7.1
This chapter outlines the significance of water to Indigenous basin communities and their right to sustain culture on Country. The chapter summarises key concerns raised by inquiry participants, including: Indigenous interests not being fully realised under the Basin Plan; inadequate consultation and engagement; insufficient cultural flows; and cultural outcomes not being considered as a secondary outcome of environmental watering.
7.2
In considering these matters, this chapter examines the impacts of what some inquiry participants consider the key barriers to the meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples in water discussions and decision-making, including: complex water policy, legislation, and governance arrangements; poor quality information; and inconsistencies between states.
7.3
The chapter concludes with opportunities to strengthen Indigenous peoples' involvement in water management, and the committee's view and recommendations.
Significance of water to Indigenous Australians
7.4
Several inquiry participants emphasised the cultural and spiritual significance of water to Indigenous peoples in the basin. For example, the joint submission from the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) explained that Indigenous peoples' water values and rights significantly differ from non-Indigenous peoples, in that water is viewed as having 'a right to be recognised as an ecological entity, a being and a spirit and must [be] treated accordingly'.
7.5
Mr Paul Paton, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations, advised that 'for Traditional Owners and First Nations People water is sacred and a fundamental element of spiritual, cultural, social, economic and ecological wellbeing,' and the health of river systems is intrinsically linked to these peoples' health and wellbeing.
7.6
The Chair of the Werai Land and Water Aboriginal Corporation, Mr Stewart Taylor, also explained the importance of healthy rivers to Indigenous peoples:
[T]he rivers are our life—our food and our water. We have spiritual stories around parts of the river. To us, it's not a commodity...Aboriginal people, whether times are good, bad or ugly…have a spiritual connection to our Country…We [in the Werai Forest] have tangible and intangible cultural sites and we have spiritual sites as well. Without the water, it's not a spiritual site. The thing that makes it a spiritual site is the water…with the rapid rise and fall of the river, some of those cultural sites are damaged by silt. It's blocking those cultural sites.
7.7
Mismanagement of the Murray-Darling basin (basin) was characterised as showing 'a fundamental disrespect for the cultural, spiritual, ecological and economic importance of the waterways to traditional owners'. Mr Taylor argued that 'everything that's being done is against the lifestyle and existence we have had for millennia'.
7.8
Mr Jay Whittaker, Engagement and Coordination Manager, Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation, asserted that basin rivers have been pushed beyond capacity by excessive demand and inadequate water sharing arrangements. Mr Whittaker argued that basin governments have not appropriately recognised the ecological state of waterways and that economics and corporate interests are being prioritised at the expense of the sustainable health of the basin.
7.9
The submission from NBAN and MLDRIN accused basin governments of negligence:
…in the management of the lands and waters of [First] Nations causing ecosystem collapse, severe water quality degradation, extreme stress upon river ecologies and species extinction at a scale and rate which is unprecedented'.
Right to sustain culture
7.10
Inquiry participants pointed out that there is a fundamental right of Indigenous peoples to practice culture on Country. Mr Stewart Taylor, Wemba Wemba Nation, argued that this should be recognised through Australia's water management framework:
It is important to note as a starting point that my Nation, and First Nations peoples in the Basin, have essential, unceded and enduring rights to access and manage water on our Country. These rights are enshrined in international agreements, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. We also have the right to sustain our culture and our cultural knowledge that is intimately connected to the movement of water through and within our Country. These rights should be recognised as a critical foundation of Australia's water allocation and management regime, but they are not. We are now in a position where we have to convince governments of the merits of our water claims.
7.11
According to NBAN and MLDRIN, each 'Nation holds the cultural authority to speak for water, rivers and river Country'. Mr Whittaker emphasised that Indigenous peoples 'have rights and obligations to manage this country as our ancestors did'. Mr Taylor told the committee that Indigenous peoples have been fighting for land and water rights for over 230 years. Mrs Crew argued that Indigenous peoples are still fighting for the right to be heard:
[W]e're still coming to the table empty-handed…We find it difficult to sit at tables where we're the only one not arguing for money. We're arguing for a right to be heard.
