Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:02:45 to 1:11:23
Senator Canavan challenges officials on the constitutional requirement for just-terms compensation when environmental water inundates private property.
Topics: Water management, Land management, Government legal services
Speakers: Hon Matthew Canavan, Simon Banks, Hon Murray Watt, Unknown Speaker, Dr. Simon Banks, Interjection
>> Can I just get a clear answer to that question? I mean, we you know, there are plenty of farmers here who are very worried. This is their land. All right. And it's productive land. They paid for it. It's their asset. How would you feel if if a government agency just came and said part of your block now we're just going to use for a period of the year and you got no say over it. Are you going because you you said at the start of this this was your policy uh not to do this. So are you going to ask the New South Wales government not to impinge on someone's property rights and put water on their land without their consent? So,
Senator, we'll continue to deliver our uh water through Water New South Wales or other river operators consistent with the legal arrangements that are in place, which means that in New South Wales, Water New South Wales will deliver the water consistent with their uh legal obligations and uh and we see
to me here then what it seems very clear to me is you're using water New South Wales not just to deliver your water, you're using it to subvert uh I I would say at least the Commonwealth government's policy here and if not the constitutional requirements on the Australian government not to take over someone's property without compensation. >> No, we you you say you don't want to do this. You don't want to put water on someone's land without the consent, but then you're going to wash your hands, excuse the pun, with water here and get water New South Wales to do your dirty work for you.
>> No,
>> that's what's happening here. No,
Senator, we work very closely we we work very closely with landh holders um where um we work through arrangements to deliver water um to wetlands on their on their land. There'll be places like the Guer for example where uh water in New South Wales have their own obligations around uh delivery of water and it's not just
>> so will there be cases where landowners have their own property flooded without >> commonwealth water.
>> There's potential risk where some um uh private land holders may have their um their uh land uh inundated by water that has been delivered in the system.
>> No compensation.
>> No, that the the obligation around management of water within um New South Wales sits with
>> How would you feel? How would you feel if your home was taken over by the government for a period of time with no compensation? How would you feel, Dr.
>> Well, Senator,
>> that's what these people face.
I I I think um my experience in terms of uh working with um landholders in the GUA as an example, we've been able to work uh closely with landholders to understand how do we operate uh within the system to avoid inconveniences like when they're doing harvest and things like that. We've had uh very good relationships with uh with the landholders uh to to avoid u avoid those instances as best as possible.
Well, that's not the view of the land owners in this region. Um, uh, the, uh, I don't have the publication here, but, uh, media story here quotes, uh, Riverina land owners Troy Stone, Paul Funnel, and John and Deb Blackwell, family farmers in the region. They directly quote, "It has actually stolen private lands by stealth." So, it doesn't sound to me like this cooperation is occurring. How how how have you I mean you're working with Water New South Wales. Have you actually met with the affected land owners here in New South Wales to discuss these issues?
>> Was referring to a different part of New South Wales in terms of the the deals that he's had with land holders.
>> Right. Okay. But it's the legislation >> article about asking whether he's dealt
with these people or people around.
>> No, no, no. I'm not asking who's dealt with these people. I've said have you met with affected land owners? >> Anyway, but clearly they're up there. some land owners don't think that they're being treated cooperatively
>> and and Senator I don't know the the source of water that um has been referred to in that article whether it was uh Commonwealth environmental water whether it was a natural flow within the system um like like there's there's a whole variety and and uh of water within the system it's not just all
>> so have you met with affected land owners about this issue
>> um some of the names there not recently but I have met with a couple of those uh folk but a long time ago
So what what's a long time ago? Um
>> back in
>> I mean specifically to discuss the issues around the standing operating procedure and the implications of the water new legislation. Have you met landers about
>> not not in not in the last four years in
in last four years?
>> In the time I've been uh as
>> so you have not met with any land owners affected by >> I meet with land holders all the time. >> Okay. Well, sorry. It was I'm glad I [laughter] clarified that, but you haven't you haven't met with anyone formally or informally discussed the water New South Wales legislation.
>> Uh, no, I haven't because it's uh water new it's New South Wales legislation that they're um amending that they've amended to um by uh their agency being water New South Wales able to deliver.
It very much seems like you're washing your hands of uh what should be in my view the Commonwealth government's obligation not to uh uh take away people's property rights. As I say, it's a constitutional issue here. Have you received advice from the Australian government solicitor?
>> Uh no, I haven't.
>> About the implications of the New South Wales legislation? No, no one's no one in the department's asked for advice, >> Not that I'm aware of, Senator. >> I mean, there's a clear property rights issue here. Uh, and our constitution does protect property rights.
>> So, so Senator, we hold um licenses that sit within the New South Wales water management framework,
>> right?
>> And we deliver the water just like any other or use the water just like any other entitlement holder consistent with um the laws, the policies and and arrangements that are managed by the New
South Wales. Would it be legal for a Commonwealth government agency to pay a state government agency to take someone's land and then not have to pay that land under compensation for it?
>> Senator, we pay you
>> that would not be legal under our constitution. >> Exactly, Lydia. Exactly. I got a fan >> So, >> That would be illegal. >> That would be unconstitutional.
>> No, I just
>> But that's what's happening here. You are paying Water New South Wales to take away people's property rights. That's
that's that's that's a very unfair accusation. No, that's a very unfair accusation to make against the officials. That is not [clears throat] what they're doing. >> Um when we first
>> Oh, we don't even know. They don't even
>> Can you let people answer the finish their sentences? When you started this line of questioning something like 15 minutes ago, Dr. banks made clear um that the Commonwealth environmental water holder cannot and does not flood private land holders land themselves. He has repeatedly for the last 15 minutes explained the distinction with the New South Wales law and government and for you to now accuse Commonwealth officials of breaking the law engaging in unconstitutional behavior is very
unfair. Well, we clearly don't know whether it is unconstitutional or not because we haven't said haven't haven't
got advice. But you said you seem pretty sure.
>> I said it's pretty clear they are. I said it's pretty clear. It's pretty clear that you are washing your hands of these issues. There are serious issues here involving people. I will not engage on whether you'd like this to happen to your own land. >> All right. Cuz you know what the answer would be on that. But you're quite happy to sit there and take away other people's property rights with zero compensation.
>> No one's happy to do anything. Senator, again, you're making unfair accusations towards the officials.
>> Senator, we're operating within the rules, the New South Wales Water Management Act, >> uh, consistent with the rules and the laws, um, that that sit within New South Wales. Our licenses are New South Wales entitlements, and we manage th those entitlements according to the rules, the policies, and guidance um, that is set by the New South Wales government.
>> Yeah. I I just I'm confused now because you started this by saying it was a New South Wales law and had nothing to do with you and now it seems to be the rules you operate under, not the Australian Constitution, which actually protects property rights and you have not even bothered to receive legal
I've explained is that we hold general security entitlements, we hold high security entitlements and supplementary entitlements that are issued and managed um through the New South Wales um legal uh frame water management framework. That's that's what sets our the arrangements for us to operate within