Speak Up believes the submission was a conflict of interest because the agency is a federally funded body.
The three-page submission is relatively brief compared to many other submissions.
And the content in some parts is different in tone to the statements of Federal Water Minister Tanya Plibersek.
Speak Up deputy chair Lloyd Polkinghorne said communities impacted by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan believe it is totally inappropriate for the MDBA to be supporting the amended water bill.
“The MDBA is supposed to be an independent authority,” Mr Polkinghorne said.
“It is not there to barrack for one side of politics over others, simply because that one side happens to be the government of the day.
“If the MDBA does not do the right thing and withdraw its submission, we believe its submission to this Senate inquiry should be disallowed on a ‘conflict of interest’ basis.
“How can the organisation charged with, and paid to, implement the basin plan be in a position to make a submission, let alone support partisan legislative changes that will decimate rural communities?”
MDBA chief executive officer Andrew McConville said in the submission “to date the basin plan has delivered significant outcomes”, whereas Ms Plibersek has played down the achievements of the plan and generally refuses to acknowledge that 2100 Gl has already been recovered for the environment.
“There have been significant achievements since the basin plan was signed into law by the Australian parliament 11 years ago.” Mr McConville said, describing it as a world leading model for basin-scale water resource management.
However, the submission also says the proposed amendment would: “provide the greatest chance to reduce the government’s need to purchase water to meet recovery targets”.
“Without the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, the cost to the health of Australia’s most important river system and its communities would be immense,” the MDBA submission said.
“A number of potentially valuable and progressive projects would be shelved, water purchasing would take the place of more efficient water management, and water market integrity reform slowed.”
