NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 9 February 2011.)

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, this one I find rather curious, particularly in light of what occurred when the guide to the draft Murray-Darling Basin Plan was published back in September. I would like some information about what the intent of this is. The reason I refer to the guide to the Murray-Darling Plan is that that ran into trouble because it seemed to concentrate on environmental consequences and omitted to have any regard for either social or economic consequences of making changes. From my reading of this amendment, it seems that it might fall into the same trap because it does talk about an assessment of the capacity of the water resource to meet environmental water requirements. It keeps talking about the environment, but it does not talk about the social or economic consequences.

The Hon. P. CAICA: This amendment, together with clause 18(3), ensures a transparency by requiring that a water allocation plan identify water that is set aside for the environment and the outcomes that providing that water for the environment is expected to deliver. This will ensure that information about water being provided for the environment is clearly identified in the water allocation plan, along with water that is to be made available for use. However, to allay the concerns of the deputy leader, these amendments are a transparency measure only and do not set any new standards or require any more water to be provided to the environment; they will be part of the water allocation plan.

The CHAIR: Does that answer your question?

Mr WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't, and I will point out to the minister exactly why. He might care to reflect on what I am going to point out to him. Clause 18(3) inserts new subsection (9), and this is where it really causes me some consternation, to be quite honest. It reads:

For the purposes of this section, environmental water requirements are those water requirements that must be met in order to sustain the ecological values of ecosystems that depend on the water resource, including their processes and biodiversity, at a low level of risk.

So, to my reading, the particular wording 'must be met in order to sustain the ecological values' says this is the minimum amount of water that must be reserved for the environment, which may be completely different from the amount of water that is already being reserved for the environment. I think the minister was suggesting that this was just about being transparent about the water that has been set aside for the environment.

What happens if we adopt this amendment, and at some time in the future, it is assessed that the amount of water that is currently set aside for the environment does not meet that new subsection (9); that is, 'to sustain the ecological values of ecosystems that depend on the water resource, including their processes and biodiversity, at a low level of risk', which itself is quite subjective too? What happens then if there is, as I pointed out, no ability for the administration of this new section to take into consideration any social or economic impacts of this provision coming into action or being acted upon?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Again, I thank the deputy leader for his question, and I will attempt to clarify it as best I can. The water allocation plan should clearly identify water that is being set aside for ecosystems that depend on the water resource. The NRM Act does not currently require this to be clearly stated as, or in, the WAP. Also, the NRM Act already requires identification of the water that will be made available for consumptive use. This partly supports the delivery of the NWI, which requires that water is provided to meet agreed environmental outcomes as defined within the relevant water plans and that they be given statutory recognition.

Quite clearly, the intent of these amendments is to ensure that the WAP does clearly identify both the amount of water that would be required to support a water dependent ecosystem and water that will be provided to the environment, as well as environmental outcomes that are expected to be delivered by providing that water. The important point, and critical to the question that is being asked, is that the required and provided amounts are not the same and may be vastly different. The amount that is to be provided for the environment is negotiated as part of that planning process, by the process of balancing—and this gets to the nub of your question—the economic, social and environmental considerations within that water allocation plan.

These amendments are a transparency measure, as I mentioned earlier. They are only that and do not set any new standards or require water to be provided for the environment. I think that allays the concerns that have been raised by the deputy leader, I hope.

Mr WILLIAMS: I wish, minister. I am still quite concerned about—and you might consider this between houses as I am sure my colleagues in another place will—the words that the 'environmental water requirements are those water requirements that must be met in order to sustain', etc. I have real concerns with that wording, and I fully accept what you have just said to us, minister. I think that is a fair and reasonable outcome to strive for, but the wording of this provision, I think, goes substantially beyond that. You might consider that and take some more advice on it because I am sure that, when my colleagues have read your answer, they will ask more questions on this in the other place. I do not think we are going to progress any further, so we can put this one to the vote.

Clause passed.

Clauses 19 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

Page 10, after line 8—Insert:

(4) Section 81(10)—after 'the procedures set out in section 80(8) to (16) must be followed when the plan is amended' insert:

(and if the amendment is otherwise within the ambit of subsection (8) then no other procedures, other than the procedures set out in subsection (7) and the procedures referred to in this subsection, need be followed)

This amendment provides for a regional NRM plan and water allocation plan to be comprehensively reviewed at least once during each 10-year period, as distinct from the current five-year review. However, it does not preclude plans being reviewed and amended at any time. It does not affect the requirement for each board's business plan to be revised annually: that is still a requirement. The water allocation plan forms part of the regional NRM plan. The 10-year minimum period is consistent with clauses 46 to 51 of the National Water Initiative which relates to assigning risks for changes in allocation. It sets out how risks should be shared over that 10-year period after a comprehensive water plan is commenced or renewed.

Simply, this range of clauses indicates implicitly that water allocation plans should be designed on the basis that guarantee the reliability of water allocations within a narrow range for a 10-year period. Section 75 of the Water Act of the commonwealth adopts the same 10-year period, as does section 64. That specifies that state plans adopted under the act in the Murray-Darling Basin are accredited for a 10-year period. I hope that helps the opposition deputy leader.

Mr WILLIAMS: I find this really interesting. I love the reasoning that this fits in with the National Water Initiative which, from memory, was signed off in 2004—some six years ago and, all of a sudden, we are getting around to deciding that it is important to match up with it. The problem, as I see it, is that the NRM boards have been absolutely incapable of meeting their obligations under the current act.

I take this opportunity to put on the public record that, in the case of the South-East NRM Board, I am pretty certain that its existing water allocation plan was obliged to be reviewed and rewritten by the end of June 2006. It still has not been rewritten. That might not be a huge issue, but through the process of going from the water allocation plan that is still in vogue in the South-East, and moving to the new water allocation plan, we are supposed to have gone through a process of converting all of the water licences in the region from an irrigation equivalent based licensing system to a volumetric licensing system.

That has caused numerous problems, and the house will hear me talk about some of those problems at a later date when we are discussing a different bill that is on the table, but in that process the owner of every irrigation bore in the South-East was obliged to put a meter on his bore. I can tell the house that I was obliged to put two meters on two bores, and when you put a six or eight-inch water meter on a six or eight-inch pipe it does not come at a small cost.

I suspect that there have been some millions of dollars expended by irrigators in the South-East to meet that 1 July 2006 deadline which was initially set by the board, yet the board still has not brought down its water allocation plan all these years later—nearly five years later. I find it fascinating that the remedy of the government seems to be to not actually, at least admonish, but do something to ensure that the boards meet their obligations. The government seems to think that the way around this is to double the time allowed for a board to meet those obligations. So, the move from a five-year review—

The CHAIR: Are you aware of the time? We can just stop and come back to it. We cannot extend beyond 6, but what I am saying is that you can come back another day.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am coming back. This committee is not finished with me yet. Minister, I find it fascinating that we are being asked to accept this amendment, which will double the time. I have quoted the South-East NRM Board, but I am pretty sure that I am on safe ground by saying that it is not the only one that appears to be quite tardy in meeting its obligations under the act. I believe that the opposition is going to accept this amendment. Personally, I, and the opposition in general, am quite disturbed that the existing NRM boards have failed miserably in meeting their obligation and this seems to be a big let-off for them.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Good timing. Minister, would you care to report progress? You have 30 seconds.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I look forward to responding to this in more detail tomorrow on the basis that I think some of the assertions made by the deputy leader are somewhat unfair and unfounded, but having said that, we will leave that sitting overnight and I will address it tomorrow. I move that progress be reported.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 18:00 the house adjourned until Wednesday 23 February 2011 at 11:00.