator.
Responding to your points:
"Your further comments show misrepresentation and half-truths are your stock in trade."
Let's see -
Don't politicians have a sense of humour?
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No]
Almost as precious as that engineer from Griffith Uni who keeps insisting on full names on blogs. Pretty soon he'll be asking for copies of your passport.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No, the engineer seems quite precious]
It is however the classic political broadbrush - I don't like your comment so therefore the rest can't be accurate.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - Seemed a pretty broadbrush comment to make]
But no-one is allowed to say that certain behaviour in the Senate shows that future conduct won't be particularly stellar either.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - the Senator presumably wants to be judged by his future conduct not past actions - fair enough]
And this was a comment from a politician who will not have read the Council's NWC application.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - seems very unlikely - it's pretty hard to wrestle a copy out of the Toowoomba City Council]
He trumpets his involvement in the Sustainable Cities Inquiry (which recommended an independent review of water source options for major cities and centres) but backs Mayor Thorley's controversial recycled sewage plan for which there was no independent study.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - the Senator took the time to refer to the establishment of the Inquiry as an achievement of his party on his website - that's where that point came from. He seems to be backing the Thorley plan]
He helpfully put a link to the Toowoomba City Council's Yes case on his blog - but not to the NO case.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No the link is on his blog but no link to the NO case]
He hopes the Yes case will win but of course doesn't live in Toowoomba so therefore will not have to drink the recycled sewage.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? No - he seems to want the Yes vote to win and he doesn't seem to live in Toowoomba so he won't have to drink the recycled sewage]
Why are some politicians from outside Toowoomba (Turnbull, Bartlett, etc) so keen to have Toowoomba people drink recycled sewage when there are other water source options for drinking water and other uses for recycled water?
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No, if you talked to people in Toowoomba you would be aware that there are other water source options]
Why do Toowoomba people need to drink recycled water when the Toowoomba City Council proposes to continue to pour bore water on the city's parks and gardens?
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No, the Thorley plan is to continue to use bore water on the city's parks and gardens while forcing Toowoomba residents to drink recycled sewage]
Why do Toowoomba people need to drink recycled water when water from other sources is poured on crops just outside Toowoomba?
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No, one of the options is a water swap with irrigators - Toowoomba City Council refuses to consider it]
To most people this just doesn't make sense. But to certain politicians from outside Toowoomba it must - perhaps they just need to explain it to us.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? No - it just doesn't make sense to a lot of people in Toowoomba and maybe those in favour of forcing Toowoomba residents to drink recycled sewage should come and explain why it is necessary]
That was Toowoomba City Council's plan - until Mayor Thorley let the cat out of the bag.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? No - the Mayor couldn't help telling people about her scheme and the Toowoomba City Council has been trying to stuff the cat back in the bag ever since]
Isn't Dalby going ahead with the Federal and State government funded gas water project for its drinking water supply. Again, the "bad science" unplanned indirect potable reuse argument.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? No - Dalby does have Federal and State government funding for its gas water project to supply Dalby's drinking water. This is the same water described by Toowoomba City Council as toxic and unable to be cleaned by the same RO equipment they would use for the recycled sewage. Unplanned indirect potable reuse is the "bad science" argument]
Really? Not when there are other viable options - this is similar to the Council supporters' "water will run out by Christmas" argument. The only way the Council will be forced to look at these options is with a resounding NO vote.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? No - Toowoomba will not die if the NO vote succeeds. Toowoomba City Council will then be forced to consider the other water source options they are aware of but choosing to ignore. And the "water will run out by Christmas" story was circulated by some of Toowoomba City Council's 'champions']
Ah, the Mayor Thorley approach to community engagement - "if you don't like it, you can drink bottled water". That was a winning argument. Also ignores the environmental impact of the bottled water industry - energy use in making plastic bottles and bottling, energy use in shipping, impact of disposal of plastic bottles most of which are not recycled. Hang on, isn't England one of the recycled water examples trotted out - the 7 set of kidneys argument? But they drink bottled water?!
