Murray Darling Plan implementation needs bipartisan support

There are some critical areas which we will continue to focus on, the highest priority is timing. The PC has identified a number of areas that are at risk of not meeting current timelines. These include completion of Water Resource Plans by June next year, the acquisition of 62GL of supply measures, also by June next year, and the acquisition of the remaining component of 605GL worth of supply measures by 2024. The PC has identified that active consideration needs to be given to if, and if so, how, some of these measures might be delayed and under what circumstances. The key pivot point is that if extensions are under consideration there needs to be unambiguous rules, or in PC speak - gateways, so progress is sustained on implementation.

The irrigation sector has some serious skin in the game in terms of non-delivery so any decision to delay needs to be taken carefully and against clear rules. For all of these measures it is imperative that the communities be engaged, consulted and on board with the outcomes, the message for governments in particular is consult, consult, consult and then having listened implement appropriate outcomes.

The PC is also identified the need to consider the governance arrangements as they apply to the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). The case being argued is that the twin roles of the MDBA as regulator and facilitator could create compromise. In principle, we agree, and if it is to be done then it needs to be done quickly, with precision, and most importantly, without creating transitional inertia that would (again) slow down the implementation process of the Plan.

Another key issue of concern is the implementation of the 450GL efficiency measures. These are measures identified to provide the final tranche of water to meet a 3200 GL Plan. They are contentious for two reasons. Firstly, the Water Act requires socio-economic neutrality, and that is currently being further defined. Secondly, there is an argument on the timing and source. We say that the 450GL should be sourced off-farm first (and EY agree) and only then should consideration be given to acquiring water from on-farm. In the latter context this can only be allowed if the socio-economic impact test shows no worse than neutral and that test must be applied locally, regionally and across the basin and it should particularly ensure that people do not enter an arrangement, get the financial benefit and then transfer water from another valley.

Now, here is the key point; all of these processes require ongoing political support, and for investment certainty in irrigation regions, bipartisan support is key. The ongoing economic sustainability of the irrigation sector will continue to be underwritten by clear rules, and political support. We continue to walk the tight rope of investment certainty, palatable rules and parliamentary consent.

We are about to enter a prolonged period of political flux, between now and June 2019 there have to be three elections for basin governments, Victoria, NSW and National. Each brings a natural pause as caretaker provisions apply and, especially if government changes, a post electoral restart period. Integrate the provision to government of the PC report by the end of December then there is a significant risk that we could lose 6-12 months as government and people change and new people come on board. Being distracted by any of this simply won't be good enough, 2019 and 2024 looms large on the horizon. We need to see the PC report released very quickly, recommendations assessed and implemented with haste and the march towards the key result areas of Water Resource Plans and 605 measures to be a clear core focus. No. Inertia. Please.

*Les Gordon is the Chair of the National Farmers’ Federation’s Water Taskforce and a rice grower from Barham, NSW.