A common theory in politics is that if no one’s happy about a particular piece of reform, you’ve got it right. That might play well for the politics, but that can’t be said for the policy when it comes to the latest iteration of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
As we’ve said before, of all the first-tier issues on the national agenda, very few are as critical or imminent as dealing with the problems confronting the Murray-Darling basin in a decisive and fair way. The recent rains may have taken the heat out of the issue, but no one can afford to have short memories on this.
The current draft plan has so far not ignited the same level of fury (or spontaneous bonfires made of brochures) from farmers — but as has been widely reported, no one’s applauding the changes.
In an effort to untangle the information from the various vested interests and subsequent compromises that have informed the government’s approaches to this massive river system over the past two decades, our series Murray Murmurings is back.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.
During last year’s public consultations of the guide to the draft of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, Crikey’s environment blog Rooted published a series of articles from different interested parties – farmers, lobby groups and environmentalists. Today we kick off stage two of the series with Brian Ramsay, founder of the Basin Pulse initiative.
And consider this a shout out: if you have a view on the mighty Murray or the national outlook on this issue, please pitch us your angle to email@example.com with “Murray Murmurings” in the subject line. It’s going to be a long 20-week consultation process, and we want to showcase as many voices as possible.