Posts

Government Lacks Strategy on Murray Darling Basin Plan, Despite Election Promises

,

The Government has exhausted its ideas for implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan. The Albanese Labor Government has been in office for over two years now and implementing the MDB Plan was one of their key election promises. This implies that they should have had a clear strategy in place even before coming into government. Fast forward two years,    Parliament provides the legislative framework to complete the plan—legislation that should have reflected their intended program.

Yet that’s not what happened. When I inquired about the lack of specifics in the government’s “Restoring our Rivers” draft framework, the response made it clear that no real thought had gone into the plan or the legislation they introduced. After reading the “framework” and hearing the Department’s explanations, my belief is reinforced that the government has no real plan, other than to buy back large amounts of water from farmers. It seems they are deliberately delaying any announcement of buybacks until after the election.

Towards the end of this session, I inquired about the socio-economic test that had previously been applied to all water projects to ensure they did not adversely affect rural communities. This test was abolished under the Plibersek legislation and replaced with a meaningless statement. Their response made it clear that the test would no longer prevent bad projects. Instead, it was substituted with lip service and a small allocation of funds for minor community projects, which falls far short of addressing the real socio-economic damage caused by water purchases.

Transcript | Part 1

Senator ROBERTS: How much has been spent on the Restoring Our Rivers draft framework so far? After two years in office, I expected a more detailed and transparent document than this.  

Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers framework followed the amendments to the basin plan and Water Act at the very end of last calendar year. That’s a framework released on 29 January, earlier this year, to go through and explain how we’re proposing to deliver the 450 gigalitres. It was released with a range of principles and programs around the delivery of the 450, and released for consultation. With the new legislation there’s an expanded time frame to the end of 2027 to deliver the 450. This is an important consultation document that was released early to seek views and public consultations on how we’re going to go about delivering that 450 gigalitres. We had over 100 submissions. We had lots of consultations with representative groups. At the same time as releasing that framework for consultation we did open one of the programs. That program is our water recovery infrastructure program, which is state led. It was launched on 29 January, and that’s an opportunity for basin states to bring forward water-saving infrastructure projects. So, that’s actual projects to be delivered. Those projects would include off-farm projects, on the property and non-farm projects. That’s a program that opened on 29 January. 

Senator ROBERTS: This document came out in January this year; that’s what you’re saying?  

Ms O’Connell: The Restoring Our Rivers draft framework document?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it.  

Ms O’Connell: It followed the changes to the legislation. That’s the important thing. The legislation changed at the end of November.  The legislation passed parliament at the end of November and commenced on 7 December.  

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought there would have been a lot of work put into that legislation. I’m assuming there was, but I’m amazed at the lack of any real data in this plan or draft framework. It suggests to me that the department is flat out of ideas. It’s like nobody cares anymore. Just buy what we need in water buybacks and destroy the bush and call the job done. Minister, are you stalling for an election rather than upsetting people now with buybacks?  

Ms O’Connell: When that framework was released, we also opened a program—not something for consultation, an actual program—for state-led infrastructure projects to come forward to be proposed.  The framework is, as it says, a framing document. It articulates three proposed programs. The first program that Ms O’Connell refers to, the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure Program, is supported by a range of extensive guideline documents, which are available on our website. There are discussions going on with states about getting access to what I think is almost half a billion dollars worth of funding. We have been consulting extensively in relation to another proposed program under the framework, which is a sustainable communities program. Once the results of consultation have been taken on board and that program commences, additional information and guidance around that program will also be published on the website. The third proposed program is in relation to a proposed voluntary water purchase, and the same thing will occur there. It’s a framing document to articulate a range of proposed programs across a variety of recovery tools.  

Senator ROBERTS: It just seems that it’s lacking in data and detail. It just seems light on. But thank you for your answers. Minister, the draft plan actually proposes on page 16 to count the water overpurchases towards the 450 gigalitres. Minister, will you give an undertaking to do exactly that?  

Senator McAllister: I think it is dependent on understanding what any overrecovery might have involved and officials can give you an update on how the system works to produce an evaluation of the state of play, for want of a better term.  

Ms Connell: Currently, there are approximately 78 gigalitres of overcovered water across the northern and southern basins. In terms of being able to count that amount of water towards the 450 gigalitre target, some of those catchments are in New South Wales and they’re in catchments for which water resource plans are yet to be accredited. To be able to determine what the final overrecovery amount is requires the water resource plan to be accredited and for the MDBA to have assessed and verified the modelling so we can have the assurance of exactly where the overrecovered amount falls. We expect to be in a situation across all of the relevant catchments—and I think there are about seven or eight where there are overrecoveries—where work is completed by the MDBA by about June next year.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re waiting on some of the New South Wales valleys, I understand?  

Ms Connell: That’s correct.  In earlier evidence today, there are six remaining water resource plans to be accredited out of the 20 for New South Wales. There is a dependence there, as my colleague outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand you’re not making a commitment without those plans, but assuming the plans are in place then overrecovery will be counted as part of the 450?  

Ms Connell: The draft framework contemplates that exact situation, and we’re in the process of assessing. We got over 100 submissions and they’re of a really high detailed quality. We recently released a report which digests all of that consultation feedback. That’s been now put on the public record. The next step is to publish the final framework. The final framework will set out the government’s proposed approach in relation to overrecoveries.  

Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on a new approach to water recovery while also meeting the legislated requirements to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities? 

Ms Connell: As you refer to, the Productivity Commission released its, I think, second implementation inquiry into the basin plan, which was published this year. It had a range of recommendations and many of those recommendations have actually been implemented or acted upon in terms of securing the Our Rivers legislation. Then there are a range of other initiatives that the government is undertaking to implement those recommendations. There’s quite a number of them. If there’s a specific recommendation you’re interested in, I’m happy to give you an answer about that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an overview of how the government is implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendations?  

Ms Connell: The first key critical step to deal with the range of issues the Productivity Commission raised was actually the passage of the Restoring Our Rivers legislation. The Productivity Commission released its interim report while the legislation was in parliament and progressing through parliament. A lot of the amendments moved in the House of Representatives and in the Senate went to addressing issues in the Productivity Commission report. Time Frame extensions were a key issue the Productivity Commission raised. They called out, as many reports have over the last couple of years in terms of basin plan progress, that more time was required. That was a key component of the legislation. They called out the fact that the 450 gigalitre target would require water purchase. Voluntary water purchase is one of the pathways for recovery. They noted that was more cost-effective relative to infrastructure projects. One of the key elements of the Restoring Our Rivers Act was to make water purchase a feasible pathway.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about in relation to meeting the legislated requirement to consider the socioeconomic impacts on river communities?  

Ms Connell: The legislation included several reforms in relation to that proposal. Firstly, there’s a requirement for a third independent review of the WESA. Unlike the first two reviews, the third review has to actually look at socioeconomic impacts on basin communities. The minister is now also required to consider the social and economic impacts on basin communities of a proposed water purchase program before she launches a water purchase program. There is quite a range of initiatives in relation to socioeconomic impacts.  

Significantly, more broadly, there are three principles that guide overall water recovery. The first of those is enhanced environmental outcomes. The second is minimising socioeconomic impacts, and the third is achieving value for money. So, there’s an overall set of principles.  

I will just note one of the key recommendations of the commission—I think it’s recommendation 2.4—was that in terms of water recovery the government should take a staged and gradual approach and it should provide adjustment assistance to communities to deal with proposed water purchase. As Ms O’Connell said, that’s at the core of the draft framework. One of the three pillars, if you like, is looking at socioeconomic impacts, and one of the responses to that is the establishment of a sustainable communities program. The purpose of that program will be to provide adjustment assistance to communities.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that later. Why has the government not released the Water Recovery Strategy foreshadowed by the Productivity Commission? Six months after the passage of the restoring our rivers bill, why do we only have a draft framework lacking in detail?  