7.12
According to NBAN and MLDRIN, the implementation of the Basin Plan's requirement that governments must have regard to Indigenous values and uses does not fully recognise the interests of Indigenous peoples or the extent of their water rights. NBAN and MLDRIN argued that the plan provides only limited recognition of these peoples' water rights and interests, such as in the preparation of water resource plans (regional planning documents known as WRPs) and environmental water planning. As a result, these limited requirements have 'marginalised and disadvantaged' Indigenous peoples and can be seen in decisions around water recovery and the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism program.
7.13
NBAN and MLDRIN argued that the Basin Plan and the Water Act 2007 should be amended in 2026 to give effect to the full scope and content of Indigenous peoples' rights.
Adequacy of consultation during plan implementation
7.14
Several stakeholders were critical of the consultation with Indigenous peoples by basin governments during plan implementation. For example, Gamilaraay descendant, Ms Elizabeth Taylor, told the committee that there have been 'rushed and haphazard consultations on water sharing and water resource plans'. Meanwhile, Mr Stewart Taylor, Chair, Werai Land and Water Aboriginal Corporation, advised that although consultation with Indigenous communities is required in the Basin Plan, in practice governments treat the requirement as a 'box ticking' exercise:
We're not involved in any process as such. We were not consulted. After the fact, after the stuff is done, then they want to speak to us to get us to tick the box and approve what they've done'.
7.15
Mrs Taylor argued that Indigenous peoples are being treated as an afterthought rather than a priority in water planning:
We're still finding that anything to do with the Indigenous community is on the side. It's not in the main planning part of the program. Therefore, they try to fit us into something they've already designed. More often than not, it doesn't fit as well.
7.16
Mr Peter Lalor, Senior Policy Officer, New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, suggested that despite the Basin Plan's requirements for engagement with Indigenous peoples, there was 'not a lot of that evidence [of such engagement] on the ground':
[O]ne of the key things we would like to see come out of this is the opportunity for our members to have more participation and engagement in terms of the water and the issues for their communities—I understand that they're left out of that conversation—for them to be consulted, to be engaged and to have the opportunity to talk about the impacts of water for their communities.
7.17
The Australian Academy of Science's report into mass fish deaths near Menindee identified that reflection of Traditional Owner knowledge in river management has been insufficient. The report made eight recommendations relating to the management of the basin, including improving meaningful engagement with communities.
7.18
Mr Phil Duncan, Chair of the Basin Community Committee and a Gomeroi descendent, told the committee that cultural knowledge is not being used to its full advantage to inform sustainable management of the basin, telling the committee:
…now the time is for us to be more engaged in repairing our country. We are seeing rivers go on to evolutions and change in flow regimes. We are seeing less and less water going in. If you look at the 150-year research around climate change, I believe that our people have a significant range of knowledge that can help the basin recover and be more sustainable into the future.
7.19
Mr Taylor was concerned that traditional knowledge is being taken from local communities and there are few tangible outcomes:
Our traditional ecological knowledge—we're secret about it or don't like showing it much. Consultants come, they survey us, they ask us questions and then they disappear. We don't see them and we don't know what happens to that information…We seem to talk a lot, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of outcomes from the information we give out.
7.20
Mrs Taylor called for the creation of a local repository of the information that has been shared, so local communities can access and have some ownership of the data and the findings of relevant research.
7.21
Mr Lalor argued that representation of Indigenous peoples at the decision‑
making table and a single point of entry to facilitate robust consultation with communities is required.
Inconsistent approaches to WRPs
7.22
Part 14 of the Basin Plan requires the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to seek the advice of NBAN and MLDRIN as to whether WRPs have identified Indigenous objectives, outcomes, values, and uses for water, and have had regard to these views along with several other matters such as native title rights and cultural flows.
