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.
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].
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].
David David Littleproud Littleproud 部长 bù zhǎng 援引 yuán yǐn 澳大利亚政府 ào dà lì yà zhèng fǔ 律师 lǜ shī 办公室 bàn gōng shì 提供 tí gōng 的 de 相互 xiāng hù 矛盾 máo dùn 的 de 法律 fǎ lǜ 意见 yì jiàn 作为 zuò wéi 依据 yī jù , , 而 ér Walker Walker 专员 zhuān yuán 曾 céng 明确 míng què 驳斥 bó chì 该 gāi 意见 yì jiàn 为 wèi " " 可疑 kě yí " " [ [ 5 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].
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].
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].
缺失背景
该 gāi 说法 shuō fǎ 遗漏 yí lòu 了 le 几个 jǐ gè 对于 duì yú 理解 lǐ jiě 该 gāi 争议 zhēng yì 至关重要 zhì guān zhòng yào 的 de 背景 bèi jǐng 因素 yīn sù : :
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.
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.
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.
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].
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].
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].
🌐
平衡视角
该 gāi 说法 shuō fǎ 突出 tū chū 了 le 联盟党 lián méng dǎng 政府 zhèng fǔ 在 zài 墨累 mò lèi - - 达令 dá lìng 流域 liú yù 问题 wèn tí 上 shàng 的 de 真实 zhēn shí 失误 shī wù , , 但 dàn 表述 biǎo shù 方式 fāng shì 过度 guò dù 简化 jiǎn huà 了 le 其中 qí zhōng 涉及 shè jí 的 de 复杂性 fù zá xìng 。 。
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].
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].
政府 zhèng fǔ 依赖 yī lài 其 qí 律师 lǜ shī 的 de 解释 jiě shì 并非 bìng fēi 恶意 è yì 行为 xíng wéi 。 。
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:
1. **Genuine legal dispute** (competing interpretations of statutory obligations)
2. **Implementation failure** (unable to achieve water recovery targets)
3. **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.
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.
皇家 huáng jiā 委员会 wěi yuán huì 确实 què shí 认定 rèn dìng 程序 chéng xù 违法 wéi fǎ , , 而 ér 非 fēi 整个 zhěng gè 计划 jì huà " " 非法 fēi fǎ " " 。 。
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."
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.
皇家 huáng jiā 委员会 wěi yuán huì 确实 què shí 认定 rèn dìng 程序 chéng xù 违法 wéi fǎ , , 而 ér 非 fēi 整个 zhěng gè 计划 jì huà " " 非法 fēi fǎ " " 。 。
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."