Former judge would lead Murray-Darling water inquiry
The Murray-Darling is the big river system of south-east Australia. Alison Penfold MP wants a former judge and a local from there to investigate the official who uses the government's river water for nature. They would also look at what this means for farms, towns and rivers.
Official name: Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Commission of Inquiry Bill 2026 (No. 2)
- A new investigation would look at the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. This is the official who uses the government's river water to help nature.
- It would test if this water helps nature, and how it affects farms and towns in the river area.
- Federal, state and territory governments would all have to take part.
- A matching bill from Senator Ross Cadell is already in the Senate, Parliament's second house.
Who it affects
- The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder: Its actions, ways of working and results would be investigated.
- Murray-Darling farmers and towns: The investigation would look at how water for nature affects what farms grow and local jobs and money.
- State and territory governments: The bill says they and their agencies would have to take part.
- Witnesses: They would be protected from threats. They could get legal help and have their travel costs paid.
Doubts over Basin environmental water
The Murray-Darling Basin is the river system that feeds much of Australia's farming. We will call it the Basin. The federal government owns the right to use a large share of the water there. It uses this water to keep rivers and wetlands (swamps and marshes) healthy.
One federal official decides how and when that water is let out into rivers. The official's title is the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. We will call it the Water Holder. Letting out water to help nature is called environmental watering.
Ms Penfold says people keep worrying about how the Water Holder manages this water and what it achieves. She says an investigation would help win back trust. She says it would make the way the Basin is run more open.
This is the House of Representatives version, called the No. 2 bill. Senator Ross Cadell brought an almost identical bill to the Senate in March 2026.
Who would run it
The Senate would pick the members. The bill says this keeps the investigation separate from the government of the day. It would answer to Parliament.
One member must be a former judge. The other must know farming and water rules well, and must live in the Basin.
A member might die, become too sick or quit. Then a new member could be picked, and the work would carry on.
What it would look into
The investigation would look at how the government's water for nature is managed and used. It would look at the results. The main focus would be on the Water Holder's job and actions.
It would ask if the watering truly helps nature. It would also look at the effects on what farms grow, on jobs and money in country areas, and on Basin towns.
It could look at other federal and state agencies. That includes whether they ran things badly or behaved wrongly.
Ms Penfold's notes say the bill would cover federal, state and territory governments. They would all have to take part. The investigation could also use powers that state laws give it.
The inquiry's powers
The investigation would have powers like a Royal Commission. That is the strongest kind of public investigation in Australia.
It could order witnesses to come in. It could make them swear to tell the truth, and demand papers.
It could get court orders to search places. It could get orders to arrest witnesses who do not turn up.
It could hold private hearings and stop evidence being made public. It could hire a lawyer to help it question witnesses.
Say a state water manager will not explain why they sent water downstream in a dry year. The investigation could order them to come in and answer.
Crimes linked to the inquiry
The bill would create crimes like those that protect Royal Commissions.
Some acts would be crimes without a good reason. These are ignoring an order to come in, holding back papers, or refusing to give evidence. Lying to the investigation or destroying papers would be crimes too.
It would be a crime to threaten, bribe, trick or sack a witness. So would stopping someone from giving evidence, or disrupting hearings.
Ms Penfold's notes do not say what the punishments would be.
Support for witnesses and staff
People who appear could get legal help and money. That includes people whose interests might be harmed. Witnesses could get fair costs paid back. This helps people from country areas.
The investigation could hire legal, technical and other staff. Its members and staff could not be taken to court and made to pay for their work on it.
It could share what it finds with other official bodies when needed.
The report
The investigation would send what it finds, and its ideas, to the heads of both houses of Parliament. These are the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
It would have to report within a set time. The Senate could make that time longer. Ms Penfold's notes do not say how long the time is.
Start date
Alison Penfold brought the bill into the House of Representatives on 25 May 2026. Debate has not started.
It is still in the House. It would need to pass both houses. Then the Governor-General, who stands in for the King, would need to sign it. It would start the day after that.
Its journey through Parliament
| 25 May 2026 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 25 May 2026 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |