interpretación de datos de la fase cuantitativa

treatment

This section describes interviewee perspectives on aspects of fairness and justice of the process that they experienced, including how they felt they were treated during the process. The interview questions included direct questions about fairness and justice as well as general questions about how they felt they were treated (Chapter 3). The flow of questions in the interview was such as to constantly remind the interviewee that the research was about their perspectives of fairness and justice from within this conflict. The three cards placed on the table in front of the interviewee displaying the words "fairness", "justice", and "injustice" also reminded them of the theme of the research. The timing of the interviews was such that much of the impact of the pipeline construction and irrigation modernisation project was still to come. Key areas of concern at this time were the lack of due process, lack of information and how people felt they had been treated. While some landholders affected by the pipeline coming through their property did experience some material and personal impact, the overall material impact of the proposal had not yet been widely felt throughout the communities. This section therefore is organised around the three areas of consultation, information and treatment.

Due process? Heavy-handed and shabby

Many interviewees commented on the lack of consultation and lack of process in which communities were able to discuss the project. Interviewees described how the government had failed to establish a consultation process as "shabby", "appalling" , "atrociously handled", "high- handed", "it was sprung on us", "it was dropped on them", "heavy-handed", and "we had no say". In evaluating this failure many interviewees suggested that it was unfair because there was no input to the decision-making process and there was little opportunity to engage with decision-makers after the project had been announced. This lack of "due process" was exacerbated by the environmental assessment process in which the Food Bowl Modernisation Project was assessed separately to the North South Pipeline. That these two infrastructure projects were being presented together as a single project, with one dependent on the other, yet

were not being assessed as such was seen to be unfair and unjust by several interviewees. One interviewee said that her main concern about this "divide and conquer" approach was that there was "no avenue … to go to for justice to be done".

Several interviewees who were neutral or in favour of the project also thought that there was a lack of communication by the government and by Foodbowl Unlimited. This lack of consultation was justified by two interviewees, who said that a decision needed to be made quickly and that a consultation process would only have delayed the project. One government agency employee who was familiar with the project thought that "it was not fair, but it had to be" because of the critical nature of Melbourne's water supply. This interviewee differentiated between consultation and communication. With consultation there is the implication that the decision can be changed, whereas communication is about keeping people informed. He added that he thought it would have been fairer to have "an 18 month process… before the final decision was made" but that "time simply was not available".

One of the original members of the Foodbowl Unlimited group acknowledged that some of the decisions the group had made had not been fair, particularly regarding communication and that "people have been ridden roughshod over". This was because the group was keen to seize the opportunity presented and that if more time had been given to community consultation then perhaps the deal may have "stalled". He acknowledged that there had been "a bit of injustice", justifying this with "sometimes a large population don't really know what is good for them" and "in 20 years time people will look back and say this is the best thing that ever happened in the Goulburn-Murray Valley". While there was criticism of the Foodbowl Unlimited group for not engaging the larger irrigation community in discussion about the deal with the government, there was also criticism of the government for making the decision before there was any public debate. An orchardist irrigator on one of the Water Service Committees, an advisory body to Goulburn-Murray Water, explained how he had "adopted a profile that is opposed to the pipeline and I have never been approached to this day by anybody in government authority to … see if we can fathom this out". He found this "frustrating" and "they are not delivering justice, or not delivering fairness… because they are not listening to a substantial groundswell. The fact is they can walk down the street anywhere they like and they will find nine people out of ten that don't want the pipe".

An interviewee in the Yea community who could see both sides of the issue explained that in the absence of a formal consultation process he had tried to work with both the government and the Plug the Pipe opposition group. However, he found that the government was "autocratic" and had underestimated the level of interest in the community. He also suggested that the Plug the Pipe group had an obligation to engage with the government which, in his opinion they had failed to do. He thought they had become too "emotive". While this interviewee thought that the term injustice was a "harsh assessment" he thought that "probably,

The Victoria pipeline study

116

yes… the government has done an injustice" through its failure to effectively communicate with and engage the community.

The big picture: where are the facts?

The lack of detailed information about the Food Bowl Modernisation Project and North South Pipeline was a serious issue for many the interviewees. One business owner in Yea said that one of the reasons he was ambivalent or neutral about the project was that "I constantly have questions in my mind about trying to understand all the issues". Another interviewee in Yea, opposed to the project, said "I don't think we've been treated fairly because they don't tell you anything" about the pipeline and they are very "mum" and "keeping everything under their hat". She complained that they had not been given an opportunity to have a discussion "to know whether it was a good idea or not", which made her feel suspicious. A business owner in Lake Eildon described his numerous failed attempts to obtain detailed information from government departments about the proposed savings. He described how on many occasions he was told the data did not exist only to find out that there was a report in existence. He said he had now come to the point where he believed "Government is misleading the public. I see injustice in this particular state... the government is encouraging dishonesty", referring to the reluctance of government departments to provide him with detailed information. He suggested that "a project like this needs to be based on science and facts rather than political expediency".

An interviewee in Shepparton who was opposed to the pipeline had a similar concern about the validity of the water savings figures. He had carefully explained these in writing to the relevant government agency, but "they did not want to know about that… this was a lack of justice and a lack of fairness because people were actively promoting a story that they knew was wrong". This interviewee described fairness as "being open and honest. This is where this thing went off the rails at the start. It hasn't been fair… I don't think we have got to the justice stage yet… it will not be before the water is flowing to Melbourne… the justice aspect has yet to be seen". Another interviewee in the Shepparton area pointed out the unfairness of not being able to discuss the bigger picture issues, such as the details of savings or where the water was coming from in the combined project assessment process. She said "we were completely muzzled in that way… those were the only two formal consultation processes… they were completely unbalanced and completely unfair".

