Murray Murmurings: Windsor Inquiry further muddies Murray debate
The Windsor Inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan handed down its results last week, calling for greater community engagement in creating the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But the government has already dismissed one key aspect of the inquiry and researchers are questioning the inquiry’s anti-buyback and pro-community engagement stance as the best way to establish a healthy river system.
The parliament inquiry was conducted by the Standing Committee on Regional Australia and headed by independent MP Tony Windsor. It examined the socio-economic aspects of the Murray Darling Basin Plan on the Basin communities and the full report can be read online here.
The results are hugely critical of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), noting that it has lost credibility with the communities it was supposed to engage with. An entire subsection of the Windsor Inquiry was on the reputation of the MDBA, stating:
“It is easy to see in the language and sentiments expressed in evidence that the reputation of the MDBA has clearly been damaged as a result of the Guide… These are strategic decisions for which the executive and Board of the MDBA should accept responsibility.”
Mike Taylor, who was chair of the MDBA during much of heated public outcry, resigned back in December, making him an easy target for much of the blame.
When asked what the MDBA thought of the results of the Windsor Inquiry this morning, Crikey was referred to a previous quote by current chair Craig Knowles, who said “We welcome the Windsor report and are looking at it closely. I don’t think there’ll be many surprises, as we’ve spoken to the same communities and interest groups”.
When asked what the MDBA thought of Tony Windsor saying the MDBA “hadn’t done a good in terms of discussing the issues with the community”, Crikey was referred to a quote by previous MDBA CEO Rob Freeman: ”I think it’s fair to say we did get things wrong, I agree with that. I think the idea of being out talking in a town hall four days after you’ve released a document that’s some 233 pages is probably a flawed strategy. We need to give people time to understand. I think it’s fair to say we were having meetings where people hadn’t had an opportunity to read it, let alone to understand it.”
John Quiggin, an academic who has devoted more than 30 years of research to studying the Murray-Darling Basin, says the latest Windsor Inquiry made him swear off researching the Basin — at least for the foreseeable future, telling Crikey: ”There’s not much point in analysing the economics as long as it’s going to [turn into a] political decision.”
Quiggin says in retrospect the Murray-Darling Basin would be better off without an overarching plan which everyone had to agree to. “The idea of a plan has turned out to be worse than useless”, said Quiggin, noting that if would be better for governments to be responsive and implementing policies and measures that individual communities need rather than trying to get over a million residents in the Basin to agree on one plan.
“You should blame John Howard rather than anyone else. The whole notion that the Commonwealth would do a better job than the states has proved to be false.”
Today the Victorian government announced an advisory group to advocate for north Victoria in the Basin plan negotiations. ”First and foremost, the Coalition Government wants to make sure Victoria’s interests are strongly represented” said Victorian Water Minister Peter Walsh.
Walsh also noted that the Windsor report advocated community engagement on a catchment by catchment basis and therefore this group was being established to make sure Victorian interests are heard loud and clear.
MDBA chief Craig Knowles told Crikey about the community engagement changes contained in the next Basin Plan guide, such as a 16-week community consultation period following its release.
“I’m confident that the community is already realising that they’re dealing with a different Authority this time around, and that we are taking on board their local ideas and solutions,” said Knowles.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page
Categories: Murray Murmurings
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am interested that you have extensively quoted Quiggan. I personally have some doubts as to his objectivity. In this regard, I note that modelling he carried out for the Garnaut Report predicted a 70% odd loss of agricultural production with a 30% reduction in irrigation water, but work carried out by his group for the MDBA found a 15% loss in productivity with a 30% reduction in irrigation water. The only thing that has changed is the ideological context ie in the Garnaut report: global warming = bad = cost to production, MDBA work: irrigation = bad = limited benefit of production.
Why the hell anyone would listen to Arlene is beyond me. I once spent fifteen minutes explaining to her why buybacks don’t do anything for the economy as they are just a transfer before the penny dropped with her.
The whole thing is a political bun fight with competing interests trying to get others to pay the price of their values. The irrigators and communities work in industries based on irrigation and this comes at an environmental cost and generally paid by others, conversely the environmentalists want some sort of pristine natural environment and want the price of their diorama to be paid by others.
Despite all the rhetoric around “science”, in my view parliament is the correct forum for making value judgements around the allocation of resources.
And for any environmental catastrophists out there, if you are sure we are all going to hell in a hand basket, I would be happy to hear from you as to your reasons for your belief.
Cheers
John
by johnno42 on Jun 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm
This debate is not about science or economics, it is about values and parliament is the correct place for such decisions. Can’t say I have much faith in Quiggan. His work for the Garnaut report found massive economic impacts from reductions in agriculture when irrigation water was reduced as a result of global warming but his group found the reductions in agriculture were minimal if the water reduction came from the diversion of water to environmental flows. He needs to explain why the same model gave different results in different ideological contexts.
by johnno42 on Jun 8, 2011 at 1:51 pm
To quote Yes, Minister, it sounds like it to me that the title for the next person to lead an enquiry into the Murray Darling should be “muggins”.
Three states, farmers and environmentalists, and the media turning a draft report into a circus sound like a perfect position for someone looking at rational, non-political decision making
by Gerry Hatrick, OAP on Jun 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm
My goodness John Quiggan, what else was it going to be other than a “political decision”? John is a sophisticated and sensible commentator on public policy matters as a rule, but I think he’s wide of the mark here.
People who like facts and objective science can get seriously damaged in the maelstrom of political decision-making…. the art of compromise, the art of the “possible”. But the alternative is some sort of scientocracy, which even John – especially John – would find totally unacceptable.
The agenda set out by Howard guaranteed that the original report would be torn apart. By presenting a factual scientific minumum, the science had nowhere to go but backwards in the face of the inevitable reaction by vested interests. It should have been an ambit claim. But that was not possible.
But to draw a “lesson” that the feds are less capable than the states in managing the problem? Strewth. More history, less economics please.
The one positive thing to emerge from this process is, that for the moment at least, the squabbling sectional influence of the states has been substantially sidelined.
The sad truth is that this is going to take longer than we would like, that it will involve partial, incremental progress and continuing degradation of the MDB until this is resolved. But I am more convinced than ever that it will be resolved. Eventually. And hopefully while there is something worth salvaging.
Part of the resolution lies in expanding the range of “stakeholders” – god I hate that word – to include those who don’t have a direct economic interest in sucking water out of the system. It’s a bigger issue than that. It’s referendum territory.
by Peter Ormonde on Jun 9, 2011 at 10:42 am