Murray-Darling boss resigns - understandably

Many would be celebrating this week’s resignation of Murray-Darling Basin Authority boss, Mike Taylor (right).

His resignation ambushed many, including the Federal Government whose Water Act he and his authority had attempted to interpret with the intent of salvaging the integrity of the Murray-Darling Basin.
A guide to plan for the basin released earlier this year was greeted with hostility and argument that Mr Taylor and his authority had ignored social and financial implications for all those who lived in and depended upon the basin’s water.
Mr Taylor and others from the authority canvassed many basin communities over recent months to explain the intricacies of the guide, but instead of thoughtful deliberation those many meetings were received with mostly unreasoned, emotional anger.
Mr Taylor repeatedly told the thousands at the public meetings that he and the authority had done nothing more, or less, than interpret, and apply the Federal Government inspired Water Act.
In launching the guide, Mr Taylor stepped into the cauldron that was ablaze with raw nerves set alight by a ten-year drought and here was he, simply the messenger, telling the communities that they would be living and working in a future with even tighter water supplies.
Like the scientists trying to help the world understand the difficulties we face because of human induced climate change, Mr Taylor found himself in what had become a political struggle about something that was clearly understood in terms of facts, figures and undeniable realities.
Being a fellow grounded in latter, Mr Taylor was uncomfortable with the former and although I suspect he understood the plan to the guide to be correct, he was not prepared to sacrifice himself for the greater good, which he could sense was slipping away.
I’m saddened by this week’s development and do not stand with those who rejoice as I feel emotion insulated from reality has stolen the initiative and the long-term sustainability of the basin has been sacrificed on the altar of populism and a sense of what feels right today with little regard for tomorrow.
I fear his resignation will delay proceedings, allowing doubters to call for further reviews and consultations that will again delay of process that is already cumbersome and wordy and needed, beyond anything else, a speedy conclusion.

Those moments when patriotism is really just nationalism of another colour

Distressing international attitudes sometimes find expression in the behaviour of some Goulburn Valley people.

Such insular views are described, mostly, as patriotism, but they are really just nationalism of another colour and contribute nothing, or little, to the wellbeing of a community.

Just recently an emerging star of American conservatism, Marco Rubio (right), won a Senate seat for Republicans in the American midterm elections and said the US as "simply the greatest nation in all of human history".

A sweeping statement that cannot be proved or disproved because of its subjectivity, but at its core is the cancerous-like germ of nationalism, a fanatical belief that your way of living is supreme and so evident that others should, must, embrace it.

There seems to be an assumed sense of rightness about the embedded values and in some discussion about what is presently happening in the Murray Darling Basin a similar insularity emerges.
Many arguments are supposedly for the greater good, but when disassembled they really are about the preservation of a local scenario and in their small way evoke similar nationalism.
What is envisaged for our basin demands that people consider life beyond the farm gate, beyond their business boundaries and beyond the extent of their immediate communities.
Success for the basin plan has no room for Marco Rubio-like sentiments, rather it is an international resource, troubled by international human behaviour and we are simply the caretakers.
History illustrates that man’s attempts at controlling, or managing, nature to his advantage lead, almost with fail, to decided difficulties, especially when water is involved.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that we do nothing, rather we should explore the idea of a steady state economy, one in which human prosperity is not linked to growth and profit.
The Goulburn Valley, and by implication Shepparton, is linked to national difficulties as it sits at the foot of the rich Murray-Darling Basin and because of bountiful water has become Australia’s food bowl.
Instead of searching for monetary growth, we should attend to enriching the human experience and not be so concerned about Gross National Product, rather ensure we contribute to Australia’s Gross National Happiness.

A challenging conversation that needs a truly visionary outcome

Those who attend today’s (Tuesday, October 12, 2010) consultation to consider proposals for the conservation and management of water in the Murray-Darling Basin face a significant challenge.

It seems they will need to look at the proposals in the here and now and then, importantly, consider them, in what is near a magical and seemingly impossible trick, through the prism of 1000 years hence.

According to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s “Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan”, the basin is a critical part of Australia’s economy and the nation’s food security. The basin, it says, contributes 39 per cent of national agricultural production and provides water for three million Australians.

Today’s conversation is about a finite resource and infinite aspirations.

What is advocated and how Australians respond to the proposals is obviously important to the here and now, but it is the “1000 years’ time” question that is truly and deeply important.

Most of us can comprehend what has happened (the past), but it is a rare soul who can project his or her thoughts to encompass the unfolding of events (the future) and so most live in a short-term world where 25 year view is considered visionary.
The Murray-Darling Basin has been, in one way or another, implicated in the Australian landscape for millennia and in just 200 years we have raped, exhausted and plundered its resource to sate our thirsts and grow rich and fat on the abundant food it allowed us to grow.
What has been proposed has been described as a “slap in the face for primary producers” by one commentator and as “un-Australian” by another.
Critically, and importantly, we need to rise above such views as they are founded on populism ignited by concerns for the here and now, but in what seems an odd contradiction we need to apply ourselves and act appropriately in this moment to ensure the basin continues to serve the nation’s water needs for 1000 years.
It is somewhat generous to imagine the authority was looking that far ahead, but at least it appears to go well beyond the here and now, something that deserves our applause.