It comes after Water Minister Tanya Plibersek last week announced buybacks would be used to recover water, including an additional 450 gigalitres which was not part of original Murray-Darling Basin Plan recovery targets.
The Murray Regional Strategy Group represents numerous community, farming and Indigenous organisations and has spent several years researching and developing ways to deliver the most effective Basin Plan.
Its chair Geoff Moar described news of the buybacks as a “dagger in the heart” of rural communities, especially after constant government promises that they would only be considered if there were no negative social and economic consequences.
While Mr Moar welcomed the extension to Basin Plan timelines announced by Ms Plibersek, he questioned how a Labor Government could support buybacks when there is so much evidence around the job losses they cause in rural communities.
Estimates put the job losses from previous buybacks at more than 3,000.
“There are good reasons why buybacks were abandoned by the previous federal government as a method to recover environmental water, and they should never have been reintroduced by the Albanese Government,” he said.
Mr Moar emphasised that Ms Plibersek seems to have forgotten the promises from past Labor Governments that buybacks would not occur without adhering to the strict socio-economic criteria, and that the additional 450 gigalitres was not part of the original Basin Plan.
It was added only when the South Australian Government threatened it would not sign up to the plan unless it was included.
“It is devastating that we now have a situation where Ms Plibersek is using the same tactics to get other states on side with her reviewed plan, while at the same time ignoring the numerous better options to deliver environmental outcomes,” Mr Moar said.
“The damage to our communities was recognised and that is why the socio-economic neutrality test was introduced.
“Now the Albanese Government wants it abandoned for nothing more than political gain.”
Water trading experts have advised there would be a significant increase in the cost of buying water compared to the buybacks of a decade ago, with estimates to buy additional volumes to complete the Basin Plan put as high as $20 billion.
“I am sure there are numerous individuals on hospital or housing waiting lists who would see addressing these crucial areas as a far greater priority, especially when buybacks are just not needed.
“We can achieve a healthy basin environment without this approach.”
Mr Moar said the view across the NSW Murray is that it is impossible to have water buybacks without causing socio-economic damage.
This has recently been supported by water law expert Dr Erin O’Donnell, a lecturer at the University of Melbourne.
She has been quoted in recent media reports stating that “it’s simply not possible to buy water without there being any kind of social or economic impact”.
“Of course, because we have lived through the devastation of previous buybacks, we know only too well that this is the case,” Mr Moar said.
“We are calling on Water Minister Plibersek to provide guarantees that it (the government) will not sacrifice rural communities in its pursuit of an ideological goal to achieve questionable Basin Plan recovery targets.
“Instead, we should be prioritising the many alternative solutions which have been researched and presented by Murray Regional Strategy Group and other organisations.”
Mr Moar highlighted sensible solutions and options which can achieve environmental outcomes, without recovering more water, include:
• complementary measures - native fish restocking, controlling invasive species, riverbank revegetation and fish ladders to name a few;
• utilising natural and man-made waterways in addition to the Murray River - such as the NSW Murray Valley Road Map developed by MRSG;
• turning on the Adelaide desalination plant - there’s 100GL in savings straight away.
“It is a great shame that we are even talking about buybacks when these sensible alternatives exist,” Mr Moar said.
“We will keep providing the minister with achievable solutions and advocate for the best long-term Basin Plan, not the quickest and easiest plan that has the potential for dire consequences not just in our communities, but for the future food security of our nation.”
5°C