Ms Connell: As I said earlier, the draft framework foreshadows three programs. One of those programs is a water purchase program. When the government moves to commence water purchase, it will release the document that the Productivity Commission refers to.  The legislation passed at the end of November. The framework was released at the end of January, so not long after. It’s important that we go out and consult on these matters. There’s a huge amount of interest. That’s what we were doing, consulting.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will the feedback on the government’s draft framework on recovering the additional 450 gigs be made available?  

Ms O’Connell: That I think was actually published on our website yesterday. I’m happy to table a copy—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yesterday? That’s a funny thing. Pardon me for being a bit—what’s the word?  

Senator Payman: Cynical.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, not quite ‘cynical’. Sceptical maybe. A number of things were published right before the day of standard estimates scheduled hearings. Anyway, that’s good. Thank you.  

Senator McAllister: I suppose the counterfactual is that if it’s not published then you don’t have the opportunity to examine it. You’re very welcome to ask questions about the material that’s in the public domain.  

Ms O’Connell: If it’s useful, we can table the link so that you can go to it, but it is on our website. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts, before we rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department met with industry groups collectively regarding feedback on this draft framework for the additional 450 gigalitres, and where will it come from?  

Ms O’Connell: Yes, there’s been extensive consultation as part of the framework being out there—as I said, over 100 submissions. But we can also go through and talk to you about the discussions with groups that we’ve had, the consultations that we’ve done and webinars that we’ve had.  The nature of the consultation and the groups we consulted with are set out in the document we’ve published. We’ve held many workshops over the last six months with industry groups and peak stakeholder groups, and we’ve met quite a few times with the basin community committee. We’ve had discussions with particular sectors within industry—the rice sector and the dairy sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are those workshops online?  

Ms Connell: Predominantly, but we’ve also had face-to-face meetings and meetings out in the basin. So, through a range of different consultation mechanisms and including public webinars.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many online and how many—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re now going to have to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: If I could just follow up on that. How many face-to-face workshops and how many online?  

Ms Connell: I’d have to take that on notice—  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please.  

Ms Connell: to give you that answer.  

Transcript | Part 2

Senator ROBERTS: Ms O’Connell or Ms Connell—  

Ms O’Connell: I know—they’re very similar names.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, for the one with the ‘O’ or the one without the ‘O’, you said the plan water numbers were online. My office is pretty good at surfing the internet, but they clicked right through the website and couldn’t find it. Could you send that link, please, that you offered?  

Ms O’Connell: Yes. Just to be clear, that’s the link on the report on the 450 gigalitre framework consultation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the water quantities.  

Ms Connell: The overrecoveries?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Connell: We can provide you with that information.  

Senator ROBERTS: How is the government implementing the Productivity Commission’s recommendation on transparency and accountability for basin plan decisions? We’ve got a few here about the ACT. What information has the government released about the Australian Capital Territory Bridging the Gap project announced on 3 April?  

Ms O’Connell: There was a press release on the ACT Bridging the Gap. The date of that release was 3 April 2024. There was a joint media release on ACT fulfilling its water recovery commitments under the MurrayDarling Basin Plan Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has there been any more information?  

Ms O’Connell: We’re happy to provide you with more information.  

Mr Southwell: The FFA, the Federation Funding Agreement, that relates to that matter has been published on the Department of Treasury’s website.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Department of Treasury?  

Mr Southwell: It’s a website for federal financial relations and FFA is there.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are so many bureaucracies and so many departments. That’s fine.  

Mr Southwell: That’s where all of the FFAs have to be published. That relates to the minister’s press release. The FFA itself was executed on 14 March when the ACT signed it, and that provided the $58 million for the 6.36 gigalitres of water that the arrangement related to.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, 6.3 gigalitres, did you say?  

Mr Southwell: 6.36 gigalitres.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was to be my next question. Now my next question instead is: how much per megalitre was paid to the ACT, including previous payments?  

Mr Southwell: This FFA is $58.83 million for the 6.36 gigalitres, and that works out at $9,250 a megalitre.  

Senator ROBERTS: What part of the ACT is the water being recovered from?  

Mr Southwell: The FFA itself doesn’t require specific components from the ACT. The ACT has said that they will use the money received to implement long-term water management changes, including water sensitive urban design activities, incentivising community change to reduce water use and water quality improvement activities.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, no specific water was released?  

Mr Southwell: I think it’s called the Halls Gap site—the Lower Molonglo. 

Senator DAVEY: Only state—  

Mr Southwell: No. The transfer of entitlements has occurred. It is with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The Commonwealth received a licence of 6.36 gigalitres. That comprised 4.9 towards Bridging the Gap, and an additional 1.46 gigalitres of water towards broader basin plan outcomes. That water has since been specified by Minister Plibersek as being held environmental water to contribute towards the 450 gigalitre target.  

Senator ROBERTS: The water is no longer going to the ACT?  

Mr Southwell: That water is now held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that entitlement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it water that’s actually being held or is it water that will be held due to savings in the future? I didn’t quite understand.  

Mr Southwell: The entitlement has been transferred now.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.  

Mr Southwell: It’s with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Dr Banks: I can confirm that water entitlement was registered on 18 April to the Commonwealth’s environmental water holdings.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, part of that was part of the efficiency measures towards the additional 450 gig?  

Mr Southwell: 1.46 gigalitres. ACT identified that they could deliver 6.36. Their gap that was remaining for Bridging the Gap—4.9. That’s been met in full. So, the ACT no longer has a gap. With the additional 1.46, that has now been determined as contributing towards the 450 gigalitres, which means 1.46 gigalitres less that has to be recovered elsewhere.  

Senator ROBERTS: When or how did officials agree to this socioeconomic criteria for the funding?  

Mr Southwell: The department evaluated the offer that was made from the ACT. We provided advice to the minister, a comprehensive assessment around the water and the value that it represented and its contribution towards the basin plan, and provided advice to the minister accordingly.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your answers being so direct and clear. Is that publicly available, that information?  

Mr Southwell: The evaluation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Southwell: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get a copy of it on notice.  

Mr Southwell: On notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re six months out from the passage of the restoring our rivers bill. Have any new SDLAM projects been started? Mr Ward: No new projects have been started. But as I mentioned earlier in the day, we’re working very closely with our basin state colleagues on identifying ideas and progressing them forward. There were seven that were shortlisted by the basin officials committee earlier this year for the states to undertake further development of those, and the information on that is published on our department website.  Have any decisions been made on new SDLAM projects?  

Ms O’Connell: Not by basin officials committees yet. There are prospective projects being worked on. We anticipate—and I gave this evidence earlier today—that New South Wales will be bringing forward a new project soon. They have advised us they intend bringing forward a new project soon and then basin officials will have a look at that.  

Senator ROBERTS: What timeline is likely for new SDLAM projects?  

Ms O’Connell: It really depends on the project in terms of how long it takes to deliver the project. The delivery timeframe for all SDLAM projects, which applies to new ones, is— Mr Ward: There are three key dates. New projects have to be notified by basin officials by 30 June 2025. States then have until 30 June 2026 to either amend or withdraw projects, and then all projects must be in operation on 31 December 2026.  

Senator ROBERTS: I take it it’s too early to determine what the likely volumetric outcome is, much too early?  

Ms O’Connell: Correct. It is a tight timeframe, as my colleague outlined. 

Mr McConville: If I may add, the reconciliation process will occur, in terms of your question around volumes, after December 2026. The MDBA will be required to do a reconciliation after that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Socioeconomic considerations—how is the government intending to meet the requirements to consider socioeconomic impacts of buybacks when it has such an unrealistic target, in my opinion, of recovery of 100 gigalitres per annum?  

