Murray-Darling Basin Authority chair says plan must be delivered, following Royal Commission warning of unlawfulness

THE Murray-Darling Basin Plan is no “silver bullet”, but if we don’t follow its processes “we will not have a Basin Plan”, MDB Authority chair Neil Andrew says.

• Murray-Darling Basin Plan may be unlawful
• Senate not given information they need
• There is no plan B

THE Murray-Darling Basin Plan is no “silver bullet”, but if we don’t follow its processes “we will not have a Basin Plan”, MDB Authority chair Neil Andrew has warned.

The Advertiser spoke to Mr Andrew yesterday after the state Royal Commission warned there was a “real risk” some or all of the plan was unlawful.

Mr Andrew said his job is to deliver the plan, no matter what. “It is a very complex plan. Until advised otherwise, I intend to continue to implement it, with the target of delivering it in full and on time,” he said. In recent months the Plan has been plagued by controversy. Reports of water rorting sparked a series of inquiries, while amendments to the plan have been threatened by the Senate.

Protesters gathered yesterday at the Murray Mouth to call on senators to block any changes unless the full 3200 gigalitres in the plan was guaranteed.

Protesters at Sugar Beach, Hindmarsh Island on Tuesday. Picture: AAP / Wilderness Society South Australia

Conservation SA chief executive Craig Wilkins said the state’s trust in the plan had “been rocked by a mounting body of evidence of illegal and dodgy behaviour upstream”.

There are also doubts over how 605GL of the plan will be offset by efficiency projects rather than delivered by “real” water, he said.

The Greens have moved a motion to disallow that 605GL change and the vote is expected to come before the Senate next week. Labor has not yet declared its position. Mr Andrew said without that 605GL change, “we will not have a Basin Plan”. He said it was “inextricably linked” to another 450GL, and both were necessary to get to the full 3200GL.

The 450GL is particularly critical for SA’s environmental flows. An Issues Paper released by the Royal Commission points to another issue.

If the 605GL change stands, it would be effective this year, while the projects to offset it don’t have to be proven to work until 2024.

Protesters at the Murray Mouth on Tuesday. Picture: Conservation Council SA

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says that means there will be less water for the environment in the meantime.

“The projects themselves don’t even have to be completed till 2024, we won’t even know until then whether they are completed, whether they are working, whether they do anything they’ve promised to have done, and that’s if they actually even happen,” she said.

“Meanwhile, the (sustainable diversion limit) adjustment will take place straight away. So from this year, the environment will be getting less but the trade-offs - none of them have to come in till 2024.”

While the political fight continues, there are warnings from prominent University of Adelaide ecologist Professor David Paton that the Coorong is in dire trouble. Mr Andrew said there are some parts of the system that look “pretty grim” because it’s been such a dry year, but said without the plan, things would be worse.

The authority yesterday released data on “icon sites” in the Basin, including the Coorong, Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth showing improvements on indicators such as plants, fish and native birds.

MDBA executive director Carl Binning said the evidence showed “water alone is not enough” to save the Basin, and that other works mapped out in the Plan were needed.

Upstream MPs ‘stack’ key water inquiry

- Peter Jean

A FEDERAL parliamentary inquiry that could be asked to recommend cuts to environmental water flows into the Murray doesn’t have any South Australian members, prompting a claim it has been “stacked” by upstream states.

The House of Representatives environment and energy committee is investigating use and management of Commonwealth environmental water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Its chair, Andrew Broad, a Nationals MP from Victoria’s Mildura-based electorate of Mallee, said SA MPs could have chosen to nominate for the inquiry, which also has members from NSW and Queensland.

“Any member can nominate for a standing committee and members can be co-opted to any committee for a particular inquiry,” he said.

SA Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said she was disappointed there were no SA MPs on the inquiry.

“It affects every Australian taxpayer, but even more concerning is this is South Australia’s lifeblood,” she said.

“South Australians cannot trust that our state is being taken into account with a panel stacked by upstream states.”

The Greens don’t have any lower-house MPs from SA.

The inquiry will today hold a public hearing at Murray Bridge, in Liberal MP Tony Pasin’s electorate of Barker.

Mr Pasin said if the inquiry delivered any recommendations that could be detrimental to the state, they would be opposed by all federal SA MPs.

“SA MPs, whether they be purple, blue or green, would rise as one to say ‘We are not having any of it’,” he said.

Port Adelaide MP Mark Butler said Opposition members from SA were working closely with NSW Labor MP Pat Conroy, who is deputy chair of the inquiry.

Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie said she had been unaware the inquiry was being established.