The four realities listed below can be ignored in policy rooms, but their consequences will be paid for in communities, markets, food prices, and vulnerability to all Australians.

The MDB Plan review must take account of the unintended consequences of food production and lost resilience and security during periods of drought and flood on all Australians.

The MDBA governance must use their life’s experience and accumulated intelligence and recognise that the MDB plan as legislated is not fit and proper for the continued population growth and security of Australia.

• Policy accountability

Water policy is now food policy.

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan is reshaping Australia’s food system, increasing reliance on imports and reducing drought resilience – without a full national risk assessment.

• Fiscal responsibility

The Basin Plan carries permanent, multi-billion-dollar costs while eroding domestic food security.

These trade-offs deserve transparent debate – not silence.

• Population and resilience

As Australia moves toward 45 million people, removing water security from food production increases national risk, not environmental resilience.

Policy settings must match population reality.

• Strategic framing

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is no longer just an environmental framework.

It is a structural intervention in Australia’s food supply chain – with long-term economic and security consequences.

David Dickson Farley