Scientists working for the New South Wales government are being discouraged from speaking to the media, leading to a “loss of honesty and accuracy” in departmental reporting, one of Australia’s most respected native fish experts says.
Dr James is a retired principal research scientist who worked for Fisheries NSW for 36 years and mentored scientists at the agency. Stuart Rowland says there is a conflict between fishing and agricultural interests within the Department for Primary Industries, making the former’s job difficult. Talking openly about the health of the Murray-Darling River system and the causes of ecological disasters, including the 2023 Menindee fish kill.
“Even though there are very good scientists and managers in fisheries, their voices are often not heard,” says Rowland.
Relating to: ‘We are preparing for another fish kill’: Locals raise alarm as water quality declines in Menindee
“Even if there are internal scientists and executives who are appalled by what’s happening to the river, they can’t fully express that to the media,” he says. “It’s up to retired scientists like me who have no direct connection to the government to speak their mind.”
Guardian Australia spoke to current and former NSW Fisheries staff who said they were frustrated by the degradation of major river systems, infighting within the department and restrictions on speaking to the media, but none were willing to speak publicly.
Rowland says there are “conflicts between fishing and agriculture” that have “significant consequences” for the Darling-Baaka River, leading to “the destruction of the river’s unique aquatic ecosystem”.
Rowland says studies conducted by NSW Fisheries staff have warned of the cumulative impact of agriculture on the Darling-Baaka for decades, including a 2003 report by the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee declaring the lowland catchment an “endangered ecological community”. Rowland was a member of this committee.
“Environmental degradation continued, species became extinct, massive fish deaths occurred [and] the river was destroyed,” says Rowland.
“If the state government truly cares about our fish and rivers, NSW Fisheries should be an independent agency. This would reduce inter-ministerial conflict between fisheries and agriculture and allow fisheries managers and scientists to provide independent and candid advice to the minister and government.”
His comments came as Menindee residents reported another fish kill. dozens more dead native fishIncluding golden perch in Lake Wetherell as well as small numbers of dead or struggling carp and bony herring. The NSW government said DPI was investigating the cause of the incident.
Dissolved oxygen levels in the lower Darling-Baaka have been critically low since November. WaterNSW this month announced an oxygenation trial in the Darling River at Menindee that it hopes will reduce the risk of large-scale fish kills.
In a statement, a Department for Primary Industries spokesperson said fisheries are within the same department as agriculture in Australia’s five territories and the work undertaken by NSW Fisheries is guided by the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and the Marine Properties Management Act 2014.
“The NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) provides the Government with factual information and advice based on the best available science,” they said.
“DPI strives to achieve the best outcomes for the health of fish and fish habitats, and our recommendations are guided by our relationships with stakeholders and the best available science.”
Killing fish with ‘PR narratives’
Dr Matt Landos, director of the Future Fisheries Veterinary Service and assistant professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland, worked as the veterinary officer responsible for aquatic animal health at NSW Fisheries between 2000 and 2005.
He recalls an incident 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 had died.
After his interview aired, Landos said he was “quickly rebuked” and “the extent and impact of the killings were downplayed in subsequent public statements.”
Although scientists are thought to be independent, there is often pressure to remain silent about some research results.
Doctor Don Driscoll
Instead, it was called a “natural event.”
“Only much later did research point to the role of drainage and flood defenses in agriculture as a clear cause, and to date this has remained largely uncorrected,” he says.
Landos says he observes that after major environmental problems like fish kills, “unscientific issue managers take control” and “use public relations narratives to spin the message into something they believe is palatable.”
“Scientific knowledge and accuracy are victims of this process,” he says. “The public can hear the messages the ministry wants to give them.”
A Department for Primary Industries spokesperson said that when media requests are received, “DPI identifies the most appropriate spokesperson to ensure factual and coordinated information is provided. This is outlined in the Department of Regional NSW media guidelines.”
Dr Deakin is professor of terrestrial ecology at Deakin University and chair of the Australian Ecological Society’s academic freedom working group. Don Driscoll says he is aware of the pressure not to speak publicly about certain research topics, “especially research that could negatively impact the current government.” a faint light”.
“Although scientists are supposed to be independent, there is often pressure to remain silent about some research results, and these pressures are much higher for scientists working within government or industry,” he says.
ESA documents the suppression of science in Australia. A survey of 220 ecologists between October 2018 and February 2019 found that nearly half of respondents working for a government agency were banned from communicating publicly about their research.
Driscoll says the survey shows that some pressure stems from self-censorship and a more direct edict, where individuals choose not to speak openly for fear of consequences.
“There is still a really strong culture in the civil service of suppressing science and limited information sharing,” he says.
He says there needs to be changes to legislation and codes of practice governing how the public service operates to allow scientists to share their research and findings.
“If we could freely share information about the state of our environment, the environment would be much better off and our democracy would be stronger. “Then people can vote once they are fully informed about how the government is managing the environment,” he says.
NSW agriculture minister spokeswoman Tara Moriarty said the government was elected “to provide better decision-making and transparency to government in this state, and that’s what we’re delivering to primary industries and regional development”.