Time to revisit John Bradfield’s water project

The junction of the River Murray and Darling River at Wentworth. Picture: Toby Zerna

In what is potentially Australia’s biggest and most important infrastructure development, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has announced that he will take the “Bradfield Project” out of its 81-year Canberra pigeonhole to help overcome the Murray-Darling mess and relieve pressure on the Great Barrier Reef.

While modern technology can transform the plan, it is a national disgrace that it has been gathering dust for 81 years.

In 1938 Australia’s greatest engineer John Bradfield told us that in 50 to 100 years we would encounter major problems with the Great Barrier Reef.

Long before we were talking about climate change, Bradfield realised that the Great Barrier Reef would eventually be badly damaged if vast quantities of chemicals were continually washed down by monsoon floods.

And the answer he gave to eliminate the problem would also have added hydro power and a vast increase in sustainable agricultural production.

Most of us know that John Bradfield designed the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Brisbane’s Story Bridge and played a role in the Sydney underground.

But few Australians know either the chilling accuracy of his Great Barrier Reef forecasts or his solution.

Bradfield’s 1938 plan was to divert inland some of the waters in Queensland rivers. The Bradfield plan was quickly debunked of the basis of cost; doubts about the amount of water available; the fact that we didn’t need the power because we had plenty of coal and, finally, that 81 years ago the reef was in fine shape.

Accordingly, it was declared that Bradfield should stick to bridges and his plan was pigeonholed. He died in 1943.

John Bradfield. Picture: State Library of NSW

People like the late Richard Pratt, Peter Beattie (former Queensland premier) and Bob Katter have all raised the potential of the Bradfield plan but, like Bradfield himself, they were put down.

But in 2019 it was Pauline Hanson who put Bradfield’s 1938 plan back on the agenda and indicated she might look favourably on tax cuts if the government undertook a detailed and impartial feasibility study of the Bradfield plan, plus the linking of the diverted waters to the Murray Darling infrastructure.

It is perhaps unfortunate that such a controversial politician as Pauline Hanson has brought Bradfield back to our attention. Her opponents will be inclined to reject her ideas out of hand, as are Coalition members who don’t want to be blackmailed into exchanging support for Bradfield in exchange for tax cuts.

My regular readers will remember that in 2017 I first started asking for the government to take Bradfield out of its then 79-year-old pigeon hole under the heading: “After 10 wasted years of political instability, Australians yearn for a party with vision.”

And then again last year, ten days after Scott Morrison became prime minister, I raised the issue again to coincide with the presentation of my Order of Australia medal.

This week I was in rural Australia and I saw the human cost of the 81-year Bradfield pigeonholing. I met a family whose son has a farm on the banks of the Edward River near Deniliquin (the Edward is part of the Murray-Darling system).

The soaking rains nearby missed Deniliquin and the farmer is not able to exercise his water entitlement from the Edward River because of the shortage of water. Along with tens of thousands of Australians, he is the human cost of the Bradfield 81-year pigeonhole.

A number of things have happened during those 81 years. We now have one of the world’s best water distribution systems and farm infrastructure assets—the Murray-Darling system. Its problem is that there is not enough water in it to cover farming and environmental needs.

Bradfield did not connect the surplus Queensland waters to the Murray-Darling but since his plan was formulated, we have learned how to make pipes on site rather than transporting them vast distances. And we have developed much greater skills in tunnelling. We still have evaporation that must be tackled.

I am not advocating suddenly starting tunnelling and laying pipes. But it’s time to apply current technology and our best engineers to an old plan to see just how feasible it is. And Australia needs a project that can unite a large number of its people.

In recent decades there has been a lot of work trying to establish major settlements in northern Australia. That was an interesting idea, but it required hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese capital to set up the infrastructure. That’s not now going to happen.

So, it’s time to undertake a proper study of how to link our great water resources to our biggest water distribution system. It goes without saying that if in any year there is insufficient water in Queensland, then the Murray-Darling will have to rely on its own rainfall.

And no doubt there will be green and Aboriginal issues that will need to be addressed.

But we need to determine and cost the benefits and the difficulties so we can make an informed decision.

Michael McCormack, who holds the water infrastructure portfolio, told Ean Higgins of The Australian that the government would “lead a robust and science-based assessment of Australia’s water resources to identify real opportunities where new water infrastructure can be built”.

“This is the vision John Bradfield had in the 1930s,” he said.

It needs to be the vision of Scott Morrison and Michael McCormack in 2019.