COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE. Budget Estimates. (Public) WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2013 CANBERRA

Transcription

1 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Proof Committee Hansard SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Budget Estimates (Public) WEDNESDAY, 29 MAY 2013 CANBERRA CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such. BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE [PROOF COPY]

2 INTERNET Hansard transcripts of public hearings are made available on the internet when authorised by the committee. The internet address is: To search the parliamentary database, go to:

3 SENATE Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Members in attendance: Senators Abetz, Back, Bilyk, Birmingham, Boswell, Cameron, Colbeck, Heffernan, Joyce, Ludlam, Ian Macdonald, McKenzie, Ruston, Singh, Waters, Williams, Xenophon.

4

5 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 1 SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES PORTFOLIO In Attendance Senator Farrell, Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Executive Dr Paul Grimes, Secretary Mr Malcolm Thompson, Deputy Secretary Dr Kimberley Dripps, Deputy Secretary Mr David Parker AM, Deputy Secretary Ms Donna Petrachenko, Chief Adviser International Biodiversity and Sustainability Australian Antarctic Division Dr Tony Fleming, Director Dr Rob Wooding, General Manager, Support Centre Dr Nick Gales, Chief Scientist Mr Matthew Sutton, Finance Manager Biodiversity and Conservation Division Mr Sean Sullivan, First Assistant Secretary Ms Claire Howlett, Assistant Secretary, Biodiversity Policy Branch Ms Charmayne Murray, Acting Assistant Secretary, Program Delivery South Branch Ms Peta Lane, Acting Assistant Secretary, Program Delivery North Branch Ms Lisa Nitschke, Acting Assistant Secretary, Indigenous Policy Branch Mr Nathan Sibley, Director, Program Support Branch Dr Julie Anorov, Director, Program Support Branch Mr Joshua Thomas, Director, Biodiversity Policy Branch Environment Assessment and Compliance Division Mr Dean Knudson, First Assistant Secretary Ms Barbara Jones, Assistant Secretary, North, West and Offshore Assessment Branch Ms Deb Callister, Assistant Secretary, Queensland and South Australia Assessment Branch Mr James Tregurtha, Assistant Secretary, South-Eastern Australia Assessment Branch Mr Shane Gaddes, Acting Assistant Secretary, Compliance and Enforcement Branch Ms Carolyn Cameron, Assistant Secretary, Strategic Approaches Branch Ms Mary Colreavy, Assistant Secretary, Great Barrier Reef Taskforce Mr James Barker, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Reform Branch Supervising Scientist Division Mr Richard McAllister, Acting Supervising Scientist Mr Keith Tayler, Director, Supervision and Assessment Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division Ms Alex Rankin, First Assistant Secretary Mr Paul Murphy, Assistant Secretary, Heritage North Branch Mr Matthew White, Acting Assistant Secretary, Wildlife Branch Ms Lara Musgrave, Assistant Secretary, Marine Environment Policy and Programs Branch Mr Geoff Richardson, Assistant Secretary, Marine Biodiversity and Biosecurity Branch Ms Jennifer Carter, Acting Assistant Secretary, Heritage South Branch

6 Page 2 Senate Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Environment Quality Division Dr Diana Wright, First Assistant Secretary Mr Andrew McNee, Assistant Secretary, Environment Protection Branch Mr Matthew Dadswell, Assistant Secretary, Environment Standards Branch Mr Bruce Edwards, Assistant Secretary, Waste Policy Branch Sustainability, Policy and Analysis Division Mr Mark Flanigan, First Assistant Secretary Mrs Mary Wiley-Smith, Assistant Secretary, Sustainability and Communities Branch Dr Kathryn Collins, Assistant Secretary, Environment Research and Information Branch Parks Australia Division Mr Peter Cochrane, Director of National Parks Mr Charlton Clark, Assistant Secretary, Commonwealth Marine Reserves Branch Mr Mark Taylor, Assistant Secretary, Parks and Protected Areas Programs Branch Policy and Communications Division Mr Stephen Oxley, First Assistant Secretary Mr Howard Conkey, Acting Assistant Secretary, Communications and Ministerial Services Branch Corporate Strategies Division Ms Dianne Carlos, Chief Operating Officer Ms Lily Viertmann, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services Branch Water Efficiency Division Ms Mary Harwood, First Assistant Secretary Mr Colin Mues, Assistant Secretary, Water Recovery Branch Mr Richard McLoughlin, Assistant Secretary, Irrigation Efficiency Northern Branch Mr John Robertson, Assistant Secretary, Basin Communities and On Farm Branch Ms Lucy Vincent, Assistant Secretary, On Farm and Urban Water Programs Branch Water Reform Division Mr Tony Slatyer, First Assistant Secretary Mr Greg Manning, Assistant Secretary, Aquatic Systems Policy Branch Commonwealth Environmental Water Office Mr David Papps, Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Mr Steve Costello, Assistant Secretary, Policy and Portfolio Management Branch Dr Simon Banks, Assistant Secretary, Environmental Water Delivery Branch Office of Water Science Ms Suzy Nethercott-Watson, Acting First Assistant Secretary Agencies Bureau of Meteorology Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of Meteorology Dr Ray Canterford, Deputy Director, Services Ms Vicki Middleton, Deputy Director, Corporate Mr Graham Hawke, Deputy Director, Climate and Water Dr Neville Smith, Deputy Director, Research and Systems Mr Barry Hanstrum, Acting Deputy Director, Research and System Mr Trevor Plowman, Assistant Director, Finance Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Dr Russell Reichelt, Chairman

