Your Say SA reveals great bight divide and GM dead lock

FARMERS say its time to put GM crops back in the mix as public opinion on the ban splits down the middle but there’s no end in sight to public opposition to fracking.

• FULL RESULTS: See all the findings from Your Say SA 2018

• READ BELOW: Drilling in the Aussie Bight unearths great gender divide

• READ BELOW: Let our mighty Murray flow

• READ BELOW: Controversial mining on the nose, punters back ban

FARMERS have renewed their push for regulation changes that would allow them to grow genetically modified crops.

Nearly half of the 4341 respondents to the Sunday Mail’s YourSaySA survey want the status quo changed.

The remaining 53 per cent believe SA should remain the only mainland state to be GM-free.

Grain Producers SA have advocated for the ban — currently in place until 2025 — to be overturned because it restricted growth in the industry.

“Our members are becoming increasingly frustrated that they do not have the same opportunities in their farming systems that their interstate counterparts have,” chairman Wade Dabinett says.

“As a result, GPSA’s policy is that growers should have the freedom of choice to grow the cereal, legume and oilseed varieties that best fit their farming system, which means having access to GM crops.”

GM crops your say sa

The State Government has stayed true to an election promise and last month launched an independent review into SA’s moratorium.

Economics emeritus Professor Kym Anderson is undertaking the review, which will look at the benefits or cost of the policy.

The former Labor government had argued SA’s growers received a premium for being GM-free.

Mr Dabinett says the review is overdue and he looks forward to an evidence-based approach to policy development around GM crops.

“Australian grain producers have a long history of innovation and adopting new technology to improve productivity,” he says.

“We need to ensure growers in SA have access to all the tools on offer for best practice crop production.”

The first GM crop was the Flavr Savr tomato developed in the US in 1994.

Since then, the worldwide uptake has been rapidly increasing. As demand for food continues to increase, so does the ability to breed better yielding crop varieties.

Wade Dabinett in a wheat field at the family farm in Parilla. Picture Simon Cross

Drilling in the Aussie Bight unearths great gender divide

PLANS to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bite have unearthed a great divide among the genders.

Women are sharply opposed to the idea. In fact, 72.7 per cent of them reject the risks involved.

But 50.9 per cent of men are in favour of the jobs and revenue the industry could bring.

The Your Say SA polling also shows young South Australians are opposed, with 67.7 per cent rejecting the plan, compared to 54.5 per cent of over 65s.

After a series of rejected proposals by oil companies, Norwegian majority government-owned driller Equinor is investigating the prospect of tapping what is believed to be one of the world’s last major oil and gas deposits.

The environment movement, and many SA coastal councils, are opposed to the idea, which will be accepted or rejected by the independent National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority.

Overall, 59.5 per cent of SA residents oppose drilling in The Bight. There is also no joy for the industry in struggling regional SA, where much support for the industry is sourced because of the potential benefits which would flow.

Wilderness Society spokesman Peter Owen says the Your Say SA poll result reflects the public’s understanding of the sensitive nature of the marine environment in The Bight.

“When you consider that 12 councils representing more than 500,000 people have passed motions expressing concern about the risks, this shows the public are well aware and the risks are not sensible to take,’’ he says.

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association spokesman Matthew Doman says the results reflect the “false and exaggerated claims’’ made by opponents.

“There is no reason SA cannot have a safe, sustainable and successful offshore petroleum industry — as we’ve seen in Bass Strait and offshore Western Australia and the NT for decades,’’ he says.

— Miles Kemp

Let our mighty Murray flow

DESPITE more than 10 years trying to improve the health of the River Murray, the majority of South Australian are still concerned for its future.

The Your Say SA survey showed of the 4341 respondents, 90 per cent believed the Murray needed more water to thrive and a top water expert agrees.

Murray df your say sa

Head of ecology and evolutionary biology at University of Adelaide, Associate Professor David Paton, says the environmental water target of 2750 gigalitres included in the $13 billion Murray Darling Basin Plan is flawed.

“It falls short of what is likely to be needed to secure healthy outcomes for some of the environmental assets and, contrary to the opinion of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, this volume is not based on the best available science,” Prof Paton says.

He estimates the actual volume of water returned to the environment is likely to be much less because of losses of return flows with water efficiency measures. He says many proposed projects to deliver 605 gigalitres of additional water for communities under the plan’s adjustment mechanism will not deliver the equivalent environmental outcomes.

“Some will cause significant ecology damage to key assets like the Coorong,” Prof Paton says. “Sadly, the State Government in their submission to the Murray Darling Basin Royal Commission, suggested that the plan would deliver healthy environments to SA Murray river wetlands.

“Makes one wonder what is going on behind the scenes in that State Government, because that is entirely at odds to the evidence and science. South Australians should be concerned that the river and its wetlands continue to be short-changed.”

In a separate question, 61 per cent believed Adelaide’s water supply — which predominantly comes from the Murray — was under threat.

— Erin Jones

Controversial mining on the nose, punters back ban

DESPITE more than 10 years trying to improve the health of the River Murray, the majority of South Australian are still concerned for its future.

The Your Say SA survey showed of the 4341 respondents, 90 per cent believed the Murray needed more water to thrive and a top water expert agrees.

Frack graph your say sa

Head of ecology and evolutionary biology at University of Adelaide, Associate Professor David Paton, says the environmental water target of 2750 gigalitres included in the $13 billion Murray Darling Basin Plan is flawed.

“It falls short of what is likely to be needed to secure healthy outcomes for some of the environmental assets and, contrary to the opinion of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, this volume is not based on the best available science,” Prof Paton says.

He estimates the actual volume of water returned to the environment is likely to be much less because of losses of return flows with water efficiency measures. He says many proposed projects to deliver 605 gigalitres of additional water for communities under the plan’s adjustment mechanism will not deliver the equivalent environmental outcomes.

“Some will cause significant ecology damage to key assets like the Coorong,” Prof Paton says. “Sadly, the State Government in their submission to the Murray Darling Basin Royal Commission, suggested that the plan would deliver healthy environments to SA Murray river wetlands.

“Makes one wonder what is going on behind the scenes in that State Government, because that is entirely at odds to the evidence and science. South Australians should be concerned that the river and its wetlands continue to be short-changed.”

In a separate question, 61 per cent believed Adelaide’s water supply — which predominantly comes from the Murray — was under threat.

— Cameron England