Ms Connell: As the draft framework makes clear, considering socioeconomic impacts needs to be a key consideration in each water recovery pathway. It really depends on the option being pursued, whether it’s infrastructure, rules based or voluntary water purchase. But I can talk in more detail about the work that we’re doing and the investigations we’re undertaking in relation to potential water purchase. We’re undertaking a range of work. There was a quite significant investigation into socioeconomic impacts of the basin plan quite a few years ago chaired by Robbie Sefton. She chaired a panel. The advice of the Sefton report was, given that there are really quite complex drivers of socioeconomic impacts in the basin—climate, drought, technology, labour inputs, energy inputs—it’s important to look at multiple lines of inquiry to develop the evidence base. So we’re doing a couple of things. We’re looking back. We’ve got the benefit of a range of reports that have been undertaken looking at socioeconomic impacts of water recovery options over the last couple of years. AITHER has done some work for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which has been a key reference point for us. Marsden Jacobs Associates, another firm, did quite detailed investigations for the Sefton review, and New South Wales has recently published a report which we’ve had reference to as well. I guess the other key significant thing that we’re doing is most of those reports find that it’s quite hard to actually pull apart what impacts water recovery has on regional communities, and it’s important to have a discussion with communities to involve them in those issues. One of the key elements of the consultation we did around the draft framework was to seek very specific feedback about past experience of water recovery programs, past experience of community adjustment programs, and we’re pulling that all together. We’ll also be drawing on advice from ABARES.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it used to be the requirement that we must have a socioeconomic benefit. Now it comes down to, at the top of page 18 of your draft framework report, the ‘Sustainable Communities program will seek to mitigate unavoidable socioeconomic impacts’.  

Ms Connell: That’s right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s change the target.  

Ms Connell: Our first order approach is to prioritise a non-water purchase option. We’ve talked quite a bit today about the fact that the infrastructure program opened in January and then the other kind of core program under the framework is the Sustainable Communities program. We’ve been working really quite intensively with stakeholders to get feedback on a draft of principles to guide how funding for community adjustment should be directed. So, we’ve received really quite extensive and clear feedback. There are seven principles that will form the foundation of the community adjustment program. The feedback largely supported each of those principles. Many of them were very strongly supported. There was a strong emphasis from local councils in particular. They’ve been closely engaged in the design of any community adjustment principles. So, that is something we will be definitely taking on board. We’re currently working with basin states to look at getting funding arrangements in place so that funding can flow in the new financial year. 

Transcript | Part 3

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: The draft framework for delivering the additional 450 gigalitres per year outlined in the restoring our rivers bill provided more funding towards finalising the basin plan, but the budget indicated this funding was not for publication. How much funding is required?  

Ms O’Connell: As you mentioned, the budget papers say that it is not for publication, and the reason for that is there will be potential for competitive tendering. You wouldn’t normally publish the figures prior to going to a tender.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept that.  

Ms O’Connell: So it’s not for publication.  

Senator ROBERTS: What provision will be made to support the river communities that will be impacted by water recovery?  

Ms Connell: We spoke about that a bit earlier this afternoon. The framework describes a Sustainable Communities program that’s for community adjustment. The funding will go through states under federal financial agreements. The proposal is for a specific standalone program focused on supporting communities that need support to adjust, and for that funding to be provided through states who are best placed to work with local communities to build on their existing regional stakeholder engagement networks, and also to build on existing funding that’s going into those particular communities that need to be the focus.  

Senator ROBERTS: So federal funding through the states?  

Ms Connell: Funding under FFAs, federal funding agreements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this seems to be a continuation of the undeclared war on farmers. I’ve been to Dirranbandi in Southern Queensland, the border community there, and the same applies to Northern New South Wales. Senator Davey, I’m sure, will be concerned as well. Who gets the land after you drive farmers off? A lot of farmers have been driven off in Dirranbandi and other places. Who is going to use this land once you get rid of the farmers? For what purpose will they use it?  

Senator McAllister: I don’t accept the scenarios that you set out in your question. Nor do I accept your characterisation of our posture towards Australian agricultural communities. Our view is that a sustainable basin, a healthy working river, is essential to underwrite the future of food and fibre production in this country, to underwrite the future of regional towns that depend, as has been discussed earlier today, on adequate supplies of clean drinking water, and also to protect our environmental assets in the basin. We think those three things are compatible with one another and, in fact, interdependent. The approach we’re taking is working through a difficult and challenging reform. It now looks like it will be a multidecade reform. It’s one that’s been going on for many years. It requires cooperation between the states and the territories and the Commonwealth. It has been bipartisan. Regrettably, not very much progress was made in the decade that the coalition was in office. But in the two years we’ve been in government we have set about looking at the progress that’s been made so far, what more needs to be done and putting in place the legislative arrangements, the financial arrangements and the implementation arrangements, to implement the basin plan in full.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you heard of the rewilding plan that’s part of the United Nations Agenda 2030 as it is now? It was exposed in the United States. There are similar concepts here.  

Senator McAllister: You’ll have to table the United Nations documentation. I haven’t seen that documentation.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about hollowing out the bush? I’ve been to Moulamein in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. What about compensation to supermarkets, small businesses in the areas who will all lose business with the water that’s going to be taken, and with that lose the critical mass necessary to keep these towns going? Football teams are dying; sporting clubs are dying. What about the compensation for the people who are not on the land but who depend upon the people on the land?  

Senator McAllister: Over the course of today we’ve had a few discussions about socioeconomic impacts, some of them in response to questions from yourself. I think you heard Ms Connor speak earlier about some of the research that’s occurred already about the multiple drivers of change in Australian rural communities. You’ve also heard Ms O’Connell and Ms Connor speak about the approach to socioeconomic assessment in terms of any decisions that might be taken. You have, thirdly, heard just now a description of the approach that’s proposed in terms of working with the states and territories to provide support for communities. I’m not sure how further to respond to your questions, but I do think a lot of information has been provided over the course of the day about the way we’re thinking about these challenges in implementing the plan in full—something I believe continues to have bipartisan support, as confirmed by Senators Davey and Ruston earlier.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total cost estimate to complete the basin plan?  

Mr Dadswell: Current public commitments to the basin plan are around $13 billion. That’s over the life of the plan, over the last 12 years. There’s about—  

Senator ROBERTS: So that includes past—  

Mr Dadswell: Yes, past programs and existing, and including the ones from the 2024-25 budget. There’s around $3 billion in publicly stated funding that remains against that $13 billion to be spent.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Labor Dashes Hopes for Murray Darling Basin Community

,

The Albanese Labor Government are shifting the goalposts on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. There’s only 42GL left to complete the water acquisitions across the whole basin, so the pain is almost over and there’s still the 450GL of water for South Australia, which means this doesn’t need to be taken from irrigators. And there’s another 3 years to find that water through capital works.

In this Estimates session I asked whether these last few measures would be the end of the nightmare for Basin communities. I was expecting a yes – instead I got a no.

It seems the bureaucracy and the Albanese Government are hell bent on taking everything for themselves, forcing even more farmers off their land. Their answer certainly sounds like they intend to demand more water for the environment when the plan ends in a few years, starting the nightmare over again.

Landholders, including farmers, just want to know what the government is planning so they can adjust. Clearly the Government does not understand farming to know this, or simply don’t care.

The science underpinning the scheme is flawed, which is unsustainable, hurts farmers, fibre producers and the environment.

One Nation would complete the remainder of this plan and then call it done. No more water to be taken off the farmers. We would also sell the 78GL of water over-purchased by the department back to the farmers, to grow food and fibre to feed and to clothe the world.

Anything else is sabotaging the bush. #nofarmersnofood

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  With all the numbers flying around, I feel confused sometimes; things don’t seem to change. I would like some clarification. Talk of water buybacks created a lot of anger when the Albanese government came to power. That talk seems to have gone quiet. There was a plan to buy back 44.3 gigalitres immediately, a threat to use buybacks to get another figure to complete the plan—I will raise that in a minute. How much has been purchased so far? Your website is still saying that you need another 38 gigalitres, yet we heard the tender was oversubscribed.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the open tender, we were seeking 44.3 gigalitres for the Bridging the Gap component. I want to be specific here; that was for Bridging the Gap. It was oversubscribed. We had 250 tender responses, which accounted to 90.34 gigalitres in terms of across the catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So double?  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes, just over double. These Bridging the Gap requirements are catchment specific. There is a certain amount of water to be recovered in a certain catchment. It was oversubscribed in total, but specifically we are purchasing to an amount in a particular catchment. It also has to represent the right type of water, and value for money, before we proceed. From that 44.3 gigalitre tender we have agreed to purchase 26.25 gigalitres towards that target. We will, as a result of that, complete the requirements in three of those specific catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So you still have the fourth catchment to do?  

