The Claim
“Ignored a Royal Commission report which found the government's Murray-Darling Basin Plan is illegal, whilst refusing to publish their own report which they claim provides a valid rebuttal.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim contains elements of truth mixed with significant oversimplifications and misleading framing. The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report, released January 29, 2019, did find that the MDBA (Murray-Darling Basin Authority) acted unlawfully in developing the Basin Plan. However, this is more nuanced than claiming the Plan is "illegal" [1][2]. The Royal Commission report, conducted by Commissioner Bret Walker SC, found that the MDBA unlawfully applied a "triple bottom line approach" involving economic, social and environmental considerations, when the Water Act 2007 required applying only considerations "relevant to environmental sustainability" and maintaining the productive base of the basin [3]. More specifically, the MDBA failed its statutory duty by failing to disclose key modelling for external scrutiny and indefensibly ignoring climate change projections when setting Environmental Sustainable Levels [4]. This resulted in water recovery targets of 2,750 GL instead of the scientifically justified range of 3,980-6,980 GL [1].
Regarding the government's response, the Coalition did not simply "ignore" the report. Rather, the government publicly rejected the Royal Commission's findings, with the MDBA giving a "blanket denial of any claim it acted unlawfully or improperly" [5]. Minister David Littleproud pointed to conflicting legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor's office, which Commissioner Walker had explicitly rejected as "dubious" [5]. The government asserted that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was developed in accordance with the Water Act 2007 [5].
The "secret report" referenced appears to conflate two separate issues. A Water for the Environment Special Account (WESA) report was indeed kept secret by the Coalition government, revealing that only 2.6 GL of the target 450 GL had been recovered during the Coalition's decade in office and that "it is not possible to reach the 450 GL target through the current efficiency measures program—even if the WESA's time and budget limits were removed" [6]. This report was handed to Water Minister Keith Pitt before Christmas 2021 but was never released to the public. However, this was not a "rebuttal" of the Royal Commission's legal findings; rather, it was a damning assessment of implementation progress showing cost estimates between $3.4 billion to $10.8 billion to deliver the full 450 GL [6].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual factors that are essential to understanding the dispute:
Legal Complexity: The government's rejection of the Royal Commission findings was not simply stonewalling. The government had received conflicting legal advice from its own solicitors. While Commissioner Walker dismissed this advice as "dubious," the existence of competing legal interpretations of the Water Act 2007 made this a genuine (though contested) legal dispute rather than an obvious case of government wrongdoing [5]. The government genuinely believed—even if incorrectly—that its interpretation was lawful.
No Formal Rebuttal Document: The claim suggests the government produced a rebuttal report to the Royal Commission. In fact, no such formal document existed. What the government did possess were internal legal opinions and departmental assessments, which they kept confidential on grounds of legal professional privilege [5]. The WESA report, while kept secret, was not framed as a rebuttal of the Royal Commission's legal findings but rather as an assessment of implementation feasibility.
Royal Commission's Role: The Royal Commission was constituted by South Australia and specifically investigated matters affecting that state. While its findings were damning of MDBA procedures, the Commonwealth government argued (however unsuccessfully) that the Royal Commission lacked authority to overturn the federally-approved Basin Plan [5]. This was not merely a matter of the government ignoring a critical report but of competing claims about jurisdictional authority.
Implementation Failures vs. Legal Unlawfulness: The claim combines two distinct failures. The Royal Commission found the process of developing the Plan was unlawful; the WESA report revealed that Plan implementation was failing to achieve stated goals. These are different problems requiring different solutions [6].
Comparative Context: Labor, in opposition, called for a Commission of Inquiry into the 2017 water entitlement purchases and an independent review of MDBA governance, but Labor itself had approved the Basin Plan in 2012 and had not subsequently rejected it [7][8].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original ABC source appears reliable. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is a mainstream, publicly-funded broadcaster with a strong reputation for accuracy on environmental and government accountability stories. The article date (February 24, 2019) is well-timed to the Royal Commission release (January 29, 2019), suggesting timely reporting on government response.
The Royal Commission report itself is a primary source document of high credibility—it was conducted by Commissioner Bret Walker SC, a senior silk with substantial experience, and was conducted with full hearing processes [1]. South Australia's government had no particular incentive to exaggerate findings harmful to the Commonwealth.
The WESA report sources are secondary reporting from agricultural media (Farm Online) based on leaked documents. While these outlets have reasonable credibility, the reporting relies on leaked/confidential documents rather than official releases, which is typical of accountability journalism but involves some inherent uncertainty about context [6].
Balanced Perspective
The claim highlights genuine failures in the Coalition government's handling of the Murray-Darling Basin, but frames them in a way that oversimplifies the complexities involved.