7 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 3 Mr Bruce Elliot, General Manager, Environment and Sustainability Ms Margaret Johnson, General Manager, Communication and Policy Coordination Mr John Barrett, Director, Corporate Services Mr Adam Smith, Director, Environmental Assessment and Management Murray-Darling Basin Authority Dr Rhondda Dickson, Chief Executive Dr Fraser MacLeod, Executive Director, Joint Programs Internal Review Taskforce Mr Russell James, Executive Director, Policy and Planning Division Mr Frank Nicholas, Executive Director, Corporate Services Division Ms Jody Swirepik, Executive Director, Environmental Management Division Mr David Dreverman, Executive Director, River Management Division National Water Commission Mr James Cameron, Chief Executive Officer Ms Kerry Olsson, General Manager Industry and Sustainability Mr Matt Kendall, General Manager Planning and Evaluation Committee met at 08:59 CHAIR (Senator Cameron): I declare open this public hearing of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Today the committee continues its examination of the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio. The committee has set Friday, 26 July 2013 as the date by which answers to questions on notice are to be returned. Under standing order 26, the committee must take all evidence in public session. This includes answers to questions on notice. Officers and senators are familiar with the rules of the Senate governing estimates hearings. If you need assistance, the secretariat has copies of the rules. I particularly draw the attention of witnesses to an order of the Senate of 13 May 2009 specifying the process by which a claim of public interest immunity should be raised, which I now incorporate in Hansard. The extract read as follows Public interest immunity claims That the Senate (a) notes that ministers and officers have continued to refuse to provide information to Senate committees without properly raising claims of public interest immunity as required by past resolutions of the Senate; (b) reaffirms the principles of past resolutions of the Senate by this order, to provide ministers and officers with guidance as to the proper process for raising public interest immunity claims and to consolidate those past resolutions of the Senate; (1) If: (c) orders that the following operate as an order of continuing effect: (a) a Senate committee, or a senator in the course of proceedings of a committee, requests information or a document from a Commonwealth department or agency; and (b) an officer of the department or agency to whom the request is directed believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the officer shall state to the committee the ground on which the officer believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, and specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document. (2) If, after receiving the officer s statement under paragraph (1), the committee or the senator requests the officer to refer the question of the disclosure of the information or document to a responsible minister, the officer shall refer that question to the minister. (3) If a minister, on a reference by an officer under paragraph (2), concludes that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document. (4) A minister, in a statement under paragraph (3), shall indicate whether the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee could result only from the publication of the information or document by the committee, or could result, equally or in part, from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee as in camera evidence.

8 Page 4 Senate Wednesday, 29 May 2013 (5) If, after considering a statement by a minister provided under paragraph (3), the committee concludes that the statement does not sufficiently justify the withholding of the information or document from the committee, the committee shall report the matter to the Senate. (6) A decision by a committee not to report a matter to the Senate under paragraph (5) does not prevent a senator from raising the matter in the Senate in accordance with other procedures of the Senate. (7) A statement that information or a document is not published, or is confidential, or consists of advice to, or internal deliberations of, government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document, is not a statement that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4). (8) If a minister concludes that a statement under paragraph (3) should more appropriately be made by the head of an agency, by reason of the independence of that agency from ministerial direction or control, the minister shall inform the committee of that conclusion and the reason for that conclusion, and shall refer the matter to the head of the agency, who shall then be required to provide a statement in accordance with paragraph (3). (Extract, Senate Standing Orders, pp ) Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities Murray-Darling Basin Authority National Water Commission [09:00] CHAIR: I welcome Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, Minister for Science and Research, representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; and portfolio officers. We now turn to outcome 4, and I call officers from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority together with officers from the department in relation to program 4.1, water reform, and officers from the National Water Commission. Does anyone want to make an opening statement? Senator Farrell: No, thank you, Chair. Senator JOYCE: Can the department please provide a list of expenditure under each of the following programs for all of the financial years beginning in , including the most up-to-date spending for the current financial year? Can the department also provide forecasts or projections for these programs over the forward estimates? No. 1, Restoring the Balance. Ms Harwood: Just to clarify, you are wanting the expenditure by year for Restoring the Balance? Senator JOYCE: Yes. From , including the most up-to-date spending for the current financial year. Ms Harwood: The total administered expenditure in was $30,775,346.76; in it was $373,989,659.45; in it was $780,188,070.82; in it was $357,676,795.46; in it was $540,896,438.63; and this year, as at April, it is $700,992, Senator JOYCE: Okay. The Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. Ms Harwood: I might have to take that on notice. I could come back to it during the morning. I just need to find it amongst my many tables. Senator JOYCE: If you take it on notice, when will you get back to us? Dr Grimes: We might just give Ms Harwood a small opportunity to find the material quietly. Senator JOYCE: While you are looking for that, I am also going to be asking about the National Water Security Plan, the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative and the Green Precincts Fund. We probably won t get a chance to get these back on notice, so I need to, as best we can, get these answers now. Dr Grimes: Yes, we will seek to assist you with that. Mr Parker: I am sure we can draw those numbers together for you during the course of these hearings. Senator JOYCE: Today? Mr Parker: Yes. Senator JOYCE: Okay. What I will do, Ms Harwood, is leave those with you. It is going to be Restoring the Balance, the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program, the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns, the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative and the Green Precincts Fund. I want to get those numbers because we want to try and work out where we are going with the department. Can the department indicate what elements of this funding has already been allocated? Can you answer that now or do you want to get back to me on that? Mr Parker: Over the forward estimates?