Ms O’Connell:  There are six catchments in total.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You still have three of the six to do.  

Ms O’Connell:  That’s right; to complete the recovery.  

Mr Southwell:  That is correct. There are three catchments that we expect to recover through this tender, subject to all contracts being finalised, and three to go. I might take this opportunity to give an overview of where we are in the process. The tender sought to recover 44.3 gigalitres. When all of those contracts are signed, we expect to have spent around $205 million. Contracts are still being signed. That is important to note in terms of where we are up to. A table on our website provides an outline of each catchment, the volumes we expect to have recovered and the volumes that remain.  

Senator Davey:  That table was only uploaded today.  

Mr Southwell:  It was uploaded yesterday, I think, Senator.  

Senator Davey:  Late yesterday.  

Mr Southwell:  I understood it was later than 9 am yesterday morning.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You will still buy the 90 gigalitres that came in as tenders?  

Mr Southwell:  No.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Just the 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  That tender process was specifically for Bridging the Gap, and the volumes that we are purchasing are for Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That is 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I note that the Restoring our Rivers Framework, currently under consultation, is for the full 450 gigalitres South Australian flow; your website says 424. Can I have this confirmed: this is the same bucket of water, whether it is 424 or 450—not two buckets?  

Ms O’Connell:  No, there are not two buckets. The requirement is 450 gigalitres, of which 26 gigalitres is contracted, delivered or underway. The remaining component is 424. So it is one lot of 450, with 26 already recovered.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Senator Hanson-Young, in an interview with the ABC last November, said there was a further 300 gigalitres of water to be found to complete the plan, not 38 gigalitres. This was not including the 450 gigalitres. Is that statement correct? If so, can you explain how that figure is arrived at?  

Ms O’Connell:  We would have to see what exactly she was referring to and get that quoted number.  

Chair:  Could you table it? Do you have it with you?  

Senator ROBERTS:  I don’t have it with me, no.  

Mr Fredericks:  We will take that on notice.  

Ms O’Connell:  For us to be able to answer that, would you be able to provide the document as well, so we can make sure we are referring to the right thing?  

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes. By our calculations, if you get the remaining 38 gigalitres on buybacks, you will also have 78 gigalitres of excess purchases in some bailees. Will you sell this back to the farmers?  

Ms O’Connell:  On Bridging the Gap, which is what we have been talking about, it is a catchment-specific amount that we need to recover. We don’t intend to buy more than what is needed. There is a minor amount of incidental overrecovery that happens when you buy water, but that is minor and incidental. Our intention is to bridge the gap through the 44.3 gigalitres.  

Ms Connell:  In relation to the 78 gigalitres of overrecovery you referred to, there are two issues to highlight. The number of overrecoveries won’t be confirmed until New South Wales water resource plans are accredited. A significant proportion of that figure relates to overrecoveries in New South Wales. The other thing to keep in mind is that water is currently held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and used at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, once you get that figure, the 38, and the 450, minus what is underway now, is it done? Is there anything else? Can what remains of farming in the Murray Darling Basin get on with growing food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, without this nightmare of the plan hanging over farmers? Is that the end of it?  

Senator McAllister:  I think the best way to describe the government’s intentions is to implement the plan in full. That was the purpose of the legislation that went through the parliament. As you have observed, there is substantial work to do. That work includes the recovery associated with Bridging the Gap, which the officials have been talking about. It also includes establishment of the framework for reaching the 450-gigalitre target. The government is presently consulting on that framework. That document is in the public domain and we are seeking public comment about that approach. There are other elements of the work associated with completing the plan; the officials can talk you through that. Rather than accepting your summary of the work before us, I would prefer to point to the way the government characterises the work that is underway.  

Senator ROBERTS:  What amounts are required to finish the plan? That is what I heard you say: when the plan is finished, that is it—no more buybacks.  

Ms Connell:  In the first instance, the plan doesn’t finish. It is an ongoing instrument, subject to a review by the Murray Darling Basin Authority in 2026. That will be the first review of the Basin Plan. Under the current Basin Plan, there are two key targets.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That means that the plan could change.  

Chair:  Senator ROBERTS, the river is a living thing. The reason why we ended up with the Murray Darling Basin Plan in the first place was over-extraction and the utilisation of the river.  

Senator Davey:  Happy to replace the chair to answer questions from the committee. Thank you, Chair.  

Chair:  Thank you, Senator Davey. Minister, maybe you could help us out here. It is a point of clarification that is worth making.  

Senator McAllister:  I am happy for officials to talk through the approach. The main point is that the government’s commitment is to implement the Basin Plan in full. Under the previous government, insufficient progress was made on some important initiatives. Progress basically stalled for an entire decade. We talked about this a lot during the committee stage of the Senate debate. You are aware of the government’s perspective on this. It is for that reason that we had to change the legislation. We are presently consulting on the key initiatives that are underway. The officials can talk you through all of the important next steps.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the Basin Plan, it is about sustainable river systems long-term management. There are two major components in the plan to be fulfilled that need to be delivered. We have been talking about Bridging the Gap. The remainder is the 450 gigalitres. There are new legislative time frames for delivering those that provide more time, more options, greater flexibility and greater accountability to be able to deliver on those targets. Beyond that, there is a review role for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of the long-term sustainability and sustainable management of our river systems. That review is not until 2026, which would foreshadow what might be required in the longer-term future.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Let me understand that, Ms O’Connell. The plan as it is—as we have just been told, it’s a living document and a living plan and it could change—the 450 and the 38, that’s it; but it could change in 2026 when the review is done. Because it is a living plan, the plan could grow another arm and leg.  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes.  

Mr Fredericks:  I don’t think we can pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  People’s livelihoods are at stake, Mr Fredericks.  

Mr Fredericks:  I understand that fully. There is a review. It is in 2026. It will be very well conducted by the MDBA. I don’t think that, sitting here in 2024, we, as departmental officials, can really pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I am thinking of farmers in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who are wondering whether or not to invest in their future and the future of their communities. Businesses in many rural communities have gone downhill, in large part due to the Water Act and the plan. These people want to know that they’ve got something more than two years. They just want to know: is this the end?  

Senator McAllister:  Can I make this point, Senator Roberts? The origin of the plan lay in a recognition across the country that we had overallocated the Murray-Darling Basin system. That had very significant consequences for basin communities. It had very significant consequences for the food and fibre producers in the Murray-Darling Basin, who depend on reliable access to water. It had consequences, of course, for the natural systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, which were under enormous pressure. It’s a while back now, but it really came to a head in the millennium drought. We saw some very severe impacts across the basin at that time. There was a recognition across the country, including within the basin, that we couldn’t go on in this way and that the overallocation needed to be addressed. That is the origin of the plan.  

It matters to farmers and food and fibre producers that these issues are tackled and addressed because there is an interrelationship between the access to water by communities, the access to water by farmers, the availability of water for environmental purposes and, increasingly, the recognition that cultural water matters to First Nations people as well.  

All of these things are interrelated and, at their heart, the success of all of those stakeholders, and the interests of all of those stakeholders, lies in having a healthy, working river that is being appropriately managed. Those are the underlying ideas that drive our government’s commitment to implementing the Basin Plan.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, while we do argue about the science underpinning the Basin Plan, let’s set that aside. Modern civilisation cannot exist without a healthy environment. We get that. A healthy environment cannot be achieved without modern civilisation because it reduces the pressure on the environment. Landholders are the number one protectors of the environment—that means farmers. At the moment, farmers and small businesses in rural communities see a shifting of the goalposts repeatedly. That’s what’s bothering them. They get the point about the need to protect the environment. They’re tired of having the goalposts shifted on them. That’s why my question was: is this the end of it? So far, what we’ve got is: ‘No, it’s not. In 2026 we’ll have a review and see what happens.’ 

Senator McAllister:  The plan has been in place for a very long time, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Since 2007.  

