THE National Irrigators' Council does not represent Victorian farmers, says RICHARD ANDERSON

Danny O'Brien in "Cap off to free water" (WT, Jan 20) is wrong to say that the self-proclaimed "National" Irrigators' Council is acting in the interests of all Australian irrigators.

The reality is the policy that assures Victorian irrigators access to water until 2019 has been consistently attacked by the NIC.

Numerous submissions have been made by the NIC to government reviews arguing that the life of the current Victorian water plans should be cut by five years to 2014.

These plans will retain precedence over any adjustments to the Sustainable Diversion Limits.

This is important, as there could be potentially a number of changes to SDLs between now and 2019.

To curtail these plans, with the water reform process as it is now understood, would be against the interests of Victorian irrigators.

The issues paper distributed by the Murray Darling Basin Authority suggests that the approach taken in adjusting the SDL will be to place estimated environmental water needs as the primary objective, with the socio-economic interests of farmers, regional communities and food security a distant second.

Such an unbalanced approach does not provide sensible trade-offs between water for consumption and the environment.

By advocating for an early end to Victoria's current water plans, the NIC is attempting to expose Victorian irrigators to these impacts five years early.

Regarding the VFF's position on the 4 per cent water trading cap, the cap is doing what it was designed to do: provide a more gradual adjustment process for our rural communities than an open-slather water market.

Irrigators in other states have been more concerned about the additional water being bought in their states because of the limited access to Victoria's valuable, high-security water.

The VFF is not embarrassed to advocate for policies that are in the long-term interests of our members and their communities.

Allowing an open-slather water market would place this future at risk.

However, the VFF is concerned with hardship and equity issues across irrigation districts and has lobbied the Victorian Government to provide exemption criteria to the cap in order to address these concerns.

Mr O'Brien asserts that selling water now will lessen the impact of a future adjustment in the SDL.

He cannot know whether this is true or not, either in principle or for any particular irrigation district.

Lifting the trading cap will not align Commonwealth water purchases with the yet to be determined reductions in SDLs for individual catchments.

The lack of a strategic approach to the Federal Government's water purchases is a key reason the VFF has continued to support a trading cap.

On the risk-assignment issue, Mr O'Brien claims the Victorian position will disadvantage Victorian irrigators.

This is incorrect, as all irrigators will be exposed to the complex and uncertain application of risk-assignment provisions.

Victorian irrigators can rest assured Victorian farmers on the VFF's Water Council will take a keener interest in the application of risk assignment provisions for Victorian irrigators than the NIC.

While the VFF considered membership of the NIC, careful evaluation showed no value for Victorian irrigators in joining a group that by its structure will continue to put the interests of NSW and South Australia before our own.

The NIC is not a truly national body.

It has created unnecessary duplication, and membership by our federation would impose unnecessary costs on VFF members.

The VFF is comfortable that the National Farmers' Federation and our own elected representatives and staff are providing the best possible representation at the national level for Victorian irrigators.

  • Richard Anderson is chairman of the Victorian Farmers Federation Water Council.