Introduction
Labor Senators remain very concerned at the current health of the Basin, the delivery of the Basin Plan and the communities and ecosystems it seeks to protect.
Witnesses from Goondiwindi to Shepparton expressed their frustration at the delivery of the Basin Plan and what they saw as the arcane bureaucracy and complex systems that prevail.
This report makes important observations and recommendations about streamlining processes, ensuring accountability, and encouraging the adoption of uniform systems throughout the Basin; however, Labor Senators remain concerned about several key issues that are not fully addressed in the report.
Concerns regarding transparency and accountability in water markets
Witnesses up and down the Basin were concerned at what they felt was an unaccountable and overly complex system in the water market.
Farmer John Gordon said it best at the Moree hearing:
The inability to carry out water trades due to the lack of policy framework resulted in a depletion of our financial books and, by extension, poor financial provider confidence. I was unable to convert a once-tangible water asset into working capital, which left my business banking account exposed.
Whilst dealing with this stress, I witnessed my irrigation community peers suffer a similar fate and eventually lose their farms and livelihoods. Strong Bourke farming family names such as Newbury, Enzry, Mansel, Simpson, Bennett, Buster, Green, Taylor, McDonald and Cronin were being sold up and replaced by capital-strong corporates.
The perception that only powerful agricultural corporates had the capital and muscle necessary to participate in the water market was rife. Witnesses openly queried whether the entire water market was corrupt and whether timely, accurate and credible information was available to some but not all.
The above market rates paid to a company that was founded by Minister Angus Taylor and the failure of the Government to appropriately compensate others for their allocations only undermines public confidence in the Basin Plan and a sense that those ‘in the know’ can game the system.
The level of contempt for the systems and processes related to the water market and the slow and ineffective efforts to increase transparency and efficiency is palpable. Businesses with high levels of debt are impacted in real time by incessant delays in decision making; they are also impacted by sudden announcements that reverse previously announced policy intentions.
When heralded deadlines by State and Federal governments are routinely ignored the social, environmental, and economic impacts are all too often devastating for communities, the river and the businesses of the region impacted.
The recommendations of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report into the water market need to be considered and implemented as a matter of priority, as does the work in consolidating information on water markets. The failure to have in place viable, trusted, and affordable technologies to ascertain and reliably assess the volume of water in the system is a critical failure point that undermines the whole Basin Plan.
The refusal of the Government to properly empower the two Interim Inspectors-General (IIG) has been another key failing in the eyes of many Basin communities. The announcement of an Inspectorate is not the same as the delivery of such a critical entity, needed to both enforce compliance with water take up and down the river and to monitor and police water market movements in line with the law.
For two years, the role remained without any powers, despite the two IIGs being paid substantial amounts of money for part time work and no ability to enforce compliance. The Government failed communities and businesses along the river with their unwillingness to deliver the necessary legislation as a priority.
Open tenders should be considered for all compliance roles, and a personal phone call to a senior member of the same political party to apply for the role overseeing compliance in the Basin undermines the perception of independence and transparency.
Labor Senators urge the Government to depoliticise all roles and ensure that cronyism is not allowed to flourish in the Basin.
Concerns regarding engagement with First Nations communities
Another issue that was not sufficiently covered in the report was the failure of the current government to adequately consult with and deliver benefits for members of the First Nations communities. Many Indigenous witnesses noted that consultation was a mere genuflection for the appearance of 'consultation' rather than a true partnership that facilitated desired and effective outcomes for both First Nations peoples and the Basin itself. Griffith University noted in a 2020 report that less than one per cent of the water in the Basin is owned by Aboriginal People.
Despite promising in 2018 to give $40 million in funding to help First Nations peoples invest in cultural and economic water, the Government has yet to deliver this most basic of promises. The failure to deliver the promised $40m in water rights to First Nations was of key concern to First Nations witnesses.
Mr Paul Paton, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations, expressed his frustration clearly:
We are extremely disappointed in the federal government's continuing delay in supporting traditional owners to participate economically in the basin. In 2018, the Commonwealth committed $40 million to purchase water for traditional owners in the basin. The traditional owners have called on Minister Pitt to deliver on this commitment. We also call on Minister Pitt to confirm that the $40 million will be used to support traditional owners to purchase water and won't be used on non-water assets. Handing back water and enabling real decision-making power are the first steps in addressing the ongoing injustices that began with colonisation.
