The Claim
“Failed to achieve their own water efficiency targets for the Murray Darling off-farm efficiency program, achieving only 1% of what they said they would.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The "1% achievement" claim is accurate and sourced from an authoritative independent body. According to The Guardian article citing the Productivity Commission's 2019 five-year review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan: "The efficiency program was also criticised as it had achieved only a small fraction of the 450 gigalitres of water savings it was supposed to deliver – just 1% of its target" [1].
The Productivity Commission is Australia's independent statutory research body providing evidence-based analysis on microeconomic policy issues to Australian governments [2]. The 2019 five-year assessment was the official government-commissioned review of the Basin Plan's implementation.
The 450 GL Target: The off-farm efficiency program was designed to deliver 450 gigalitres of water savings to the environment as part of the Basin Plan's total water recovery target. This program, administered by the Coalition government, involved funding irrigation infrastructure efficiency improvements [1].
Actual Achievement: As of the Productivity Commission's January 2019 assessment, the program had achieved approximately 4.5 GL (1% of 450 GL target) [1]. This massive shortfall occurred despite being several years into a program intended to deliver results by 2024.
Attribution: The Coalition government, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and later Scott Morrison, was responsible for the design and implementation of this off-farm efficiency program as part of the broader Basin Plan, which was negotiated and agreed under previous governments but implemented primarily during the Coalition's 2013-2022 term.
Missing Context
The claim requires significant context about why the program underperformed and what happened subsequently.
Original Program Design: The off-farm efficiency program was originally designed to achieve water savings through on-farm improvements (saving water in paddocks). The Coalition government under Water Minister Barnaby Joyce shifted strategy away from buying water on the open market due to concerns about economic impacts on rural communities [1]. The government instead committed to efficiency programs as an alternative.
Why Performance Was Poor: The Productivity Commission's report identified systemic issues: "The efficiency program... did not take account of climate change" and faced "real risks of failure" [1]. The ABC's reporting on the Productivity Commission noted the program had "lacked transparency and candour with stakeholders" and "It has been unclear who is responsible and accountable for leading implementation" [3].
Subsequent Government Response: By 2022, the Morrison government had redirected the $1.3 billion allocated to off-farm efficiency. Water Minister Keith Pitt announced the government would allocate $126 million to Murrumbidgee Irrigation for infrastructure works projected to deliver 6.3 gigalitres to the environment [1]. However, environmental groups criticized this approach as paying $20,000 per megalitre - eight times the market price for water [1].
Labor Government Response: The Albanese Labor government, which took office in May 2022, inherited this failed program. It has subsequently pursued a different strategy, including renewed focus on water buybacks and a "Bridging the Gap Strategic Water Purchasing Program" [4]. The Labor government acknowledged the Basin Plan was "failing under the Liberals and Nationals" in its framing of responses to the Productivity Commission's implementation review [5].
Broader Basin Plan Context: The off-farm efficiency program was only part of a larger strategy. The Basin Plan required 1,050 gigalitres total water recovery: 450 GL through efficiency programs and 605 GL through "supply side projects" (infrastructure improvements to operate more efficiently with less water). Both components faced serious implementation challenges [1][3].
Source Credibility Assessment
Original Source - The Guardian: The Guardian Australia is a mainstream news organization with credible editorial standards. The January 2022 article by Anne Davies is reporting on factual statements from the Productivity Commission's official 2019 report [1].
Primary Source - Productivity Commission: The Productivity Commission's 2019 five-year assessment is the most authoritative source available - it is an independent statutory body commissioned by the Australian government to provide evidence-based analysis [2]. The Commission's findings are widely cited by government and opposition alike, making it non-partisan in sourcing.
Environmental Groups Quote: The article includes criticism from the Nature Conservation Council, representing environmental perspectives. Environmental groups have incentive to criticize the program, though their factual claims about program performance are verified by the Productivity Commission's independent assessment.
