The basin passes through four states and one territory, which all have a direct say in what happens in the rivers, and the lead agency is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
In the latest Senate committee report, Senator Rex Patrick issued a dissenting report, urging politicians to move towards a unified management based around one government controlling the basin.
“The committee’s recommendations only treat the symptoms of malaise, not the underlying and deep dysfunction of the multijurisdictional politics of the Murray-Darling Basin,” the South Australian senator said.
“The findings of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and the Australian Academy of Science's investigation of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee region of NSW left little doubt that the management of the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin has already produced significant adverse environmental impacts.
“The Murray-Darling is highly likely to face more severe challenges as a consequence of climate change.
“Abundant evidence presented to the committee underlined these judgments and the fact that implementation of the basin plan has been highly unsatisfactory, lacking in transparency, accountability but most importantly effectiveness — in large measure because of the competing interests across jurisdictions and the inability of governments to agree on measures that would safeguard what is a common resource of enormous importance to our nation.”
Senator Patrick wanted the committee to support his private member’s bill giving the Commonwealth authority to make laws on water resources.
The Senate committee, which took evidence in Shepparton and Deniliquin in May, heard many criticisms that too many governments and agencies were controlling the basin.
The Senate committee report said:
“While frustrations with the multijurisdictional aspect of the management and execution of the basin plan (frustrations which become particularly apparent in times of very low inflows) are in many ways understandable, it is not clear that the Commonwealth is better placed than the states to manage the basin.
“On the contrary, there is good evidence to suggest that states are better attuned to local needs on the ground, while the Commonwealth is best-placed to coordinate and oversight the implementation of the plan.”
WHAT THEY SAID
“The whole lot of us asked the question, 'Who actually owns the water and who makes the changes?' I've listed some here that come to mind straight away.
“We've got the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the MDBA, the CEWH, BOC, DELWP, NCCMA, Parks Victoria, VEWH, G-MW, NSW DPI, NSW DPI Water, the South Australian Government, SA Water, the Victorian Government, the Queensland Government, MINCO, the federal minister for water, the water ministers for Victoria, South Australia, NSW and Queensland — and we just go on.
“We're just duck-shoved around all over the place ...”
– Geoffrey Kendall, chair, Central Murray Environmental Floodplains Group, Southern Connected Basin Communities
30°C