The Land News Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.

Opinion

Blogs

Buy back the water licences; then what happens Mr Rudd?

The Federal Government has bolstered the cash available to buy back water licences, the greens have published their wishlist of properties to be targeted, and the drought has more farmers than ever classing themselves as 'willing sellers'.

But if the Government is successful in buying back the vast volumes of water licences it desires, the question that has not been answered is: what is its plan for the small towns and rural communities which have irrigation as their economic basis?

Indeed, the question is broader than that: what is the Federal Government's plan for inland Australia?

On election night last year, Mr Rudd promised to govern for 'all Australians', and singled out rural Australians for special mention.

And while the Rudd Government is accelerating the buyback of licences, which many view as a long-overdue step towards reviving the Murray Darling Basin, the strategy must be viewed in context.

First, as has been shown already, most licences that the Government buys in the current environment will only deliver 'paper savings' to the river. That is, the irrigation allocations are next to nought in many regions, meaning that buying the licence to pump water will not actually deliver anything to the river system until it rains and allocations again rise.

And second, that is exactly the time when the Government will have another headache if it is successful in buying the hundreds of gigalitres of entitlements that it desires.

That water, which has previously been used to grow crops and generate income, would now wash downstream past the towns and businesses which depend on irrigation for their very existence.

Take Cubbie Station out of action, which many strangely seem to think will be the silver bullet solution to Adelaide's water shortage, and you may as well take Dirranbandi off the Queensland map.

Multiply this scenario the Basin over, and the Government will be facing a major social and economic problem.

The Government, agricultural industries and every small town in the Basin should start thinking now about new ways for rural Australia to thrive without water as its economic crutch.

What do you think?

Posted By: MICHAEL THOMSON on 17/08/2008 5:56:49 PM | Comments (17)

Comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

As a guest living in Ngarrindjeri Country, I am sad that you represent the idea that water will "wash downstream past towns" and come to no one. I am told that irrigators on the Narrung Peninsula sent truckloads of feed interstate when farmers upstream needed it. This spirit of generosity makes this nation. The Ngarringjeri have taught their children to share for thousands of years. When the British came Ngarrindjeri elders welcomed them and were willing to share their Country and asked that it be looked after in return. The Murray is now a series of polluted pools. It's on artificial life support. Please put aside politics. Please put aside the rural/city divisions. Please look beyond vested interests. Please listen to those best placed to speak for Country: the Traditional Owners. A river with flows that sustain health ultimately benefits us all.

Posted by Grace on 17/08/2008 8:23:28 PM

Grace,

I'm not questioning the need to return water to the river - clearly that is needed. But what's also needed is some thought as to what will happen to rural communities after the licences are bought back so that we can all continue to share a prosperous future.

Posted by Michael Thomson on 18/08/2008 9:52:08 AM

Michael, the strategy is as clear as day, you are a Rural Reporter you do see all that is done or not done in ag. put the whole lot together and ......I can see the big Illuminated (Green power) signfrom here: Welcome to INPA Inter National Park Australia.

Posted by Peter on 18/08/2008 6:55:18 AM

You are dead right Michael, there is absolutley no plan for the future of the regions. Unfortunately, most urban Australians see agriculture as a blight on the pristine landscape & only a quaint cultural adornment for the nation. Once, just about everyone in the city had a 'country cousin' & went to the country for school holidays where they got some taste for the realities of life in the country, but not any more. They are continuously misinformed about rural issues by a media industry that cultivates paranoia & paints honest, hard-working Australians as environmental terrorists. The precedents being set by this government in knee-jerk political manoeuvres will strike at the very heart of rural life. I am dismayed every time I go to the city that when people learn you are from the country they are quick to blame us for the troubles they see on their TV screens. It will take someone of considerable foresight to see this is avoided, but I don't see much hope in this government, or the opposition for that matter.

Posted by bushed on 18/08/2008 10:54:54 AM

DESAL PLANTS are needed right now for adelaide. Not in ten years after more polling or trips to really wet parts of the world. The m.i.s schemes for grapes & olives & other river user crops need stoping. The towns need protecting as well as the people. Destroy the murray you destroy yourselves.