7.23
NBAN and MLDRIN expressed concerns about the inconsistent approaches across basin states to WRP development. For example, the organisations advised that Queensland Government staff actively supported Indigenous communities to provide submissions to the draft WRPs. By contrast, the NSW Government approach was, according to NBAN and MLDRIN, poorly implemented and largely inadequate:
NSW…outsourced its engagement with First Nations to consultants, which NBAN and MLDRIN have had no communication with. While our organisations have facilitated the state's engagement with our member Nations through the provision of contact details, engagement between our organisations and NSW itself has been sporadic and for the most part there has been limited information with respect to how the state has been progressing…Consultation with First Nations during the development of the WRPs has in large part been poor and inadequate…
7.24
NBAN and MLDRIN advised that the NSW Government was not proactive in seeking feedback from Indigenous communities on draft WRPs. NBAN and MLDRIN submitted the only method used to solicit feedback was to publish draft WRPs online, which is not culturally appropriate. Additionally, many of the published draft WRPs were incomplete and missing information relating to Indigenous values and uses, and objectives and outcomes. The early 2020 draft WRPs released by the NSW Minister for Water were described as having incorporated changes in response to submissions received during the public exhibition phase, but upon investigation, the feedback incorporated only reflected the views expressed during Stakeholder Advisory Panels, which were not fully representative of Indigenous communities or culturally appropriate. Furthermore, the NSW Government's groundwater WRPs were submitted to the MDBA without first being submitted to Indigenous representatives for feedback as required under the Basin Plan.
7.25
NBAN and MLDRIN argued that the inconsistent implementation of the Indigenous values and uses requirement of the Basin Plan has led to disparities in opportunities and outcomes for Indigenous communities.
7.26
NBAN and MLDRIN raised concerns that no information had been provided by basin governments on how WRPs would be implemented alongside existing state water arrangements or how Indigenous communities would be included in implementation and compliance processes. Additionally, despite requesting that the MDBA clarify its role with regards to WRP implementation, monitoring and compliance, NBAN and MLDRIN did not receive a response.
7.27
According to NBAN and MLDRIN, basin jurisdictions should adopt a standardised approach to communicating and disseminating information to Indigenous communities, regarding amending, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing WRPs. NBAN and MLDRIN explained that while each state needs to meet the overarching requirements for WRP development set by the Basin Plan, each is following its own methodology in order to meet water planning requirements in state legislation. Differing methodology with respect to Part 14 has resulted in inconsistencies and deficiencies in some states' approaches to consultation and engagement.
7.28
NBAN and MLDRIN recommended that all state-based Basin Plan and WRP implementation coordination committees should include Indigenous representation to ensure adequate opportunities and support to enable meaningful participation in water management decision-making. NBAN and MLDRIN further recommended that an Aboriginal Compliance Officer should be established within the MDBA to ensure that states are complying with WRP commitments related to Indigenous objectives and outcomes.
Cultural flows
7.29
'Cultural flows' are water entitlements that are legally owned by Indigenous peoples and are of a sufficient quantity and quality to improve the spiritual, cultural, environmental, social, and economic conditions of those nations. At a public hearing, the committee heard that Traditional Owners currently own less than one per cent of water entitlements in the basin. Broadly, concerns raised with the inquiry relate to the responsiveness of governments in addressing insufficient cultural flows across the basin.
7.30
Mr Paton argued that Traditional Owners have been, and continue to be, excluded from owning and managing water. This has occurred, he contended, through the 'first violence' of colonisation and forced removal of people from country, and current policies and legislation which separate water from land.
7.31
Mrs Jeanette Crew, Chairperson, Yarkuwa Indigenous Knowledge Centre Aboriginal Corporation, argued that separation of water from land is inconsistent with the holistic management approach of Indigenous peoples:
Environmental water does some good for some things, but it's usually very targeted….For example, a particular wetland might be targeted because it's a southern bell frog breeding ground, and that's all they'll water. We might have something a little bit further down, which won't get any water, that is just as important to the balance…the way we think about it is that the balance is all out now. All the new legislation and land management issues have changed the balance of everything in the environment. People can't understand the concept of water being separate from the land. It's just not in people's heads. It's not in blackfellas' heads, anyway. It's a very holistic approach.
