In recent reflection on the future path of Australia the common good has made a welcome return. At the same time the Turnbull Government has transferred responsibility for water resources, including the Murray-Darling Basin, from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Trade.
The two things seem to be unrelated. But the concept of the common good, which is often criticised as woolly and soft, has been embodied robustly in the Murray-Darling Basin plan and survives in the midst of continuing conflict.
Those who appeal to the common good implicitly reject the view that society is composed of competitive individuals and that its good is achieved by unregulated economic freedom. They emphasise that human beings are interdependent and are shaped by their relationships. The good of society is therefore achieved through cooperation, so that the good of each individual is realised through looking to the good of all, particularly the most vulnerable.
The common good depends on the commitment to it by individuals and groups in their economic and other relationships. It also demands that governments take an active role in establishing a regulatory framework ensuring that all live decently.
The development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan shows how the common good can be sought in a complex and inherently conflictual context.
Many competing individuals and groups have an interest in drawing water from the basin. Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian users draw drinking water for their towns from it, depend on it for agriculture and industry and, use it for drainage. All Australians rely on it for food. And all these states and different users naturally focus on their own interests and defend them strongly.
The capacity of the river system to meet these demands depends on the health of the basin and its ecosystems, including fish, vegetation, micro-organisms, groundwater and flood plains. Its health in turn relies on a reliable flow of water through the streams and rivers from source to the mouth of the Murray. If water users collectively do not provide this flow their individual interests will be harmed, as well as those of all the other beings that compose the environment.
It takes time to move from thinking competitively to acting cooperatively. In the case of the Murray-Darling Basin it has also taken droughts, including the Federation drought, the drought of1967 and the Millennium drought, to bring home the threat to the Basin and to secure agreements about its management. The challenge is to ensure the flow while preserving the communities and economy that depend on drawing water.
The Murray-Darling plan was agreed by state and federal governments in 1912. It established the water flow that needed to be returned to the system.
To ensure the flow, the government established a market in water rights that allowed it to buy them back from users. It also provided incentives to ensure more efficient use of water in irrigation and for other purposes.
The negotiations leading to the plan were messy and fractious. The 2004 National Water Act required regular audits of the health of the system. They were essential to gain a more complete knowledge of the river system and its interconnections, and to evaluate the effectiveness and unanticipated consequences of actions.
After the drought broke, the NSW government withdrew support for the audit, leading to its lapse. (Mr Joyce has now commendably promised its restoration.) The plan has been revised to give a priority to social and economic considerations equal to the needs of the environment, the level of water returned to the river has been recalculated and reduced, buy-backs have been capped, and users have continued to push their competitive agendas. The political struggle to control the plan is just the latest example.
But tattered though it may be, the framework of the plan has held.
This example illustrates what in practice is needed to pursue the common good, most directly when dealing with climate change. We must assume that people will defend their own interests, that those interests will conflict, that the process itself will involve conflict, and that backsliding will be endemic.
We must also assume that people will cooperate when necessary to protect the common source on which their interests depend. They may first doubt, but will eventually accept authoritative evidence of a crisis. But of its nature that evidence always needs to be augmented. And ultimately people will accept action that clips their interests if they believe it is fair and necessary.
The Murray-Darling Basin plan also demonstrates the importance of coordinated government action for the common good, not simply through regulation but through participation. It assumes that they will seek authoritative scientific advice and adjust their actions to new information.
Finally — although this has not often been recognised by its participants — it assumes that we are not masters of the environment, but part of it. It follows that environmental protection does not compete with political and social goals but is a condition for achieving them. As will be the case in addressing climate change, care for the environment must take precedence.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.