Missed deadline not questioned

IT IS 13 years since the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was legislated, and at the time concern was expressed by many who live in the southern basin that this was flawed legislation which would always be problematic.

Some water ministers were able to ‘kick the can down the road’ rather than acknowledge the flaws and work with communities to fix them.

The current water minister, Tanya Plibersek, has been forced to concede the plan cannot be completed by the original deadline of June 2024.

It’s strange that many government projects are not finished on time and this is accepted, yet for years we’ve been told the basin plan must be finished “in full and on time”.

For the past 12 months, Labor has blamed the Coalition for the delays, but this is a cop-out.

The delays have been caused by a last-minute change which added 450 gigalitres to the recovery target (due to South Australian blackmail), yet with no plan to deliver the additional volumes.

And let’s not forget, this was a Labor change that was included for political purposes, not environmental ones.

That has left us in a position where there are significant unanswered questions around this 450GL.

Most importantly, even if the additional water is recovered, our river system does not have the capacity to deliver it from the dams to the end of the system.

It’s like trying to fit 10 litres of water into a 5-litre bucket: it won’t fit.

Additionally, if we try to recover water through buybacks, it will come at a massive cost to the Australian taxpayer, with estimates of well over $10 billion, while also sacrificing the social and economic fabric of rural communities.

This is not speculation; it is proven fact backed up by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s own economic analysis.

We perhaps also shouldn’t forget that it will put a further cost burden on Australian families, because with less water our nation’s major food bowl will produce less food.

As we have seen in recent times, reducing supply bumps up the price at the supermarket.

What we need is a comprehensive review of the basin plan – in particular, the volumes that have been recovered to date, the environmental positives that have been achieved and what volumes we can send down the Murray River and its tributaries without damaging the very rivers we are supposed to be protecting.

If we change the narrative and prioritise achieving the best possible basin plan, instead of political objectives, future generations will look back and applaud the vision.

If we continue on the current trajectory, they’ll look back in disbelief at the absolute stupidity of our governments.

Shelley Scoullar

Albury, NSW