7.32
Mr Stewart Taylor, Chair, Werai Land and Water Aboriginal Corporation, argued that land and water rights should be linked:
Most of the time, we're fighting for water rights to water [on] land that we don't own…we have three cultural sites that rely on the water, and without the water it's just another piece of country…some of those sites are on country that we don't own. We don't own the land. Could you see a farmer or irrigator buying water to put on land that they don't own? It just doesn't make sense…
7.33
Mr Taylor also expressed his dismay that plants of cultural significance are not being recognised as a water allocation priority:
We have native grasses that can't grow because we don't get water. We have native water plants, we have cumbungi, we have food plants and medicine plants, we have speciality wood—we have all of those things that we don't even get an allocation for. Again, it's just frustrating.
7.34
Mr Paton argued that the low rate of cultural flows represents an 'appalling injustice', and called on all basin states to work with Traditional Owners to rectify this. Mr Paton explained that the opportunities to deliver water entitlements to Traditional Owners in Victoria had been identified in work undertaken by MLDRIN and the University of Melbourne. The Cultural Water for Cultural Economies project identified the importance of ensuring that water for economic development is not separate to water for cultural purposes. The project outlined four pathways to increase water access for Traditional Owners and Indigenous peoples in Victoria, including: increasing use of existing rights to water, unallocated water, and recycled water; and reallocating allocated water that is not being used.
7.35
NBAN and MLDRIN further argued that supporting direct allocation of sufficient water for cultural flows would decrease pressure placed on environmental water. However, basin governments have largely been unresponsive to submissions regarding the importance of water allocations for Indigenous peoples:
[W]hile we have made a lot of submissions about the importance of water and water allocations to Aboriginal people, somewhere through the process our voice doesn't appear to be being heard.
7.36
Mr Taylor advised that an ongoing barrier to greater participation in the water market by Indigenous peoples can be poor comprehension of water markets and formal government processes. Mr Lalor, explained that the constraint placed on cultural flows—that it cannot produce economic benefit—had also caused some confusion:
[W]e're often told—and we haven't yet got a response from any level of government—that if it's cultural water then it cannot have an economic benefit. It's something that's really confused us, because does that go to the fact that, if you get environmental water through to a wetland that grows weeds and women make baskets, they can't sell them?
Environmental watering issues relating to Indigenous communities
7.37
Some participants argued that, in the absence of cultural flows, environmental water should be used where possible to achieve cultural outcomes and meet environmental objectives.
7.38
NBAN and MLDRIN argued that the low rate of Indigenous water ownership and the limited rights associated with Native Title determinations do not provide Indigenous peoples with the scope to manage water to meet cultural objectives, therefore environmental water holdings are a key resource to achieving cultural outcomes for these peoples. NBAN and MLDRIN emphasised that environmental flows should not be used as a surrogate for cultural flows, as has occurred in the past. However, where possible, environmental water should be managed to support cultural outcomes while ensuring environmental objectives are met.
7.39
Evidence from NBAN and MLDRIN suggested there is a lack of transparency as to how Indigenous values and objectives are factored into environmental watering decisions—that is, how these views are 'weighted' against other objectives when determining how and when water should be used. NBAN and MLDRIN advised that where Indigenous communities have submitted environmental watering objectives for sites across the basin, it is unclear what influence this information has, or how the information is used by states for environmental water planning.
7.40
Ms Sophie Baldwin, Representative, Southern Connected Basin Communities, advised that in some cases, the input of Indigenous peoples is not being factored into watering decisions at all:
[E]ven with the environmental watering occurring in the forest, they [Indigenous basin communities] don't have any say over that. They can't even get that delivered to some of their sacred, important areas. They have a right to be able to keep their areas alive so they can culturally pass them on to the next generations.
