Suddenly water has become the hot new political issue for this year and politicians are scrambling over each other to be seen as the most pro-active and visionary after years of ignoring the issue.
This morning
Howard announced at least $2.48 billion in new projects for water in Australia and a planned Commonwealth government takeover of the management of the Murray-Darling basin.
"Projects will include a $1.5 billion nationwide subsidy scheme to encourage all farmers, particularly irrigators, to be more efficient with the water they use [and...] to improve farm productivity. Another $500 million will be devoted to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of river storage and operations through projects such as digging channels to unblock natural chokes in rivers, to divert the water for agriculture. Another $480 million will be dedicated to funding a new division within the Bureau of Meteorology to audit the nation's water capacity and availability."
This all sounds very good, but it also leaves a lot of questions unanswered. First of all, no one seems to know whether or not this is actually new money or whether Howard is simply reallocating money that was set aside years ago to tackle the problem. Following on from that confusion is the question of why the
two billion dollars of funding set aside three years ago has still not been spent or allocated by the Commonwealth government. "Election year" may be the only answer that to that one.
On another point, while it is good to see increased funding to reduce wastage in irrigation and agriculture, nothing has been said about how that saved water will be allocated. So far absolutely nothing has been committed for reinvesting water back into the rivers to provide for decent environmental flows. It is all very well to ease the burden on drought-stricken farmers, but exactly what is being planned for the future? Present day political and commercial priorities seem to be well represented in this latest initiative, but what about sustainability? When are we actually going to have a debate about how our water should be allocated and what level of priority we would like to give to saving our rivers and ensuring that there is some water left for future generations?
Mindful of these issues, environmental groups are critical of Howard's claim that by taking over the Murray-Darling basin the Commonwealth government will be able to take the politics out of the management of this important river system. They have pointed out that the Commonwealth is still largely beholden to the farming lobby and commercial interests and argue that control should instead be handed over to an independent body staffed by experts on water management (a similar model to the Reserve Bank).
Patrice Newell has also argued that moving control up to the Commonwealth level is completely the wrong approach to this issue. Her experience of trying to save a small river system in the Upper Hunter has made her acutely aware of the pitfalls of placing control in the hands of bureaucracies, which are constantly changing and caught up in a sea of political power plays. She argues that responsibility needs to move in the opposite direction, by devolving control down to the people who really understand local needs and the river systems in question.
Finally, it remains unclear how the Commonwealth is actually planning to takeover management from the States. According to the SMH, "The Prime Minister is understood to have obtained legal advice that suggests the Commonwealth could take control of the river system from the states without the need for a referendum." While Section 100 of the Constitution doesn't appear to stand in his way - focusing as it does on trade and commerce - exactly which head of power (or heads of power) he is planning to use is utterly beyond me.
If Howard was serious about taking a long term approach to the management of our water resources, then he would be bringing in the experts and opening up a national debate on the issue so that all Australians could participate in setting our priorities for the allocation of our most precious resource. Instead, Howard is simply playing politics and throwing money at pre-determined projects that no one except his bureaucrats have had any input in creating. The only vision that this exemplifies is that of a politician focused on the next election. We deserve better than that.
[crossposted at LP]
