Responses of different groups

Introduction

The Independent Audit Group (IAG) is the body that was established by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) to audit users' adherence to specifications of the Cap. It has found that the Cap is generally receiving widespread support from community groups, local governments and town planners within the MDB. The system also has the support of the Commonwealth Government and, on the whole, almost all users within the MDB have shown a solid commitment to its proper implementation.

Compliance with the Cap

The responses of the five State and Territory governments which form the MDB can be assessed by their respective levels of compliance with the Cap. While generally this has been good, annual audits have shown that this has not been the case in all areas. When reading about each area's compliance, note that the severity of water salinity problems is much worse in areas that are further downstream.

South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales

The annual audits conducted by the IAG have found that all valleys in South Australia and Victoria are adhering to the Cap, and that some are actually increasing their restrictions on water diversion without any added pressure from the MDBC. This suggests that local governments and communities in these areas strongly support the Cap, and that they are also showing a firm commitment to long-term water management and sustainable use of the overstretched river system.

While South Australia and Victoria have good records of Cap compliance, New South Wales has been found to have breached some water diversion limitations in certain Cap valleys. In the 1997/98 reporting period, NSW exceeded its Caps in four different valleys; the Lachlan Valley being the area with the worst record for that audit period. In more recent audits, other valleys within NSW have also breached their Caps.

The Australian Capital Territory and Queensland

As the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland divert much less of the Murray-Darling's water relative to the other States, their Cap arrangements are not as rigid and less subject to strict audits than those of SA, Vic, and NSW. Despite this, Queensland is the State which has, since the proposal was initially put forward, showed the most reluctance to agree to the implementation of Caps. In fact, in the year 2000 it was found that Qld had in fact recorded a growth in diversions.

Submissions to the MDBC

Each State and Territory jurisdiction is given the opportunity to present submissions to the IAG and MDBC after the annual audit reports have been released. In these submissions they are asked to respond to recommendations made on behalf of the IAG. As with the results for general compliance with the Cap, SA and Vic have generally shown stronger commitments to addressing the IAG's recommendations and improving upon the already existing Cap systems in their States. In the 1997/98 report, NSW expressed reservations towards the IAG's annual audits of Cap compliance, which again reflects the fact that this State does not seem to be as wholeheartedly committed to the system as those further downstream.