9 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 5 Senator JOYCE: Yes. Mr Parker: We will have to take that on notice. We will endeavour to get those numbers to you today. Senator JOYCE: I want to get an update of where your intergovernmental agreements are with the states in regards to the implementation of the basin plan. Who is the best person to answer that? Mr Slatyer: The intergovernmental agreement is still going through its development process. Senator JOYCE: It is still going through its development process. What areas of disagreement are there currently? Mr Slatyer: We are not in a position to say that, Senator. There are many issues covered by the intergovernmental agreement, and until it is finalised we are not able to advise of the attitudes of different parties to different provisions. Senator JOYCE: Are we going to get to an agreement? Mr Slatyer: The governments are working actively on that agreement. That is as much as the department is able to say about that. Senator JOYCE: How often are we having meetings about trying to get to an intergovernmental agreement? Mr Slatyer: There have been a large number of meetings at the officials level between water agencies of the Commonwealth and state governments, and there have also been interactions between agencies at central government level. So considerable work has been done to finalise the agreement. Senator JOYCE: What happens if we do not get an agreement. Mr Slatyer: The intention is to get an agreement, Senator. Dr Grimes: I think that it is appropriate to indicate that we are really at the very final stages of the finalisation of the intergovernmental agreement. As Mr Slatyer has indicated, we are not in a position to give you an update on every aspect of that just at this moment. They are matters being considered by governments. But it is very well positioned and we are in the very final stages of consideration of the IGA. Senator JOYCE: Can you tell us which states still have issues outstanding? Dr Grimes: I do not think it would be appropriate to go into that level of detail in these hearings. But I am very comfortable in advising you that the discussions between officials have been very productive, and governments are in the very final stages of the consideration of the IGA. Senator JOYCE: Do you have a draft version of the intergovernmental agreement? Dr Grimes: Yes, there are draft versions of the intergovernmental agreement, and those are very advanced. Senator JOYCE: When is the next meeting between the states and the Commonwealth to discuss the intergovernmental agreement? Mr Parker: There is not presently a meeting scheduled between all officials. There are bilateral discussions taking place, and discussions between water officials are substantially complete, as Dr Grimes has said. Dr Grimes: It is for that reason, because the process is so advanced, that it is not at the point of large-scale meetings. It is really at the very final stages of the IGA consideration by governments. Senator JOYCE: We are now in the process of basically bilateral agreements to finish things off? Dr Grimes: We are essentially making sure that all final details that have been raised by jurisdictions are properly considered and finalised. But, as I have indicated, it is at the very final stages of the process. Senator JOYCE: Have you reached an agreement on Nimmie-Caira? That seems to be belted around all the time. Mr Parker: Not yet. Senator JOYCE: Is that one of the problems we are having with New South Wales, coming to an agreement on Nimmie-Caira? Mr Parker: There are active discussions between the Commonwealth and New South Wales on the Nimmie- Caira proposal. Senator JOYCE: Is it true that there are discussions also in regard to the purchase of the water from Nimmie- Caira by an external party that might be out there? Mr Parker: That has not been discussed between the Commonwealth and New South Wales. Senator JOYCE: What are the areas with Nimmie-Caira that are causing problems? Where does the issue lie there?

10 Page 6 Senate Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Mr Parker: The Nimmie-Caira proposal is a very interesting, large and important proposal. It has basin-wide implications, being effectively at a chokepoint near the confluence of the Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers. It is a complex proposal involving water purchase and land management arrangements, and those issues are being actively worked through between the Commonwealth and New South Wales on a daily basis. Senator JOYCE: If you do not purchase the water, there is nothing to stop a state-owned enterprise from another country purchasing that water and developing it, is there? Mr Parker: Nothing within water policy, that is right. The foreign investment rules are potentially applicable. Senator JOYCE: Are you aware of Chinese interest in purchasing the water at Nimmie-Caira? Mr Parker: I have seen press reports to that effect. Senator JOYCE: Can you give me an update on the progress of Menindee? Ms Harwood: Working with New South Wales, we have agreed the scope of a suite of infrastructure changes at the lakes that would enable them to be run more efficiently, and thereby produce savings in terms of evaporative losses. The next step is to move to the full costing, design and development of the infrastructure side, and also to work with the other states who have an interest in how that project unfolds in terms of the water management at the lakes. We have commenced discussions with South Australia and Victoria on the proposal and how it would work. That is where it is up to. Mr Parker: We are envisaging that before too long a public consultation process would start on the project. Senator JOYCE: Menindee seems to be hanging around forever. Mr Parker: It has been a multiple-decade exercise. Senator JOYCE: Upon the conclusion of Menindee, how much water will we have saved? Mr Parker: That number remains to be finally settled. It depends upon a complex interaction of the changed infrastructure proposals at Menindee. As Ms Harwood mentioned, there is substantive agreement on the possible infrastructure changes at Menindee. It also depends upon the rules of operation of Menindee and where water is held and where it is released from. The present modelling exercises that are being undertaken point to substantive possible savings. How that will be accounted for under the Basin Plan, including the SDL adjustment mechanism, is presently being worked through with New South Wales. Senator JOYCE: So what is the number we come up with? Mr Parker: Well, the number has not been finally settled. Senator JOYCE: Is there a range? Mr Parker: It is in the order of 80 gigalitres. Senator JOYCE: How much money has the government spent on Menindee thus far and what has the money been spent on? My question is how much water has been saved, but no water has been saved at this point in time. But we are looking at a roundabout 80 gigalitres when we complete? Mr Parker: That is correct. The savings come from the implementation of the project. Senator JOYCE: So could I get the number of how much we have spent at Menindee? Ms Harwood: The expenditure to date at Menindee that is, all the technical studies and work so far is around $24 million. I can get you a precise figure. Senator JOYCE: Since we started talking about it to where we are now we have spent only $24 million? Ms Harwood: That is since Senator JOYCE: Do we have studies for $24 million? Ms Harwood: We have a very extensive study of the groundwater resources in the region. It is a major piece of work, using new technologies to get a much better understanding of the groundwater resources in the region, because that is relevant. Part of the project is also making sure that Broken Hill's water supply is secure. Senator JOYCE: So how much have you spent on studying groundwater? How much of that $24 million was into studies of groundwater? Ms Harwood: The cost of the groundwater work is in the vicinity of $22 million. Senator JOYCE: So $22 million on groundwater studies. What has been the outcome of those studies? Ms Harwood: An interim report was released last year from Geoscience Australia that is up on our website. A final report, which is an extensive technical report on the work, will be released soon. The result is a completely