Senator McAllister:  Our party has been very consistent in supporting the implementation of that plan. Our view is that the plan should be implemented. For much of that period, that was the stated position of the coalition parties as well. Unfortunately, in the final years of the last government—in fact, really across the period of the last government—the Liberal and National parties undermined and sabotaged the plan’s implementation.  

Senator Davey interjecting— 

Senator McAllister:  That has caused a very significant problem.  

Chair:  That is the minister’s view. She is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit.  

Senator Davey:  I dispute that. The terminology ‘sabotaged’ is absolutely— 

Senator McAllister:  Senator, I think you said— 

Chair:  The minister will finish her— 

Senator Davey:  We might have had a different perspective on how to implement the plan.  

Chair:  Senator Davey, the minister will finish her answer and then you will have a turn.  

Senator McAllister:  I think the core facts are before us. In nine years, that government delivered just two of the 450 gigalitres—two gigalitres, under the 450-gigalitre target— 

Senator Davey:  We were focused on the environment and a sustainable level— 

Chair:  Senator Davey! 

Senator McAllister:  which would have meant that the plan would have been completed at some time around the year 4000. Steps needed to be taken to get the plan on track. We are taking those steps. I think the government’s priorities in terms of implementation are very clear. As I’ve indicated a couple of times now, we’re engaged in consultation with the community about the practical ways that we’re going to take the next steps together. 

/1 Comment/by

“Trust Me, I’m Not from the Government”

,

Trust in the Government has slumped since COVID. This decline in confidence is impacting even independent statutory bodies and authorities that would have once relied on their government connection to lend them credibility.

Following a ‘Sentiments Survey’ among members of the public and licence holders, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has now applied to remove the Australian Government coat-of-arms and other government ‘branding’ from their public facing material including the clothing they wear to Field Days. They’re essentially having to rebrand to rebuild trust — “rebuilding trust” seems to be the theme for 2024.

The Australian public, including water licence holders, perceive a lack of independence and therefore they mistrust the MDBA. On one hand, it’s becoming a challenge for the MDBA to engage with the public over perceptions they’re from the government, which can’t be trusted, yet on the other hand, the MDBA still makes use of the Government coat-of-arms on published reports to provide a sense of authority when its needed.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It is good to see you, Mr Grant. 

Mr Grant: You too, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions about the sentiment survey. Who is surveyed, how many people are surveyed and how are they selected? 

Mr Grant: I don’t have those exact figures before me in my notes, but we are happy to provide them to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: But could you talk about them now—not the exact numbers; we will get those on notice. Perhaps you could talk about how you make sure this survey is accurate and representative. 

Mr Blacker: It is critically important that the design of that survey has a method which makes sure that we capture all of the various sentiments at different locations. We look at geographic representation, at volume and at the ability to show a ‘representative’. So there is the number of people to whom we speak and the different categories of how we speak to them—whether face to face, in focus groups, online or via telephone. We use a range of different methods. We break that down to capture all of the different aspects across the basin geographically that are going to represent that. Then we break down the results accordingly. 

Senator ROBERTS: So that selection process is done internally. 

Mr Grant: It is conducted by the contracted survey company ORIMA. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you specify the broad range of people, and then they will do the selection? 

Mr Blacker: They do the selection and make sure that it is statistically valid and that the results are reliable. 

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could comment on the decrease in perceptions of independence and who they are referring to as being not as independent; is that you? 

Mr Grant: The public broadly, as well as water licenceholders. 

Senator ROBERTS: So the public generally perceive a decrease in independence? 

Mr Grant: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that of your office? 

Mr Grant: Yes, it is more their perception of our independence. An example that came out of the survey was that with any material that says ‘the Hon. Troy Grant’ they think I am a government representative. So we are removing that from our publications. On any of our promotional material we have the Inspector-General logo. Because we are funded by the Australian government, the Australian government coat of arms sits on our shirt. So when we go to a field day like AgQuip and engage with people, the sentiment is: ‘I am not talking to you; you’re just another mob from the government.’ We have that conversation, explaining that we are independent, and then they engage thoroughly. For that type of thing, we have inquired and sought approval to not have that on our clothing when we are at field days, et cetera. But there is a flipside to that. Being the body we are, the reports we produce and publish have the coat of arms on them because it gives them that authority figure. So there are two parts to the sentiment in that regard. 

CHAIR: That would make it hard to manage. On the one hand it is an upside, and on the other hand it is not. 

Mr Grant: We consider ourselves to be the ‘little engine that could’, so we overcome any challenges. 

Mr Blacker: We break the ‘who’ down by groups so that we can see the different types of things people are telling us. We look at community as a broad, we look at water licenceholders and we look at First Nations. We break the results down by category. Each one of those, again, is built to be statistically valid through the methodology. 

Senator ROBERTS: The comment about independence would indicate to me that, if they perceive that you are from the government and they are a bit wary, there is not so much trust for the government involved in the Murray-Darling Basin. 

Mr Grant: There is a general sentiment of distrust of all governments out there, from what we are hearing. 

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t talking about the Albanese government; I meant the federal government. 

CHAIR: Any government. 

Mr Grant: My answer is that all governments are perceived that way. 

CHAIR: Like all politicians. 

/by

ACCC aligns with One Nation calls for Murray Darling water register

, , ,

I have been calling for a transparent public water register for several years now. There are too many dodgy dealings happening in the Murray Darling Basin including water possibly held by politicians.

Our view on this aligns with the ACCC who have also backed a public water register. It is simply common sense.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair and thank you for attending tonight. In reference to your report of the Murray-Darling basin water markets inquiry, is it a fair representation of your findings to say, “There is a lack of quality, timely and accessible information for water market participants. The ACCC’s analysis has highlighted the need for significant improvements in the consistency and completeness of Murray-Darling basin water market trading?”

Sounds like what we’ve found Senator, that rings a lot of bells. It’s obviously a very complex market and it’s grown up. I guess it just sort of evolved and water administrators have been much concerned with the allocation of water rather than the trading of water, so, I think, general judgement is, there’s a range of things that need to be done to get the market working really properly and addressing the problems you’ve just correctly summarised ’cause it is such a fundamental market for farmers.

[Malcolm Roberts] I haven’t read your report, but one of my staff who is intimately involved with the Murray-Darling basin says gives you A plus.

Oh, very good Senator, I appreciate that. I should pass it on to the team.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’ve been all over the basin and we’ve listened to a lot of people and it makes total sense.

Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] The Water Act 2007, schedule three specifies that all trades should be recorded in a register for water trades, register of water trades. Your report notes the failed attempt by the Murray-Darling basin authority to introduce a national water market following which they just gave up trying. Is implementing this 14 year old law compatible with the findings in your report about the need for improvements in water trading data transparency?

I’m gonna pass to Mr. Betsy, who’s the person most familiar with this, so.

If I understand your question, Senator, you’re asking me whether the recommendations in our report will improve transparency in the water market? And yes, our answer to your question is that’s what they’re intended to do, that’s the big problem that, or one of the big problems that we think need to be addressed. There are some other issues as well, integrity of some of the mechanisms to ensure that people have confidence in the integrity of market and the conduct of the players in the market, making data available more generally in a more consistent way across the whole market so that people can use it for their purposes. There’re whole range of different recommendations that we think will be carefully considered by the implementation panel over the next year or so.

[Malcolm Roberts] I didn’t wanna interrupt because it was music to my ears but specifically what I was after was, is a register of water trades consistent with your report?

Yes, absolutely, well, and either a single register or registers that are compatible and that record data in a consistent way.

But that’s a classic example of what’s missing so there’s no doubt about that. And that again, reflects the way it’s evolved and why it needs very much to improve.

[Malcolm Roberts] From page 182 of the report, “89% of the volume of all large investors spot allocation purchases and 67% of the volume of all large investors bought allocation sales in the Southern connected basin in the 2018 and 19 water year, were attributed to one investor, can you indicate who that investor was?

I don’t think it would be appropriate to do so.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, and that’s why we need a register.

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] But we would know the answer if we had a transparent water register, correct?