7.41
NBAN and MLDRIN pointed out that the MDBA did not adopt the Productivity Commission's recommendation to include a secondary objective in the 2019 Basin-wide Environmental Watering Strategy. This secondary objective would seek 'to achieve social or cultural outcomes to the extent that environmental watering outcomes are not compromised'. While the MDBA has committed to including the objective in the 2022 version of the strategy, Indigenous outcomes in environmental water planning remain unclear until that has occurred.
7.42
According to NBAN and MLDRIN, there are also disparities between how basin states ensure that input from Indigenous peoples is reflected in environmental water planning. In Victoria, an Aboriginal Commissioner was appointed to the Victorian Environmental Water Holder and a network of state-funded Aboriginal Water Officers facilitates Indigenous peoples' input into environmental water plans. In NSW, there is no formal strategy or mechanism for incorporating Indigenous peoples' views; approaches are ad hoc and ineffective in most cases, with significant differences and inequities between locations. MLDRIN advised that it communicates regularly with Victorian and South Australian water holders and agencies responsible for water planning; however, neither NBAN nor its member Nations have been engaged by the NSW or Queensland Governments with respect to environmental watering in general or state Annual Environmental Watering Priorities. In the southern basin, some Indigenous basin communities were able to negotiate agreements with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO) while others struggled to be informed and engaged with government-led planning processes.
7.43
In NSW, Environmental Water Advisory Groups (EWAGs) operate at a catchment level to engage with community on watering events. However, according to NBAN and MLDRIN, the experience of Indigenous peoples who participated in EWAGs differed. Many reported frustration, a lack of support, and difficulty participating in the forums due to the technical nature of conversations and strong representation of irrigator interests and agency staff. NBAN and MLDRIN argued that EWAGs are 'not always a culturally appropriate or empowering pathway for First Nations to inform environmental watering'. Additionally, representation is limited to one Traditional Owner per EWAG region, with limited support or capacity building for informed participation. NBAN and MLDRIN suggested that EWAGs could be improved by expanding membership to allow representatives from each Indigenous community group in an EWAG region, and by providing greater support and capacity building.
7.44
While NBAN and MLDRIN acknowledged that requirements to have regard to Indigenous' values and uses in environmental water planning have helped to drive positive reform at Commonwealth and state levels, they argued that progress has been slow and there is often insufficient support for Indigenous peoples to meaningfully engage with and inform environmental water planning in the basin. As an example, MLDRIN explained it requested membership of the Southern Connected Basin Environmental Watering Committee in 2015 but the request was denied. In late 2019, MLDRIN was subsequently invited to participate as a member.
7.45
In a second example, NBAN and MLDRIN explained that a Northern Basin Environmental Watering Group (NBEWG) was established in November 2019 to coordinate planning and delivery of water for the environment across the northern basin. The NBEWG comprises officials from MDBA, CEWO, and the NSW and Queensland Governments. However, at the time of submission lodgement (May 2020), NBAN had not been formally advised of the group or invited to participate.
7.46
NBAN and MLDRIN argued that Indigenous peoples should be empowered to play an active role in the planning, delivery, and monitoring of environmental water at all scales, from local to basin-wide. That is, Indigenous peoples' objectives for use of environmental water should be included in both short and long-term planning documents (including wetland management plans, seasonal watering plans, Long-Term Watering Plans, the Basin Environmental Watering Strategy, and Annual Environmental Watering Priorities). NBAN and MLDRIN contended that water holders should work directly with Indigenous peoples to co‑manage environmental water to support self‑determination and caring for Country.
7.47
NBAN and MLDRIN identified that there is a general need for more targeted communications products for Indigenous peoples regarding environmental water. NBAN and MLDRIN called for the CEWO to complete its Indigenous Engagement Strategy (uncompleted at the time of submission) and suggested that communication and engagement could be improved by highlighting opportunities for participation and explaining how environmental water is being used to achieve cultural outcomes. This could be delivered through presentations, briefings or workshops with dedicated advisory groups, on‑Country discussions during watering events, detailed information on the priority-setting process, and the basin's environmental water management framework.