11 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 7 new understanding of the scale, distribution and character of the groundwater resources in the region. It is major new information. Senator JOYCE: In your own words, give me a rundown of how it works. Mr McLoughlin: The work by Geoscience Australia has identified in the study area approximately 100 kilometres or so north and south of the Menindee Lakes on the Darling flood plain some 14 new aquifers that were previously unknown to groundwater science, with a very large volume of water currently stored in those aquifers. The final reports will be available, as Ms Harwood said, in coming weeks. That should underpin that part of the election commitment from 2007 that relates to water security for Broken Hill. Senator JOYCE: How much water, in your estimation, is stored in those aquifers, and what is the conductivity of it? Mr McLoughlin: The draft report released last year, with the final numbers made public in coming weeks, estimated current storage volumes of up to around 3,000 gigalitres of groundwater. There is a lot of work to go yet on finalising that, and storage volume is not the same as the sustainable yield of potential groundwater. However, Geoscience Australia will have estimates of that, including sustainable yields, potentially available for the summary reports and new work that is being released shortly. Senator JOYCE: What is the conductivity of that water, the saline content of that water. I know that you understand that, but for the purpose of Hansard Mr McLoughlin: Yes, I do. It varies substantially between aquifers and between the depths of the aquifers. I do not have the reports in front of me, but there are substantial quantities of water that is effectively freshwater or less than 3,000 microsiemens. Senator JOYCE: Is there any perviousness between the aquifers? If you take water from the bottom aquifer does it affect the top aquifer? Mr McLoughlin: One of the technical criteria for this work was that they were semi-confined aquifers so that there was no impact on surface groundwater or on groundwater dependent vegetation. So that has been a key component of the work. Senator JOYCE: But if you tap a bottom aquifer do you affect the aquifers above it? Mr McLoughlin: Potentially, and that would have to be tested. If one of these aquifers were ever to be utilised as a drought security supply for Broken Hill, pump testing would need to determine that and what the risks of surface water would entail. Senator JOYCE: I am interested to know how you go about doing that. This is not a trick question. How do you go about finding out whether taking water from the bottom aquifer might affect the top aquifers? Mr McLoughlin: As part of the work, Geoscience Australia drilled test bores in the areas and put data loggers in the bores. They have been watching the height of those aquifers over the last two years or so in various places. The pump testing would need to determine what the response of the aquifer was to a draw down in terms of what the water table did in response to pumping. Senator JOYCE: Do you generally find that there is a bit of a response effect what is your terminology for it? in the upper aquifers? Mr McLoughlin: I assume that there would be, but I am starting to get out of my technical depth here. That is maybe a question that we can take on notice for Geoscience Australia. Senator JOYCE: Is that a unique feature just down there or would that be a pertinent feature of most aquifers that if you take water from the bottom aquifer it affects the aquifers above? Mr McLoughlin: I think that is a question we would take on notice. It is one of those things that would be dependent on the geology of the area and the aquifer concerned, I would have thought. Senator JOYCE: That is an interesting question in regards to the coal seam gas. When will we start to do some earthworks at Menindee? Obviously everybody is fascinated by the studies, but they really want to see something actually happen. I know that you have to go through all of the preliminary studies, but ultimately people will want to walk out there and say 'We are doing this.' When does the earthmoving and the sorts of tactile construction components of Menindee start actually happening? Mr McLoughlin: We are in discussion or negotiation with New South Wales on a draft funding agreement for the New South Wales Office of Water to prepare a detailed project plan for implementation of the agreed infrastructure. We have done some preliminary costing on that. It is a matter of, over the next six to 12 months, preparing detailed construction plans, environmental approvals, and planning approvals and processes.

12 Page 8 Senate Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Mr Parker: Any construction timelines are contingent on the weather and in particular the amount of water coming down the Darling. It would not be technically feasible to start the construction right now, for instance. Senator JOYCE: How much water has been saved at Menindee by any works? I suppose none has been saved yet by any works. How much do we actually have stored at Menindee at the moment? Ms Harwood: The authority might be able to answer that question. Senator JOYCE: We have not booked any savings of water at Menindee yet have we? Ms Harwood: No. Mr Parker: No. Senator JOYCE: In construction work you have done thus far, what are the savings that you have booked? Ms Harwood: I could work through those in detail, but the major projects that have water efficiency savings for which the Commonwealth has received a share for the environment would include the Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project and the Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program, which is now all under contract. The Commonwealth On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program has substantial yields of water. The first two rounds of that are well underway. Some of the projects are completed, and the third round will be under contract soon. Then there are other state priority projects which yield water, including the Queensland on-farm program. The New South Wales farm modernisation program is getting underway with the first tranches of contracts there, and the pilot for that program yielded water. The early projects in the Basin Pipe program in New South Wales will be bringing their yields forward, and the private irrigation infrastructure program in South Australia has also yielded water savings for the Commonwealth. I can provide you with a detailed list of the sorts Senator JOYCE: I suppose what everyone is interested in really is what it adds up to. Ms Harwood: The water recovery through infrastructure as of 30 of April is 313 gigalitres. Senator JOYCE: How much did you spend doing it? Ms Harwood: I should say also that that went up just a couple of weeks ago by another 30 gigalitres because the final contract came in with Murrumbidgee irrigation. Senator JOYCE: So we are up to 343. How much have you spent to get that 343? Ms Harwood: I will take that on notice. I would need to add up all the contracts that go with that 313. Senator JOYCE: Plus the 30 on top of that. Ms Harwood: Yes. Senator JOYCE: What is the status of the draft recovery strategy and when will it be finalised? Ms Harwood: We received comments from a range of bodies and individuals on the draft water recovery strategy and we will be preparing a final. We are working on that at the moment to take in those comments and to prepare. When I say a final, it will be a first edition of that because it will need to be an evolving document that reflects the changes that occur as we proceed through to the full implementation of the basin plan. It will need a major review in 2016 when we know the results of the SDL adjustment mechanism. Senator JOYCE: Sorry, I am trying to work out when it will be finalised. When will the draft recovery strategy be finalised? Ms Harwood: I do not have a precise date for the release of that. Senator JOYCE: So we are reviewing it in We have to finish it before we can review it. Ms Harwood: We will release it this year, I just do not have a precise date for when the first formal version of the Commonwealth water recovery strategy will be released. Senator JOYCE: How much water does the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder currently have? Ms Harwood: Is that in terms of the actual registered holdings for the Commonwealth? Senator JOYCE: Yes. Ms Harwood: The contracted is the 313 gigalitres. That is under a works contract. Sorry, the total water recovery in contracted recoveries is 1,600 gigalitres. That has been recovered towards the 2,750 of the basin plan. That comprises 1,119 gigalitres of secured water purchases; 313 gigalitres, as of April, for infrastructure; 11 gigalitres gifted by Queensland; two gigalitres from the Water Smart Australia project; and 154 gigalitres recovered through state government actions, as at September 2012.

