Murray-Darling river system an enduring challenge of the federation

John Howard‘s great disappointment at not securing a full commonwealth takeover of management of the Murray-Darling Basin river system provides a useful reflection on the state of the federation. The COVID-19 pandemic has, in some respects, brought the states and commonwealth closer through a national cabinet. But recent events have also put a spotlight on how state leaders have been prepared to use their powers to act against the national interest. Some premiers have ignored the wishes of the commonwealth, and we would say business and community interests, in making decisions to close borders and restrict free movement. In many cases, politics and perceived electoral advantage have been the biggest factors in how and why decisions have been made.

In 2007, when Mr Howard launched a $10bn plan to wrest decision-making over water allocations along the length of the Murray-Darling Basin system, he made the obvious point that rivers do not respect state boundaries. As a dry continent, Mr Howard said, water has always been at the heart of the Australian dream. But, he said, management of the Murray-Darling had been compromised by “very, very bad administration over the years by governments of both persuasions”. Reflecting on the reform challenge in a speech to mark the 20th anniversary of the Howard government, Malcolm Turnbull said Mr Howard recognised that commonwealth management of the rivers was something that should have been agreed to in the 1890s. “John Howard saw that crisis of the drought 2006-07 and, never wasting a crisis, he saw the opportunity to make good an omission of more than a century ago,” Mr Turnbull said.

In Monday’s news pages, Mr Howard describes the collapse of his $10bn plan to nationalise the Murray-Darling Basin in the final year of his government as a “great policy tragedy” that resulted in a missed opportunity to redefine Australia. Mr Howard had clashed openly with then Victorian premier Steve Bracks over the proposal. At the height of tensions in July 2007, Mr Howard’s move for a commonwealth takeover of the Murray-Darling Basin was compared to Bob Hawke’s intervention to stop the Franklin Dam going ahead in Tasmania in 1983. Mr Howard threatened to use the full weight of the Constitution to bring his plan to fruition. “I’ve tried for five months in good faith and Mr Bracks was not willing to refer the powers because he doesn’t want to surrender Victoria’s power,’’ he said at the time. “ Well, I mean, we’re a nation. We’re not a collection of states. And the Australian people are tired, sick and tired of state parochialism on issues like this, and I’m tired of it too.’’ Mr Howard still maintains his grand plan to buy out state rights over the water source fell victim to “cheap politicking” — a “wonderful opportunity’’ squandered “out of political calculation”. Following the defeat of his government, a Murray-Darling Basin plan was introduced by the ALP with the states still in control. Many accept Mr Howard’s plan would have returned more water to the environment and included more resourcing to help basin communities make the adjustment than the plan that was ultimately accepted.

Mr Bracks declined to be interviewed. But other state leaders of that time have praised Mr Howard’s foresight. Former Queensland premier Peter Beattie says it is a national disgrace the whole package that Mr Howard put up was not accepted. He says the former prime minister had shown enormous courage fighting for a plan that required a great deal of change for rural communities that were the Coalition heartland. Former NSW premier Morris Iemma was an early convert to the plan and South Australia welcomed a scheme that could break the tyranny of the existing system in which each state has veto power over decision-making.

The millennium drought provided the impetus for Mr Howard to take on the Murray-Darling Basin challenge. After enduring another cycle of drought, decisions about management of the river system are as important now as ever. So are questions about how to secure greater co-operation between the states and commonwealth on matters of national importance. Mr Howard spent political capital arguing for national outcomes over state and party interests on the Murray-Darling Basin. The same passion is sorely missing in many of today’s important debates.