03/09/2026
Big news yesterday out of Ballina, with the Minister for Water Rose Jackson & Minister for North Coast Janelle Saffin announcing the appointment of a Richmond River Catchment Coordinator which will, in theory at least, "lead day-to-day coordination across government and work with local partners to align existing projects and funding opportunities to improve catchment health."
My first instinct upon reading this was to go back to the dictionary because governance is something that has long plagued the Maamang/Richmond — a river who crosses 5 local government areas in an era where the reasonably effective and accountable state government river authorities - formerly known as a Catchment Management Authority - no longer exist. So I started with a general definition for governance:
"Governance means the system of rules, practices and processes by which a country, company or organisation is directed and controlled."
Then I went looking for a definition of river governance, which wasn't so easy to find. I ended up landing on a more general definition of water governance instead. The OECD define water governance as
“…the set of rules, practices, and processes through which decisions for the management of water resources and services are taken and implemented, and decision-makers are held accountable."
The word that jumps out at me from that second definition is something I've long wrestled with when it comes to river governance: accountability.
Allow me to digress for a second in order to provide an analogy of sorts. I imagine the modern version of Australia a bit like a large tree — maybe a cedar or fig if you're a visual type person. This 'Australia' tree is characterised by deep roots in our ancient history courtesy of patient and defiant storytelling from First Nations people across the continent. The roots are connected to a strong trunk comprised of the assumptions of the persistent colonial mentality paired with modern capitalism and its environmental consequences. This trunk gives way to a canopy that sprawls out into the sun and is defined by our contemporary makeup - informed by modern multiculturalism and a blend of cultures that has allowed for of new and innovative thinking.
It's interesting to then apply this analogy to the idea of accountability in river governance, because the question ultimately becomes who is accountable? Is it the river, for being a willing participant in its own sickness and decline? Is it First Nations people who had cultural rights and responsibilities in close relationship with the river? Is it the colonial government who allowed for its destruction? Or private enterprise and local industries who gained extensive profit from its demise?
Decision making around ours rivers has been dynamic as the rivers themselves, changing direction and flow and moving in cycles of boom and bust. From my perspective on sitting along the bank, our choices when it comes to accountability have always been informed by the tree. We've been unable to wholly move away from a trunk personified by a colonial mentality based on extraction, and been held captive by capitalism's insistence on the individual being more important than the whole, regardless of its deep roots in First Nations custodianship. And although our modern canopy has come up with new ideas and ways of imagining the future of our rivers, we've been constrained by an inflexible trunk.
The current State Labor government has decided its time for them to make a move towards greater accountability on their behalf, although I'm at pains to point out how volatile long-term environmental policy always is in the cyclical nature of modern liberal democracies. There's also a whole range of detail that is yet to come to light. Will the Coordinator have any legislative power? Is there a supporting financial structure? Is this person just an internal state government appointment?
In light of all this, there remains one enduring question: will a coordinator for Maamang/Richmond River actually work to reverse its ongoing decline?
What do you think?
