Murray-Darling Basin: Royal Commission witnesses all agree on plan’s flaw

EVERY scientist to appear before the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission so far has been unable to explain the scientific process behind the key 2750 gigalitres figure.

• Water plan a ‘fraud on the environment’, Royal Commission hears
• Murray authority interfering with science, whistleblower says
• Murray Darling Basin Royal Commission holds first public hearing

EVERY scientist to front the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission had been unable to explain the scientific process behind the key 2750 gigalitres figure, counsel assisting, Richard Beasley SC, said yesterday.

That has prompted Commissioner Bret Walker SC to comment that even the Murray-Darling Basin Authority seems to say achieving the plan’s outcomes is not possible.

The authority has written that it “can be achieved with a high level of uncertainty”.

Mr Walker said he tried to understand that phrase as “a mere native user of English and a lawyer”.

“(It) would mean, to a lawyer’s way of thinking, ‘more likely than not will not be achieved’,” he said. When the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was formulated, there was much negotiation and political compromise before it was decided that keeping an extra 2750GL in the river was enough to preserve it.

That is meant to increase to 3200GL from 2024. But commission witnesses say the number was virtually made up, and that their work was censored or edited.

They blame the authority, which has consistently declined to comment, and the CSIRO.

In a recap of evidence presented so far, counsel assisting, Richard Beasley SC, said that “every scientist that is being called (says there is) no scientific justification for 2750GL”.

He said the first witness, former MDBA employee David Bell, had said the number had to start with a two, when most would have preferred it to start with a four.

Former CSIRO research scientist Matt Colloff said there were changes to his work that had amounted to “scientific censorship”. He added other names with similar claims.

Mr Beasley said that if anyone from the authority or CSIRO wanted to give evidence, they could.

The commission did expect to hear from current employees. The Commonwealth and the authority have issued an injunction to stop federal employees being forced to appear.

The commission argues that should not stop employees from appearing voluntarily to explain the science.

Mr Beasley said the commission was not “cherrypicking witnesses” and was keen to hear from any scientist who wanted to say the existing witnesses were wrong.

“If there a scientist … in Australia, or the world, that wants to come here who’s qualified in hydrology or is a modeller or an ecologist or an economist or with some other relevant discipline and wants to say the (authority’s) entirely right, and all these other witnesses are wrong, I will call them,” he said.