Thread by @Tony_Burke

I don’t often promote media releases which are getting stuck into me but I’m about to. First I’ll show you the release from David Littleproud describing today’s Murray Darling announcement as a “hoax”. Then I’ll explain why his claim is entirely wrong.
#auspol #mdbplan

First, here’s Minister Littleproud’s attempt to be mean. It isn’t really particularly mean. It’s more just wrong. Anyway here’s the release.

Next, here’s the announcement he’s referring to. In particular he’s taking issue with the part where Labor commits to returning to the original definition of socio economic in the plan.

For those who haven’t followed this closely there’s an extra 450GL for the environment which cannot be acquired through the usual buy-back methods. Barnaby Joyce refused to acquire any of this water. David Littleproud has started acquiring some.

The way David Littleproud started acquiring the extra water was by reaching an agreement with the states for a very strict test that would rule out most acquisitions. The capacity to create these sorts of rules is allowed under the basin plan at 7.17 (2)(b)(ii).

So there’s nothing unlawful or against the rules in the way he’s gone about it. The problem is, his test is so strict, it puts into jeopardy whether the 450GL will ever be acquired.

Because he had to get the agreement of the states to set these strict limits he has presumed I can’t commit to go back to the original definition without the approval of the states. This is where he’s wrong.

Section 7.17 says there are three different ways to get the water:
1. Improved efficiency on farm
OR
2. Improved efficiency off farm
OR
3. Any other method agreed by the states.

If the plan used the word “AND” instead of “OR” then David Littleproud would be right. But it says “or”. Have a check:

legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018C…

The agreement with the states is simply an additional way of acquiring the water. The methods put down in the original Murray Darling Basin Plan are still there in black and white.

Why does this test exist at all?
It came out of consultation. Communities asked that open buy backs not be the only method. Infrastructure improvements do cost more but we chose the more expensive path the reduce the impact on communities but still acquire the water for env.

Returning to the original test means Labor can commit to delivering the Murray Darling Basin Plan including the 450GL that Barnaby Joyce said didn’t have a “hope in Hades” of being delivered.