RENMARK IRRIGATION TRUST BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 March 2008. Page 1797.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:54): I rise to speak to this bill and note that, in conjunction with the Irrigation Bill 2009, it replaces the Irrigation Act 1994 and the Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 1936 respectively. During both contributions I will probably branch into aspects that affect both bills before the house because they are so similar, but it is noted that, because of its unique position, Renmark has its own separate bill. The Renmark Irrigation Trust Act 1936 gave irrigators no opportunity to transform a water right into a licence. Trade of water was not even mentioned in that act. A second matter with the Renmark Irrigation Trust relates to its structure which has left it outside of other, newer legislation, most of this being new federal legislation, including the Water Act 2007.

There are several objectives in regard to both bills but, notably, there is a need to take into account current management practices, policy directions and compliance with federal policy directions. Among other things, both bills also remove references to government irrigation districts, which no longer exist, and delineate the function of irrigation trusts—in this regard, the Renmark Irrigation Trust—to that of service providers rather than land tenants. Other important features of the bill relate to the federal requirement for there to be no impediment to the trade of water outside irrigation districts.

With respect to the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill, its major function is to transform a member's existing water right into an owned and tradeable right. Until now, Renmark Irrigation Trust members were not able to sell their rights separately because it remained with the trust, and were subsequently unable, among other things, to access the federal government's exit packages. With respect to the Renmark Irrigation Trust structure, ratepayers have become members, and members of the board become directors. This allows definitions and other qualifications defined in the new acts to cover participants of the Renmark Irrigation Trust. Also, directors will now be elected from the membership, as opposed to being appointed by the board.

Referring to consultation regarding the Renmark Irrigation Trust and comments received, people involved in the trust generally are fully supportive of the drawing up of the bill and they fully support the bill going through for the benefit of those irrigators remaining in the industry. The board's main concerns were with matters of federal control, which include Victoria's preventing trade through its caps and an issue with transformation which leaves the trust with no control over water leaving a district, but at least the land goes with it.

The Renmark Irrigation Trust supports an individual's right to own and sell their entitlement, but that sale reduces the cost-effectiveness of the trust for those remaining, as it reduces the number of irrigators contributing to the same running costs. A lateral supply line might no longer be cost-effective, as several have sold leaving a few others further along the line still requiring the service. Exit packages also complicate the infrastructure cost-sharing equation with supply and maintenance. A five year quarantine on re-use of the exited land leaves irrigation trusts with no chance to restore economic balance to supply lines for some years at least, even though neighbouring farmers might wish to expand and take on exited land. Uneconomic infrastructure cannot necessarily be removed, because there still may be a few requiring it now, or later when that quarantine period expires. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]