Nearly every position in this corpus supports the topic it addresses — because submitters support their own side's framing. The divide appears when you ask who supports what: pairs of large topics whose supporter bases are almost perfectly disjoint. These are the consultation's parallel publics.
Each card is a pair of well-supported topics ranked by how little their supporter sets overlap (Jaccard). Scroll the rail; pick either side to load its sector matrix below.
Who stands where on this framing. Each row is a sector's stance distribution across the entities that took an explicit position.
The cluster seeks a reset of extraction and implementation, reliable environmental water, natural connectivity, water-quality outcomes and First Nations consent, co-governance and ownership. It is distinguished by its direct specification of the next review’s mandate.
The pipeline's synthesized per-sector stance on this topic — expand a sector for the reasoning.
Submissions from this sector generally support the cluster’s principal proposition that the 2026 Review should reset Basin management around ecological recovery, climate resilience, reliable environmental water, connectivity, water quality, accountable implementation and stronger First Nations authority. Common reasons include the view that current extraction and implementation settings have failed to protect river systems, that environmental recovery must be assessed through ecological outcomes rather than continued operation of the existing framework, and that compliance, measurement and governance need strengthening. The submissions also connect ecological health with the viability of agricultural livelihoods and regional communities. There is material internal variation in emphasis: some submissions focus on ecological repair, biodiversity and enforcement; others stress Indigenous representation and environmentally sustainable extraction; and one submission supports ecological and governance reform while opposing or redirecting parts of the recovery approach through resistance to buybacks, support for expanded storage and concern about impacts on rural communities. These differences qualify the preferred mechanisms and distribution of costs, but the sector’s overall direction is supportive rather than oppositional.
The submissions supplied for the Other sector predominantly support the cluster’s proposition that the 2026 Review should reset Basin management around ecological recovery, climate-responsive limits, reliable environmental water, connectivity, water quality, stronger accountability and First Nations authority. Common reasons include evidence of continuing ecological decline, concern that existing extraction settings and environmental-water commitments are inadequate, and the view that climate change must be addressed in the current Review rather than deferred. Many submissions also materially develop the proposition through specific measures such as increased or legally guaranteed environmental flows, climate-adjusted or rapidly adaptable SDLs, protection of base flows, independent scrutiny of models and water accounting, enforceable compliance, and consent-based or ownership-oriented First Nations rights. Internal variation is material: some submissions support the existing Basin Plan’s core settings but seek better implementation; others demand substantially greater recovery and stronger legal or cultural authority. A smaller group accepts ecological and governance objectives but opposes further buybacks, deliberate flooding of private land or artificial freshening of the Lower Lakes, instead prioritising water quality, storage, state self-sufficiency and protections for regional livelihoods. These differences qualify the preferred methods and distributional safeguards, but the overall sector evidence supports the proposition rather than rejecting its ecological-reset direction. The submissions should not be taken as representative of everyone in the Other sector.
The submissions reviewed in the Community and regional development sector generally accept the cluster’s proposition that ecological recovery, climate responsiveness and cultural authority should be core requirements. Several materially extend it through enforceable end-of-system flow targets, climate-adjusted limits, base flows and connectivity, stronger First Nations consent and co-governance, independent compliance, water accounting, and community-designed transition support. There is material internal variation in how reform should be delivered: some prioritise environmental flows and stronger legal obligations, while others redirect emphasis toward regional adaptation, infrastructure, storage, water quality and the diminishing returns of further water recovery. Submissions opposing deliberate flooding or unrestricted buybacks nevertheless generally retain environmental objectives, qualifying the means rather than rejecting ecological recovery itself.
Submissions from this sector broadly accept the cluster’s principal proposition that the 2026 Review should reset Basin management around ecological recovery, climate responsiveness, reliable environmental water, connectivity and stronger implementation. They commonly attribute the need for reform to continuing ecological decline, insufficient environmental-water delivery and the failure of fixed or historically based extraction settings to account for a hotter, drier Basin. Many materially develop the proposition through specific measures, including climate-informed SDL and ESLT reassessment, additional or more reliable water recovery, protection of first-flush and base flows, constraints relaxation, pumping thresholds, transparent water accounting, independent scientific scrutiny, stronger enforcement and First Nations rights, consent, leadership or co-management. Internal variation is substantial in emphasis and delivery: some submissions focus mainly on ecological and climate settings, while others add water quality, invasive species, legal rights for rivers, quantified wetland or water-recovery targets, community transition and regional adaptation. A smaller group redirects the proposition toward immediate enforcement rather than further review, a survival-and-resilience framework, or storage and non-buyback approaches, including concern about impacts on productive land and regional communities. These differences concern priorities and mechanisms rather than a general rejection of ecological recovery; they should not be taken as representing all participants in the sector.