Posted by THE FARMER on 18/08/2008 11:52:41 AM

In 1953 the CSIRO published a paper (I read it in primary school) that stated that Australia only had sufficient water to support a maximum of 18 million population, and then only if a large portion of them were in the tropics. We already exceed that number in this country. The solution is to stop any more people moving into Adelaide and Melbourne and Sydney. Stop stealing water from others to grow cities to enrich a few, and force people to live where the water already exists. Move all tertiary study to rural centres away from cities and there would be an instant relief, and the bonus of technology industries moving away from the city.

Posted by Denis on 20/08/2008 12:55:56 PM

The buyback has consequences for rural towns. But so does the incredible over-allocation of water licences. Without any government action to correct the situation, the drought, climate change and over-allocation will lead to widespread collapse of rural communities, along with the river system, with no compensation. Government buyback means that there will be money available for farmers to try something else or to relocate. When it rains again the rivers will have a chance to flow, and irrigators in downstream areas will have a chance to take water containing less salt, keeping their crops alive, instead of killing them.

A number of towns, like Dirrinbandi and Bourke have been built up by unsustainable levels of irrigation, and the build-up of some has strangled others downstream.

It is interesting that while some "rural spokespeople" are screaming about potential unemployment (mostly of seasonal labour), there are moves to import Pacific islanders for seasonal employment.

The Federal Government is doing rural people a huge favour by buying back water licences, most of which cost next to nothing originally. This is billions of dollars being fed into rural Australia.

Posted by Barney on 21/08/2008 10:44:19 AM

Privatisation of water and the separation of water from the land on which the rain falls is at the centre of this issue. The current policies and the use of markets to decide ensures the inequities remain and that some users are given a higher value to others. This is a classic case of privatising the profits and socialising the losses. In this case the losers are the environment, the communities and enterprises that depend on water. It will be a sad place that has no birds, tortoises and other critters as part of our experience.

Posted by twodragons on 21/08/2008 4:02:50 PM

Adelaide uses less than 1% of total River Murray water. For many years now Adelaide has purchased water ($12 million a year) from upstream... Who is this money going to? This should be resolved with the long overdue but planned desalination unit. The main problem is the stealing of water before it enters the Murray/Darling river system. Over allocation of water licences is a minor part, but must be fixed so irrigators can be assured of long term survival.

Posted by Peter on 22/08/2008 9:45:00 AM

As a freelance journalist covering rural matters from just north of Brisbane (but having lived in the 'bush town' of Canberra for 15 years until recently), I can see both sides of this debate. I think what is needed is a rational, balanced commentary such as Michael has written, which asks questions of the rural communities who will be most affected by the water buyback. (Although if a balanced solution is not reached soon, those in the cities will soon realise through less Australian farm produce in the supermarkets, and rising prices, that it affects them too). These rural communities will inevitably have to supply the answers themselves, whether it is by choosing different options at Federal, State and Local government elections, or modifying their own behaviour and seeking to influence their city cousins' attitudes through rational debate. There will always be those who take a less well-informed stance such as 'bushed', but this does not provide solutions for either the people in the country or the city, most of whom combine to make Australia a country which I am so proud to call home, for all that it is and is likely to continue to be a 'land of drought and flooding rains'.

Posted by Wendy on 22/08/2008 11:05:34 AM

We need to farm sustainably and the govt needs to support those of us who try to do so. Saving the Murray is more important than any of the towns or businesses you mention. If we don't save the River and the Basin turns to desert there won't be any towns at all. If we save the River then an least there will be some.

Posted by phoebe on 22/08/2008 11:07:59 PM

1 | 2 | next >

Michael Thomson is the Editor of FarmOnline. He has previously worked as the Canberra Parliamentary Press Gallery correspondent for the Rural Press group of agricultural newspapers, and as a senior reporter with Queensland Country Life.