Southern Riverina Irrigators, The Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper

The court case is progressing well.

MDBA staff on the witness stand seem to all share the same case of amnesia as they can’t seem to remember any important details.

“I can’t recall” was the most common answer which is a pretty sad state of affairs considering these decisions severely impacted livelihoods and created extreme mental stress.

MDBA river operators Jackie Hickey, Joe Davis, Andrew Reynolds and Andrew Bishop have all been thoroughly cross examined and their responses, whilst not entirely unexpected, have also been very enlightening and vindication for our questioning of their actions since the very beginning.

Our concerns and queries were always dismissed and deflected, however, it was revealed MDBA admit it did not follow its own system operating rules, leading to incompetent actions by the authority.

It was also revealed the MDBA omitted crucial information from its publications in what can only be described as an attempt to distract and cover tracks.

There also appeared to be some confusion from the MDBA about the timing of events which led to the decision to go overbank.

Reynolds swore on oath that he supported overbank transfers in 2017 because he thought IVT had been taken up. This was contradicted by subsequent evidence presented to the Court which showed the IVT wasn’t actually taken up until Feb 2018.

When talking about a decision made by the authority to go overbank it also appears the only two people with the authority to authorise the release were not involved. This resulted in our barrister stating:

Q) But the decision itself, if it wasn’t made by you or Dr Davis, you would accept that it would be a breach of the delegation?

Reynolds: The decision was made without us, yes.

Q) And if that were the case, you would accept it was a failure to follow the statutory framework?

Reynolds: If, indeed, the decision was taken that way, yes.

Fancy footwork and circular speak provide little solace under the harsh glare of cross examination.

The closing submissions will be a riveting experience as it is the very first time in its almost two decades of existence, the MDBA will be given a proper critique of its conduct during an extremely critical and stressful period.

Other points of interest include:

• MDBA has admitted overbank transfers create the highest system losses somewhere between 36-41 per cent.
• The MDBA’s only expert, David Harriss has been called into question because he is not a river operator, has never been a river operator and does not have the intimate knowledge and expertise a river operator has from fulfilling that role.
• Even when the Mulwala canal was available for use to bypass the Choke, the MDBA preferred to go overbank.

Week five of the class action was ‘spillover week’ which saw no witnesses on the stand and the barristers going backwards and forwards discussing technical parts of evidence and clarifying arguments.

Week 6 the agronomy joint experts were on the stand, where evidence was given (without great surprise) the MDBAs decisions affected water allocations, temporary water prices and institutional risk.

Q) And you would understand the decisions made by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has the potential to affect water allocations to States?
A) Yes.

Q) And, in turn, has the potential to affect the amount of water that flows through to retail entitlements?
A) Yes.

Q) And it is fair to say that the Authority’s decisions could be described properly as an institutional risk?
A) Yes.

Q) And that’s a risk that is inherent to any particular farmer on any particular water year?
A) Yes.

Q) And that farmers are vulnerable to that risk?
A) Yes.

The case is in recess until October 8 and a conclusion is expected to be reached later this year, followed by a judgement some time in 2026.

This article appeared in The Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper, 9 October 2025.