10 thoughts on “The Weatherill Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission and Eddie Obeid”

1. Funny how all these PPP gigs to supply election pledged infrastructure all end up costing the taxpayer in bail outs [ which probably involve further loans from overseas entities] end up with greater tax impost, more population density & less services.

   Just like 1984 Big Brother Announcements celebrating smaller rations!
   I believe the Current MDBRC Big Kahuna has done wonders with Sydney Ferries & the Mines Legislation in the past.
   Sydney Siders & New South Welshmen are SO lucky!

   Agenda 21/30 is DOUBLE PLUS GOOD!
   Especially for those riding the Gravy Train.

2. Too much unmetered water extraction from the river and meters not monitored properly.
   That’s one of the most important findings I predict.

3. @Jeff

   If “extraction” is unmetered, how do we know 1) if water is extracted, and 2) how much is too much ?

   If upstream meters are not properly monitored, then downstream volumes cannot be accurately compared with what “should” be anyway.

   No, I’m not defending possible thievery. In the mid ’80’s, I saw a legal water pipeline from the Dawson River (Central Q’ld) over 30km long and accredited for the water supply to a major operating coal mine. Systematic monthly auditing suggested unapproved, surreptitious “taps” the entire length of the line to various agricultural and domestic recipients. No amount of field inspection could catch this – the taps and polypipes just miraculously disappeared each time.

   Nonetheless, I agree that such nebulous findings are likely and will be blasted across the MSM as “greedy cotton farmers”. And nothing more will happen.

4. there’s a section on climate change .. starts at p 256 … this on 257 As detailed in Chapters 2 and 3, giving effect to Australia’s obligations in accordance with relevant international agreements is central to the constitutional validity of the Water Act, and provides a basis upon which the Basin Plan must be prepared. The Climate Change Convention and the Desertification Convention are key international agreements
   that reflect global progress and commitments to address the risks of climate change. Both conventions are relevant international agreements for the purposes of the Water Act, and the Basin Plan must give effect to Australia’s obligations under these agreements…. the IPCC gets a mention at 265 … a conclusion at 273 that Further, the failure to incorporate climate change into the modelling was flawed ‘from a standard risk management approach’ and a conclusion at 276 that the senior management and the Board of the MDBA were negligent in failing to account for climate change in the modelling

5. I have skimmed the 700 odd pages at speed Val – and there is also the RAMSAR convention re water birds.
   I see the Water Act was passed in dying stages of Howard Govt. Another disaster of theirs – like the intro of the whatever RET scheme destroying our electricity grids. We should be getting out of these UN based impediments to our ability to rule ourselves.
   With Labor heading for certain Fed Govt in May they could well run a Fed RC into the MDB just to leave their imprint.

6. I agree with Alan Taylor’s view in a broad brush sense .. you can find it here www.facebook.com/allan.taylor.7393/posts/1145017729005487
   Ron Pike’s view is here – www.facebook.com/allan.taylor.7393/posts/1145017729005487 … you have to skim through the comments to find it; it’s a reply to Alan Taylor’s comment

7. the recommendations are at page 77 ff

8. Val, you point out that:

   “As detailed in Chapters 2 and 3, giving effect to Australia’s obligations in accordance with relevant international agreements is central to the constitutional validity of the Water Act, and provides a basis upon which the Basin Plan must be prepared. ”

   There is a lesson in this. We should NEVER sign an international agreement where we don’t know precisely what we are getting and what we are giving away. Treaties are contracts where each party should expect benefits, not hidden obligations, restrictions, and demands. The idea that we need to plan water allocations in the MDB on the basis of some global climate agreement is absurd and a disgrace.

9. David, I totally agree … haven’t read either of The Climate Change Convention and the Desertification Convention but I’m assuming the emphasis in each is continual flow thus resulting in the emphasis on environmental flows. It’s natural for outback rivers and rivers flowing through arid country as does the Darling to have cease flows from time to time. However, it’s only a little more than two years since the Darling was in flood and it being dry or very low now points more to over extraction in its upper regions in my view. And the draining of the Menindee Lakes twice in four years is a disgrace, resulting in the dying of the little town of Menindee and the fish deaths which have recently occurred and the alternate arrangements for Broken Hill water which is now proposed to be pumped uphill from Wentworth. All of these things must take precedence over any international nebulous agreement related to climate change which may or may not be occurring

10. David Brewer, I agree. We should be like the Swiss -no international agreement can have an effect unless agreed to in a referendum, and further the Swiss have Citizen Initiated Referenda by which they can overturn any Act passed by their parliament, or overturn any referendum result after a 18 months waiting period. The Swiss, I believe have voted no in something like 70% of all referenda.
    I understand that USA never signed the Kyoto Agreement and that the US Senate would not have agreed to it. I believe that USA needs both houses to agree to any international agreement. Obama acted illegally on many international issues.