Shake up looms for Murray Darling reform

THE Regional Australia committee of the House of Representatives has recommended that there should be changes made to the Murray-Darling Basin planning process and the programs that recover environmental water for the Basin.
I am hardly surprised, given this Inquiry was used as a circuit-breaker for the widespread anger that was exhibited in regional communities last year when they were confronted with the Guide to proposed Basin Plan.
A large part of that anger was based on an endemic feeling that irrigation communities were not being listened to, and that they were being sacrificed at the expense of environmental outcomes.
This committee – chaired by Independent Tony Windsor – has made extensive recommendations that if implemented could alleviate some of those concerns.
The committee had representation from both major parties and independents and they were unanimous in stating that there ‘is a need to balance the productive use of water resources with the needs of the environment’ in the Basin.
It wants a more strategic focus to water recovery and greater community involvement and to achieve environmental outcomes that protect regional economies.
This has long been the objective of lobby groups such as QFF. We understand the need for balance in the Basin, but we continue to advocate that it must be done without destroying the socio-economic basis of communities.
Mr Windsor’s committee considers this can occur only through engagement with local communities and state governments in the development of the draft Plan and in the implementation of water recovery programs.
QFF gives in principal support to this report and its findings, and we wait for further detail on how the Gillard Government will respond to it before the release of the draft Basin Plan next month.
QFF particularly agrees with the critique aimed at the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) and that it must lift its game when engaging with the community. This is not just about informing the community about the direction of water policy, but also about using the community’s wealth of expertise to craft outcomes.
To date we appreciate the effort of the new MDBA chair Craig Knowles to put the Authority on a course to respond to these criticisms.
The Windsor Committee also recommended significant changes to the way water purchases and Government investments are conducted to achieve on-ground results.
They recommend that a national water fund be established and they want a government-owned corporation to buy water and to invest in irrigation and environmental infrastructure, taking this role away from government.
They also propose making the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder independent, with the aim of making the entity more transparent, efficient, and accountable.
This approach should in theory deliver more accountable water recovery programs.
However, we need certainty that the proposals would deal with the issues in the Northern Basin, which are very different from the south.
Basin communities also do not want to see these new entities becoming another level of costly bureaucracy; otherwise we risk seeing little progress and simply more confusing layers of management.
QFF has always considered that the draft Basin Plan needs to identify areas of the Basin that need priority attention. This would allow recovery programs to focus on being more responsive to sellers and to achieving the lowest possible impact on communities concerned.
Importantly for regional communities, the report highlights the need for locally developed proposals to recover water and also, where necessary, for structural adjustment measures for communities likely to be impacted.
Therefore, we will be looking for a draft Plan that uses local communities to recommend a mix of water buy back and infrastructure recovery measures.
Measures recommended by Windsor for the delivery of the Basin Plan are important. The Commonwealth and Basin States must work together on implementing a Basin Plan that has a cooperative model for developing catchment plans.
A fundamental flaw in the development of the Guide released last year was the failure to address how a Basin plan would be effectively implemented in cooperation with the States.
QFF questions, however, the need for a dedicated agency led by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to manage environmental water issues particularly in the Northern Basin (Queensland) where environmental outcomes are achieved primarily through the management of natural river flows, not releases of stored water.
The Committee also recommended that the mining industry and particularly coal seam gas developments should be placed under the same obligations as other water users in the Basin reforms.
We strongly support recommendation – but the harsh reality is that the Commonwealth and the MDBA will face some big hurdles at a State Government level to implement such reform.
Often these types of parliamentary committee reports fly below the radar and never yield much change. In this instance we cannot allow that to happen. The Committee is to be congratulated on this comprehensive report as are those people across the Basin who gave their time to the committee during it hearings. Hopefully the Commonwealth Government now acts with the States and the MDBA to deliver on its important recommendations.