The joint submission of the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations was equally scathing about the poor consultation and delivery on outcomes:
Our organisations are concerned that Basin Plan implementation, particularly in some jurisdictions, has not afforded consideration of our member' interests and objectives commensurate with the recognised rights and enduring cultural obligations of First Nations people. These issues are most starkly demonstrated in decisions about water recovery and the implementation of the SDLAM program, which have marginalised and disadvantaged our members.
This failure to deliver on key commitments to First Nations Peoples has consequences. Mr Stewart Taylor, Chair of the Werai Land and Water Aboriginal Corporation described the activities that he would have liked to perform with that water once that money is delivered:
I'd like to see water at our cultural sites—at the Werai forest in particular. I'd like to use it for aquaculture or native plants. I'd like to use it for what I like, as a farmer does. I'd have to speak to my neighbours. I'd like to see water get over the bank and out onto the flood plains—not enough to affect the farmers but to regenerate all the native grasses, plants, seeds and everything.
First Nations people are unable to engage in these culturally important practices without the Government fulfilling its promise to the First Nations peoples of the Basin. Labor Senators believe that Indigenous communities and the promotion and protection of their culture and rituals should be a key priority of the Basin Plan and not merely an afterthought.
Concerns regarding delivery of the Basin Plan
The constant politicisation and double speak from the Coalition and particularly, the junior partners in the National Party, has led to fatigue across the Basin. Robert Massina, President of the Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia (RGA) notes:
The roadblocks created through politicising water discussion on a state basis have created ongoing fatigue across our basin. Organisations like the RGA have been subject to endless Basin Plan inquiries, reviews and government consultation processes and have written tens of submissions and attended hundreds of meetings. However, we feel that the feedback often falls on deaf ears. Governments are very slow to move on the findings and recommendations of these reports, even when supported by the vast majority of interest groups.
While communities along the Basin have grown frustrated at the delivery of the Basin Plan and the changes it has wrought in their communities, the Nationals have fanned the flames of discontent through stunt Senate motions and failed amendments to their own Government Bills. This undermining of the Basin Plan and risky 'on the run' policy has frustrated the current delivery of the Basin Plan and has given lip service to those doing it tough while delivering no material benefits. These are failures of the Coalition, rather than the multi-jurisdictional management of the Basin Plan itself.
Compounding this, the recent push by the Nationals to drastically change the Basin Plan by scrapping the 450GL requirement, arbitrarily ending buybacks of water rights, and postponing the Basin Plan indefinitely by trying to amend the Bill that would finally establish the powers of the Inspector-General must be mentioned. This type of political brinkmanship by the Nationals, reveals the powerlessness of the National Party Members and Senators to represent and deliver for the communities they represent along the Murray-Darling.
This issue reveals an enormous rift between the Nationals and their more numerous Liberal partners in the ruling Coalition government. So bereft of power in the conversations about the MDBP behind the scenes were they that they brought to a vote and lost amendments on the floor of the Senate. Even though they knew how critical the Inspector-General role and attendant powers established by legislation are, they once again ensured by their action that even this critical and delayed role was politicised and subject to fierce political debate and points scoring.
The failure of the LNP NSW Government to adequately regulate floodplain harvesting in the Northern Basin, while Deputy Premier John Barilaro calls for the Plan to be scrapped and for water to be returned to farmers is just the latest example of the intransigence of critical players that makes multi-jurisdictional cooperation more difficult. The river and its future are not only subject to the impact of climate change and an unstable, untrusted water market, it is further endangered by the self-interest of key stakeholders in the political and financial sectors who put personal and short-term self-interest above the need to ensure that sensible long-term policy prevails.
Conclusion
There have been almost 50 reports produced on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in its eight years of operation. More action must be undertaken to implement the important recommendations of these previous reviews to ensure that the Basin Plan delivers on its promise. Reviews and inquiries are meaningless if their recommendations are not acted upon.
To fail to implement the Basin Plan in full and reap the benefits of a sustainable river system would undermine the hard work and billions of dollars spent. Labor urges the Coalition Government and especially the junior partners, the Nationals, to prioritise Australian water security and implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time, and work to enact the plethora of recommendations of reports to restore trust and transparency to the Basin Plan.
The Basin Plan must be enacted in full and on time. The current agreed framework should be delivered in full and on time. Based on the evidence to this committee, the last eight years of LNP government appears to have absented itself from attending to that critical task.
MDB communities, and their economies, and indeed the river networks have paid the price for that failure and they appear set to continue to do so under the current fractured and failing leadership of the Morrison Government. Labor supports the findings of this report and urges the Government to enact its important recommendations.
Senator Deborah O'Neill
Member