13 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 9 Senator HEFFERNAN: How much supplementary water is in that? It might be even better just to break it up into high security, general allocation and supplementary bearing in mind that supplementary used to be off allocation. It should never have been licenced. Ms Harwood: I can give you the figures for supplementary for water purchases secured. I just need to do a breakdown. There is not much supplementary through the infrastructure programs. There is for some for things like metering where you get a pro rata water yield from the projects, but in general the infrastructure projects yield general security of high security. Apart from, I should say, the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project, where the savings reflect the character of the reconfigurations that are taking place. There are some low reliability water shares from that. Senator JOYCE: All I am trying to work out is how much water the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder currently holds, because where I really want to head to is how much we are actually using, how much are we storing, how much have we lost and carried over and how much could have been basically sent back to the farming sector because we could not use it and we lost it? Ms Harwood: The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is a separate outcome and he is on after this session. Senator JOYCE: Great! Then we will prepare ourselves for that question so that when they turn up we get an answer. If you just go back to Menindee, what flow conditions do you need before you can start work at Menindee? Ms Harwood: I think it is how much water there is in the lakes at the particular sites where the works are going to occur. I do not have the precise figures on that, but for some of the things where you are changing outlet regulators or points of connection between the lakes, you need the Lakes to be empty or near empty to do the works. Senator JOYCE: When are these conditions likely to occur, given what is in the system? Mr McLoughlin: There is some surface water infrastructure that could potentially go ahead, including a new outlet regulator from Menindee Lakes. But one of the issues for the inefficiency of Menindee Lakes is the amount of dead storage volume in the lakes. Looking at opportunities to reduce that dead storage volume by drainage channels to new outlet regulators is part of the mix of potential surface water infrastructure. That could not be done unless the lakes were dry. It is not likely with current storage levels, as I understand them, that Menindee Lakes itself would be dry potentially for another couple of years, even in wet conditions. So dry conditions would be needed for quite a while. Senator JOYCE: You are going to need a drought before you can get back into it, aren't you? Mr McLoughlin: Into the lake itself, but some of the other surface water infrastructure can proceed. Senator JOYCE: I want to refer you to a discussion paper, Trading of Commonwealth environmental water, released in November The document was released for comment until May On your website it says: The next step in the process will be the public release of a position paper with our responses to the issues raised in the submissions. This will inform development of operating rules which will establish the general framework within which trade will occur. When will the position paper can be released? Mr Parker: We can take that question under outcome 6.1. Senator JOYCE: So you have an answer, and you will take that question in a subsequent outcome. Senator HEFFERNAN: Will you answer it in that outcome? Mr Parker: We will endeavour to give you the best possible answer. Senator HEFFERNAN: Do you know the answer yourself? Mr Parker: I will give you an overview. The precise time line for the release of that paper has not been determined. Senator JOYCE: There is your answer. Ms Harwood: I have those figures you wanted. Do you want me to read those into the record? Senator JOYCE: Yes. Ms Harwood: The green precincts funding, I should say, is reported inside the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns, so I will start with that program. In and these are rounded figures the expenditure was $10 million; in it was $13.5 million; in , the figure was $18.8 million; in 2010-

14 Page 10 Senate Wednesday, 29 May , the figure was $22.4 million; in , the figure was $86.4 million; and the figure for , which I think is the total budget figure, is $58 million. For the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative, starting in , the figure is $600,000; in , the figure is $4.7 million; in , the figure is $2.3 million; and in , the figure is $200,000. That program concluded in that year. Under the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan, the first year in which there is expenditure is , where the figure is $24 million. Then in , the expenditure for that program is $92.8 million; in , the figure is $51 million; in , the figure is $320.2 million; and in , the figure is $117.9 million. I will also read you the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program figures. In , the figure is $137,127,000; in the next year it is $82,853,000; in , it is $235,815,000; in , it is $270,606,000; and in , it is $608,339,000. The expenditure for this year will be close to $590 million. I will need to adjust that figure. We are not quite at the end of the financial year, but our expected expenditure for this year is between $590 million and $600 million. Senator BIRMINGHAM: For those of us who do not take shorthand, is it possible to get Ms Harwood to table the information that she has given Senator Joyce across these programs and the funding? CHAIR: Ms Harwood, is that possible? Ms Harwood: Yes. We can prepare that and submit it to the committee. CHAIR: What is the time frame? Mr Parker: Today. Senator BIRMINGHAM: While we are still in session would be good. Senator RUSTON: Could you also table the same information for the Strengthening Basin Communities program as well? Ms Harwood: Yes, I will. Senator JOYCE: In answer to question number 46 from the last estimates, the department stated that it had $180 million unallocated from the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. How much do you have left unallocated now? CHAIR: Ms Harwood, before you go into that, is it possible for one of your officers to start preparing those documents. Mr Parker said 'today' and there is obviously some concern at trying to get the documents as soon as practicable. So could you get someone working on it? Ms Harwood: Yes. I think that the remainder in SRWUIP remains about that level. I will confirm that. Senator JOYCE: So it is still $180 million? Ms Harwood: Yes. Senator HEFFERNAN: That would be the sort of money you would use on Nimmie-Caira? Ms Harwood: The unallocated amount in SRWUIP is money that has no speaking against it. New South Wales has $208 million of state priority project funding agreed through the 2008 intergovernmental agreement, which it has yet to allocate to a specific project. That is separate and different from the $180 million that is unallocated. Senator HEFFERNAN: The proposition that New South Wales has put to you on the buyback of Nimmie- Caira is out of this bin? Ms Harwood: No, it is not. Senator HEFFERNAN: Well where is it out of? Ms Harwood: New South Wales's proposal is to do the project as a state priority project, and it would be proposing that the funding for that comes from the remaining $208 million which New South Wales has available. Senator HEFFERNAN: Which is for water buybacks. Ms Harwood: No. It is part of the sustainable rural water use and infrastructure program. Senator HEFFERNAN: It does not matter if you spend most of the money on the land and not on the water. Given that you agreed before they issued the licence CHAIR: Senator Heffernan, please allow officers to respond even to take a breath to get a response would be good. Senator HEFFERNAN: Just for the record, as you know, before the licences were issued under this proposition which is only a proposition at this stage from New South Wales there was an agreement before the

