News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Xenophon decries deal on Murray 

Xenophon decries deal on Murray

25 Sep, 2009 02:22 PM
A NEW deal that restricts the amount of water available for reviving the Murray River has been denounced by those living at the end of the waterway.

Outspoken South Australian senator Nick Xenophon and the South Australian Government attacked the deal, which places tight limits on the amount of water that can be bought from NSW for the environment in coming years.

The deal between NSW and the Commonwealth further complicates the Rudd Government's plan to buy $3.1 billion worth of water entitlement to boost river health in the Murray-Darling.

Those involved in yesterday's deal portrayed it as a positive development, because it helped remove a temporary ban on the Commonwealth buying any NSW water.

But in reality, the four-year deal will make buying water from NSW more difficult than it has been for much of the past two years.

Senator Xenophon said the deal was a "dud" that would slow the buyback process.

"This so-called breakthrough agreement on water is a joke," he said. "It's piecemeal, it's window dressing and it's going to be too little too late, with most of the purchases not happening for almost three years."

Recent reform of the struggling river system has focused on removing parochial state interests, and South Australian Water Minister Karlene Maywald said individual deals for states did not help reform.

"The idea was to have one basin, to open it up and not have these bilateral arrangements," she said.

"The Murray can't wait for people to pussyfoot around like this. We've got an environment that is close to collapse."

Ms Maywald said the NSW deal was directly triggered by Victoria's refusal to immediately remove a 4 per cent limit on trading water out of irrigation districts.

Victoria has agreed to phase out the 4 per cent limit over several years, while allowing the Commonwealth to exceed the cap in certain circumstances.

South Australia has threatened to take Victoria to the High Court over the 4 per cent limit, and Ms Maywald said South Australia was seeking further legal advice last night over the NSW deal.

The NSW deal was more popular with farming lobby groups, with support flowing from the Ricegrowers Association of Australia and the NSW Irrigators Council.

Victorian Water Minister Tim Holding declined to comment.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Let's hope that a capped transfer amount out of NSW forces the Commonwealth to more appropriately asses the river system from where it purchases irrigation water for use in the Murray-Darling. There is no point spending millions on purchasing water entitlements from irrigation systems that have no or low allocation, or buying water from so far away from the mouth of the Murray that losses due to seepage and evaporation over the distance result in less than 10% efficiency. To date water buybacks have largely been a publicity stunt; the Commonwealth needs to make more informed decisions aboaut water purchases rather than just putting on a show for the public.
Posted by Bone dry, 28/09/2009 7:55:39 AM, on Stock Journal
What will happen when flood conditions prevail? Will NSW have the storage capacity to control such conditions or will it expect to let water flow at a rate that ultimately inundates parts of SA? I believe that we need a commandeering approach from Federal Gov't and treat the River Murray and MDB as it actually is: a national asset of Australia where the liabilities also are treated nationally.
Posted by garry, 28/09/2009 1:03:54 PM, on Stock Journal

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
25 September, 2009
24 September, 2009
POLL
Q: Can plant and animal breeders produce enough food to meet future global needs without the development of new genetically modified crops?

Yes
(53%)

No
(41.8%)

Undecided
(5.2%)

Total Votes: 668
Poll Date: 20 September, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock Journal







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...