Murray-Darling Basin Inspector-General To Oversee Water Efficiency, Compliance And Allegations Of Theft

ABC Rural - Kath Sullivan

Key Points A new, basin-wide inspector-general is to be appointed to enforce the Water Act 2007 The role must investigate suspected water theft and monitor water recovery and efficiency projects The inspector-general is to hold the MDBA, states and the Commonwealth to account on delivering the basin plan

A "tough cop" will be appointed to oversee the integrity of the entire Murray-Darling Basin under a proposal by Water Minister David Littleproud.

The statutory role of inspector-general would monitor compliance, investigate suspected water theft, and check that water recovery and efficiency projects are delivered.

Mr Littleproud said the inspector-general would "hold the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Commonwealth and all states to account … and ensure laws governing water use are followed".

"This is a new, tough cop on the beat across the Murray-Darling with the powers needed to ensure integrity in the delivery of the basin plan," Mr Littleproud said.

---

The new role is expected to be established by 2020 and have powers under the Water Act 2007. (ABC Rural: Brett Worthington, file photo)

---

"We want to maintain confidence in the basin plan and this role will be pivotal to achieve that, and deliver the plan by 2024," he said.
The new role is expected to be established by 2020 and have powers under the Water Act 2007.

Mr Littleproud said the inspector-general would have the ability to refer issues to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission and would be supported with offices and staff in the northern and southern basins.

"The public needs to know the basin plan is delivering the water it was intended to, and farmers need to know the plan is working as it should," he said.
The appointment of the inspector-general for the Murray-Darling Basin would be a matter for the Federal Cabinet, but Mr Littleproud hoped former
AFP commissioner Mick Keelty would fill the

---

Mr Littleproud hoped former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty would fill the position in the interim. (AAP: Daniel Munoz, file photo)

---

position in the interim.
Mr Keelty began a three-year term as Northern Basin Commissioner, with similar responsibilities to the inspector-general role, last September.

"It is in respect of what he has achieved. It has meant we have been able try to roll that position out across the basin and ensure it has more teeth," Mr Littleproud said.

The proposal will be put to a meeting of basin state water ministers in Canberra on Sunday.
It is expected to be the first meeting of the ministers following mass fish kills in the lower Darling, and the completion of a Productivity Commission report and South Australian Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Links

• What is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and why are we still talking about it?
• Confused by the Murray Darling controversy? Here's your simple guide
• How taxpayers are funding a huge corporate expansion in the Murray-Darling
• Billions of litres of water 'missing' from Murray-Darling Basin, study claims
• The cotton grower, the water minister and the broken meter
• 'People have to be named': Scientists say broken Murray-Darling system can be fixed
• Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission slams authority for 'maladministration'
• Murray-Darling report lays bare that 'the system is sick', say the people it affects
• What will the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission reveal?
• Productivity Commission calls out governance failings in Murray-Darling Basin Plan roll-out
• Murray-Darling royal commission won't cross-examine federal bureaucrats
• Cotton farm execs face court over $20m federal funding 'fraud'
• How the iconic sites of the Murray-Darling Basin are doing under the plan
• Watch Pumped: Who is benefitting from the Murray-Darling?
• Federal Government and Labor strike deal on future of Murray-Darling Basin Plan
• Advisory group pens unprecedented letter to try save Murray-Darling Basin Plan
• How to kill a river system three times as salty as the sea
• Major Murray-Darling Basin water-saving plan questioned

“Nuclear Energy Is Never Profitable”, New Study Slams Nuclear Power Business Case

RenewEconomy - Michael Mazengarb

A new study of the economics of nuclear power has found that nuclear power has never been financially viable, finding that most plants have been built while heavily subsidised by governments, and often motivated by military purposes, and is not a good approach to tackling climate change.
The study has come from DIW Berlin, a leading German economic think-tank, and found that the average 1,000MW nuclear power plant built since 1951 resulted in an average economic loss of 4.8 billion euros ($7.7 billion AUD).
The report comes amid a hot debate over the future of nuclear power in both Germany and Australia.
The report published by the German Institute for Economic Research (known as DIW Berlin) reviewed the development of 674 nuclear power plants built since 1951, finding that none of the plants was built using ‘private capital under competitive conditions’.
“The results showed that in all cases, an investment would generate significant financial losses. The (weighted) average net present value was around minus 4.8 billion euros,” the study says.
“Even in the best case, the net present value was approximately minus 1.5 billion euros. The authors included conservative assumptions with high electricity prices, low capital costs, and specific investment. Considering all assumptions regarding the uncertain parameters, nuclear energy is never profitable.”
The report authors are also pessimistic about the future of nuclear power, concluding that nuclear power will remain unprofitable into the foreseeable future.
Unlike Australia, Germany has a history of nuclear power use, which as recently as 2010, supplied around a quarter of Germany’s electricity.
The government led by Angela Merkel has committed to the complete phase-out of nuclear power by 2022.

LARGE IMAGE

The report found that when nuclear power plants were built using private investment, that “large state subsidies” were used to make the projects viable, and that in most cases, nuclear power stations were built at a loss.

LARGE IMAGE

DIW Berlin calculated that for every 1,000 Megawatts of nuclear power capacity that has been built since 1951, there were average economic losses of between 1.5 to 8.9 billion Euros ($A2.4 to $A14.3 Billion).
“Nuclear power was never designed for commercial electricity generation; it was aimed at nuclear weapons. That is why nuclear electricity has been and will continue to be uneconomical. Further, nuclear energy is by no means ‘clean.’ Its radioactivity will endanger humans and the natural world for over one million years,” Christian von Hirschhausen, co-author of the study said.
The DIW Berlin report stressed that governments should not be seduced by claims that nuclear power was a solution to the climate crisis.
““Nuclear energy for climate protection” is an old narrative that is as inaccurate today as it was in the 1970s. Describing nuclear energy as “clean” ignores the significant environmental risks and radioactive emissions it engenders along the process chain and beyond,” the report concluded.
While examining the history of nuclear power development globally, DIW Berlin found that it was military considerations that were the primary driver of nuclear reactor developments, with power generation a secondary product.
“The further development of nuclear weapons and other military applications was the focus. Nuclear power plants were primarily designed to be “plutonium factories with appended electricity production,” the DIW Berlin report said.
The report echoes an estimate of the costs of new electricity generation in Australia produced by the CSIRO, which found that renewables remain the cheapest cost form of new electricity generation, with nuclear power amongst the most expensive, as a result of substantial upfront costs to build a nuclear plant.
Federal energy minister Angus Taylor fuelled speculation that the Government would actively consider the calls from within its own ranks to revisit the question on nuclear power, including those of Barnaby Joyce who said he would welcome nuclear power in his own electorate if it meant constituents would receive free electricity.
“We currently have a moratorium nuclear power generation in Australia, and the government has no plans to change that. Now we always approach these things with an open mind, but we do not have a plan to change the moratorium,” Taylor said in response during Question Time.
Nuclear power in Australia is currently forbidden under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Links

• High-Priced and Dangerous: Nuclear Power Is Not an Option for the Climate-Friendly Energy Mix
• CSIRO/AEMO study says wind, solar and storage clearly cheaper than coal
• Why Nuclear Power Can't Solve Climate Change by Itself
• Nuclear power is not the answer in a time of climate change
• Nuclear power should be considered for Australia