stunspore wrote on May 6^th, 2019 at 10:49pm:


Yeah, but you manage it.

stunspore wrote on May 6^th, 2019 at 10:49pm:


Ooh look another of stunspores "debating " skill coming to the fore. Just another assertion without foundation.

The Murray-Darling Management Plan Stinks

The 'watergate scandal' is still as clear as mud in a drought

ABC Rural
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has remained controversial ever since its introduction back in 2012.

If you throw enough mud, eventually some of it might stick.

That seems to have been Labor's approach to the so-called "watergate scandal".

This week the Opposition seemed intent on ramming home to anyone who'll listen that something improper went down on Barnaby Joyce's watch.

What exactly it is alleging is about as clear as the water flowing through the Menindee Lakes.

Scandal was Bill Shorten's word, but those who have been following the Murray-Darling Basin Plan this past decade aren't quite there yet.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but there's also nothing new, or illegal, about the Australian Government spending $80 million to purchase water from two Queensland farms in 2017.

It was reported at the time, even heralded as a win by the Government of the day.

A win for the triple bottom line; returning water to the environment in a way that wouldn't affect jobs or communities, a Coalition media release said.

A case of the Commonwealth delivering for the common good, it might have argued.

Sure, the fact that taxpayers forked out so much to a private company linked to another in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands might stink, but this is life under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

A landmark deal for a pricey commodity

While few would agree it is perfect, the plan brokered a landmark agreement among duelling interests.

The states agreed, bipartisan support was lent, and in 2012 the $13 billion plan was signed into law.

At the heart of the plan is a commitment by government to purchase irrigation licences from willing sellers so that — assuming the river flows — water might be reallocated to the environment.

Water buybacks are widely considered one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to increase the flow of water through the river system that is home to more than 2 million people and responsible for a third of Australia's agriculture production.

Labor, if elected, wants to change the legislation so government can buy more water from farmers to return to the river.

Water is, and should be, expensive.

That's not to say taxpayers don't deserve value for money, but is it surprising that those in a position to sell it find themselves in the box seat when negotiating a deal with the public purse?

As former Balonne Shire mayor Donna Stewart observed this week: "When you're in that situation and you need that [water] to meet those [basin plan] targets you were going to increase the price of what had been paid in the past."

Buyback deals consider more than just the value of the water, there is remuneration for destroying infrastructure so as to deter future landholders from returning irrigation to the property.

And the purchases must be spread, strategically, through the system, with some arguing it is better to make fewer, larger buybacks from corporates rather than pursue several, smaller family farms for their entitlements.

Few would argue against greater transparency of how the price of water buybacks is determined but the details of countless government deals hide behind "commercial reasons", and it is not clear why two water trades made two years ago should be treated any different.


The political aim becomes clear

With images of a million dead fish fresh on the nation's consciousness, just days into a federal election campaign and with irrigators across four states warned to prepare for a year without water (or at least without water they can afford), the river has become a vehicle for political point scoring.

First it seemed energy minister Angus Taylor, a one-time director at Eastern Australia Agriculture, was the target.

When it became clear he walked from the company years before the deal was done and had no financial interest, Labor shifted its aim.

Following an exceptional performance on RN Drive on Easter Monday it was clear Mr Joyce was their man.

His sins however, on this occasion, are less clear.

Labor believes Mr Joyce is toxic to the Coalition's re-election chances, particularly in southern states, and is keen to keep him in the national spotlight.

Labor water spokesman, and arguably architect of the plan, Tony Burke has now promised a commission of inquiry — with the powers of a royal commission — into the 2017 water deals, exempting Labor's ministers from any such scrutiny.

"If we wanted to seriously politicise the Murray-Darling Basin we'd go into the whole period of Barnaby Joyce and possibly the whole period of a series of ministers, that's what we'd do," Mr Burke said.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
Video: Tony Burke says questions remain over Murray-Darling buybacks (ABC News)

But farm and environment groups aren't convinced this isn't about politics and have suggested if a federal inquiry is to go ahead, it must consider all water deals.

"There has probably only been half a dozen rather large buybacks, so why not extend it to all of them ... if the process is wrong, look at all of them and change the process," Victorian Farmers Federation spokesman Richard Anderson said..

You seem to think that is only the Coalition. You just don't want to admit that your idols have feet of clay.

Was wondering where this thread went