Submissions from the Recreation sector broadly accept the proposition that the 2026 Review should reset Basin management around ecological recovery, climate responsiveness and stronger First Nations authority. They materially develop it in different ways. Angela LM adds a legal and science-based challenge to current Sustainable Diversion Limits, argues that climate impacts must be addressed immediately, and calls for the Review to meet its First Nations reporting obligations. The Anonymous submission strengthens the ecological reset through a precautionary extraction threshold, environmental outcomes as the primary basis for water availability, further reductions where necessary, and independent scrutiny of SDL science and modelling. Nicole McKay extends the cultural-authority element most substantially, proposing First Nations ownership of the Environmental Water Portfolio, equal co-management with the MDBA, and a separate portfolio for First Nations economic benefit. The internal variation is therefore mainly one of emphasis and institutional design: some submissions prioritise lawful, evidence-based extraction limits and transparent science, while another prioritises ownership and equal decision-making authority. Nicole McKay also links ecological recovery to recreational, cultural and economic benefits for Aboriginal and other river communities. These differences do not amount to substantive opposition to the principal proposition.
Submissions from this sector broadly accept the cluster’s proposition that the 2026 Review should reset Basin management around ecological recovery, climate responsiveness, cultural authority and stronger implementation. They commonly attribute current shortcomings to ecological decline, insufficiently adaptive settings, fragmented governance and inadequate evidence, and support more ambitious, science-based action rather than incremental continuation. The sector materially extends the proposition by specifying integrated risk- and resilience-focused governance, basin-scale monitoring and modelling, catchment and land-management integration, water-quality objectives, stronger MDBA authority and operational adaptive-management mechanisms. There is internal variation in emphasis: Ms Cathy Gill and the Australian Academy of Science focus more directly on urgent ecological recovery, scientific integrity, First Nations knowledge and climate-adjusted SDLs, including opposition to deferring water-limit changes; the Australian Rivers Institute and Prof Barry Hart emphasise governance, evidence, catchment processes and implementation design; and Verhoeven, Dansie and Khan give particular weight to water quality and integrated climate and land-use risk assessment. These differences concern the means, scope and institutional design of reform rather than a rejection of the proposition. This evidence reflects the identified submissions and should not be taken to represent all participants in research and academia.
The NSW Aboriginal Land Council submission supports the cluster’s principal proposition that the 2026 Review should make climate response, ecological sustainability, accountability and First Nations authority core requirements. It materially extends that proposition by specifying Aboriginal-led water management, recognised Aboriginal water rights, genuine shared decision-making and increased water ownership as structural reforms rather than treating First Nations involvement as consultation alone. It also reinforces the case for immediate climate-responsive adjustment and stronger monitoring and transparency. The evidence represents this submission, not all Traditional Owners, Aboriginal or First Nations participants; variation within the broader sector is not assessable from the supplied record.
Government-sector submissions share the view that the 2026 Review must respond to Basin stress, climate change and shortcomings in current management, but they diverge materially over the proposition’s ecological emphasis and the distribution of reform. One submission strongly supports and extends the proposition through climate-adjusted extraction, stronger environmental flows, First Nations authority, improved accountability and community transition measures. Another constructively redirects the proposition toward an explicitly balanced model that gives irrigated agriculture, food production and regional economies equal protection, opposing reductions in irrigator water availability without transparent impact assessment and fair burden-sharing. A further submission supports the ecological-recovery premise at a general level, citing the value of healthy rivers and the decline of native fish and river health, but offers few specific policy commitments. Taken together, these records indicate substantive internal variation between a high-ambition ecological reset, a productivity-focused alternative framing, and broad principle-level environmental support; they should not be treated as representing all government participants.
Submissions from this sector generally recognise the need for healthier rivers, improved water quality and better environmental outcomes, but do not accept further water recovery as the principal means of achieving the cluster’s proposition. They commonly argue that additional recovery or buybacks impose production, employment and community costs while failing to address binding constraints such as habitat condition, water delivery, fish passage, pollution and salinity. Many propose a materially different approach centred on management and system function, environmental works, storage, desalination, reliable accounting and protections for productive land and regional communities. Internal variation is material: some submissions reject further recovery outright, while others accept ecological reform in principle but oppose particular mechanisms such as buybacks or forced inundation; some also support substantial governance, water-quality or accountability reforms. These positions reflect the views of the individual submitters and organisations represented in the evidence, not necessarily the whole irrigated-agriculture sector.
