Opinion 
 Blogs 
 Canberra Comment 
 Benefits for Victoria evaporate under cloud of parochialism 

Benefits for Victoria evaporate under cloud of parochialism

Victoria's tactic of drawing out negotiations over the Federal Government's $10 billion plan for water security in the Murray Darling Basin has backfired this week, and the State's only real chance to upgrade and reform many of its major dilapidated irrigation systems has evaporated.

The Federal Government call on external affairs constitutional powers will essentially force Victoria to cede control in many areas it had already agreed to hand over in principle anyway, but the Premier's refusal to continue negotiations and have no part in the deal means neighbouring States will surge ahead in irrigation reform thanks to the government's $10 billion plan, and Victoria will have to go it alone.

There's no denying that the past six months' negotiations has seen an immense amount of legislative detail clarified and inserted into the water reform draft bill.

Farmers' efforts to get major operational detail squeezed out of the water bureaucrats in Canberra to enshrine their own rights has seen the bill re-drafted close to 60 times, and that is commendable, and will no doubt continue until all of the few remaining concerns are addressed.

But while some have taken a positive engagement approach to ensure the bill proceeds, with the appropriate safeguards for farmers, the Victorian Government, and to an extent the Victorian Farmers Federation, have carried on as though they don't really need the plan.

Very often Victorians have claimed their irrigation systems are superior, and VFF president Simon Ramsay was once quoted as saying that "quite frankly, I don't care if the deal doesn't go ahead".

Now many facets of the plan will be out of their reach, including the chance to upgrade weirs and channels in places like the Goulburn Valley – hardly an example of fine or modern irrigation systems.

Victoria will have to meet the same kinds of nationally-set caps for the system, deal with the same compliance expectations, but do much of it on its own.

It is a shame that Victoria always believed the plan would go ahead with one set of rules, while other States would have to play by another.

Water is a national asset, which knows no State boundaries and reform needs to forget the politics and parochialism of the past and adopt the big picture approach.

It's a shame the same spirit of co-operation and lack of parochialism and politics seen during the $501 million Wimmera-Mallee pipeline were not adopted for these negotiations.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It looks like Bracks and Ramsay over played their hand.

They forgot that the Federal Government is the one with the surplus and that the Fed's have many many calls on that money.


Posted by Allan on 26/07/2007 6:23:58 PM
The more I have observed the conflicts between Howard and Bracks over water, the more I think it is about votes and not water.

I honestly cannot see why anyone who cared about safe-guarding water for Australia would give more water to irrigators and take it from dryland farmers - as in the Wimmera Mallee piping, which replaces seasonally used gravity-fed channels one hundred years old with expensive, cumbersome, motor-pumped closed pipes, forces farmers to bulldoze their dams and to lay expensive infrastructure for the privilege of receiving very expensive water, which has been arguably taken from them to buy votes from irrigators, who were also encouraged to farm even more intensively.

Let's face it: the irrigated parts of the MDB are the most densely populated areas of inland rural Australia and water for irrigators is a handle on a substantial voting population.

In contrast the dryland farmers, albeit far more sustainable even though broadacre and mixed, are too thin on the ground to matter to Bracks or Howard.

So, is this about water? Yes, but only about branding water with a party name.

I thought that Howard was masterfully crafty in his sudden withdrawal from the Snowy Hydro privatisation plan, leaving Bracks, so to speak, high, dry and irrigation vote-less.

I guess that is part of the reason that Bracks would be furious this time. Did he resign or was he persuaded to resign? I'm only sorry that I missed the detail. I have looked in vain for articles which would analyse what really happened.

I certainly cannot credit Bracks or Thwaites with any sincere desire to actually guarantee hydration to Victoria. I have watched them sell out to the big money (Pratt's piping; desalination; overpopulation) for too long.

It is truly sickening to listen to both Federal and State politicians carrying on about precious water for future generations etc with their hands over the places where their hearts would be if they had hearts, when anyone can see that they are leading a charge of salivating nabobs who are dying for full commodification to take place so that they can buy up the water and wait for the inflation and scarcity which is already arising with climate change, continuing population growth, and more intensification of agriculture.

Then again, with a merchant banker in charge of water - Turnbull - we are all in really big trouble. Trading water separate from land is a terrible idea, but I am sure that Turnbull will come up with much worse.

Neutrino

Posted by Neutrino on 29/07/2007 10:15:15 AM
This article seems to suggest that the VFF (Very Few Farmers?) IS farmers. This is not accurate.

Over 70% in this Electorate of Murray voted to keep our Consitutional Monarchy and "Velvet" Ramsay seems happy to negotiate with the traitors in Canberra to undermine and attempt to destroy it.

If this water takeover goes ahead the VFF will go down in history as one of the destroyers of Australian family farms.

Posted by Australia First on 30/07/2007 4:24:28 PM
The original suggestion that the Murray Darling be managed by a 'Reserve Bank' style of statutory authority is the right one.

The win-win outcome of Federal Government investment to upgrade failing water infrastructure and, minimum political inteference, protection of public ownership of water, investment in sustainable agriculture and increase in environmental flows to the Murray is achievable.

The only stumbling block is that Howard wants to use the Murray Darling to win votes at the Federal election and Turnbull wants to sell our water and water utilities.

Keep water public and managed by non-political organisations!

Posted by Andrew on 30/07/2007 6:37:01 PM
Simon (Ramsay) I thought that you would 'follow-the-lead' of "what's his name", and hang up your boots, having failed your VFF farming partners so badly. Especially in this "round" ! !
Posted by Billy on 9/10/2007 9:46:57 PM
Lucy Skuthorp is the Rural Press Canberra Bureau chief based in Parliament House.

11/12/2008 | Farm lobby groups will decide next week whether the future of farm representation will stay as it is or be broadened to bring in the big end of town.
QCL Subscriptions
 
QCL Rate Card
 
Rural Bookshop
 
QCL - Mail Order Cataloge
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...