Toowoomba becomes a university assignment focus - part 2

This time in the Psychology department at the University of Queensland.

See - PSYC3052 Assignment -Why did Toowoomba say ‘No’? (…to recycled water!)

Some excerpts (with annotations - to clear up some inaccuracies):

So…why did Toowoomba say ‘No’?

To try to answer our question we:

- ran a ‘FACTIVA’ (UQ Media Database) search using keywords: ‘recycled water AND Toowoomba’, over the past year. The search returned 368 headlines and articles. We scanned the articles and transcripts, selecting the ones most pertinent to our question

- performed a ‘Google’ search using the same keywords which returned 205,000 sites (too many to go through given our time limitation). We checked out myriad sites, blogs and video footage….

- Due to the overwhelming thousands of articles and sites available, we decided the most direct and reliable source of information was to go straight to the ‘horse’s mouth’ to verify what, out of the information we obtained above, was reliable.

- telephoned and spoke to some of the key players, was the most reliable. We spoke to:

Cr Kevin Flannigan [sic], Toowoomba City Council - (spoke to PA): The Yes case [Wouldn't that be the horse's sidekick? And suddenly Mr Flanagan is a Councillor?]

Rosemary Morley – CADS (Citizens Against Drinking Sewage): The No case

Clive Berghofer - ex-mayor, charitable millionaire & land developer: The No case

Cr Keith Beer, Toowoomba City Council: The No case

[What - the authors missed a golden opportunity to hear from the real horse's mouth. Perhaps they were too afraid of the language.]

...

Key Players in The ‘Yes Case’:

- Toowoomba City Council - Mayor Dianne Thorley and many council members [well 5 others] advocated recycling water, through a project named Water Futures

- State and Federal Governments backed the campaign, pledging $22.9 million to the cause if the referendum was successful

-$460,000 ratepayer funded advertising campaign [Interestingly, the lack of ratepayer funds for the No campaign is not mentioned.]

- 100% State and Federal Governments education campaign backing [what exactly does this mean?]

The ‘Yes’ Argument:

- Recycled water is safe

- Recycled water is not expensive compared to the other options so there is no other option. We have weighed up and ruled out all other options.

- Toowoomba will be the pioneer of recycling water in Australia – a good show case for the rest of the country.

- Why would our Federal Government financially back a plan if it wasn’t safe for the people?

...

Key Players in The ‘No’ Case:

- CADS – Citizens Against Drinking Sewage headed by Rosemary Morley

- Clive Berghofer – Ex Toowoomba Mayor; charitable millionaire; land developer. (Donates $50,000/week to Toowoomba schools, sporting and other organizations and is a major funds contributor to QIMR - Queensland Institute of Medical Research).

- Other private local business owners and residents – notably ‘Snow Manners’ – “Close ally” (Berghofer)

- Three Toowoomba City Councillors – Lyle Shelton, Keith Beer & Graham Barron

- $100,000 privately raised campaign funding (funded in half by Clive Berghofer) [Not accurate]

The ‘No’ Argument:

- It cannot be concluded that recycled water is 100% safe. There is “evidence" that recycled water feminizes male fish and the same effect on humans can’t be ruled out.

- Is recycled water really the cheapest option?

- There are other options which haven’t been addressed.

- The ‘yuk’ factor

- Why should Toowoomba be the guinea pig?

- Toowoomba’s image will be ruined and as a consequence: (a) people would want to move away and no-one would want to come and live here; (b) tourism will suffer.

[Somewhat oversimplified.]

The Recycled Water Debate:

- was announced to the nation before being announced to the local community – angering the community that the rest of the country knew about it before they did. [This is completely wrong and shows a lack of research - Water Futures was announced to the Toowoomba community long before it hit the headlines in the rest of the country. It was through the work of opponents of Mayor's Thorley's scheme that the issue did become a state and national issue.]

- required people to form an opinion about consuming recycled water in a relatively short period of time (approx. 4 months), based on these arguments and the ‘evidence’ provided from both sides of the debate. Leaving minimal time for education. [Again completely wrong - Toowoomba City Council had 12 months from its initial announcement to discuss its proposals with the community - it actually had far longer to do so but preferred to keep its work on the recycled sewage proposal secret.]

- required people to suspend hot cog (or at least to balance it) and utilize cold cog analysis of the available data to make an informed decision.

- required people to overcome the ‘Yuk’ factor.

...

False Consensus:

- The advertising and media campaign put forward by the ‘Yes’ case fed a false consensus effect at a social level. For example, in Brisbane, many were under the impression that the referendum would be passed without much ado. The budget and organization of the ‘Yes’ campaign enabled them to widely and professionally publicize their case. (We believe our false consensus is responsible for the astonishment we felt when the outcome was a resounding ‘No’). [Not really the case in Toowoomba. Core No campaigners were not surprised at the referendum outcome - it reflected all polling and all research statistics. If anything, Council's free-spending campaign (using ratepayers' funds) garnered more No votes simply because it was an outrageous waste of money.]

...

Conclusion

So why did the people of Toowoomba say No! …Because they were forced to make an important decision in a relatively short period of time and the ‘availability’ and ‘representativeness’ heuristics used to make decisions were heavily influenced by the media’s focus on ‘the yuk factor’, distracting voters from their cold cog and playing on their hot cog.

[Again, nice story but somewhat inaccurate. 12 months is not a relatively short period of time and it is Council's fault they didn't announce their proposal earlier. As the debate continued, there seemed less and less focus on the Yuk factor (with the exception of a couple of blogs) and more focus on the existence and viability of other options. It is far too simplistic to say the Yes vote failed because there wasn't enough time and people focused on the Yuk factor which was played up by the media.]

They were bombarded with individual testimonies as evidence and failed to find their ‘inner intuitive statistician’.

[Quite correct that Council trotted out any man, woman or dog who they could say endorsed the Water Futures project - even if they didn't - part of the Council's 'say anything and do anything' campaign to force Toowoomba residents to vote Yes.]

Additionally, their community’s leaders were embroiled in a highly emotive and passionate debate: on the ‘No’ side an ‘everyday housewife’ (Morley) who they could identify with and a charitable millionaire (Berghofer), who funds half of Toowoomba’s sporting, recreational and schooling facilities and other charities; while on the ‘Yes’ case, a Council headed by a woman with little PR skills and a ‘rough as guts’ presentation who appeared to be on a personal mission (Thorley) and ‘a Government’ who were seemingly trying to ‘buy’ them. [At least they got the description of the Mayor right! And don't forget the MP Turnbull approach to Federal funding grants - 'you can drink it or die of thirst'!]

What have we learned (in Hindsight)?

...

As Kevin Flanagan, director of Engineering Services in Toowoomoba [sic] City Council so aptly put it: “The 'no' in Toowoomba is, ultimately, a failure in communication: first on the safety and reliability of water recycling as a policy option, and second on the urgency of Australia’s water crisis - future generations will want more of an explanation than simply 'the yuck factor'." (Cosmos Online, 31 July 2006.) [Actually, Mr Flanagan didn't say that - Karen Hussey did - see Cosmos Online. Mr Flanagan said - "I am frustrated, angry and disappointed.".]


Overall, it's not a bad attempt to understand the No vote in Toowoomba. There are some good points raised but the work falls down on research inaccuracies (including the gaff about the Flanagan quote at the end) and a general failure to understand some of the issues behind the Toowoomba water debate ...