PM Risks Being Dead In The Water

by Glenn Milne - Sunday Mail (Brisbane)

Suddenly, water is becoming politically complicated for John Howard. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister appeared to have scored a major coup.

His sweeping announcement that the Commonwealth planned to take over the water powers of the states and "fix" the Murray-Darling Basin appeared decisive, comprehensive and undeniably in the national interest.

But ever since, the Federal Government's wheels have been spinning in the sand.

Undoubtedly, Howard caught the public imagination with the initiative. In the aftermath of the British Government-commissioned Stern Report, Al Gore's powerful film, An Inconvenient Truth and the worst drought on record, voters are ready to acknowledge climate change and embrace the painful measures needed to deal with its impact.

Howard's announcement was both good policy and good politics. But it will remain the latter only if the PM is able to implement his proposal. If he's still only talking about fixing the problem of the national water shortage come the November election – rather than doing something about it – voters are likely to vent their frustration.

Right now it is possible, barring significant compromise, that Howard's plan could remain stalled by election time. After initially making positive noises, some of the states are now digging in and the National Party is making unpleasant sounds about compulsory acquisition of farmers' water rights.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann is refusing point-blank to hand over his powers unless it is to a politically independent body – a sort of Reserve Bank for water. Along with Victoria's Steve Bracks, NSW's Morris Iemma remains the most supportive of the premiers. But even he says Rann's proposal ought to be looked at.

Howard believes Iemma's backing is based only on getting him through his March 24 state election. After that all bets could be off. And on Friday, Queensland's Peter Beattie wrote to Howard demanding a meeting of all states and the Commonwealth to iron out what he says are serious problems in Howard's plan.

Apart from Iemma and Bracks, the other premiers, always jealous of giving anything away to the Commonwealth, seem intent on ignoring, at least temporarily, the overwhelming public sentiment in favour of resolving the conflicting jurisdictions that are killing the Murray River.

Right now Howard has the momentum. If the infighting is still going on by the time of the election, the PM will without doubt blame the Labor premiers and damn Kevin Rudd by association.

And the release on Friday of the ominous assessment report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will only add to the wind at Howard's back. Rann and Beattie's nitpicking isn't going to stack up in voters' minds against the most comprehensive scientific report yet on global warming.

Having said that, though, Beattie has raised some substantive issues. "Where are details such as the specific powers they seek to have referred and how they practically expect to manage this vast resource?" he asks. "How much will it cost, over what time frame, and does the Commonwealth intend to use compulsory acquisition powers on farmers?" Beattie says he wants to know if Howard has "thought this through".

Federal Opposition water spokesman Anthony Albanese is asking the same question. He contends that the PM's water powers grab, while it looks good at a rhetorical level, is actually policy on the run. And he has some evidence for the assertion.

Although Howard says his statement was months in the preparation, as late as December 7 the Government was introducing legislation into Parliament reinforcing the powers of the existing Murray Darling Basin Commission and detailing future Commonwealth funding arrangements.

Albanese says this proves that there could not possibly have been enough time to properly cost the PM's January announcement of his $10 billion plan. That's Beattie's charge as well.

Albanese's conclusion: Up until at least mid-December the Commonwealth was not planning to take over the basin. If the Government was already planning the PM's January 25 statement, then the introduction of the Bill on December 7 was simply misleading. Or the January 25 effort was cobbled together under the imperative of shifting public opinion on climate change and the pressure of the arrival of a popular Opposition Leader.

No doubt the premiers will pick up on Albanese's critique. And on Friday there's a Senate Committee inquiry into the December 7 Bill. If you'll pardon the pun, there's a lot more water to pass under the bridge on this issue yet.