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? No - Mayor Thorley's approach to community engagement has been a complete disaster from day one. Her approach has alienated many Toowoomba residents. The referendum is more a vote of confidence (or no confidence) in her administration as it is about recycled sewage. The environmental impact of bottled water is correct]
There are two sides to every argument but those politicians hoping that Toowoomba residents will drink recycled sewage should perhaps spend some time in Toowoomba and understand the real issues, not the propaganda generated by the Toowoomba City Council as part of its $460,000 ratepayer-funded Yes campaign.
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No, why is it that only one State or Federal member in the Toowoomba area is in favour of Mayor Thorley's project and, judging by recent events, that State member would probably be expelled from his party if he opposed it? It is only politicians from outside Toowoomba who seem fixated with making Toowoomba the test case for Australia. Mayor Thorley's Yes campaign is funded by $460,000 of advertising money provided by Toowoomba ratepayers with zero dollars for the NO case. That is a fact.]
Mr Turnbull's quick visit espousing the benefits of recycling in Israel (where they do NOT use it for drinking) doesn't really count. His trip actually did more for the NO campaign than most - there are quite a few people hoping he makes a return visit before 29 July!
[Misrep or 1/2 truth? - No, Mr Turnbull did refer to Israel as an example that Toowoomba should follow. Only problem is that Israel recycles for non-potable purposes - that is a fact. Did Mr Turnbull's visit to Toowoomba do more harm than good for Mayor Thorley's campaign? The consensus in Toowoomba seems to be yes - he came across as an arrogant politician who breezed into Toowoomba and told everyone what they would have to accept. It wasn't a good approach to take.]
The comments of people who oppose recycled sewage for drinking are often labelled "misrepresentations and half truths" in a quick dismissal in the hope they go away.
Those politicians and industry people fail to recognise that, after almost a year of battling Toowoomba City Council and its misleading campaign, there is a significant number of people in Toowoomba who are very well informed on this issue and won't go away.
Back to your comments:
"The reason why I'm keen for Toowoomba to vote yes in the referendum is so it will increase the prospect of further usage of purified water in South-East Queensland, including Brisbane where I live. If Toowoomba votes no, the chances of other areas in Queensland fully recycling water will be minimal, and we'll be stuck with expensive, unreliable, destructive dams instead."
Why is it that the only alternative to "expensive unreliable destructive dams" is forcing people to drink recycled sewage?
Why can't recycled sewage (or "purified water" as you call it - ignoring the 30mgs/l TDS) be used for non-potable uses?
Read the comments in the recent NSW Parliamentary Committee report which discuss this issue.
Why can't we establish a water grid in South East Qld that includes Toowoomba?
Why can't the gas water which is being utilized in Dalby and Chinchilla be part of that solution?
Why can't more new land subdivisions be required to use dual pipe (or purple pipe) systems? Look at the examples around Melbourne (see - South East Water video). It is not part of the Toowoomba Water Futures plan (as set out in the NWC application) other than a reference to new subdivisions in Highfields which is in Crows Nest shire.
Should the NO vote succeed on 29 July, blame Mayor Thorley. Her secretive and bizarre approach to community engagement has been far more damaging to her campaign than those who have objected to her scheme in the absence of open and transparent debate on the issue.
And although you might not comment again, a $10 donation to charity says you'll be back to read the comments.
11:53 PM, June 10, 2006
Now that the channel 9 has done a pretty good job of scaring the Brisbane /Gold Coast people all we have to do now is wait and see a CADS group started there.
The group in Toowoomba has done a very good job of informing the people and are ready to help out any-one.
We need to see the real story from Goulburn as they do not rely on that dam which is dry as they have a river and the media don't show that at all.
This is scaremongering and intimidation of Queenslanders.
9:22 AM, June 11, 2006
If you are living Brisbane Andrew why aren't you pushing for desal. The ocean holds a lot of water you know! It could easily solve all SE Queenslands' water problems!
3:30 PM, June 11, 2006
One of the earlier posts was deleted. This blog relates to the Water Futures project and related issues. If you have a real beef with the Senator, suggest starting your own blog.
12:46 PM, June 13, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home