by One of Australia’s most respected native fish experts says scientists working within the New South Wales government are discouraged from speaking to the media, leading to a loss of honesty and accuracy in departmental reporting.
Dr Stuart Rowland, a retired chief research scientist who worked for NSW Fisheries for 36 years and remains a mentor to scientists at the agency, says there is a conflict within the Department of Primary Industries between fisheries and agricultural interests that makes it is difficult for the former welfare. to speak openly about the health of the Murray-Darling River system and the causes of ecological disasters including the 2023 Menindee fish kills.
Although there are “very good scientists and managers in Fisheries, their voices are often not heard”, says Rowland.
Related: ‘Trying to kill another fish’: locals sound the alarm as Menindee’s water quality drops
“Even if there are scientists and internal managers who are excited about what happened to the river, they can’t really communicate it to the media,” he says. “It is the duty of retired scientists like me, who are not directly involved in government, to speak their mind.”
Guardian Australia has spoken to a number of current and former Fisheries NSW staff who say they are frustrated by the degradation of the major river system, the conflict within the department and the limitations on speaking to the media, but no one was willing to speak in public.
Rowland says there have been “conflicts between fisheries and agriculture” that have had “significant implications” for the Darling-Baaka River and that the river’s “unique aquatic ecosystem has disappeared”.
Rowland says research by NSW Fisheries staff over the years has warned of the cumulative impact of agriculture on the Darling-Baaka, including a 2003 report by the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee which declared the lowland catchment an “ecological community at risk”. Rowland was a member of that committee.
“Environmental degradation continued, species have been lost, massive fish kills [and] the river is destroyed,” says Rowland.
“If the state government valued our fish and our rivers, NSW Fisheries should be an independent agency. This would reduce inter-departmental conflict between fisheries and agriculture and enable fisheries managers and scientists to provide independent and honest advice to the Minister and government.”
His comments come as Menindee residents reported another related fish kill many dead native fish, including golden perch, as well as small numbers of dead or struggling carp and bony herring in Lake Wetherell. The NSW government says DPI is investigating the cause.
Dissolved oxygen levels have been very low in the lower Darling-Baaka since November. WaterNSW this month announced an oxygenation trial in the Darling River at Menindee, which it hopes will reduce the risk of large-scale fish kills.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Primary Industries says that fisheries are located in the same department as agriculture in five jurisdictions in Australia, and that the work carried out by NSW Fisheries is guided by the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and the Marine Estate Management Act 2014.
“The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) provides factual information and advice based on the best available science to the Government,” they said.
“DPI strives to achieve the best outcomes for the health of fish and fish habitat, and our advice is guided by our engagement with stakeholders and the best available science.”
Fish kill with ‘PR imitations’
Dr Matt Landos, director of the Future Fisheries Veterinary Service and assistant associate professor in the University of Queensland’s School of Biological Sciences, worked for NSW Fisheries between 2000 and 2005 as aquatic animal health veterinary officer.
He recalls an incident that happened in 2001 when he “naively” spoke to a local journalist to provide information about a fish kill in the Richmond River in the northern rivers region where millions of fish died.
After his interview aired, Landos said he was “quickly reprimanded” and “followed by media press releases about the scale and impact of the killings”.
Although scientists are supposed to be independent, there is often pressure to remain silent on some research findings
Dr. Don Driscoll
Instead it was called a “natural event”.
“Only much later did research show the role of drainage and flood sustenance for agriculture as a clear cause, which is not quite right until now,” he says.
Landos says he’s noticed that “non-scientific issue managers take control” after major environmental issues like fish kills “and use PR stories to shape the message into something they believe is palatable.” .
“Knowledge and scientific accuracy are victims of this process,” he says. “The public hears the messages that the Department wants to tell them.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Primary Industries says that when media requests are received, DPI identifies the most appropriate spokesperson to ensure that factual and coordinated information is provided. This is set out in the Regional NSW Department’s media guidelines.”
Dr Don Driscoll, professor of terrestrial ecology at Deakin University and chair of the Australian Ecological Society’s academic freedom working group, says he is aware of pressure not to speak publicly about certain research topics, “especially research that the government could current painting in a poor light”.
“Although scientists are supposed to be independent, there is often pressure to remain silent on certain research findings – and those pressures are much greater for scientists working within government or within industry,” he says. .
The ESA documents the suppression of science in Australia. A survey of 220 ecologists between October 2018 and February 2019 found that about half of the respondents who worked for a government agency were banned from public communication about their research.
Driscoll says the survey showed that some of the suppression was due to self-censorship, when people chose not to speak out because they fear the consequences, to a more direct edict.
“There is still a very strong culture of science suppression and limited sharing of information within the public service,” he says.
He says there should be changes to the legislation and codes of practice that govern how the public service operates to allow scientists to research and share results.
“The environment would be much better off and our democracy would be stronger if we could freely share information about the state of our environment. Then people can vote after being fully informed about how the government is managing the environment,” he says.
A spokeswoman for the NSW agriculture minister, Tara Moriarty, says the government was elected “to bring better decision-making and transparency to government in this state and that is what we are delivering across primary industries and regional development”.
