Senator David Pocock's Additional Comments

1.1The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has resulted in improvements in river health in many parts of the Basin.

1.2I have heard and acknowledge the concerns of farmers, businesses and communities in the Basin regarding the impacts of water recovery. This year I visited communities in the south and north and heard first hand from a wide range of locals. Here in parliament house I’ve continued listening, meeting delegations and hosting two roundtables for a broad cross-section of stakeholders, as well as participating in the Senate committee’s public hearings.

1.3I’ve heard how previous water buy-backs have had ongoing impacts on communities, and people in the regions are worried about how additional water recovery will affect their businesses and communities. Serious concerns about the lack of progress on First Nations water have been raised with me. This is something that needs to be addressed and has been a failure of both sides of politics.

1.4It is important that the remaining water recovery and environmental outcomes for the Basin are delivered in ways that minimise negative impacts on farmers and communities. It is also critical that there is a focus on improving environmental outcomes in the Darling-Baaka as well as the River Murray.

1.5The committee heard concerns from a range of stakeholders about water quality, river health and the impact of invasive species. The issue was raised that the focus on additional water sometimes comes at the expense of a focus on water quality. At the extremes, poor water quality can impact human health, disrupt ecological systems and result in events such as large-scale fish deaths. The urgent need for improved connectivity through the installation of fish passages and a focus on riparian area repair and management has been raised with me on trips into the basin, and was also raised with the committee.

1.6There is a need for better control of invasive species such as carp, hard-hooved feral animals such as deer and pigs and a range of others. Invasive species are a national concern, directly and indirectly responsible for the extinction of many of Australia’s unique species. A 2019 study found invasive species are a problem for 1,257 threatened species in Australia—about four out of five of our threatened species. Examples in the Murray-Darling Basin include carp and also redfin, which are a key threat to Macquarie perch, and eastern gambusia, a small-bodied aggressive fish which nips at the fins of native fish.

1.7Progress in the Murray-Darling Basin has not been reflected in the Snowy and montane rivers. The Upper Murrumbidgee, which flows through Tantangara Reservoir past Cooma and the ACT, is explicitly excluded from the Basin Plan. It receives less than 10 per cent of natural inflows and its ecology is in dramatic decline. The Upper Murrumbidgee stopped flowing in the ACT in December 2019, reducing the Murrumbidgee to stagnant, algae-choked pools at a time when upstream inflows to Tantangara Dam were greater than 40 ML/day. Water was trucked into the Township of Tharwa for drinking and fire-fighting reserves.

1.8Clause 21 of the explanatory memorandum for the Water Act 2007 sets out the general basis on which the Basin Plan is to be developed. It:

…requires the Basin Plan to not be inconsistent with the licence issued under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 of New South Wales (the Snowy water licence). This requirement reflects the previous commitments made by the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian Governments to allow water within the Snowy Scheme to be managed to meet the rights and obligations set out in the Snowy water licence and the principles set out in the Heads of Agreement on the Outcomes of the Snowy Water Inquiry.[1]

1.9What this has meant in practice is that the water reforms implemented via the Murray-Darling Basin Plan have progressed in many other areas of the Basin, while the Snowy and montane rivers—a huge source of water for the Murray‑Darling Basin—remain trapped in an intergovernmental agreement made in 2002.

1.10While the rest of the Murray-Darling Basin has been working over the past decade to get better balances between the social, economic, environmental and cultural values of our rivers, our montane rivers have continued to degrade within the ‘set and forget’ style of rules and management agreed to in 2002—rules which allow rivers to be starved of 90–99 per cent of their flows.

1.11This glaring gap in the current framework has resulted in the documented decline of the upper Murrumbidgee River’s ecological health. Silver perch are now considered extinct in the Murrumbidgee River between Tantangara Dam and the ACT, and there are a number of other native species at risk (Macquarie perch, Trout cod, Murray cod, Two-spined blackfish, Golden perch, Mountain galaxias, Australian smelt, Murray crayfish, Platypus, Rakali and Eastern long‑neck turtles) without increased flows. Under the current framework the social and cultural values are not being met and water quality is frequently poor.

1.12This river is a source of consumptive water for the region, including as an additional source of drinking water for Canberra. However, the nutrient levels often exceed the Australian and New Zealand Drinking Water Guidelines, and sediment and bacteria are also of concern. High levels of enterococci bacteria have led to closures of the river for recreational use over summer. Poor water quality and availability create risks to critical human needs water for Canberra and Cooma in future droughts.

