The proposed resolutions to remove the two current MIL non-member directors, Trisha Gorman and Robert Burbury, from the Murray Irrigation Board failed to garner the necessary votes last week. 

The results on the removal of Mrs Gorman obtained 552 for and 740 against with 6 abstaining. The removal of director Mr Burbury saw 543 for and 745 against with 10 abstaining, with an estimated 68 per cent voting participation. 

The result meant that directors Steven Fawns, Brendan Barry and Troy Mauger will no longer be serving on the Murray Irrigation Board effective immediately. 

Murray Irrigation is now calling for nominations to fill at least two director vacancies on the company’s Board of Directors.

The infighting at the board level has seen division spill over into the community, with the company, certain directors and influential farmers taking a leaf out of the MDBA book and hosting closed-door meetings for invite-only attendees.

A quick ring around found the passion and differences of opinion are still running high.

Peter Redfearn – Moulamein

“It’s such a disappointing thing that it had to come to this.

“I went to the meeting in Wakool (Wakool landholder meeting) and decided to vote yes to the change after that meeting.

“I wasn’t very impressed with the independent director, and I felt those pushing for change had a fairly convincing argument.

“It’s a hard one. Leadership in any organisation is a tough game. 

“We have to keep prices reasonable and staff levels at a reasonable level to provide decent service, but we want to keep a close eye on overstaffing.

“I’m not suggesting that’s the case, because it’s hard to tell from this remote spot.

“Putting a reserve of $400 million and even making enquires of selling off water is a concern; they make out they were only making enquiries, but you don’t do that unless you are serious. 

“I think a large part of the problem has been the CEO and that’s often the case, they get these hair brained schemes. 

“I still haven’t got over them flogging off 60 per cent of our supplementary, that was an outrageous thing. 

“Forget about flogging off conveyance water, that’s a no-no. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s MIL’s to sell.”

Daryl Hall – Cunninyeuk 

“From my perspective, I don’t necessarily agree with everything MIL are doing.

“I’ll start off with what I don’t like. My pet hate is delivery entitlement.

“I can’t see why I have to purchase DEs from Joe Blow down the road; it’s a straight money transfer for a bit of paper that makes no change to the way water runs down the channel. 

“One thing I do not like at all, is the new business direction with taking some of our conveyance water off us and selling it. 

“MIL, in my book, is a socialistic co-operative where everybody should be treated equally, and to take some water and hand it to a select few that can afford it, it starts the rot on the haves and the have-nots, it hurts the little man. I don’t believe that this is the direction the company should be going in, it’s going to cause more unrest.

“In my view, our water is too cheap; the numbers on my water at 100 per cent allocation with all the different access fees and connect fees is $32. That’s ridiculous; they should be charging more than that.

“Having said all that, the vote, it was imperative that the no vote won. The dangers to the company were far greater than any potential gain.” 

Gary Hare – Tullakool

“The company needs to grow up!

“They need to realise they’re not BHP, they don’t need external directors, they’re a company that delivers water down a channel; it’s pretty f—ing simple.

“What a waste of money, going through all that crap, they needed to lock them in a room to sort it out.

“Pretty bloody disgusted in the whole thing, and now we’re off to another election, more money.

“What it is, is the CEO has two directors and independents on board, so he has the balance of power.

“He’s the one that rules the roost and the directors are too piss weak to tell him to settle down.

“They need to simplify everything. They need to get their costs under control.

“They need to start telling the truth about the costs.

“They say they’re worried about everything degrading. Let’s face it, a piece of concrete in the ground won’t wear out in 25 years, it may in 60, they’ve got all this money set aside to replace it all, yet apparently have surveyed just 8 per cent of it. 

“It’s a simple company and I’d like them to get back to being a simple company, not this BS they’re carrying on with.” 

Allistar Staritt – Womboota

“I think the catalyst for the whole issue, going back a fair way, is being able to have the checks and balances in place for the direction of MIL.

“It’s being able to communicate concerns, whether it’s the channel attendant or a director, it’s a unique company for this region. 

“It affects us all financially as well as socially; we do live and breathe the outcomes of water.

“When you don’t have input into your company despite trying as many avenues as possible, you get frustrated, and I think that’s where the flashpoint came from. 

“It was born out of frustration of not being able to help them through the process and then it became a really big argument, and it never had to get to that point. 

“I’ll lay it at the CEO’s feet to not take criticism constructively but turn on the absolute defence. That included handing in his resignation and then leading the battle of all battles to play a particular side of the argument.

“What’s worse than that is the chairman, who, by definition, should be impartial, seemed to take a side as well, further inflaming the situation. 

“I’m just disappointed the board let it get to this point.

“Having the chairman, the remaining directors and the CEO all say they would quit if they didn’t win the argument, and the three incumbents voted in last year also say they would quit if they didn’t win the argument makes an absolute mockery of the whole company.  

“It’s our viability, our livelihoods and the economy in the region, and they’ve trashed it.

“My concern is the direction MIL is going in, the mechanisms that were in place to take a representative view of issues, has been wiped, because the representative view wasn’t seen as being kosher with what the board wanted. 

“That is democracy at work? They just cut the funding and shut us down, which makes you think, why? What are you hiding? It just makes you feel uncomfortable and uneasy about the whole direction the board is going.

“I wish the company well into the future, because one way or the other, they are going to have to take feedback from people beyond the board and management.”

The remaining directors (Chair Phillip Snowden, Deputy Chair Lachlan Marshall, Mrs Gorman and Mr Burbury) convened a formal Board meeting on April 11, 2024 and resolved to call for nominations to appoint at least two new directors.

An independent selection committee will be established to consider eligible nominations and recommend preferred candidates to the Board for approval.

Those appointments will then be ratified by shareholders at the company’s 2024 Annual General Meeting in November.

This article appeared in The Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper, 18 April 2024.