Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I take issue with a point that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry made on these water access entitlements and ask him to clarify it. I think he was saying that these calculations are being made on the basis of the modified status of a particular piece of country. So it is based on what is there now versus what the original state was. I accept that in a lot of circumstances a fair bit of time has passed between them. I also want him to clarify his point about the amount of water that is actually taken up by a regenerated area versus what it might have been in its native state. I am genuinely interested in this. As I said before, this is a new concept. It is something that I am very concerned about being in the regulations in the first place because it has the capacity to do something that could then be applied to other agricultural pursuits. Quite frankly, the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge would be, rather than a farmer making the decision to plant a crop based on whether he understands he has the water, for some regulation to be imposed on him that he can or cannot plant a crop based on what his water right is.

I put on the record my concern that we are even going down this track in the first place. We will continue to pursue that through the process of scrutinising these regulations. I go back to the point I made earlier that we asked for these regulations back when the bill was being debated and scrutinised by the committee. All of these issues could have been much more easily dealt with, the progress of the legislation through this place could have been much more easily managed, had the government been prepared to do what the opposition asked at the time. In fact, we even moved a second reading amendment to the legislation asking the government to delay the passage of the legislation until the Senate had been able to properly consider the regulations. In my view, that was a very reasonable request. It has been vindicated now because there are legitimate questions and concerns that have been raised by this process.

As I say, this is the first time that I have seen any requirement for any agricultural pursuit to have a high security water licence before there is an entitlement to actually go ahead with that agricultural pursuit. Is this to become the norm? Are we going to see this occur in other circumstances when a farmer is told that he cannot plant his crop unless he has that water right? Are we going to see that be part of an ENGO campaign, for example? I would not be surprised. Here is the precedent. I have often had the discussion with some in the farming community, 'Be careful of what you ask for; you might just get it.' I am quite concerned that this is even in the regulations to start with, but I would like to get a decent sense of the method of its calculation. I would genuinely be interested in the minister putting something on the table in relation to this so that I can get an understanding of where these numbers come from. He says the numbers are from the CSIRO. I am happy to accept that that might be the source, but I would be genuinely interested in having a look at it so I can compare it with some other science that I have read. There is some very good research that I have looked at that talks about the water take-up of trees. The one thing that I do know is that you cannot put a blanket ban on it because it is extremely variable. It varies depending on where in the catchment it is. It varies based on the gradient of the land, whether it is higher or lower in the catchment and whether it is closer to a watercourse or further away.

All of those things vary, yet this table is effectively based on long-term rainfall and a volume of water that a planting might be expected to take up. How can we as a Senate understand the basis of this? That is why I am asking these questions. The uptake of water through tree plantings of any kind is not a new issue. It has been discussed over a number of years. Yes, the MIS circumstance has exacerbated that discussion and, yes, the MIS circumstance has probably prompted some people to say, 'Let's use this as a mechanism to stop people planting trees.' That is not something that I have not seen before: find a point of community concern and then campaign on that to try to stop people undertaking an activity—stock in trade for some ENGOs.

I genuinely would like to see the basis of this. I would really like to understand the basis of the science. How do we get to something that is based on a rainfall range of 100 millimetres one way or the other and then a water offset for an intended uptake? Surely these are the sorts of things that the proponent of a scheme should be required to consider as part of the process. Why be so specific in what you are defining as part of your regulation? Why not have it as part of a project plan that you have to consider this and then include that as part of the approval process? Perhaps that is a better way to do this rather than being specific and saying, 'If you receive average rainfall of 600 to 700 millimetres over the long term, you need a 0.9 megalitre high-security water licence to undertake a tree planting.' That just does not make sense. As I have said, it varies depending on whereabouts in a catchment you are and on the gradient, and it varies according to the species. Different species will have different uptakes. A saltbush will have a different uptake to that of a eucalypt.

We have before us something that has a very specific focus—and it is something that has never been seen before—and all I am asking for is to see the basis of the calculation. I am genuinely concerned that it is there in the first place, because it could be the nasty thin edge of the wedge, but I would genuinely like to look at the basis of this.