What was legitimate about the government's position:
While Commissioner Walker was scathing about the government's legal advice, it remains true that different senior lawyers could interpret the Water Act 2007's requirements differently [5]. The government was not acting in bad faith by relying on its own solicitors' interpretation. Additionally, the Commonwealth government had legitimate grounds to argue that a state-constituted Royal Commission should not dictate to a federally-approved statutory authority [5].
What was problematic about the government's response:
The government's rejection of the Royal Commission findings, while defended on legal grounds, was substantively wrong according to an experienced senior counsel's detailed analysis [1][4]. The government's failure to:
- Promptly reform the Basin Plan procedures as recommended [1]
- Release the WESA report to Parliament and the public [6]
- Seriously engage with the scientific evidence about climate change impacts on water recovery targets [4]
...suggested the government was more interested in defending the Plan politically than addressing genuine deficiencies.
Key Context: This was not simply government corruption but rather a combination of:
- Genuine legal dispute (competing interpretations of statutory obligations)
- Implementation failure (unable to achieve water recovery targets)
- Secrecy and defensiveness (refusing to publish assessments that contradicted public claims about progress)
The claim is partially right: the government did reject a Royal Commission report with serious findings, and it did keep critical assessments secret. However, it was not as straightforward as "ignoring a report that found the Plan illegal" because the legal question was genuinely contested (even if the Royal Commission's interpretation appears more rigorous), and the secret report was about implementation, not a "rebuttal" of legal findings.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.5
out of 10
/ MISLEADING
The claim contains factual elements but significantly oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the dispute. The Royal Commission did find procedural unlawfulness, not that the Plan was wholly "illegal." The government did reject the findings and keep reports secret, but there were legitimate (though ultimately unsuccessful) legal defenses for the government's positions. The claim conflates two separate failures—legal unlawfulness in the Plan's development and implementation failure in delivering water recovery targets—without clearly distinguishing them. A more accurate formulation would be: "The Coalition government rejected a Royal Commission finding that the Basin Plan was developed through unlawful procedures, relied on disputed legal advice to defend its interpretation, and kept secret a report showing the Plan could not achieve its stated targets."
Final Score
6.5
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
/ MISLEADING
The claim contains factual elements but significantly oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the dispute. The Royal Commission did find procedural unlawfulness, not that the Plan was wholly "illegal." The government did reject the findings and keep reports secret, but there were legitimate (though ultimately unsuccessful) legal defenses for the government's positions. The claim conflates two separate failures—legal unlawfulness in the Plan's development and implementation failure in delivering water recovery targets—without clearly distinguishing them. A more accurate formulation would be: "The Coalition government rejected a Royal Commission finding that the Basin Plan was developed through unlawful procedures, relied on disputed legal advice to defend its interpretation, and kept secret a report showing the Plan could not achieve its stated targets."
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
Holding Redlich - Royal Commission finds Murray Darling Basin Plan partly unlawful
The Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin’s report constitutes the most comprehensive analysis to date in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But it may take a Federal Royal Commission for the recommendations and findings of the Royal Commission to drive change. Our water law expert Dr Joseph Monaghan summarises some of the 800 page report’s key findings.
Holdingredlich -
2
SBS News - Royal Commission finds Murray Darling Basin Authority acted unlawfully
Commissioner Bret Walker SC has recommended a complete overhaul of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
SBS News -
3
Lexology - South Australian Royal Commission findings on Murray Darling Basin Plan
On 29 January 2019 the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission (Royal Commission), constituted by Bret Walker SC as Commissioner…
Lexology -
4
The Conversation - Damning royal commission report leaves no doubt that we all lose if the Murray-Darling Basin Plan fails
The Murray-Darling is not just a food bowl, yet the South Australian Royal Commission has found the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is failing its mission to protect the environment as well as irrigators.
The Conversation -
5
The Land - Royal Commission calls for Basin Plan re-write
South Australian report says the river needs more water, science was ignored, and the MDBA has a culture...
Theland Com -
6
Farm Online - Basin plan can't be delivered under current settings, secret report reveals
Even if all budget and time restrictions were removed, the MDBP won't be delivered in full and on...
Farmonline Com -
7
Tony Burke MP - Labor will get the Basin Plan back on track
Australians have watched an ecological disaster as a result of the failure of the Liberals and Nationals to properly implement the Murray Darling Basin Plan or take water reform seriously.
Tony Burke MP -
8
Australian Water Association - Federal election 2019: What do the major parties say about the Murray-Darling Basin?
Here's what the Greens, the Liberal-National Coalition and the Labor Party want to see prioritised when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin.
Awa Asn
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.