Royal Commission into Murray-Darling Basin told river authority is ‘dishonest’ with ‘bogus modelling’

THE Murray-Darling Basin Authority has been accused of having a “dishonest culture” with “bogus” water modelling by a witness to the Royal Commission.

• 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

THE Murray-Darling Basin Authority has a “dishonest culture” and uses “bogus” water modelling to get what it wants, a witness to the river system’s Royal Commission alleges.

John Clements has worked on NSW water policy for about two decades, including with irrigators and Cotton Australia.

From 2012 to 2016, he was appointed to the Northern Basin Review Advisory Committee to advise the authority on water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

He faced the Royal Commission in Adelaide on Tuesday to discuss his concerns.

According to his witness statement, he said there were significant failings in the authority’s modelling.

However, he said the advisory committee was just there to “rubber stamp the MDBA’s ambitions”.

He said the authority “refused reasonable instruction” from the committee and ignored requests for information.

“It’s almost as if the MDBA was offended by being asked details on issues such as modelling,” he said.

“I found the MDBA to be very defensive when asked questions.”

Mr Clements has also been a policy adviser for state and federal MPs.

The Royal Commission is investigating the delivery of the $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which has been plagued by accusations of water theft and rorting, but more recently of not relying on solid science.

Mr Clements said when the authority did share information it was “often provided at very short notice and lacked substance”.

He began to suspect that the authority was cherrypicking statistics to make its water delivery look better.

“I am concerned that the MDBA was (and still is) using modelling to reverse engineer outcomes that they want,” he said. “I am concerned that the approach adopted by the MDBA will only deliver a virtual outcome that is only going to work from a desktop.

“Reflecting on my experience as part of the committee, I found the MDBA to be a politically motivated organisation, which developed a dishonest culture.”

A series of previous witnesses have questioned the authority’s methods and said that the 2750 gigalitre figure — the baseline amount of water for the Murray-Darling — is not based on science.

The authority did not respond to questions about Mr Clements’ claims.