Rinse and repeat?

MINISTER for Water Murray Watt’s announcement that the Federal Government would seek to buyback an added 130GL of water to go toward Murray-Darling Basin Plan Targets – made at last week’s Basin Leadership Summit 2025 in Adelaide and detailed in today’s edition of The Murray Pioneer – is a move that appears to have caught many involved in the irrigation sphere off guard.

One only need to read through the observations provided by the Renmark Irrigation Trust CEO, who herself was present at the summit, to see where this approach is missing the mark.

We are coming toward what is possibly the most important time so far for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, with its review set to take place next year.

While tangible progress has undoubtedly been made in areas of environmental sustainability, and even in the communication between interstate irrigator groups, there seems to be little initiative to utilise any mechanisms other than buybacks to recover water.

Once again, is this a decision reflective of the Labor Party’s inability to properly recognise the needs of regional communities, at both a federal and state level?

In recent weeks we’ve seen debate surrounding the equality in health services between rural and metropolitan areas in the spotlight, and addressing issues in the health sphere was supposed to be a key priority at the 2022 South Australian Election.

After strolling to a Federal Election win earlier this year, it has taken little over nine months for Labour to show where its priorities lie when Murray-Darling Basin water resources are concerned.

Even following the departure of Susan Close as the SA Minister for Environment, it would appear as though the focus of our state’s water resources will be for environmental purposes. Again, sustainability is great, but as has been pointed out before, we need to be able to grow enough food for our increasing population.

As noticed by our local member, pointing towards $20m in assistance provided for the South Australian Government to supposedly mitigate the potentially harsh socioeconomic impacts of buyback programs on regional communities, just like in the Riverland, has become quite the habit for those in power when some difficult questions are asked.

However, while the buyback tenders are being assessed, and the volume of water being taken out of the productive system increases, it seems there has still been little indication of how that funding will be used to generate community benefits.

There are risks involved in the buyback process, particularly for communities like the Riverland, that will be dangerous to have not fully considered.