A councillor in Yea pointed out how the government would not engage in any debate about the bigger picture, and how difficult it was to get questions answered because so many government agencies were involved, each with a different set of accountabilities. This she thought was unfair and "because of the shifting focus …no one is actually responsible". Another councillor in the Yea area said "I don't think people have listened to the fact that Melbourne really is in desperate need", but acknowledged that she was in a "grey area" in her attitude to the pipeline because it had not been proven that the water savings were there. She was doubtful

that the community had the ability to take an overview perspective but also acknowledged that there had been no public consultation.

The lack of information about other options to secure water for Melbourne and why the pipeline was needed was raised by many interviewees. While this was not a primary focus of the interviews it was a persistent theme throughout the interviews and, together with the unvalidated savings, a major source of unease. A number of interviewees suggested that people in Melbourne, if they knew about the pipeline, would be against it, judging from their conversations with their friends. One lawyer in the Shepparton district, who was in favour of the pipeline subject to the savings being validated, said that in his view, from conversations with his circle of Melbourne friends, Melbourne people were against the pipeline because they felt that they should be saving more water, including stormwater. Other interviewees referred to media polls which showed 95% of people against the pipeline. But many felt that the pipeline was generally not being debated and it was only through the media campaign of Plug the Pipe that the pipeline had even received wider attention.

One of the consequences of a lack of public debate, suggested a Shepparton district dairy farmer, was that "a great deal of injustice is going to be done to the people without their knowing, without them being fully aware of what is going to happen". To another Yea interviewee the fact that there was no debate around the broader issues of the pipeline, such as the loss of water to that Murray–Darling Basin, was "the crucial issue" but "I don't think it's even seen as being important". A government agency employee in the Yea district, who was neutral about the pipeline, commented on his work and experience in general, "I don't think we achieve justice because there is not enough information in the first place which leads to situations where people go looking for justice… if the right information and all the information was there to start with we wouldn't have the conflict".

Interpersonal treatment: with disdain

There was widespread condemnation of the way the government had treated people within the communities at Yea and Shepparton, particularly by those who opposed the project. Many interviewees felt that they had not been treated with respect and used phrases such as "with absolute disdain"; "very poorly…disdainfully really"; "with contempt"; "shabbily"; "underhand and devious"; "we were totally ignored". One Yea interviewee felt that she had been treated like "a French peasant". A Yea interviewee who said that she was "neutral to opposed" to the pipeline said she felt the government had treated the community as "just a lot of country hicks" which "engenders this feeling of disempowerment". A local councillor in the Shepparton district described how his local council, the planning authority for the area, had not been involved at all in the development of the Food Bowl Modernisation Project which he described as "pretty shameful" treatment.

The Victoria pipeline study

118

A local councillor in the Yea district described a public information meeting organised by the Council just after the project had been announced, at which a senior government agency employee had addressed the gathering. The local councillor interviewee summarised the government's overall message as being "that Melbourne had a really bad summer and that they needed the water more than we did". She described her reaction: "it wasn't fair, but it was more than that, it was insulting. It sent a message that we really didn't matter in the bush, that our needs and our conditions, our lived experience, wasn't as worthy as those in Melbourne". This interviewee recounted her experience of subsequent government attitudes, including a radio interview where Minister Holding (the Minister for Water) had referred to "the few people that oppose it" when clearly the opposition was more widespread. Her reaction was to call her local Parliamentary member to complain "that they won't even acknowledge the scope of the objection" which she found "demeaning and insulting". Several interviewees in the Yea district described the government as having "continually lied" about the extent of the opposition, for example minimising the number of landholders opposed to having the pipeline cross their property.

A number of interviewees recalled the election promise by the then Premier Bracks that water would not be taken from the north of the divide to the south. A Shepparton irrigator’s reaction to the broken promise was "if we had done that in business no one would deal with you". A government employee in favour of the project described his "moral dilemma" upon hearing about the government change of policy on this election promise. He elaborated that while governments must be able to change their minds "people have to have enough time to get used to it" and that the communication was lacking in this case. A government agency employee in the Yea district who was not involved with the protest and had a neutral attitude to the pipeline said he thought "the injustice has been the fact that they haven't taken into account private individuals' concerns and spent enough time to explain the whole thing to them". Only one interviewee in the Yea district suggested that the Yea community had been treated fairly. He was in favour of the project and believed that the protesters were being closed minded. He summarised the government's position as "I think they are being upfront. They must have done some research to come up with a three-way split. They brought it to the town and they had an open meeting. I don't think you can be much fairer than that".

This section has shown that how people feel that they are treated within a process and how the process is conducted taps deeply into their thoughts about fairness, justice and injustice. The lack of a process in which people could participate and the lack of engagement by the government of the people that were concerned about the proposal were widely perceived as unfair or unjust. Interviewees also perceived unfairness or injustice where information was not made available, where it was seen to be kept secret and where the facts were not subject to the scrutiny of debate. However, there were also different perspectives about what was fair under the circumstances and who was being fair to whom.

6.4

Summary: a complex proposal and a complex set of