15 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 11 licences were issued to pay 2¼ times the value of the water to acquire the water and the land. I can go into great detail on why I think that is a fraud of the public purse but we'll leave it at that. Senator JOYCE: I really need to clarify over what years that $180 million is unallocated. Ms Harwood: It has no project; it is not subject to any commitment. There is about $570 million of other money in SRWUIP which is the sum of the remaining funds under the original state priority projects. So each of the states has state priority projects underway. Some of them have the majority of their funding out. But in each state there is an amount of funding from the original amounts committed in the IGA of 2008, which has yet to be assigned or come in under contract for a specific project. So that money is committed but it is not contracted. The $180 million has no project assigned or aligned against it. Senator JOYCE: Over how many years can that $180 million be allocated? Ms Harwood: SRWUIP covers a very wide array of contractual commitments. Senator JOYCE: Could it be 10 years? Ms Harwood: The program runs until Senator JOYCE: We should have it all parked away before the great depression starts. Ms Harwood: Yes. We basically manage within the appropriation provided for SRWUIP each year in both the Treasury and the departments administer appropriation and manage the stream within that. So the $180 million sits in that stream. Senator JOYCE: There is no definitive place where it sits it is just between now and 2019? Ms Harwood: In essence, yes. It is in the space where we stack up all the contracted commitments in each year. We have are an amount remaining in each year that has yet to come under contract. Senator JOYCE: How much water has been recovered towards the basin plan target? Ms Harwood: There has been 1,600 gigalitres recovered so far in long-term average annual yield terms towards the 2,750. Plus very recently we signed the final Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program in New South Wales with Murrumbidgee Irrigation, which yielded, from memory, 30 gigalitres or around that. It might be 33. Senator JOYCE: Of that 1,600 gigalitres, how much is buyback? Ms Harwood: There is 1,119 gigalitres of secured water purchases. Senator JOYCE: How much of this water is from infrastructure savings? I suppose it is the remainder, is it? Ms Harwood: Three hundred and thirteen gigalitres of it is from contracts for infrastructure works. Senator JOYCE: And there is another 30 about to happen? Ms Harwood: Yes. The 30 has just come under contract, but these figures were for the end of April. Senator JOYCE: So there is another 30 on the way? Ms Harwood: Yes. Senator JOYCE: In making the rest up to 2,750, what is the plan at the moment? Where are you looking? Ms Harwood: For the rest of the way to 2,750, we are expecting to get at least another 270 gigalitres from infrastructure projects. That is to achieve a total of 600 gigalitres in long-term average annual yield terms from the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. Senator JOYCE: Eighty of that will come from Menindee. Are you budgeting for that? Ms Harwood: Menindee is an interesting case in that it is evaporative savings. Without complicating things, it is not necessarily a gap-bridging saving. It may be more of a SDL adjustment to account for the evaporative savings of the project. The effect will be the same. If it achieves an 80 gigalitre offset to the 2,750 then it counts either way. Senator JOYCE: I am just trying to work this out. I am a simple soul. You have 1,600 gigalitres long-term average. Out of that and I'm doing it very quickly you have 1,119 from buybacks, so that would mean that there is about 481 that is sort of left over. You have 313 of that from infrastructure. Am I getting the numbers right, because I'm just doing them in front of me as I go? We are still short some numbers here, aren't we? Mr Parker: I might give you a sort of top-level answer. If we start at 2,750 as the starting point specified as the gap Senator JOYCE: If my maths is correct, you are still looking for about 130.

