What Australians really think about the Murray Darling Basin plan

Buybacks or on-farm efficiencies? Water for the bush or for lakes and rivers? Find out what Australians around the country have to say about the Murray Darling Basin plan.

Australians in both the city and the bush will overwhelmingly prefer on-farm efficiencies to save water instead of buybacks but experts say buying back water might be the easiest way to deliver the crucial Murray Darling Basin on time.

The revelations come as Water Minister Tanya Plibersek confirmed that the Murray Darling Basin will not be delivered on time — prompting fears for Australia‘s water security as drought conditions creep in.

Across regional Australia, 63 per cent of people surveyed wanted the government to prioritise investment into on-farm efficiency programs while just 13 per cent felt water buybacks should be the main priority, according to research conducted by SEC Newgate for the Bush Summit.

UNSW ecosystem science expert Professor Richard Kingsford said buybacks might be the most efficient and affordable option for taxpayers despite the support for farming efficiencies.

“The Productivity Commission found that buybacks are a lot cheaper for taxpayers and more efficient. There is obviously value with improving efficiency and saving water that way but there is uncertainty about how much you can actually save,” he said.

“Efficiencies are more expensive than just buying back the water. I think it‘s a complex issue.”

The Murray Darling Basin will not be delivered on time. Picture: Supplied

Prof Kingsford said the Murray Darling Basin plan had not adequately factored in climate change.

“This is one of the problems with the basin plan, it hasn‘t adequately factored in climate change. The issue of getting more severe droughts is a real problem.”

City slickers in NSW overwhelmingly wanted the government to allocate water for people in regional towns as a priority over lakes and rivers and food and fibre production — with 53 per cent ranking it as their first preference compared to 46 per cent in regional NSW.

Queensland was the most vocal state with 58 per cent of regional Queenslanders and 57 per cent of metro residents wanting the top priority to be enough water being allocated to regional towns.

Victoria was the only state where more people prioritised water allocation for food and fibre production over water for rivers and lakes while Western Australia was the state with the most people ranking water for lakes and rivers as their preferred top government priority.

Minister for Environment and Water Tanya Plibersek. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

South Australian attitudes to the Murray Darling Basin were largely consistent across the metro and regional areas — with water for people in the bush coming out as the top concern while Tasmanians had almost identical findings to metropolitan South Australia, with the smallest portion of people prioritising water for fibre and food production.

Minister Plibersek said she cannot see how the plan can be delivered without buybacks.

“I’ve said all along that I don’t see how we can achieve the Murray-Darling Basin Plan without buying water. I think it’s very important to acknowledge that many communities have already contributed very substantially to achieving the water recovery that’s happened,” she said.

“We want to work cooperatively with those communities to make sure that we minimise any social and economic impacts for buying water. But there’s no way of achieving the plan without buying water.”

Originally published as What Australians really think about the Murray Darling Basin plan