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] And so without, this is just a statement, without a water trading register shady or crooked operators can hide. And I’m not saying that they’re shady or, but someone could.

The difficulty is that we don’t know whether they are shady or crooked operators.

Exactly, but that’s the problem, that’s the problem, we don’t know and if the market was working with all the normal regimes then, that would make bad behaviour much, much, much harder. So we don’t know about the system, opens itself to that.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’ll bring the cupboard, the cockroaches scatter when the light hits them. Page 185 of your report indicates that in 2018 and 19, 63 gigalitres of water was traded from above the Barmah choke to below the choke, is this correct?

There’s only 700.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, it is, so.

If it’s in the report, if it’s in the report it’s very likely to be correct is correct.

It’s correct, right, thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s correct, yeah, okay. Is this figure net or gross? In other words, we know that 63 was traded from above and moved to below the Barma choke. Was there a corresponding trade moving water from below the choke to above the choke?

That’d be taking the water upstream.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

And that’s a very difficult thing to do.

[Malcolm Roberts] it is, but…

I mean, conceptually, there are ways in which trades can occur where that happens.

[Malcolm Roberts] But that figure would be…

Yeah, I expected it’s a gross figure but it would be pretty close to being a net figure but we can take that on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. In senate estimates last Friday, Andrew Reynolds, the chief executive director of the Murray-Darling basin authority testified that there was no transfer of water from above to below the choke since any trade below was matched by a trade back the other way. This is not what your thorough and detailed investigation has found according to my staff, is that correct?

Look, I think it’s best we take it on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes, okay.

We’ve got the question that we’ll certainly get back to you and we should have the information.

[Malcolm Roberts] Your data came from voluntary information disclosures. So put simply the trades you examined were the trade people wanted you to see. Is there a chance that trades were hidden from the ACCC inquires?

That’s not correct senator, we use compulsory powers to compel the production of a large amount of the data and the information we received. Some of it we did receive voluntarily from state government agencies, but a very large proportion of it we obtained using compulsory powers.

Paint a picture that others couldn’t because we had the information gathering powers. That’s why we were able to put all the data together in the way we did. Without the powers, the study wouldn’t have had the same thoroughness.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Moving onto a separate topic now, this is to do with market power. The Commonwealth bank has announced that they are investing $30 million in e-commerce startup little birdie, so far so good. Now the bit that concerns, the Commonwealth will add the little birdie e-commerce portal directly into their banking app. Is the Commonwealth bank using its market power to grow a business that it has an interest in?

Look, I think Senator, I don’t know if any of my colleagues have comment, but, I mean the Commonwealth bank is, don’t know, its probably got 25% of the home loan market. It’s obviously the biggest bank but in terms of what they’re doing, there’s a lot of other players in the market. So certainly happy to keep an eye on it. But I think with all else going on in the market it would be a bit early to call that market power. It’s, you know, it’s an interesting development. They’re trying to match a range of other digital players, fintechs offering various services. So I think, we almost see it as an encouraging sign to improve the mix of economic activity But I accept they’re a big player and when big players do things like that we have to monitor it carefully.

Senator, if you don’t mind, it seems we have a dedicated unit within our agency that focuses on financial services, competition issues and actively monitors this sorts of developments and reports to a financial services competition board. And that, I think it’s a very good mechanism for really tracking what’s going on in competition in financial services.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, it’s just that the banks, as Mr. Sims pointed out have got enormous power, the four of them have got enormous power. And if they get behind something.

They’ll do the same thing, senator, that’s a different matter, as I understand, it’s the Commonwealth bank on its own, making that move. If they all did it collectively that would a very different matter and that could well bridge competition laws.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, so, next question Wespact are now, Westpac is now offering private label banking services after pay, as their first customer. Does Essec have a point at which the banks could be considered to be misusing their market power? You just mentioned one example.

You mentioned Essec, I think you meant ACCC, again, I think fairly early days, I don’t know whether my colleagues have. I think it’s part of all the rich developments that are going on that we’re monitoring very closely.

And there are a number of white label services provided by various banks. Citibank, for example provides white label credit card facilities. And in a sense, what Westpac is doing is a pro-competitive thing entering into an activity that enables after paid provide a full range of services than it currently does. And we see that as a way for them to become a more viable competitor within the financial services market.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, how about the last question on ACCC, how about Westpac shutting down banking facilities for cash handling companies so that it can direct their retail customers to use one specific cash handling company that they have a financial arrangement with essentially De banking, where does this slippery slope end if we let banks do this and they will eventually own everything and force companies that don’t own out of business?

I’m not aware of that particular issue, Senator, happy to take that on notice and have a look at that. We certainly are interested in De banking. And we made recommendations about that when we did an inquiry into foreign exchange because we think there’s got to be rules that people can meet so that they can’t be Di banked in an ad hoc way. So we’re very concerned about Di banking but I’m not aware of, I don’t think we’re aware of that particular

Yeah, no, we are, sorry Mr. Sims, we are aware of certain commercial arrangements that have been made that have been having an impact in the cash delivery market. There’s a couple of firms that dominate that market and we’ve had a close look at some of the arrangements there. It’ll be interesting to understand whether your referring to one of the things that we’ve looked at or whether it’s a new issue. And that might be based on by taking on others of you questions.

[Malcolm Roberts]Would you like one of my staff to contact you?

Yes, yes, that would be helpful.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, thank you very much, Chair.

/by

Will the Inspector General of Water Compliance have real teeth?

, , ,

There are many allegations of criminal activity and water stealing in the Murray Darling Basin. The Inspector General of Water is intended to be the cop on the beat and stamp out a lot of this non-compliance. I’ve travelled extensively across the Murray Darling Basin and spoken to locals on the ground.

I wanted to see if many of the issues I’d been told of had been brought to his attention.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Have you made contact with the New South Wales Natural Resources Access Regulator specifically in connection with unapproved water storages in New South Wales, including the Northern Basin?

I’ve had a number of contacts with Grant Barnes, the CEO of the Natural Resource Access Regulator and the Chairman Craig Knowles, not on that specific issue, more on general issues about our establishment and about metering and yeah, metering and a little bit about the water sharing plan on our last meeting.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are you aware, I’m not having a criticism of you, but are you aware of how much concern there is about water theft in the Northern Basin from people in other areas of the Murray-Darling Basin?

Oh, without question.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That’s very reassuring.

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is there a timeframe for getting to the bottom of the question of how much water is being extracted in the Northern Basin as against the amount allowed by the plan?

Our work plan will, once we are legislated enact a number of assurance checks, auditing processes to get to answer a lot of those questions and then hopefully be able to work off a benchmark so that we can then answer those questions specifically.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I understand the legislation that enables your position is in the Lower House now?

That’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] And, so once that’s passed, how long do you think it’ll be before you have a good handle of that, three months, six months?

I can’t speculate on the parliamentary process or the ascension into from the Governor General.

[Malcolm Roberts] Once your position is created, legislated, how long will it take you to get a good handle on the Northern basin and the water?

We’ve already got a handle, we’ve made preparations with the scoping of a number of bodies of work that will be part of our work plan to start day one.

[Malcolm Roberts] And to get to the bottom of the issues and come up with some conclusions. How long roughly, do you think?

Well, there’s different timelines for different projects within that work plan, but they will all be transparently published on our website. So everyone will understand the work that we’re doing and the projects that we’re doing and the timeframes.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s wonderful. When will that be available? I know it’s subject to the passage of the legislation.

The day we are enacted, it will be published.

[Malcolm Roberts] There’ll be a lot of people pleased to hear that. So we’ll be looking forward to it. If the enabling legislation passes as presented what tools do you have at your disposal to decide who is and who is not cheating on the basin plan? And what strategies would you be following?

It’s a difficult question to answer cause it’s case by case, or there’s holistic views, so, I guess if you’re talking about, if it’s a regional issue, like you referenced the Northern Basin, the legislation would allow us to potentially conduct an inquiry to get through some potential broader systematic issues that may be there. We have the ability through audit and compelling of information to inform potential river operation arrangements and how that’s measured and modelled and things like that. So there’s a number of different mechanisms depending on what the scope of the actual inquiry is. So your questions are very large, broad.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you can work at that level, but you can also work at the property level?

