CHAIR—With the formalities over, I welcome everyone here today. The way we have arranged this agenda today is in a series of roundtables because we have a number of witnesses, too many to hear individually in the time available, and so we have grouped the witnesses in terms of common interest. We begin today with the NFF Industry Water Group. We also have Professor Young, who is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, and the Australian Floodplain Association by teleconference, if they are there.

CHAIR—We have an hour and a quarter for this session, which started a bit late. It was scheduled to start at 8.30 am and finish at 10.15 am. What we would like to do is make this very largely a discussion process, but we will give each of the witness groups an opportunity to make a short opening statement of about three or four minutes so as not to use up too much time. Would the NFF Industry Water Group like to make an opening statement?

Talk
Mr Arthur—I would like to introduce the people that we have here. We have Brett Tucker, who is the General Manager, Murrumbidgee Irrigation, representing the irrigation corporations. I am the Chair of the NFF Water Task Force and also the President of the Australian Rice Growers Association. We have Robert Poole, who is the Deputy CEO of ADF. Richard Anderson will join us in a moment. He chairs the VFF Water Committee. And, of course, we have John Cherry.

The NFF has been involved since early February and we were given undertakings by the federal government that we would be fully engaged in the process. The NFF set up an industry working group. That has been a totally inclusive group. Anybody who wanted to engage in that group has been able to. That has included the state farmer organisations, all the commodity groups of the NFF and all of the major irrigation groups. For example, the New South Wales Irrigators Council, the South Australian Murray Irrigators, the Queensland Irrigators Council, Irrigators Australia Limited, and also all of the major irrigation corporations, such as Murray irrigation and Murrumbidgee Irrigation. We certainly supported the principles announced by the Prime Minister in his speech on the 25th, and we are committed to work with the federal government on the detail. I believe the government’s undertaking to engage us fully in the development of the bill was carried through and the vast majority of the issues we put before the government and the legal drafters in the various iterations of the bill eventually have been brought forward. I will hand over to Robert Poole, who will make a very short statement on how he sees the bill in relation to the IGA.

Senator JOYCE—I would like to ask a question to the floodplain users. Would you have any problems with the close in the gap of the uncertainty between the cessation of the resource plans and the inception of the government compensation period, being 1 January 2015? Between September 2014 to 1 January 2015 there is a period of uncertainty. Would you have any problems if that gap were closed?

Talk
Mr Halcombe—No, I do not think so. Could you repeat the last bit, please?

Talk
Senator JOYCE—In the Water Bill, as you know, we have the transitional water resource plans. These ROPs are supposed to be enshrined and they have a cessation period; in September 2014 they come to an end. The government’s compensation kicks off on 1 January 2015. Over September, October, November and December there is a distinct period of uncertainty. Everybody is talking about that uncertainty. That is the only thing that everybody has in common.

Talk
Mr Halcombe—Yes.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Would you have any problems with that period of uncertainty being closed up so those in the irrigation industry have a certainty about their compensable rights?

Talk
Mr Halcombe—There are two questions there. We consider the long term to be of far more importance to us than the short term. On that basis, I do not think we would have a problem with that. But when we keep on talking about compensation, we are presumably talking about compensation for irrigators and we would like at some point to broaden out this concept of compensation for a whole lot of other people as well. The short answer to your question is that we would not have a problem with that.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—There are discussions backwards and forwards from my office about a letter from the Prime Minister. Does a letter from the Prime Minister exist that differentiates from what is currently in the plan? Does anybody know of a letter from the Prime Minister that has a more definitive term for what is a compensable right and what is a structure that should be compensated that is apparently not in the plan?

Talk
Senator HEFFERNAN—I will give the answer. There is a letter from the Prime Minister that says before the ROPs that are in draft form for the lower Balonne and the Warrego are implemented—and this is the policy of the New South Wales farmers in their submission to the committee—there should be a full CSIRO study before the ROP in the lower Balonne and the Warrego is implemented, given that these draft plans are only backed by science that has been misquoted from the Wentworth Group, and also the inclusion in the licence of the independent chair. She does not have any earthworks that make her eligible for a licence; her name is included on the largest overland water license ever issued in Australia—400 gigalitres.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—Thank you. As to overland flows at the top of the Condamine, obviously people have their structures and mortgages in place and they have an expectation that will continue. Is that enshrined as you see it in the Water Bill 2000 as a compensable right?

Talk
Mr Cherry—We are very concerned about the upper Condamine. There are a lot of authorised works in the upper Condamine that are not covered by tradable water allocations. They are covered by licences and other things, because the Queensland government has not had the time to do the information to establish appropriate full allocations in those areas. We are concerned that the risk assignment provisions currently in the bill do not fully recognise those licenses. We have had extensive discussions with the Queensland government and the federal government to try to resolve those issues, and both governments are committed to trying to resolve those issues, but we are concerned that that is not yet reflected in the bill. We would certainly prefer a bit more certainty about it. There is a lot of goodwill there to make sure the issue is resolved, but at this stage I would have to say that is not reflected in the bill.

Senator JOYCE—There are water licenses for sale now. If we iron out these bumps we could be straight into the dealing with, investing in—whatever you want to call it—and fixing the problem right now. All we have to do is deal with these issues that are outstanding and the plan can go forward, if we take out the uncertainty. I am about to leave, so any further questions from me are not actually from me, they are from Senator Heffernan.

Talk
Senator HEFFERNAN—I would like to ask a follow-up question to Professor Young. I obviously support the plan. In considering a scenario where the science is right, would you like to paint a picture for the committee of what happens if you take, by mother nature, somewhere between 3,500 and 11,000 gigalitres out of a system that is 23,000 gigalitres and from which already there is an overextraction of 13,000 gigalitres?