Something’s in the water at ABC

CONTRARY to extraordinary claims made on ABC television earlier this year, it has now been confirmed that timber plantations are not polluting the water supply and causing health problems in and around the Tasmanian township of St Helens in Australia.
This was the central finding of the George River water quality panel which released its final report on June 29.
The panel of expert scientists was appointed to investigate allegations raised in a double-episode of Australian Story entitled, “Something in the Water”, which was screened just weeks before Tasmania’s March state election in which forestry issues were, as usual, a major point of contention.
“Something in the Water” told the story of Tasmanian country GP, Dr Alison Bleaney who, in conjunction with marine scientist Dr Marcus Scammell, was endeavouring to prove a hypothesis that plantations of shining gum (Eucalyptus nitens) were releasing toxins into the George River from which St Helens draws its water supply.
The programme sparked hysterical reaction in Tasmania where there are more than 200,000ha of eucalypt plantations, including substantial areas of Eucalyptus nitens, growing in catchments used for domestic water supply.
It also raised concerns in Australia’s southern mainland states where Eucalyptus nitens grows naturally and has also been widely established in timber plantations.
However, no sooner had it been screened than “Something in the Water” was condemned for ignoring or omitting key factors and inconvenient truths that would, otherwise, have put the threat of plantation forestry into its proper perspective.
These included:
(1) Ignoring Bleaney’s history of activism which would have enabled viewers to conclude that her admirable concern for human health is at least matched by a long-standing determination to prove that Tasmania’s plantation sector is responsible for what she perceives to be higher than normal rates of human cancers;
(2) Failing to acknowledge the small extent of plantations in the George River catchment (occupying just 3-4% of its area and situated at least 25km from St Helens) thereby misleading viewers to believe that the town is surrounded by a substantial concentration of plantations;
(3) Failing to fully explain the history of the St Helens water issue which would have allowed viewers to appreciate that the Tasmanian government has responded to Bleaney and Scammell’s claims from as far back as 2004, including their commissioning of an independent review by a University of Queensland academic which found no cause for alarm;
(4) Failing to acknowledge the potential threat to the water supply from non-forestry land uses in the George River catchment;
(5) Misrepresenting the state of public health in St Helens and surrounding areas by relying primarily on the views of Bleaney despite an independent review of her patient files by a Monash University academic which, in 2005, found no evidence of abnormally high rates of cancer; 
(6) Failing to report that the Tasmanian cancer registry’s latest report showed no significant differences in the incidence rates of common cancers for persons living in the Break O’Day municipality (which includes the St Helens region), compared to Tasmania as a whole;
(7) Neglecting to mention that Eucalyptus nitens is naturally occurring in Melbourne’s water supply catchments which supply more than four million people with what is widely acknowledged to be some of the world’s highest quality water;
(8) Implying that genetic improvement of Eucalyptus nitens plantation trees is responsible for their toxicity to humans, thereby, allowing viewers to conclude that plantation trees have been “genetically modified” by grafting in genes from other organisms. In reality, desirable traits of Eucalyptus nitens plantation trees have been improved over several generations by selective tree breeding which involves no alteration of genetic profiles; and
(9) Intimating that plantation management may be a factor in the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) in contravention of research by the Menzies Institute and the Save the Tasmanian Devil Programme which had already shown that DFTD is not caused or influenced by the use of pesticides in the management of forestry plantations.
These numerous concerns about the veracity of the allegations raised by “Something in the Water” have now been effectively vindicated by the findings of the George River Water Quality Panel.
Of particular significance was the panel’s finding that the basis of the allegations raised by Bleaney and Scammell was flawed by their use of an inappropriate water sampling technique.
In view of the programme’s many omissions, it is fair to conclude that the producers and journalists associated with Australian Story have demonstrably failed in their professional and ethical duty to research and report issues responsibly.
If they had properly addressed all aspects of the St Helens water quality issue, they would have been unable to produce such a sensationalist programme as “Something in the Water” which caused unwarranted community alarm.
“Something in the Water” had been filmed some months earlier, but the ABC’s decision to screen it just weeks before the Tasmanian state election placed the incumbent Labor government in an invidious position.