Exactly. Right. The property level would be less regular, we’re a regulator of last resort in that instance but there would be circumstances where we would do that and the legislation allows us to have authorised officers to conduct that work. But yes, it’s a tiered ability from an inquiry through to audit and assurance, checking and through to individual investigations.

[Malcolm Roberts] And you will also have the authority to appoint people to do that work for you?

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you’re going to have foot soldiers for you?

Yes. I will have under the statute the ability to, not sure of the exact word but to create the authorised officer or officers.

[Malcolm Roberts] So you’ll have all that’s needed to enforce the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, make sure there’s no favouritism to any area.

Yes, and part of the MoG arrangements is making sure that each of those authorised officers have the appropriate training, skill sets and to allow me to approve them as Commonwealth investigators as an authorised officer.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. ‘Cause there’s a lot of concern about cheating on the plan.

I’ve heard that loud and clear Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] What other matters are you investigating right now?

We don’t have the powers to formally investigate.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry. Yeah. Okay. What are you evaluating right now? What will you be investigating

We’re scoping and canvassing everything from standards, trying to understand benchmark of standards because the inconsistency from valley to valley, state to state, north to south basin is significant. So we’re canvassing that and have a body of work prepared for that, river operations, metering, trade, which there’s specific legislation in relation to trade. There’s specific legislation that allows me to create standards and benchmarks. Now that’s done in cooperation with the basin states obviously because a lot of the state legislation may need adjustment depending on what agreed standards and benchmarks that are created as well, so it’s a variant scale of work.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m very pleased to hear that you’ve used the word variation because there is enormous variation, particularly between the north and south, that makes it very difficult for people in those areas to understand the other areas. But what specific topics are on your radar? What issues?

Senator, all of them to be frank and because a lot of them are interrelated, there’s a lot of misinformation out there as well. So we have a role to be a myth buster and independent communicator of truth and make sure that the data that people rely on and the modelling that’s relied on has an independent validation as well. There’s a componentry role that we’ll play there. It’s a very broad role, but metering measurement through to water operations through to environmental water and outcomes. It’s everything.

[Malcolm Roberts] So trading?

I have, yes, I have powers under the act in relation to trading, but limited resources and mindful of of the recent ACCC’s work and recommendations which is currently under consideration by all states and the federal government.

[Malcolm Roberts] And what about making recommendations and changing systems to enable you to better oversee the trading in any breaches of trading regulations?

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got the ability and the support to be able to make changes?

I won’t have the power to be the– up through the Basin Official Committee into MinCO for those.

[Malcolm Roberts] Because it seems at the moment trading is something that is difficult to enforce for a variety of reasons, but you’ll be able to get through that.

Well, I’ll be able to assist the Ministerial Council and Basin Officials Committee.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you Chair, that’s all I have.

[Chair] Thank you Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] And I appreciate your direct answers. Thank you.

No, you’re welcome, Senator.

Chair could I just add to those answers by saying that, of course the relevant bill was introduced to The House of Representatives this week, through the explanatory materials, the minister’s second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum outlines many of the issues that the Inspector General has just been talking about and I’ve just reacquainted myself with the explanatory memorandum. It’s written in a very good style and it outlines the proposed powers of the Inspector General, the offence provisions and the various other issues that have been outlined here. So I would commend that to the attention of the committee.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you chair. Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Grant will then have the ability for things that are not defined in the regulations or in the legislation to actually go and talk to someone to make sure that they’re covered somehow?

Well, Mr. Grant, or the Inspector General, once appointed, would certainly be charged with the administration of those aspects of compliance and Mr. Grant’s interim Inspector General has indicated the work that’s underway at the moment, but also the preparations, the very detailed preparations that have been put in place to ensure that when the legislation and if the legislation is passed, the Inspector General will be able to hit the ground running.

[Malcolm Roberts] Apart from variation, another word that keeps cropping up is complexity in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the work of the Authority. So, Mr. Grant is human and he’s already had some input into the legislation, as I understand it, is that correct?

[Mr. Grant] Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts] You mentioned that at the last Estimates I think, but he’s human so he won’t be able to understand everything quickly. So there’ll be need for changes of his approach or maybe changes that he couldn’t foresee a few months ago.

Well, certainly the Inspector General and Mr. Grant has outlined the fact that the Inspector General and the staff of the Inspector General will be a cop on the beat, that they will have staff, quite a significant resourcing out there in the Basin, working on a daily basis on these issues. And of course, if there are views that arrangements are not working properly, as Mr. Grant has explained, there’s a loop back through the Basin Officials Committee, given that this is a shared space between the Commonwealth and the states and the ACT to consider whether adjustments need to be made. So, the fact that there will be an on the ground presence will be a particularly powerful way of ensuring that things are actually working and if they need improvements then things can be done about it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

/by

Admission: “Environmental” Murray Darling water flows are damaging the environment

, , ,

In response to my question, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office has made a stunning admission that environmental damage along a 100km section of the river was caused by environmental, conveyance and irrigation water sent down under the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

My suggestion that the best way to fix the environmental destruction was to stop water trading below the Barmah Choke was met with an extraordinary comment from Andrew Reynolds. He said there was no extra water sent through the Choke because every trade below it was matched by one moving water back above the Choke. I wonder if that is right?

I am pleased to see that this Estimates has marked the demise of the supposed “sand slug”, which has now morphed into “sedimentation”. I was also pleased to get an undertaking that the MDBA will not create a man-made flood event to drain the Menindee Lakes and the current surge event will be limited below 40GL.

Another major flip flop from the MDBA came when I asked if the water coming into the Coorong and Lake Albert from the South East drains restoration project was environmental water for the basin. This classification was shot down last estimates however this time around Andrew Reynolds agreed this water was basin water to be used for the environment.

With only 350GL left to complete the SDL acquisitions I repeat my call that the restoration project should be stepped up and used to provide the remaining 350GL of SDL water. Farmers in the basin have given up enough water and should not be asked to provide one more drop.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are you familiar with the damage, the extensive damage, to the banks of the Murray River around the Barmah Choke?

Yes, I am.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, that’s good, we won’t need to table that then. It’s caused by nonstop water flows, and the picture that I was going to show you, if necessary, could have been taken anywhere along about 100 kilometres of the river, the damage is so pervasive. The Choke is being eroded by combined environmental, conveyance, and irrigation flows. What’s the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder doing about this damage?

Thanks, Senator. As you said, it’s a combination of all the water in the river that’s causing the bank erosion there. My colleagues from the MDBA may also want to talk about some of the geomorphology that’s occurring in the bed of the river there. There’s silting in the bed of the river, which is reducing the capacity of that narrow section of the river, between Yarrawonga and down to about Barmah, but the main sedimentation is in the Barmah area. And that damage is part of major studies and scientific work going on in that area, trying to work out what’s causing it, how it might be remediated. And we’re happy to be proud of that. I would also like to add that the water that the Commonwealth environmental water holder puts through that system there, is run counter cyclical to some of the irrigation demand in the system. We also put water around the choke through some of the forest streams and rivers through that area. And I have a bank into the forest there that helps de-energize some of that water, by taking some of that pressure off that peak demand season. We think we may actually be mitigating some of the issues that may otherwise be arising in that area.

[Malcolm Roberts] Before we do things, Pauline, Senator Hanson, and I we try to get the facts. So we went down the Murray River after hearing of extensive complaints from southern Queensland and then southern New South Wales and Northern Victoria. And we went down the Murray. And then when I came back into the Senate, I over flew the whole basin and the number one thing that I noticed I picked up in the first five minutes of my flight out of Aubrey, heading down the river, the river is incredibly tortuous incredibly so, and that tells me one thing the gradient is so, it’s almost flat and you would know that. And yet the amount of water that’s being shoved down that river is just phenomenal. And it’s doing this damage. This is the opposite of what environmental guardian should be doing in our opinion. So let me continue asking questions. This is just physically impossible to get all that water from the Upper Murray, downstream to the large corporate plantations, and all the environmental water. So this is the fourth estimates that I’ve asked about environmental damage to the choke, as the Commonwealth environmental water holder who should be interested in this, or the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, who are administering the plan that has caused this damage, done anything to stop this damage. It sounds like you haven’t just studied at the moment.