7.48
NBAN and MLDRIN suggested that greater support for Indigenous input into environmental water planning is also needed. Among other things, NBAN and MLDRIN suggested that there should be obligations on water agencies with responsibilities for planning to include cultural input. Indigenous representatives, they submitted, should also be included in the membership of coordination committees to improve communication and understanding of watering events, and there should be greater co-management of environmental water between water holders and Indigenous peoples.
7.49
According to the CEWO's submission, the agency already works collaboratively with Indigenous communities across the basin to deliver environmental water for environmental and cultural outcomes:
In some instances, direct partnerships with First Nations enables the inclusion of Indigenous people and knowledge in the planning and delivery of Commonwealth environmental water to culturally significant sites in the basin. In other instances, the CEWO relies on the local connections of state governments and other water delivery agencies, who have relationships and established processes for First Nations participation in management of important environmental sites…Work is currently underway to incorporate First Nations environmental watering objectives into planning for environmental flows at a Basin-scale.
7.50
In its submission, provided in September 2019, the CEWO advised that it was actively working to enhance its engagement with Indigenous communities through increased opportunities under the Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Program and the development of a First Nations Participation and Reporting Strategy.
Opportunities to strengthen involvement in water management
7.51
Indigenous peoples face several barriers when seeking to engage with governments on water policy. The committee heard that many Indigenous peoples are surviving on welfare, are in poor health, and have limited opportunities to build their capacity and technical expertise.
7.52
Mr Phil Duncan, Chair, Basin Community Committee, argued that greater support for capacity building is required:
[W]e, as Aboriginal people, have operated in what I would call a vacuum of information and a vacuum of opportunity to realise our potential and our cultural responsibility to care for Country and to be involved in the decision-making processes of protecting this precious resource. I think that we need to have our Aboriginal communities' capacity built to a greater level of understanding, to be able to act and participate more efficiently in this space.
7.53
Likewise, Mr Paton, on behalf of the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations, argued that the Basin Plan is already difficult to access and understand, and this is being compounded by inadequate resourcing and expertise required for Traditional Owners to participate in a meaningful way:
Traditional owners need to be resourced adequately to be able to engage with these systems to meet their own obligations to care for Country. Failing to provide these resources to the traditional owners is a failure to ensure their right to free, prior and informed consent. While some basin states have made commitments to improve traditional owners' rights to access, manage and own water, others lag far behind in recognising and legislating these rights and interests. For example, the Victorian government have demonstrated strong leadership through their commitment to developing a traditional-owner water road map.
7.54
Mr Paton further argued that there should be joint decision-making in basin water planning, supported by greater resourcing to address capacity and expertise gaps:
Co-governance is a model we often employ with departments in Victoria. For example, we have an Aboriginal executive council made up of all the various peak bodies in Victoria. We have a regular meeting with the secretaries leadership group in Victoria to make joint decisions about Closing the Gap plans and the overarching Aboriginal affairs framework.
7.55
In addition to capacity building, there are other opportunities to strengthen effective participation by Indigenous peoples in the implementation of the Basin Plan. Mr Duncan advocated for river ranger and compliance programs:
I am a firm supporter of Aboriginal river rangers to be involved in caring for Country, water quality, native fish monitoring and riparian advice. I've also been a very strong advocate for Aboriginal people being involved in the compliance aspects, being accredited as a duly qualified person to install the telemetry metering, and then being trained in the monitoring and reporting back to both the states and the federal office of the inspector-general.
7.56
Likewise, NBAN and MLDRIN argued that Indigenous peoples are well placed to contribute to monitoring of environmental and cultural outcomes from watering. NBAN and MLDRIN explained that there are a number of Traditional Owner techniques and monitoring frameworks that can track environmental and cultural outcomes. For example, trials are underway in Victoria to test the effectiveness of the Aboriginal Waterways Assessment Tool which allows Indigenous peoples to collect data on environmental and cultural outcomes at sites across the basin for input into strategic planning. However, NBAN and MLDRIN argued that greater support is needed for these types of monitoring programs, such as establishing and extending river ranger programs and Aboriginal Water Officer networks.
