Murray-Darling Basin Plan: Senate not given information they need to make fateful decision

THE fate of the Murray rests on an imminent vote on hundreds of gigalitres — but the Senate has been given information “not representative” of the actual situation.

• Water meant to save the Murray is being scooped out upstream
• Royal Commission raises questions over Murray-Darling Basin Plan
• Minister says there is no ‘Plan B’

THE fate of the Murray rests on an imminent vote on hundreds of gigalitres of water – but the Senate has been given information “not representative” of the actual situation.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has written to Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick confirming documents they have provided are outdated.

At stake is 605GL of the 2750GL Plan. The Federal Government has legislated that instead of directly returning water to the river system, 36 water-saving projects can deliver equivalent results.

Critics have already questioned the lack of detail on those projects amid other accusations of water rorting and theft. The Greens moved to disallow the 605GL change, and that disallowance could be voted on at the next Parliamentary sitting in May. The 605GL is a critical amount of water for South Australia, particularly for the Coorong, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth.

The 605GL is a critical amount of water for South Australia, particularly for the Coorong, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth.

Senator Patrick has been pushing to find out if the 36 projects stack up, and won an order for the proposal assessments to be produced – which they were.

But then the authority’s chairman, Phillip Glyde, wrote to him to say the documents were not a “good representation” of the final package.

The assessments were done at an early stage of the process, after which projects were changed, mitigating actions agreed, and some projects were dropped. “During the assessment process minor changes were made for all projects, and for some, more significant changes occurred,” he wrote, adding that they were then “not representative”.

Senator Patrick said that means he could not allow the change to stand.

“On the data I have which shows there are problems, I couldn’t vote on it,” he said.

“There is not enough information here to make a good decision.

“The Government is now seeking to provide me with more information but I’m quite insistent that that information must also be made available to the senate and the public.”

Senator Rex Patrick. Picture Kym Smith

Assistant Water Minister Anne Ruston. Picture: AAP / David Mariuz

Assistant Water Minister Anne Ruston said that the process was working as it should – the projects had to be refined and their interaction with each other understood.

She said it was crucial for everyone to understand the process – and that it was an ongoing one: “It is absolutely essential that we provide a level of confidence to all people who are involved in making these decisions that the process has been robust and delivered the best possible outcome.”

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who moved the disallowance motion, said that the authorities had “no idea” how much water was already being saved, and would be saved: “Part of the issue always has been that you could never guarantee or demonstrate how likely they are to return any amount of water so why on Earth ... would we be revising down real water by 605GL?”

Acting opposition water spokesman Mark Butler said Labor was having “constructive” discussions with the Government.