Senator, I think it’s fair that certainly the environmental water flows through the choke, as you said, other purposes as well I might ask the Murray-Darling basin authority to come forward and talk about

[Malcolm Roberts] Sure.

what’s being done in respect of the choke.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for acknowledging that there is a lot of water going down through there.

Andrew Reynolds, Executive Director River Management with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. So management of the choke is a significant concern for the Authority and how we regulate the river system. It has been pointed out there are a number of competing demands on the system, a delivery of consumptive water for irrigation demands, excuse me, environmental water demands through the system as well. There are a number of, as Mr. Taylor said, a number of studies have been underway to understand how the geomorphology of the choke is changing. Certainly sedimentation, which is occurring in the choke reduces the capacity through there in terms of the management arrangements there. Thank you. We certainly are focusing our system planning on how we move water through the system. We work very, very closely with environmental water holders and irrigation operators in terms of understanding demands, planning our system operations, so that we can deliver water to to Lake Victoria at varying times throughout the year. We make extensive use of inter-valley transfers from the Goulburn and Murrumbidgee system to also get a different pattern of water through the system to, in part, limit the amount of erosion that occurs. We certainly are working on getting a study underway to understand how we might better utilise Murray irrigation infrastructure or indeed infrastructure on the Victorian side, through the GMID to also be able to take some of the pressure off the banks through the river system. All of those pieces of work are underway. Some of them we can adapt our operations immediately to try and alleviate some of those concerns. Some of them are longer run pieces of work that will take some time to affect change.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are there any plans to construct a pipeline or a channel around that Barmah choke?

No, there’s no plans to construct anything in particular. We’re looking at a study to optimise how we might utilise existing infrastructure, certainly looking at whether or not there are other flow paths through the forest where we might be able to use some of the existing outfalls particularly from the Murray irrigation system. I had to put water into other smaller creeks to run it past the choke that way. That study may lead to investigation of some enhancements of that system but we’re yet to progress to that stage.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s no consideration or idea of a pipeline to get around it, or a channel to get around it? Because some of the locals are telling us that there are surveyors working in the Barmah overflow, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Certainly there’s no significant studies like that around any major bypasses. We’ve not commissioned any on-ground field surveys or the likes. I’m not quite sure what people have observed but it’s not anything that we’ve commissioned.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. So the trading of water used to be limited in the Murray-Darling Basin, as I understand it, from what I was told from by commissioners on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, that preceded the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, used to be limited to, a certain, limited to within each valley, within each catchment, and only to a certain extent downstream. Now they can be inter-catchment transfers, inter-valley transfers, and extensive transfers along the river. So we’ve got a lot of water moving from the northern part of the valley, Murray valley, down to the, sorry, the upstream part of the valley down to the large plantations. Wouldn’t one option be to stop that trading?

So Senator Roberts, there is actually a limit on trade from above the choke to below the choke. It’s been in place since 2014. And there’s no proposal that that would be relaxed. That limitation on trade requires that the net volume of water traded downstream is zero. So trade from above the choke to below can only occur if there’s been a an equivalent volume traded upstream first. And so the total volume of water moving through the choke is unchanged by trade.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, in a meeting that the Commonwealth environmental water holder was in, I think you were there Mr. Reynolds as well, in Parliament House with us in October of 2019 or thereabouts I was advised that the department is working on a report into water loss from over landing through the Barmah forest and has been collecting this data for many years. It’s now May 2021. It’s almost two years later. And this report has not been tabled. Isn’t this a critical, critical report for making good decisions about watering the Barmah?

So we have an ongoing programme of assessing each and every event where we put water through the forest for environmental water holders’ use, or indeed for transfers downstream in the rare occasions when that’s necessary. We use that work to assess the loss of water or the consumption of water within the forest. That’s part of the work that Mr. Taylor was talking about earlier, in terms of assessing the return flows to the river system. In other words, how much of the environmental water holders’ water is consumed in the forest versus how much comes back into the river to be used further downstream for other watering events. That’s an ongoing piece of work that will continue, I would imagine almost indefinitely, because every time you have another event you have another bit of data to assess the basis on which those losses are assigned. Certainly all of that work is done on the basis of making sure that there is no third party impact of water availability for other entitlement holders. So we take a conservative approach to those estimates, but we’re continually refining them.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, maybe I wasn’t clear with my communication in the previous question. We were told there was a report coming, and this is almost two years later and there’s been no report. I would’ve thought the Commonwealth environmental water holder and yourself would be champing at the bit to get that report.

So we have produced reports on losses in terms of losses through the system, and we’ve just recently provided an update on losses for the last two water years, but the work on individual watering events and the development of effectively the loss rates applied to environmental water holdings is ongoing. It’s not being reported as a single report. We need to refine that,

[Malcolm Roberts] We were told there was a report coming and there’s no report. Are you aware of any report?

There are numbers of pieces of work that have been documented. I’d have to take on notice whether they’ve been published has certainly been shared with states and other others involved in that development of those estimates.

[Malcolm Roberts] So we were told there was a report coming.

[Andrew Reynolds] I don’t,

Let me just clarify, Senator Roberts, from my own knowledge, cause, there’s a report about the environmental water, or a report about the conveyance losses and use, cause I know in 2019 there was a report on that, the conveyance and loss through the Barmah area. And I think you just updated that? That was meant to be annual, but 2019, they didn’t do one last year.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s what I’m asking about. Reporting the water loss from over landing through the Barmah.

[Senator Davey] That’s been done, in 2019.

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. That report was done in 2019. And we’ve recently in the last month published an update that that completed the data for the 2019 water year and also reported on last year as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, with regard to that then how much environmental water went into the Barmah in 2020?

I’d have to take on notice the specific number.

Senator Roberts, do you have much more? because it is lunchtime, I,

[Malcolm Roberts] I just have one more question,

One more, perfect, thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Floodplain harvesting in excess of allowed take deprives the environment of flows needed to keep the river alive, and that means you have to do more with your water than it was intended to do. Is floodplain harvesting in the northern basin affecting your environmental water permit, remit, and is there anything you wish to say on this matter?

Thanks Senator, there’s been quite a bit of discussion with some northern Victorian irrigators and myself around this issue and other people across the southern connected basin. And I think there was some conversations around floodplain harvesting over the last five years and the potential impact that it may have had on either our resources and other resources in the southern connected basin. And in those conversations, we outlined that in over the last five years in 2016, it was a wet year and there was probably significant floodplain harvesting but had little, or minor impact in the south as it was good allocations in that year. 2017, there was good reserves in stocks in the south. And again, it probably had little impact upon our resources for environmental water delivery, 2018, 19, and 20. So the remaining three years in that period were probably record droughts in the northern basin. And as a consequence there was no water really in the northern basin to harvest. So again, it probably had little or no impact upon our resources available for environmental water delivery in the Southern connected basin. I’d like to add though, that the Commonwealth environmental water holder intends to put a submission in to the New South Wales government on the floodplain harvesting process. We’re very concerned about ensuring anything that occurs in that space is completely transparent, well measured, high levels of compliance, because in certain flow circumstances it could impact upon flows, could have an impact upon our capacity to deliver water particularly in some of the northern basin, probably more so than its likely impact in the Southern basin.

[Malcolm Roberts] Because as I understand it, before we go to lunch, one final thing. And as I understand it, as I understand it the people who end up paying, ultimately, with loss of water, are the farmers in northern Victoria and southern New South Wales. If someone’s going to lose it and water can’t come from the northern basin, they lose it.

So, I guess the impact of floodplain harvesting if there’s less resource makes it through the flows any of the reduced allocations as a core, that as that resource is shared is shared everywhere. It’s my understanding of it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thanks, chair.

/by