7.57
In April 2021, over $3 million was made available to Indigenous organisations across the breadth of the basin to establish up to four new Indigenous ranger groups to work on waterway health projects that support environmental and cultural outcomes. The program provided funding for one year, commencing on or soon after 1 July 2021, for organisations to employ a total of 20 full-time equivalent Indigenous rangers as well as a number of ranger coordinators.
7.58
During its inquiry, the committee received evidence about the merits of various Indigenous-operated initiatives and economic activities using water resources, including, for example, Indigenous-operated nurseries for traditional plants in riparian zones, and increased infrastructure and resourcing for aquaculture projects.
Investment in Indigenous communities
7.59
There has been some progress in increasing the representation and capacity of Indigenous peoples in the basin. For example, the legislated permanent position of an Indigenous member on the board of the MDBA was filled in December 2020.
7.60
In 2018, the Australian Government provided $40 million over four years to help Indigenous communities invest in water for cultural and economic activities. Northern basin and southern basin communities were flagged to each receive $20 million. Two full-time staff positions were also established for three years to support NBAN and MLDRIN to translate the findings of the National Cultural Flows Research Project into practical activities. A further $1.5 million was allocated to cover associated costs, including ongoing development of the Aboriginal Waterways Assessment program.
7.61
According to a media report, the Chair of NBAN estimated that $40 million would provide funding for approximately six gigalitres of water, which would have to be shared among 50 First Nations up and down the river. Mr Taylor, Werai Land and Water Aboriginal Corporation, expressed concern that the $40 million would be insufficient for achieving meaningful cultural flows: 'MLDRIN represents 24 Aboriginal nations along the Murray River. I'm not sure how many members NBAN have in their organisation, but I think it's a few more than what we have'. That said, Mr Taylor advised that funding could be used to 'regenerate the forest to how it was. To be able to buy out neighbours and create a bigger forest would be good…For our nation, [our portion] would only equate to around $800,000. I don't know how much water that can buy'.
7.62
While Mr Paton was hesitant to provide an estimate of what might constitute an appropriate amount, he advised that 'it would be significantly more than $40 million in order to achieve the objectives of Traditional Owners'.
Mrs Taylor pointed out that more sustainable funding is required: 'The sad thing about it is that we talk about sustainability but that funding is not sustainable. "We'll give you funding for 12 months." How can we plan for the future when it's this short-term funding?'
7.63
Mr Geoffrey Kendell, Chair, Central Murray Environmental Floodplains Group, Southern Connected Basin Communities, pointed out that some Indigenous communities do not want funding, 'they just want their river to flow for everyone…they just want water in their river'.
7.64
Some contributors pointed out that a significant period of time had lapsed since the funding was announced. In July 2021, media reported that the government was continuing 'to consult with peak Indigenous groups to finalise an agreement and seek consensus' and that the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment 'was continuing to work on the program to deliver the funding'.
Committee view and recommendations
7.65
The Basin Plan aims to embed Indigenous values and uses within long-term local water sharing plans. Yet the committee received evidence from Indigenous peak bodies that some government consultation within those communities on aspects of the Basin Plan has been inadequate.
7.66
According to NBAN and MLDRIN, consultation with Indigenous communities has been rushed, haphazard, and tokenistic. This has resulted in the sentiment that they have been treated as a 'box-ticking' exercise or an afterthought. The committee heard some governments did not always provide adequate and culturally appropriate information to allow Indigenous communities to meaningfully engage in water discussions.
7.67
The complexity of WRPs is also undermining participation of stakeholders. Submitters indicated that it is challenging to understand the content and scope of WRPs, and whether they meet and enact Basin Plan obligations.
7.68
There have also been inconsistent approaches across basin states to WRP development. Inconsistencies in the way that governments consult with Indigenous communities means that their voices have not been evenly reflected across water resource plans. This is likely resulting in discrepancies in Indigenous outcomes across the basin.
