Murray-Darling Basin Plan in danger – Federal Labor and Greens to vote against changes

NEW South Wales is threatening to walk away from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and Victoria could follow, leaving the river system recovery in disarray.

• Murray-Darling Plan should be put on hold
• SA could miss out on gigalitres
• States hit stalemate over Plan

NEW South Wales is threatening to walk away from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and Victoria could follow, leaving the river system recovery in disarray.

Federal Labor confirmed yesterday it would vote with the Greens to overturn changes to the plan that would let an extra 70 gigalitres be used in the northern basin.

With the likely support of SA Best (Federal) – and the Australian Conservatives’ Cory Bernardi – the change would be bumped off.

Federal Water Minister David Littleproud called the move an “act of bastardry”.

The two sides are totally split. The Government, farmers and irrigators say the northern basin review shows recovering the water would hurt local communities.

Labor, the Greens and others say that allowing irrigators and farmers to keep it will hurt the river system.

The Murray River near the mouth at Goolwa. Picture: South Australia Tourist Commission

“Unless we do something drastically to fix this plan, the river is going to die,” Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said. “The Government wants to give less water to the river and more water to corporate irrigators, and we’re saying no.”

NSW Water Minister Niall Blair said if the Greens were successful NSW would have to reconsider its position in the Ministerial Council.

Victorian Water Minister Lisa Neville said her Government would be talking to NSW and assessing their position on the plan “as a result of this decision”.

Modelling shows that if that 70GL were put back in the river only about 3GL would flow as far as the Goolwa barrages.

The Greens are likely to move a second disallowance on another critical piece of legislation to adjust the plan by 605GL, with both sides again split.

Mr Littleproud has said if these changes were blocked, the Commonwealth’s obligations would reduce to only returning 2750GL to the river, instead of 3200GL, and that it would struggle to even get that much back if the states step off. He said Labor’s move “smells like politics over people”.

“Labor are playing games with people’s lives,” he said.

Modelling shows that if that 70GL were put back in the river only about 3GL would flow as far as the Goolwa barrages. Picture: Nearmap.com

The northern basin review was part of the original Murray legislation, but Labor now says it wants a new review.

Opposition water spokesman Tony Burke said more accurate data and modelling on the plan was needed, along with a comprehensive response to allegations of corruption and water theft in the northern basin.

“While these serious gaps remain, Labor cannot support the instrument in its current form,” he said.

The Basin Authority said the recommendation that environmental benefits could be delivered while letting communities use the extra 70GL is based on the best available science and evidence.

Chief executive Phillip Glyde said that the disallowance would have “significant consequences” at a critical time.

Water being taken from the Murray for irrigation.

National Irrigators’ Council CEO Steve Whan said he was “appalled” at the decision to disallow the legislation and that “communities have every right to be outraged”.

The National Farmers’ Federation labelled Senator Hanson-Young’s move “irresponsible and ill-informed”.

The new outbreak of arguing follows the signing of a Declaration by 12 of the nation’s top basin experts – led by the University of Adelaide – who want the plan put on pause until it can be audited and have a powerful watchdog installed to oversee it.

NFF chief executive Tony Maher declared that a “stunt” and the academics as attention seeking.

“What we saw yesterday was yet another group looking to gain some notoriety by attacking the basin plan,” Mr Maher said.

Mr Whan said “this week we have seen a narrow and ill-considered call from some environmental scientists to halt the basin plan”.

“It’s a call that ignores positive impacts of more water-efficient agricultural production and ignores the basin plan review which showed early positive outcomes, but pointed out that environmental recovery would take many years,” he said.