Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

I must say it is very disappointing to hear the minister making the remark that this side of the chamber is playing politics when she is indulging in it herself. I think that is very unfortunate. I must not have made myself clear in my initial remarks. I think the minister referred to me as having a go at the government for removing water from communities. Of course, I did not say that at all. Perhaps the minister was just paraphrasing what I was saying, but that was certainly not what I said.

The minister also mentioned that the lack of availability of water was the real reason for impact on communities at the moment. I found that quite amusing. As a farmer from the Central West in New South Wales, I am very well aware that it is the lack of rain that is making it extremely difficult for communities right across the country at the moment. I know a lot of farmers and a lot of irrigators all over the place. They actually cope brilliantly with adversity and they cope brilliantly with drought. They understand that drought is a natural occurrence. Where they do have some questions and difficulties relates back to what I said earlier; we need to ensure that the impact that government decisions are having on our rural and regional communities is measured because that is indeed a government decision. In spite of the difficulties, farmers are well able to cope with things that occur naturally. When things occur as a result of ministerial or government decision, they want to be absolutely sure that the decisions that the minister and the government are taking have been thoroughly assessed and thoroughly measured, that there are criteria in place and that, indeed, all the impacts have been assessed by the government because it is a government decision. It is not a natural occurrence which is out of their hands.

Perhaps I can just clarify for the minister some points around the community impact statements. The amendment itself uses the words:

(2) A report published under subsection (1) must specify the modelling and evidence upon which the impacts referred to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) were determined.

Of course we do not expect a fully written statement to be supplied as a preface to each particular purchase. What we are saying is that there should be balance—that the government and the minister should look at the overall potential reduction of water in communities and at the flow-on effects and follow up with a very clear statement so that people know that that consideration has taken place.

The minister said that there are, indeed, some positives for those who want to exit the industry. I do have some concern, as the minister referred to, that some of the sellers—who are of course willing sellers; I note that it is a non-compulsory buyback—are distressed sellers. That of course can often narrow people’s options as to what they can and cannot do in any particular situation.

Just before I finish I would also clarify that the minister referred, and quite rightly, to the 23 gigalitres of entitlement that the government has purchased. Just to clarify: the minister said water has been sold to us, but it is not water that has been sold to us; it is actually entitlement. It will become—