Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 48:33 to 1:02:39
The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder discusses the legal framework for delivering water and the necessity of collaborating with private landholders.
Topics: Water management, Land management, EPBC Act
Speakers: Simon Banks, Hon Murray Watt, Hon Matthew Canavan, Marcus Finn, Mr. Tony Chappel, Dr. Simon Banks, Mr. Marcus Finn
>> call officers from the department in relation to outcome for improve the health of rivers and wetlands and enhance sustainable efficient and productive use of Australia's water resources. That's program 4.1. Protect, restore and sustainably manage Australia's water resources including the Commonwealth Environment Water Holder and the Murray Darland Basin Authority. And I welcome the relevant officials to the table from those Now, Minister, do you have an opening statement?
>> I do. It's It's pretty brief. >> Thanks. Um, just while the officials are taking the chairs, uh, thank you, chair, for the opportunity to provide an opening statement to the committee. We're obviously now moving into the environment and water part of this department. Um uh it's taking the collective efforts of governments, environmental organizations, scientists, researchers, philanthropists, industry and local communities to achieve meaningful steps towards restoring and protecting Australia's natural environment. There's a mountain of work being undertaken by the public servants in this room to deliver better outcomes for our lands, our ocean, forests, and rivers. This year, we've made great progress building on Australia's strong foundation of sustainable ocean management. This has been done by launching our sustainable ocean plan, beginning work to expand our marine parks, and by ratifying the high seas biodiversity treaty to protect marine species in the high seas. Whether in our regions or urban communities, our government is committed to delivering healthier outcomes for our environment and for future generations through programs like the urban rivers, saving native species, and Australian bushland programs. We're working steadfastly and collaboratively to protect Australia's unique plants and animals from threats like bird flu, invasive species, climate change, natural disasters, and overdevelopment. And we're ensuring the frameworks that protect what's most precious are modern and fit for purpose through reforms to the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act, cultural heritage laws, the Murray Darling Basin Plan Review, waste regulation, and more. Of course, my biggest priority remains the implementation of the Albanesei government's historic reforms to the EPBC Act. This Saturday will mark 12 months since our government introduced a bill to make these reforms. These reforms passed the Parliament last December and are already better protecting our environment while powering productivity through faster and clearer decision-making processes. Within the last financial year, there's been a 5% boost to the number of on-time decisions made under the EPBC Act. 93% of statutory decisions were made on time in that in that period. A far cry from when the former coalition government delivered just 6% of project approvals on time. And the Office of Impact Analysis noted potential median savings for businesses of between 3 to7 billion per year based on reduced delays, duplication, and regulatory costs. We haven't wasted a day putting these laws to work, and all reforms will be enacted by the end of this year. A cornerstone of the reforms was the creation of Australia's first national environmental protection agency on the 1st of July, a modern, transparent, and accountable regulator. In the EPA's first 100 days, it has given the green light to 77 projects under the EPBC act, including projects supporting housing, renewable energy, and critical minerals. That includes another 17 housing projects in the past 3 months, delivering 6,600 new homes. Uh the EPA in that period of time has also managed 15 ongoing criminal court matters, finalized a criminal prosecution and seized thousands of illegal wildlife specimens. Uh the EPA has also developed clearer and more transparent advice through the release of the agriculture and the EPBC act guide to help farmers, landholders, and agricultural stakeholders understand their obligations. They've progressed for implementation of the next phase of environmental reforms, including preparations for the implementation of Australia's first national environmental standards and a streamlined assessment pathway commencing on December the 1st. And of course, they're only just getting started. So, as you've heard, and as I'm sure we'll canvas tonight, the Albanese government is delivering meaningful outcomes for Australia's environment while also speeding up decision-m. Uh we look forward to answering your questions
>> Thank you. Uh I think now I ask whether I welcome Dr. Simon Banks, the Commonwealth environmental water holder and Mr. Andrew McConnell, chief executive of the Mari Darling Basin Authority and ask if either of you wish to make an opening statement and if so I'd ask it's a relatively brief one. Dr. Banks.
>> Yeah, thank you chair. No, I don't.
>> Thank you. And Mr. McConnell. >> Thank you very much. In which case we'll go to questions and I will go to Senator Canavan.
>> Thank you very much chair. Look, in the first instance, I just want to ask about environmental watering. Can um can environmental water that's owned by the Commonwealth be released onto private land without the land owner's consent?
>> Uh Senator Simon Banks, Commonwealth environmental water holder, Noah, it can't. Uh, Senator,
>> so uh are you aware of um recent New South Wales legislation that has provided that state with the powers to release water onto private
land? Yeah, Senator, look, what I understand is uh that the legislation was changed in New South Wales um in relation to Water New South Wales um uh liability uh and that has enabled them to and and actually it's not just about environmental water, it's about all water deliveries. Um but at the end of the day I think it's best if um those sorts of questions are directed to the um New South Wales government for them to um provide um commentary.
>> Did they consult the CHW or the Australian government on those changes?
>> Uh I can I can speak on behalf of myself. No, they didn't consult with us on that.
>> Anyone else in the Australian government? Were you consulted? Uh so uh will the Chu or will any Comwalth environmental water use these New South Wales regulations to deliver uh environmental outcomes?