16 Page 12 Senate Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Mr Parker: I think that it is slightly more than that. We start at 2,750. There is a potential under the SDL adjustment mechanism from environmental works and measures and other measures to reduce the actual recovery of water by up to 650 gigalitres. That is written as a mechanism in the plan. So it is 2,750 minus up to 650 gigalitres. Then, as Ms Harwood said, we are expecting in the vicinity of 600 gigalitres from infrastructure. So 2,750 minus 650, minus 600 takes you to 1500 gigalitres of, effectively, water purchase. I am talking here in round numbers. So there are approximately 300 Ms Harwood: If the 650 of offsets is achieved, of the SDL adjustment, that would leave 550, at least 270 of which we are expecting to get through infrastructure to bring the total to 600. That would mean the remaining water purchase would be 280 gigalitres. Senator JOYCE: What areas are we strategically behind? Where is that 280 gigalitres of buyback? That in essence reflects an economic effect on a district. Where is that coming from? Ms Harwood: We are operating the water buyback program in the interim essentially with an assumption to allow space for the full 650 gigalitres of offsets to be achieved. What that means is that there is still water recovery to do in New South Wales to bring them to the point where, if they got their full share of the 650, the gap would be breached. But in Victoria and South Australia, in the short term, there is no requirement for water buyback to bridge the gap. Because if they got their full offset value out of the 650 gigalitres allowed for, then the gap would be bridged in those states. Senator JOYCE: So this 280 gigalitres is predominantly going to come from New South Wales and Queensland? Ms Harwood: There is also water recovery to proceed in Queensland. The other thing we are doing at the moment is, in the northern basin, focusing on where there is an in-stream gap at the moment, allowing space also for the northern basin scientific review to take place so that if there is a change to the figures of the distribution or the apportionment of the downstream component in the northern basin, we don't overshoot the mark in some way. And you would have seen that we have had three tenders in the Condamine-Balonne. There is only a limited number of catchments where there is an in stream gap to bridge in the northern basin. Senator JOYCE: So there could be a review in the northern basin which would affect whether that 280 is 280 it might be less or it might be more. Ms Harwood: The review in the northern basin might affect where we recover the water to meet the adjustment, if there is an adjustment, to how the SDLs are set in the northern basin or how the downstream needs are to be met in the northern basin. Senator JOYCE: When will that review be completed? Ms Harwood: The authority is leading that review. Senator JOYCE: Whereabouts are they at the moment? Dr Dickson: The review program has already commenced. The work is due to be completed over the next couple of years. We are working closely with the Northern Basin Advisory Committee and with local communities in managing that process. It is going to be looking at the environmental water requirements and the SDLs and the potential for different recovery mechanisms, so to speak, that might improve the efficiency of the outcomes in the northern basin. So it is looking particularly at the Barwon-Darling, where there is a downstream need from many of the tributaries, and it is also looking at the Condamine-Balonne. Senator JOYCE: Have you been in negotiations with the new owners of Cubbie Station for purchases of water from them? Mr Parker: The answer is no. Senator JOYCE: So if you don't get the water from Cubbie Station, where are you going to get it from. Mr Parker: I was answering your quite specific question. It is open to the owners of Cubbie Station to put offers into the tender process. That is the way that we conduct the purchase arrangements. People come in through the front door through tender processes. There has been one example where, as a result of the very complex nature of the offer, we entered into negotiations, and that has been subject to discussions in this committee before. But we are not undertaking negotiations with Cubbie over any offers that they may have made. Senator HEFFERNAN: If you were, it would be the overland allocation or the extraction allocation? Mr Parker: That would depend, hypothetically, on what they offered. Senator HEFFERNAN: If it were overland, which is in the press, how in God's name can you buy that water back and shepherd it to somewhere else in the system when it is peculiar to that landscape?

17 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 13 Mr Parker: That is a very interesting question, Senator. The issue of shepherding is a matter of substantive discussion between ourselves and New South Wales. Senator HEFFERNAN: Could I also get you to note the cost of the earthworks to shepherd the water, and that that flood plain is peculiar to a lot of other flood plains in Australia in that the water actually leaves the river and is extracted as overland flow. But if nature had its way, it actually returns to the river so that the 271/2 per cent of mean flow at the Darling that the Culgoa used to deliver, which is now 4 1/2 per cent, will not be fixed with that proposition. Senator JOYCE: How much of that 280 do you intend to get from Queensland? Mr Parker: We don't have a precise figure split for that, Senator, but in the Balonne there is an in-stream gap to bridge set in the basin plan of around 100 gigalitres, and we have made Senator JOYCE: You already have some of that, haven't you? Ms Harwood: Yes, we have. I would need to check exactly how much remains. Senator JOYCE: Is it 35 or 40? Ms Harwood: I think there is more than that still to recover. Senator JOYCE: No, that is how much you have got. Ms Harwood: I am not sure if it is up to 40, but I will check. Senator JOYCE: The problem being, of course, that if it is between 35 and 40 then it is between 60 and 70 still to recover, and that would mean devastation to St George. If Cubbie Station is not in the market place, then you are starting to run out of places you can go for it. Did you buy Clyde's water? You bought a section of Todd's water. Ms Harwood: Sorry, I am looking at this and listening at the same time. Senator JOYCE: I am just trying to work out where we are going to get the water from. Because it is anecdotal, but I am sure it is a reflection of other parts of the basin. You have to start asking the question of where on Earth this water will come from. Ms Harwood: The recovery to date in the Condamine-Balonne is 33 gigalitres in long-term yield terms. Senator JOYCE: It is close to 35. Okay. So you are looking at 67. If Cubbie have no offer on the table, where is that 67 going to come from? Ms Harwood: We have been running a series of tenders in the lower Balonne in Queensland. We have run three this year and are securing water sequentially through those. We have until 2019 to bridge the gap, and we have a sort of steady measured presence in the market to achieve that. Also, we have infrastructure projects operating in that catchment as well. So far, two of that 33 has come from infrastructure, but Queensland has asked to expand their on-farm program by using their remaining money from their state priority project of $40 million to make the total expenditure on their on-farm program greater. So we would be expecting further yields through the infrastructure program as well. Senator JOYCE: But you also have to get some of that 143-gigalitre shared amount from the Condamine- Balonne, don't you? Ms Harwood: The connectivity of the catchments and the extent to which they can contribute to the downstream recovery is really one of the issues that is central to the northern basin review. Senator JOYCE: If it is currently about 50 gigalitres and you still need 65 or 67 gigalitres, then it is 110. The total usage around St George is only about 250. That would be half the town gone. Ms Harwood: It is a hypothetical question, Senator. Because we do not know yet the relative contributions of the catchments. We also have a very significant on-farm investment program operating in Queensland, and much of that water could be achieved in ways that had a positive socio-economic impact. Senator JOYCE: Such as? Ms Harwood: Modernisation of on-farm systems, reducing evaporation from storages on-farm et cetera basically sharing savings from farm upgrades in that catchment. Senator JOYCE: And you have programs going on that now? Ms Harwood: Yes. Queensland has put the lion's share of its state priority project funds towards a long run on-farm irrigation efficiency program. Senator JOYCE: That water goes down and across the Culgoa flood plain and bifurcates. Some ends up in Narran Lakes at the terminal wetland. So the connection is not as apparent there. I was talking to water resources

