We respectfully call on the MIL Board to reconsider its decision to implement the proposed fee restructure from July 1, 2026 and to pause these changes until an independent assessment of the loss of resource distributions is undertaken or until the water ombudsperson is appointed and operational.
At the centre of our concern is the proposed discontinuation of long-standing resource distribution arrangements (often described by irrigators as ‘efficiency water’).
The practical effect is that a benefit historically available to farmers of receiving complementary water allocations from the company at the start of the season and throughout, in accordance with their delivery entitlements (DEs) is being removed.
While MIL has been reducing the proportion of efficiency water being given to DE holders under resource distributions the long-term average value over the past several years is over $10 million per annum based on $250 per ML, which equates to $28 million overall benefit to the region (source: Agriculture WA/Australian Farm Institute).
MIL proposes to retain and sell that water to offset reduced fee revenue from the removal of fixed DE charges, while also significantly increasing usage and outlet fees.
These changes will further the negative impact of ‘highest value use’, which sees water moving to higher value permanent plantings and will further disadvantage the majority of farmers relying on seasonal crops, particularly for those still building scale by increasing the risk, timing, and early-season certainty, that resource distributions and allocation advances provide.
Furthermore, the MIL calculator provided does not include the benefit of resource distributions or allocation advances in its comparative analysis, and is therefore misleading for assessing the impact of changes by customers and puts into question the “average customer is better off” headline.
The consultation timeframe, at the busiest time of the year and during the Murray-Darling Basin Authority consultation period, has also prevented many customers with complex operations from being able to make accurate comparison calculations of how the changes would impact their MIL fees and costs.
While MIL has gone to great lengths to justify their authority to make these changes under the MIL Constitution and the Corporations Act, we would like to understand how the directors can prioritise the sale of all efficiency water by the company, while removing the benefits of resource distributions to its customers, when MIL is itself a not-for-profit unlisted public company.
Many shareholders are of the understanding that the company exists to provide services for the benefit of members at the lowest cost, and not to build a business model materially reliant on commercial water trading.
We are asking the board to pause long enough to obtain and publish independent assurance that: (a) the new fee and water-sale settings remain aligned with MIL’s constitutional purpose, and (b) they do not create unintended risks for MIL’s not-for-profit status.
A pause would:
• enable customers more time to assess the impact on their individual businesses which requires the calculation and comparison of the benefits obtained from this, and prior, years resource distributions and allocation advances;
• avoid the adverse implications from commitments or sales of water that have already been made on the basis that resource distributions would continue into the next season; and
• reduce the irreversible change and rationalisation of outlet configurations which will undoubtably follow the change in fees and charges.
Accordingly, we request that the MIL board:
1. Defer implementation of the fee restructure and associated resource distribution changes beyond July 1, 2026;
2. Commit to an independent, published review of the modelling (inputs, assumptions, sensitivities, distributional impacts) with specific focus on resource distributions/efficiency water;
3. Publish an independent governance assurance statement (or summary of advice obtained) confirming alignment with MIL’s not-for-profit status; and
4. Meet with representative shareholder groups to develop transitional arrangements that avoid unintended hardship, particularly for seasonal operators and newer entrants.
We support a fair and sustainable MIL.
We simply ask that changes of this magnitude are not locked in before independent oversight is available.
Yours etc.
Daniel Pinnuck (Jerilderie), Nick Flanagan (Finley), John Doyle (Berrigan), Hannah Kelly (Tocumwal), Martin Robertson (Logie Brae), Christian Steenholdt (Blighty) and Cadman Ham (Jerilderie)
MIL shareholders