Despite all that had been done in the previous six years to investigate and virtually invalidate the St Helens water supply issue, this new bout of whipped-up fear demanded a response – failing to act would have been electoral suicide.
It immediately appointed the independent panel of expert scientists which became known as the George River water quality panel.
However, as the panel would be incapable of delivering its findings prior to the election, the government also immediately installed a carbon filter at the St Helens water treatment plant.
Whether or not it believed this was required to make the water safe to drink, it was certainly needed to reassure panicky local residents that their government – especially in the lead-up to an election – was prepared to do whatever it takes to safeguard their health.
While the Tasmanian government has estimated the combined cost of these measures to be a conservative A$400,000, there have been other incalculable costs.
These include a substantial loss of tourism to the region and a devastating loss of revenue for the region’s aquaculture industry due to the unsubstantiated fears spread by “Something in the Water”.
Perhaps, though, the most critical cost associated with the programme has been political given that the Greens’ vote rose substantially at the state election due in large measure to an anti-forestry fervour that was significantly enhanced by the prospect that timber plantations may be toxic.
Indeed, the election was disastrous for Labor and saw it forced into an uncomfortable governing alliance with the Greens which may yet destabilise the state.
How much of this political fall-out is directly attributed to “Something in the Water” is impossible to assess.
However, it is notable that senior Labor MP and minister for health David Llewellyn – who was poorly portrayed in the programme and was an incumbent in the electorate of Lyons, which embraces the St Helens region – lost his seat in the election held just weeks later.
It is also telling that the findings of the George River water quality panel prompted Tasmanian premier David Bartlett to put out a press release calling for an apology from the ABC.
ABC refused.
It is easy to dislike an activity that involves cutting down trees, but it should not be so hard to also engender a high level of acceptance of it if the community is properly informed about its community benefits, its actual scale and proportional extent compared to areas where trees will not be cut down, and its inherently high level of planning and regulation with regard to environmental values.
Unfortunately, the ABC in particular, has shown a long-standing predilection to give minimal emphasis to these aspects in its coverage of forestry issues.
For example, Four Corners has a history of producing one-sided programmes about forestry issues such as its “Lords of the Forest” episode in 2004, which was subsequently derided by the network’s own independent complaints review panel for containing “instances of serious bias, lack of balance and unfair treatment” of forestry viewpoints.
Similar instances are commonplace on the 7:30 Report and Stateline where the views of government and forest industry spokespersons are sought but often presented as little more than tokenism in articles based primarily around the views of environmental activists which are never going to provide viewers with a balanced or well-informed narrative of the issues.
However, it is not only about content – programme timing can also be a critical factor.
As with “Something in the Water”, the Four Corners programme, “Spies in the Forest”, was screened in October 2006, just six weeks prior to the last Victorian election in which the Greens were campaigning strongly to close the native timber industry.
While this programme was reasonably balanced, its deriding of the timber industry during an election campaign for events that had occurred seven to 10 years earlier was again suggestive of inappropriate support for a political agenda.
Arguably, the failure of the media to at all times exercise objectivity, rigour and balance in the reporting of Tasmanian forestry issues has been the major contributor to maintaining a destructive conflict which continues to divide the island state.
The media’s reluctance to fully utilise expertise that could easily defuse many of the issues being raised by forest activists should be of enduring concern to the wider community.
The St Helens water issue has followed the typical trajectory of media coverage of forestry issues whereby sensational and derogatory claims raised by environmental activism are widely and enthusiastically reported, followed by a subsequent reluctance to give equivalent time or space to government or industry views which could refute these claims or give them some perspective.
At the time of writing (this article), the ABC has reported the findings of the George River water quality panel in short news items and on an afternoon radio programme.
This compares poorly against the one-hour of national television used to breathlessly promote unsubstantiated claims that have now been discredited. – onlineopinion

*Mark Poynter is a professional forester with 30 years experience. He is a fellow of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and acts for it in a voluntary capacity as a media spokesperson. His book Saving Australia’s Forests and its Implications was published in 2007.