1.13The revised legislation will perpetuate this current state. Water reforms will seek to improve the ecology of the Murray-Darling Basin, except for the critical and delicate headwater systems, which will continue to be driven into the ground by unsustainable levels of water use for hydro-power.

1.14Should the status quo continue under the Restoring Our Rivers Bill, and the Snowy and montane rivers impacted by Snowy Hydro continue to be excluded from best practice river management, we will see the ecology of the broader Murray-Darling Basin benefit from better river management, while simply continuing the managed destruction of our alpine rivers, including the 320km headwaters of the once mighty Murrumbidgee.

Recommendation 1: Increase flows into the Upper Murrumbidgee to a minimum of 21 per cent of natural inflows, or 26–55 gigalitres per year

1.15The allocation from Tantangara for the Upper Murrumbidgee must be increased to a minimum 21 per cent of natural inflows, or 26–55GL per annum. The current volumes of water that go into the river are woefully inadequate to maintain basic functions of the river, including for threatened species, sediment scouring and the drowning out of fish passage barriers.

1.16This increase in flow into the upper Murrumbidgee will likely only result in a 3per cent impact on total Snowy Hydro Tumut releases. Increasing flows would require an increase in the size of the outlet at Tantangara Dam to an outlet with a minimum of 6 GL/d and up to 10 GL/d, which should include consideration for the addition of a power generator to generate energy from releases. Additional flows for the Upper Murrumbidgee must not come at the expense of Snowy and Montane Increased Flows for other rivers and, ideally, the Upper Murrumbidgee should be separated from other Montane Rivers to be managed separately.

1.17The environmental, social and cultural needs of the Upper Murrumbidgee must be prioritised. In the period before Snowy 2.0 comes online, increasing flows into the Upper Murrumbidgee will reduce the electricity that can be generated from diverting flows to Tumut releases. However, as noted above, the reduction would be incredibly small. But without the change, the environmental, social and cultural impact on the region could be catastrophic.

Recommendation 2: Guarantee critical human water needs for the ACT, Cooma and the region

1.18Additionally, adequate water for critical human water needs must be secured for the ACT, Cooma and the region. Canberra is the largest city in the Murray‑Darling Basin, with the ACT population growing faster than any other jurisdiction over the past decade. The population is projected to continue to grow rapidly from 463,000 in 2023 to 784,000 by 2060. Climate change is predicted to reduce rainfall in times of drought, further threatening our water security. Allowances need to be made to account for critical human water needs in Tantangara Dam for the region’s needs during times of drought. Increased environmental and cultural flows should not be substituted or interchangeable with town water supply for towns like Cooma where they rely on the Murrumbidgee for potable water.

1.19The Murray-Darling Basin Plan sets aside provisions for critical human water needs, this should be echoed for the Upper Murrumbidgee through the NSW Water Sharing Plan.It is essential that the ACT be included in these negotiations given how important the Upper Murrumbidgee is for the city of Canberra’s water needs.

Recommendation 3: Adaptive management of Upper Murrumbidgee flows

1.20The management of flows from Tantangara into the upper Murrumbidgee must be more adaptive and responsive to the environmental, social and cultural needs of the region. Accounting arrangements must be developed to enable and encourage carry-over from wet to dry years, and the principles of adaptive management need to be applied and monitored. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office are required to use an adaptive management approach for all water related decisions and this could be mirrored for the Upper Murrumbidgee.

1.21Improved outcomes with the available water could be achieved by managing flows in ways that are more adaptive and responsive to the environmental, social and cultural needs of the region, and by enabling carry-over from wet to dry years. Complementary measures such as riparian restoration, community engagement, threatened species habitat rehabilitation, erosion and sediment control and First Nations involvement would also support better outcomes.

Recommendation 4: Monitoring and research program in the Upper Murrumbidgee

1.22Monitoring of river health needs substantial improvement. Murray-Darling Basin hydrologic indicator sites and requisite stream flow indicators should be installed on the upper Murrumbidgee above Burrinjuck Dam.Although the Upper Murrumbidgee currently sits outside the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, there is a need for this reach of river to be accorded the same attention and reform as is being experienced throughout the rest of the Basin. Monitoring and research is critical for adaptive management, and monitoring of Snowy and Montane rivers needs to be resourced.

1.23Better monitoring and research is needed to improve the understanding of the influence of environmental flows, threats, and available habitat. This would support more adaptive management to achieve better environmental outcomes with the available water.

Recommendation 5: Complementary measures in the Upper Murrumbidgee

1.24There are opportunities to help the Upper Murrumbidgee with complementary measures such as riparian restoration, community engagement, threatened species habitat rehabilitation, erosion and sediment control and First Nations involvement. As you point out, the ACT Government is already raising these measures as a way of improving water quality whilst negotiations are in place for the Upper Murrumbidgee to hopefully receive the water it needs to survive.Make no mistake, we are currently documenting the decline of an important stretch of river with high ecological, social and cultural value.

Recommendation 6: More water for First Nations

1.25The $40 million of water that was announced in 2018 and earmarked for First Nations communities in the basin has been unspent. It has depreciated and even if indexed would not be anywhere near adequate to make a meaningful contribution to securing water for the Indigenous Nations in the basin.

1.26The government needs to commit to improving Indigenous ownership, engagement, and management of water in the Basin. Measures relevant for ‘closing the gap’ also need to be implemented.

1.27The Indigenous River Rangers Program should be expanded to allow Basin Indigenous Nations to play a much greater role in the management of planned environmental water and protect river country. Indigenous River Rangers would also provide more opportunities for Indigenous people to work on country day to day and to contribute to the management and protection of the environmental and cultural values of the Basin.

Recommendation 7: Set up an Invasive Species Solutions Research Fund

1.28Current research and management for the control of invasive species is failing: there are no known solutions for some invasive species; most invasive species continue to spread; new invasives continue to be introduced—all at increasing costs to biodiversity. Status quo will see ongoing and accelerating losses of Australian biodiversity. A more strategic and long-term funding approach is needed—to find solutions for the effective control of invasive species and hence to recover Australian biodiversity.

1.29A dedicated fund would provide year-on-year sustained funding for cutting edge research and the implementation of solutions. Innovations for invasive species would potentially have significant benefits for the ecological health of catchments in the basin and primary producers.

1.30By having a fund untied from a single institution, support can be directed to the best collaborative groups of scientists and managers for each specific problem, maximising the chances of success and impact. Moreover, funds could be used to lever co-investment from governments, research and management institutions. Furthermore, some investment could be directed to drive capacity and skills acquisition in regional and rural Australia, and in Indigenous participation and leadership.

1.31To ensure funding is used as effectively as possible, with long-term benefits for the basin and Australian biodiversity, the security of the Fund should be safeguarded through legislation rather than policy. An independent panel of experts (wildlife ecologists, conservation managers, First Nations representatives, epidemiologists) should be tasked to develop a long-term plan and strategy (e.g. a ten-year plan with biannual review) for the Fund that sets strategic objectives and priorities. A consultation process could be designed to ensure that top-down strategic priorities were being informed by bottom-up expressions of need from end-users. The Environment Minister would be required to consider the strategy and priorities when making funding decisions.

1.32The priorities for research (including experimental trials) could be identified in a structured decision-making process (a well-established approach in conservation science for eliciting expert opinion to reach decisions in a measured, consensus manner), considering issues such as:

Potential benefits to the environment (based on the severity of the threats and the likely efficacy of control).

Co-benefits to agriculture and human health.

Costs, risks, welfare considerations.

Feasibility of implementation (including social licence).

1.33Such a fund would have substantial benefits to biodiversity conservation:

Invasive species are a leading cause of biodiversity decline in Australia; the fund would tackle that problem head-on.

Invasive research and development could be prioritised and delivered in a strategic way (i.e. funding support and direction would be top-down and strategic).

Research with long lead times could be supported, such as synthetic biology possibilities based on gene drives (20+ years); or AI assisted networks of trap-based devices that recognise specific feral species before delivering target-specific toxins.

Research that requires large expenditures in relatively short and intensive field trials in single jurisdictions (to do local eradications and contain spread of newly arrived invasives) could be supported by the greater flexibility allowed by a central national fund. At present, the people who might run these trials are state management agencies with limited budgets.

Systems, capability, and funding support for programs to contain the spread of invasive species would reduce or avoid future costs.

Senator David Pocock

Participating Member

Footnotes

[1]Water Act 2007, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 8.