The source credibility is high - the core statistic (1% achievement) comes from the official government-commissioned Productivity Commission report, not from partisan advocacy.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government Murray Darling water efficiency targets program Australia"
Labor's Basin Plan History:
The Basin Plan itself was negotiated and agreed under the Rudd/Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013), though not fully implemented until after 2013. Labor initially championed water buybacks on the open market as the preferred mechanism for water recovery. The Productivity Commission's 2019 report noted: "Water buy-backs are a far cheaper way to achieve the same result" than the efficiency programs the Coalition pursued [1].
When the Coalition government came to power in 2013, it abandoned Labor's water buyback approach due to concerns about economic impacts on rural communities. This shift from buybacks to efficiency programs was a Coalition policy decision, not inherited from Labor.
Key Difference: Labor pursued (and the Productivity Commission suggested was still the better approach) a market-based buyback mechanism. The Coalition pursued infrastructure efficiency programs. The failure to achieve targets was largely a result of the Coalition's chosen policy approach, not a universal problem with water recovery strategies.
The Albanese Labor government (2022-present) has returned to a hybrid approach including both buybacks and efficiency programs, after acknowledging the previous government's approach was failing.
Balanced Perspective
Why the Program Underperformed:
The Productivity Commission identified genuine implementation challenges [3]:
- Unclear governance and accountability (who was responsible?)
- Lack of transparency with stakeholders
- Programs were "highly ambitious" and faced technical difficulties
- Climate change impacts not adequately accounted for
- Complex coordination required across multiple jurisdictions and irrigators
These were not simply Coalition incompetence - they reflect genuine complexity in coordinating large-scale water infrastructure changes across state boundaries and multiple private stakeholders.
Coalition Government Justification:
The Coalition chose efficiency programs over water buybacks for legitimate policy reasons: Water Minister Barnaby Joyce stopped open-market water purchases because they were economically damaging rural communities [1]. The government sought to achieve water recovery while supporting rural employment and agricultural viability. This represents a reasonable policy trade-off, even if the chosen approach underperformed.
Criticisms - Valid:
The Productivity Commission criticism stands: the chosen approach was less effective and more costly than alternatives [1]. By 2022, with only 1% of the 450 GL target achieved after nearly a decade, the strategy had demonstrably failed to deliver its objectives.
Contextual Issues:
The 450 GL off-farm efficiency target may have been unrealistic from the start. The ABC's 2019 coverage noted that achieving that target would have required massive infrastructure investment across multiple irrigation regions [3]. The Productivity Commission's 2019 report warned of "real risks of failure" for both the efficiency program and the 605 GL supply-side projects [1][3].
Current Status:
The Albanese government released a new Productivity Commission implementation review in 2024, which "confirms that the Basin Plan was failing under the Liberals and Nationals" but also notes the structural challenges remain [5]. This suggests the problem was not simply Coalition mismanagement but genuine systemic difficulty in implementing the Basin Plan as originally designed.
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate. The Coalition government's off-farm efficiency program achieved only approximately 1% of its 450 gigalitre target as of the Productivity Commission's 2019 assessment [1]. This is documented in an authoritative independent government-commissioned report and widely reported in mainstream media.
However, the claim lacks important context about why the program underperformed (complex implementation challenges, governance issues, climate change impacts) and the policy rationale for choosing efficiency programs over water buybacks (protection of rural economies). The failure reflects both policy choice and implementation difficulty, not simple incompetence.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The claim is factually accurate. The Coalition government's off-farm efficiency program achieved only approximately 1% of its 450 gigalitre target as of the Productivity Commission's 2019 assessment [1]. This is documented in an authoritative independent government-commissioned report and widely reported in mainstream media.
However, the claim lacks important context about why the program underperformed (complex implementation challenges, governance issues, climate change impacts) and the policy rationale for choosing efficiency programs over water buybacks (protection of rural economies). The failure reflects both policy choice and implementation difficulty, not simple incompetence.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
theguardian.com
Federal water minister allocates $126m to Murrumbidgee Irrigation for works it says will save just 7.4 gigalitres of water
the Guardian -
2
pc.gov.au
The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government's independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians.
Pc Gov -
3
abc.net.au
The Productivity Commission's review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan finds costs and time blowouts and recommends the MDBA be split in two.
Abc Net -
4
dcceew.gov.au
Dcceew Gov
-
5
minister.dcceew.gov.au
Minister Dcceew Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.