Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Act 2021, together with accompanying documents. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Act 2021. As a participating member of the committee, I just want to make a couple of general points and I will endeavour to be brief.

The Nationals very much welcome the committee's recommendations and the ongoing monitoring role that they have for the next few months over the responsibilities and the implementation of the Office of Water Compliance and the independent inspector-general.

The one thing we do note, however, is that the committee has failed to reflect other opinions of the witnesses that would relate to any other matters as referenced in the terms of reference for the committee's responsibilities. The committee heard from several witnesses about the significant social and economic impact of water recovery and the view that sourcing the remainder of the water recovery targets from productive use will make their communities unviable. This is not the first time this parliament has heard that view. Since 2010, when the guide to the Basin Plan was first released, there have been 40-plus inquiries into the Basin Plan, and, each and every time, we have heard of the significant economic impact that untargeted, non-strategic water buyback has had in our regional communities.

In one area close to where I live, the area of Wakool, more than 50 per cent of the water entitlements that were on issue in that district were purchased by the government, and yet, amazingly, the region continues to be productive, but at a cost: increased water use charges, increased infrastructure costs, increased costs of doing business because there are fewer farmers in the district. That's just one example of the many that have been put forward time and time again to this parliament.

I don't know how many times I have to rise in this parliament to say there are better ways. In fact, in 2004 a parliamentary committee looking into the Living Murray program identified that just adding water is not the solution, that you need a holistic approach to improve and achieve environmental outcomes. So, yet again, the Nationals are recommending that a mechanism be established to account for outcomes that can be achieved through complementary measures as an alternative to water entitlement recovery to meet the Basin Plan objectives.

I just want to bring to your attention some of the things we heard from some of the witnesses, and not just witnesses from the irrigation industry. I want to acknowledge Healthy Rivers Ambassador Mr Robert Newman, who identified that we need to focus on the interaction with agencies and the delivery of programs, because, when one component fails, the whole thing is put at risk. In his words:

If you let one program slip, such as the constraints relaxation, it does create big deficiencies in the delivery of other outcomes …

He went on to say:

Without that outcome—

being constraints—

the whole Basin Plan is jeopardised.

The constraints management strategy is not 'just add water' and it is not buying more water, but it is entering into agreements with landholders and farmers, and addressing issues such as infrastructure issues. Without it, you will flood private land, public infrastructure and vast swathes of land.

We can do better. We've done better. There are programs throughout the Murray and even in South Australia where private irrigation infrastructure is used to target water to environmental refuges, to make them resilient and drought-proof them so that, when a natural flood event happens, and it will happen, those refuges are ready to boom. But it also gets them through during the drought. In fact, it is far better to use that sort of infrastructure to benefit our environmental wetlands in times of low water availability than to farcically think that, without rain, you're still going to be able to achieve a 120-gigalitre flow event. You can't do it, because the Environmental Water Holder's entitlements are the same as farmers' entitlements.

If a farmer is on zero per cent allocation, so is the Environmental Water Holder, so it also has no water to give. I am so passionate about this issue! The executive officer of the National Irrigators Council summed it up perfectly when he said, 'The Basin Plan is an adaptive document, but the stringent focus on volumes over outcomes has created rigidity, which doesn't address the physical constraints and limitations of the system and the actual outcomes we're trying to achieve.'

I implore the Senate, the government and my South Australian colleagues—you've got wetlands down there; you've got innovative irrigation communities in South Australia who have been at the forefront of some of the stuff I'm talking about. I implore you all to stop focusing on a number that has resulted from a computer model and start focusing on the outcomes we want to achieve: the frogs we want to breed; the birds; the fish passage we need to address; the cold water pollution we need to address; the aeration of the system; and addressing blue-green algae. That is what will improve the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We have enough water. Now let's focus on managing it.

Debate adjourned.