>> So Senator when we place an order either through our delivery partner uh or directly uh using the licenses that we hold uh at uh those uh water deliveries are delivered by the river operators. So in the case of New South Wales, it's Water New South Wales. Uh it's their responsibility to make sure that the water is delivered according to their uh operating arrangements and the legislation that they operate under. So
given that we've established that those provisions now do allow water to be uh delivered onto people's land without their consent and you use them as the delivery agency, won't come environmental water now go onto people's land without their consent?
>> Well, Senator will only go on the land um as it's delivered by uh Water New South Wales, >> but they can do this. they can they can
deliver water uh without land owners consent now. Is that that's correct?
>> Well, they they they um they've got um uh best like they've got to um work collaboratively with um the community around how they um how they use the water or manage the water deliveries within the river um operating uh arrangements and rules that they uh operate under. Senator, these uh questions are best um in terms of how that applies in New South Wales is
>> but it's your water. I I they're delivering our water that you've paid for, we've paid for, Comwalth Government owns. Uh I I just go back I suppose my first question my first question was do you deliver water onto people's land without their consent? >> Does that happen?
>> We we don't directly deliver the water to um to people's land without their consent. We have um when water commonwealth water irrigation water or any other kind of water is uh delivered within the system uh it's the river operator light water New South Wales who has responsibility for
>> so can you guarantee that no Commonwealth environment water environment Commonwealth held water >> ends up on someone's land without their
consent? Uh I can't guarantee that because again um our responsibility is making that placing an order like any other um license holder within uh within the regulated system. And uh and then it's up to the river operator to um to to meet that order. And that applies whether it's Commonwealth water um our general security entitlements, whether it's uh irrigation uh water, conveyance water, or other water that's delivered.
But it is the policy not to do this. That's [clears throat] your intent is not to deliver water without a land owner's consent. Is that correct?
>> That that's correct. But again, it's sort of what we do is place an order and then the river river operator their responsibility is to meet that order and they will do that within the legal framework that they operate within to
deliver the water. So what what steps have you taken since the passage of the New South Wales legislation to assure yourself that your policy will be implemented by the New South Wales government agencies and the delivery authorities you rely on to deliver environmental water?
>> Yeah. So, we've been um working with Water New South Wales on a and our um delivery partner um on a standard operating uh procedure which is about how they give um early warnings um to um uh to you know those people that live along the rivers. But I can ask um Dr. Finn who has been uh working more closely on that um to provide more details about the standard operating procedure and this is just an arrangement between ourselves and
>> that exists currently.
>> It's it's currently being drafted.
>> So there wasn't one or isn't one in existence at the moment
>> there there wasn't one previously. >> Um no
>> is this being triggered by this legislation or is it a separate process?
It it has in the on the basis that water New South Wales have an obligation to deliver in good fa you know manage the water in good faith uh to minimize impacts to to landholders.
>> So thanks Marcus branch head in DQ as Dr. Thanks, Ed. So the and as you mentioned, New South Wales did pass legislation last year um associated with water in New South Wales and their deliveries of water on private land. Um uh so that's New South Wales uh legislation, but um as Dr. Banks said, our understanding of the way the legislation works for New South Wales is um it allows them to deliver water as they need to as a water delivery operator, a river operator. um but they do have to act in good faith with land holders when they seek to deliver along flow paths into wetlands and all those sorts of things. So water New South Wales as an institution are going through a process of um setting up this standard operating procedure with um environmental water holders not just us but also in New South Wales um to allow them to go through that good faith process. So the standard operating procedure we've been working with them on uh is still in a draft not yet finalized um but covers off on a range of things um including environmental water uh sorry environmental water holders like the two um and New South Wales uh providing information on uh the delivery um that we propose to do uh things like uh potential flow rates at particular gauges information that could be useful for landholders to understand what those flows look like. Uh also um asks us to provide information uh and we often do this in collaboration with New South Wales, but uh information on engagement that we've had with potentially affected land holders um and also summaries of the views of those landholders. Um and a lot of information that's currently in the SOP allows Water New South Wales to be in a position where they're assured that there's been significant information exchange um appropriate engagement um and also uh puts them in a position where they do come to deliver those flows and uh fulfill those orders where they can provide information to the broader community about what those flows might look like. So that's the process that we're going through with water in New South Wales um to allow them to demonstrate that they've acted in good faith with the people in the catchment where they're delivering water.
>> So will um will any provision of this standard operating procedure uh require water New South Wales or any of their New South Wales government agencies uh to receive land owner consent before water is placed on their
land? Uh again, this is New South Wales legislation, but
>> No, no, but this is a standing operating. This this this is the SOP. I don't know if you're calling it that. I'm going to mark that. >> So that that that is with you and the New South Wales government. >> So it is within your power to demand and say, "Hey, we want and presumably you're paying in New South Wales to do this.
>> Are we paying for your charges?"
>> Yep. So you tell them we don't want you regardless of what your laws say because you they didn't even consult with you. We don't want you to put water on someone's land without their consent and it's our water. So >> is that something you're going to put in the standard operating procedure?
Senator, the the standard operating procedure that's been developed is just how New South Wales Water want to approach uh the delivery of water, including uh environmental water uh in the system to make sure that they meet their legislative obligations around uh
deliver as you say, that's a matter for them. I'm interested in the implementation of what was hither to the Commonwealth government's policy, which was not to uh put water on people's land without their consent. So, I don't care if it's a SOP or some other arrangement. They're a customer of yours. You're paying them uh uh or they're your agent. Are you going to demand from them that they do not put water on someone's land without their consent?