Introduction
The role of the Inspector General (IG) of Water Compliance has added another layer to the water compliance regime across the Murray–Darling Basin to provide independent oversight and review.
The Nationals welcome the appointment of the IG and the passage of the enabling legislation through Parliament in June 2021. Further, we welcome the requirement of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee to inquire and monitor the establishment of the Office of Water Compliance and the IG.
The Nationals welcome the committee's recommendations and ongoing monitoring of the role and responsibilities of the IG, however, The Nationals believe the committee has failed to reflect the other opinions of witnesses that would relate to 'any other matters' as referenced in the terms of reference.
The committee heard from several witnesses about the significant social and economic impact of water recovery and the view that sourcing the remainder of the water recovery from productive use will make their communities unviable. There was strong support for finalising the Murray–Darling Basin Plan (the Basin Plan) by implementing complementary measures and outcomes-focussed accountability rather than further water recovery through entitlement transfer.
With the IG being established, and one of the main areas of compliance responsibility being monitoring and reporting on the Basin Plan and state water resource plans as they relate to environmental water, it is considered that an outcomes-based approach should be the lens by which assessments will be undertaken.
The public expects transparency on how environmental conditions are changing because of the Basin Plan. That transparency and accountability should extend to outcomes-based measures such as constraint management or complementary measures monitoring and reporting as it will demonstrate how supplementing water volumes with other measures delivers a higher level of environmental outcome than what can be achieved by water alone and, according to some witnesses, may replace the need for future water recovery.
Ms Claire Miller, Chief Executive Officer, NSW Irrigators' Council, stated that 'we would like to see the MDBA conduct a business case on investing the funding allocated for the 450 gigalitres in up water to go instead into complementary measures'.
Complementary measures
Complementary measures are non-flow measures which include measures to address fish passage, cold water pollution, habitat restoration and riparian and wetland conservation.
Current Basin Plan settings do not allow for the recognition of complementary measures as an alternative to water recovery already committed to under the Basin Plan.
The Basin Plan's intent was to have a healthy working river, which meant it was about achieving on-ground outcomes for regional communities and the environment. Fixating on a volumetric number in itself does not deliver an environmental outcome, but it is what you do with the water and how you use it.
Complimentary measures are outcome-focussed, can be measured and reported on and makes the volumes of water already recovered go further.
The committee heard concerns about the impact of climate change on river systems. It heard it is unlikely that long-term outcomes will be achieved in the face of any reliability of water reducing as a result of future changes in rainfall.
Complimentary measures are the answer to achieving outcomes, just the same as an irrigator invests in his infrastructure to make their water go further before going into the market to get more.
The committee heard that a target number based off modelling in the Basin Plan may still fail to achieve the environmental objectives. Several witnesses highlighted the additional 450 gigalitres was inconsistent with an outcomes‑focussed Basin Plan.
The other part of the Basin Plan which is often misunderstood is that you don't need to get 450 to achieve the outcomes if this is about environmental outcomes of the Basin Plan.
Mrs Jennifer McLeod, Policy and Communication Manager, Coleambally Irrigation Co-operative Limited, explained further:
Some of the solutions envisaged in 2012 are not acceptable to a diverse number of communities, including riparian farmers. We know that the impact of the buyback and the opening up of water markets in some communities and river systems has had significant impacts. We also know that just adding water is not the only solution to the issue of making a more sustainable river system.
Other witnesses, such as Mr Bob Newman, Healthy Rivers Ambassador, Healthy Rivers Lower Murray, acknowledged the need for the monitoring of program implementation. Mr Newman noted:
But we are focusing on the interaction between the agencies, the delivery of the programs and the dependence of the components of the program upon each other. If you let one program slip, such as the constraints relaxation, it does create big deficiencies in the delivery of other outcomes, such as the delivery of environmental water.
He went on to say that 'without that outcome [constraints], the whole Basin Plan is jeopardised'.
Other witnesses identified the fact that if predictions about climate change come to fruition, some of the original assumptions in the Basin Plan may be unachievable.
With climate change, you may not even be able to achieve some of those overbank flows that are envisaged, even if you manage to deal with constraints. So then we need to be looking at projects that are going to deliver the best environmental outcomes.
Mr Isaac Jeffrey, Chief Executive Officer, National Irrigators' Council, summed up the issue when he stated:
The Basin Plan is an adaptive document but the stringent focus on volumes over outcomes has created rigidity which doesn't address the physical constraints and limitations of the system and the actual outcomes we're trying to achieve.
Social and economic impacts
Many witnesses highlighted the negative impact of water recovery on regional communities and recommended a review of the remaining water recovery targets.
Mrs McLeod stated that '[f]or the advocates of the 450, I think we need to draw attention to the substance of Robbie Sefton's report'.
The Independent Assessment of Social and Economic Conditions in the Murray Darling Basin, more commonly called the Sefton Report, to which Mrs McLeod referred, had found:
Growing recognition that, under current policy settings, the overall target for water recovery of 2,750 GL per year plus 450 GL per year of efficiency measures cannot be achieved by 2024, and also cannot be achieved within the funds available through the Water for Environment Special Account.
Mr Andrew Leahy, Chair, Victorian Farmers Federation Water Council, told the committee that '[w]e cannot deliver this water without negative impacting, yet the Senate reject the logical and commonsense response to remove the 450'.
There was comment from some witnesses that without complementary measures and more active management of the existing water portfolio, the Government is not maximising the benefit or value of the investment.
Mr Jeremy Morton, Chairman, National Irrigators' Council, argued that:
… there's acknowledgment now by many, including government and also Environmental Water Holders that complementary measures are a very important part of getting the best bang for your buck out of the water that has been recovered and the progress that has been made under the plan.
Similarly, Ms Miller stated:
You can put a lot more water down that river, but if you don't deal with things like cold water pollution, fish passages and the staggering biomass of carp completely displacing habitat availability for native fish, it's basically wasted water, to be blunt. It's billions of dollars spent on recovering environmental water that's not going to get the actual objectives of the Basin Plan.
Conclusion
After more than 40 reviews into the Basin Plan and the Water Act 2007 and countless recommendations for a flexible Basin Plan, the introduction of the IG provides an opportunity to develop mechanisms to account for outcomes versus volumes and to give the Basin Plan the flexibility originally perceived.
The IG would be perfectly positioned to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of complimentary measures and constraints strategies to ensure environmental outcomes are being achieved and to recommend improvements where needed.
Recommendation
That the Australian Government establish a mechanism to account for outcomes achieved through complementary measures as an alternative to water recovery to meet Basin Plan objectives.
Recommendation
That the Inspector-General of Water Compliance monitors the outcomes of complimentary measures and the constraints management strategy to ensure water management tools are being used effectively and associated strategies are working.
Senator Susan McDonald
Deputy Chair
Senator Perin Davey