7.69
The committee recognises the significant efforts that have been made by basin governments to consult with and reflect the views of all stakeholders, and across often highly-contested and technical topics. However, the committee agrees there is room to improve governments' consultation and engagement standards with Indigenous peoples. The committee considers that introducing best-practice approaches will improve alignment between state approaches and address some of the imbalances between and within jurisdictions. This will hopefully result in Indigenous Australian views being more consistently reflected in water policy decisions across the basin.
7.70
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with basin states to adopt a best-practice, principles-based approach to communicating and disseminating information to all key stakeholders, including Indigenous communities in the basin.
7.71
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and basin states work to improve representation of all impacted stakeholders in the development of Water Resource Plans (WRPs), including by:
identifying and implementing best-practice approaches to WRP development, communication, and engagement;
ensuring that sufficient information about WRPs is made available to all stakeholders in advance of engagement and include 'plain English' and culturally appropriate versions to expand their uptake; and
ensuring that all state-based Basin Plan and WRP coordination committees provide adequate opportunities to enable the timely and authentic engagement with Indigenous communities and their leaders.
7.72
The committee recognises that basin governments are variously addressing cultural flows, with some seeking to improve the availability of water entitlements for cultural purposes. The committee welcomes the announcement of $40 million in funding from the Australian Government for cultural flows in the basin and acknowledges there has been some delay in finding consensus on how the funding should be allocated.
7.73
In the absence of cultural flows, environmental water provides the only other avenue to support spiritual sites and traditional Aboriginal Australian values. However, the committee heard that Indigenous peoples are sometimes excluded from providing input into environmental watering decisions in a relevant and consistent manner. The committee supports the recommendation made by the Productivity Commission in its five-year assessment report that the next iteration of the Murray-Darling Basin environmental watering strategy should also be amended to allow environmental water to support cultural outcomes as a secondary objective where appropriate.
7.74
The committee recognises the existing efforts of the CEWO in working with Indigenous representatives to plan, deliver, and monitor water for the environment. This includes direct partnerships, engagement through state government agencies and working with peak bodies such as the MLDRIN and NBAN.
7.75
NBAN and MLDRIN reported that the values and cultural water rights of Indigenous peoples are not being fully realised via the implementation of the Basin Plan, particularly WRP and environmental watering processes. The committee considers more information should be made available on whether there is scope to adapt the Basin Plan and the Water Act 2007 in 2026 to better reflect and realise the full extent of Indigenous water rights across water resource plans and environmental watering processes.
7.76
The committee acknowledges the efforts of the MDBA in working with Indigenous communities; it has appointed an Indigenous Australian Board member, it has partnerships with NBAN and MLDRIN, there are two Indigenous Australian members on the Basin Community Committee, and there are also informal pathways for people to directly engage with the agency. The committee believes in the importance of the MDBA continuing to strengthen relations and understanding of the values and needs of, Indigenous basin state communities.
7.77
The committee recommends that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority continue to build capacity and expertise through communication with Indigenous leaders and their communities throughout the basin to ensure basin states are complying with and prioritising their Indigenous commitments.
7.78
The committee notes the Australian Government’s investment into the Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Ranger program in April 2021. The funding provides funding for one year for up to 20 full-time rangers. However, the Basin Plan is a long-term commitment to change the way in which water is shared and used, and many ecological outcomes will not be evident for many years. As such, the committee agrees that initiatives such as the River Ranger program should be extended to align with the intent of the Basin Plan to protect the environment long-term.
7.79
The committee recommends that the Australian Government extend the life of the Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Ranger Program for a period of 10 years to ensure a long-term approach is taken to monitoring the effects of the implementation of the Basin Plan.
7.80
The committee considers there is considerable value in governments supporting ideas that emerge from within indigenous communities that directly relate to regenerating traditional Indigenous Australian uses of the river system—for example, by piloting a nursery for traditional plants to be operated by Indigenous peoples in riparian zones in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Next chapter
7.81
The following chapter explores concerns regarding the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism.