Improved accountability would boost progress on the Murray–Darling Basin Plan, but the government's recently proposed extension of the plan's timeframes won't be enough.
That's according to the Productivity Commission, which this week released an interim report of the 2023 Murray–Darling Basin Plan implementation review.
Assessing the progress made toward implementing the Murray–Darling Basin Plan since 2018, the Commission highlighted that some progress has been made but the Basin Plan will not be fully implemented on time or on budget.
“In the five years since the last Commission review, very little progress has been made on water recovery, or on supply and constraints-easing measures,” Associate Commissioner Chris Guest said.
“The plan is central to securing a healthy working Basin. Basin governments need to be more transparent and accountable for delivering the plan.”
Under the plan, Basin governments agreed to recover 2,750 gigalitres per year of water for the environment (~20% reduction in water for consumptive use) and an additional 450 GL/y through efficiency measures.
The Commission found key supply measures (infrastructure works and rule changes that offset water recovery) will not be delivered and projects to ease constraints on river operations are progressing slowly, with a possible shortfall of ~315 GL/y.
The program to recover an additional 450 GL/y of water via efficiency measures will also fall well short of the target, with only 26 GL/y recovered so far.
The Commission has recommended the government commence a renewed program of water recovery, using the most cost‑effective methods, including staged voluntary water entitlement purchases.
This should occur alongside a commitment from Basin governments to support communities to adjust, where warranted.
A devastating sledgehammer
The water recovery recommendations have been slammed by farming communities, with NSW Farmers saying it’s clear the federal government will use water buybacks as a devastating sledgehammer to complete the Basin Plan.
NSW Farmers Water Taskforce chair Richard Bootle said it was time to put the sledgehammer back in the rack, because water buybacks were a blunt instrument that would hurt farmers and Basin communities.
“Basin communities have sent a clear message to the federal government that they oppose buybacks and this rewrite of the Basin Plan, because they are living through the negative impacts,” Mr Bootle said.
“While this review has been welcomed by the usual conga line of campaigners whose bloody-minded pursuit of buybacks is both short-sighted and arrogant, the people on the ground are vehemently opposed.
“There are far better options to deliver the Basin Plan than buybacks, and we want the federal government to use those tools instead.”
NSW Farmers says while the review acknowledged the Basin Plan was required to give critical human water needs the highest priority, it only looked at drinking water – not food production – and absolved the federal government of any responsibility to do more to meet those needs.
Mr Bootle said more water could be secured by investing in projects that would remove the need for costly buybacks.
“When the Basin Plan was first put in place, the idea was that they would consider social, economic and environmental impacts, but we’ve seen the first two ignored,” Mr Bootle said.
“To date, the Basin Plan has resulted in economic hardship for communities, a reduction in agricultural production, and man-made droughts and floods for ‘environmental outcomes’.
“The federal government needs to stop and listen to farmers before going down the path of more buybacks given Australia is drying out by the day.”
Polling 'debunks the misconception'
Following the release of the interim report, The Australia Institute - a think tank run for many years by a former advisor to Bob Brown - released polling that shows majority support for water buybacks across Basin states, party lines and regional Australia.
Surveying a 'nationally representative' sample of 1,535 Australians about the Murray Darling Basin and water recovery within the Basin Plan, they found 66% support the reintroduction of voluntary water buybacks, with only 10% opposed.
Three in five (61%) agreed that additional water should be returned to the river to compensate for Basin Plan delays, while 10% disagreed.
The Australia Institute water researcher Kate McBride said the research shows 'significant support' for the use of buybacks to deliver the Basin Plan.
“This research debunks the misconception that regional Australians are against buybacks and further water recovery," Ms McBride said.
“This research shows the Victorian and NSW governments’ opposition to buybacks is out of step with the majority of their constituents.
“As we enter an El Nino weather pattern, it is more important than ever to be returning real water to ensure the future health of our rivers and the communities that rely on them.”
Most Senate submissions oppose Basin Plan legislation
Contrary to the polling, most of the 118 submissions to the Senate inquiry into the government’s rewrite of the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan oppose the legislation.
A review of the submissions reveals a diversity of perspectives united by a substantial lack of support for the Water Amendment (Recovering Our Rivers) Bill 2023. The Bill is currently before a Senate Inquiry with hearings beginning this week.
NSW Irrigators’ Council CEO Claire Miller said the submissions, 74% of which came from within the Basin, should be a wake-up call.
“The Senate must listen to the people who live in the Basin and know from past lived experience exactly how buybacks hurt and hollow out their towns and their communities,” Ms Miller said.
“Their voices, expressed in the majority of submissions, must carry more weight than those of city-based academics and activists who may be well intentioned but have no skin in this game.
“Academics asserting the impacts of water buybacks are overstated rely on models with selective assumptions. Too many also have a history of anti-irrigation rhetoric, so their analysis is hardly objective."
On the other hand, Basin communities have witnessed the lasting and devastating effects of buybacks, Ms Miller said.
"They’ve seen the jobs lost and families leaving town, leaving schools struggling with declining enrolments, shops shutting up, and essential services disappearing.
“These are not hypothetical scenarios that can be modelled away using this or that assumption in an academic analysis. These are the stark realities faced by the people who actually live with the lasting and often subtle consequence of government policy.
“And these people are overwhelmingly saying no to this legislation.”