18 Page 14 Senate Wednesday, 29 May 2013 engineers and they say that if you try to shepherd water from the Namoi dam you would be lucky to get 10 per cent to South Australia. So how on earth are you going to go getting water from Queensland across a bifurcated flood plain? What happens if they prove there is not the connection there, what are you going to do then? Ms Harwood: I think that that is a matter for the authority in terms of how the Senator HEFFERNAN: It won't work; I can tell you now. Ms Harwood: review unfolds in the north. Dr Dickson: Senator, that is one of the key things that the science review is going to be looking at that is, the connections between the northern tributaries and the Barwon-Darling. As you say, there are very limited connections between some tributaries in the Barwon-Darling and for others it is not clear-cut. It is precisely that distribution, rather than doing it equally between them, which does not make any sense, that the whole process is to look at that is, what the real connections are to be able to determine the relative contributions from the different tributaries. CHAIR: Senator Joyce, before you go on can I just indicate that I do have a lot of senators seeking the call. Can you manage another 10 minutes? Senator JOYCE: Sure. It becomes a trick of mathematics, because we are not getting it from the northern catchment. I will be honest: I think it is more a theoretical concept than an actual concept. I live there and it just doesn't pulsate through. It becomes terminal wetlands, and there is an absorption of about one megalitre per hectare. It looks great on a map but it just doesn't work in practice, unless you want to create channels and completely change the nature of what is going on. I think then the conservation movement will go off and get very excited, and so will the local farmers, too, by the way. But that means that if you are not getting the water from there, you have to get it from one of the catchments as you go south. So where are we going to the Gwydir, the Namoi? Where are we going to get this water? Dr Dickson: It is probably worth saying that we are talking about the in-stream and the downstream shared amount for the Barwon-Darling. The in-stream amounts are all to look after the health when there is no expectation there will be any water going through from there. How the downstream amount for the Barwon- Darling is allocated between the different tributaries is a different issue, and that is the one that we will be looking at through the science review of where those connections can be made. Senator JOYCE: Thank you, Dr Dickson. But the problem is that we have the legislative cap in place, so we are now trying to do the research that would actually affect what would be possible to get in that legislative cap. We seem to be doing post hoc research. It is calling into question our capacity to meet the water of that cap. I wish you all the best of luck in trying to do the on-farm works to get, probably, 120 gigalitres from around St George and Dirranbandi. Unless you are into Cubbie Station, it is just not possible. Even if you did get it, you would not be able to get it downstream, and if you are not getting it downstream and you have to play to a legislative cap, that means you have to get it from another catchment. That means all the other catchments come back into play and they start asking questions about what is going to happen to them. How do we answer that question for them to try and make this thing stick together? Dr Dickson: In the basin plan the downstream was not allocated at the time, and it was left to having further considerations for that through the review we have been talking about. The capacity to do this extra work was something that was wanted by the communities. We got the message fairly clearly that they wanted to have an opportunity to review some of the science and how the tributaries contribute. So that is the purpose of doing that. Senator JOYCE: If we find that that there are only a couple of catchments that are actually connected to the Darling, does that mean that they will have to contribute all of the 143 gigalitres? Let's take the Mooney, for instance: you would have to take every licence and even that would only get you 20 or something. Dr Dickson: That is one of the issues. Already there are some contribution to the downstream. I cannot remember exactly what it is. We can get that to you later, but it is in the documents. But that is what is a fair distribution of the contribution to the downstream element from those catchments. I do not think we can comment on that yet. We made some assumptions earlier on. We want to have those thoroughly tested over the next couple of years. Senator JOYCE: Where it becomes extremely tenuous, of course, is the social impacts that would be derived from those catchments that, unbeknownst to them at this point in time, might be about to contribute vastly more water. Therefore, with the economic impacts for those towns, villages, or communities who have every right to be protected, just like a person in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne how are we going to look after them? This would mean we would have to take all their water.

19 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senate Page 15 Dr Dickson: I do not think it will end up in that sort of situation, but in the process that we have over the next couple of years we are doing some extensive additional work on social and economic issues. A lot of it is about working with communities to get a better understanding of the key things that are of concern to them in that. Senator HEFFERNAN: So it is the overland flow you are talking about. Senator JOYCE: No, it would be licences. Senator HEFFERNAN: What sort of water do you want to buy? Dr Dickson: The most efficient way to get the recovery with the least impact and still get your environmental outcomes is a key focus of the review. Senator HEFFERNAN: But in Senator Joyce's territory this is the problem. Dr Dickson: So we do not have any predetermined assumptions on where it might come from. Senator HEFFERNAN: This is the basic problem not yours; you did not cause it. There is 1,500-odd gigalitres of on-farm storage for a river system that has 1,200 gigalitres of mean flow and an 830 per cent variability. What you are talking about is mission impossible I am sorry if you know the figures and know the game. I will not use the bush language I would use. Senator JOYCE: I might quickly go through this. What volume of water entitlements have been secured for Murray-Darling Basin to go towards the sustainable diversion limits. You have answered that question, haven't you? That was 1,600. How much has been spent on the infrastructure projects that have delivered or are expected to deliver water savings into the Murray-Darling Basin to contribute to the SDL set by the Basin Plan? Have you answered that? Mr Parker: I think we may have, but could you just repeat the question? Senator JOYCE: How much has been spent on infrastructure projects which have delivered or are expected to deliver water savings into the Murray-Darling Basin to contribute towards the SDL set by the Basin Plan? Mr Parker: Yes, I think we have answered it, and that will be part of the document that we are preparing for the committee today. Senator JOYCE: How much water under the Living Murray Initiative has been carried over to ? Ms Harwood: I am sorry, could you ask that again? Senator JOYCE: How much water under the Living Murray Initiative has been carried over to ? Ms Harwood: The authority will take that one. Ms Swirepik: In the Living Murray we had 123 gigalitres carried over from last year. Senator JOYCE: Where is that water? Ms Swirepik: It is within the Murray system. So it does not get held anywhere in particular. Actually, your entitlement gives you a right to access the resource, and the river operator decides where that is coming from. So it is not held in a particular storage. Senator JOYCE: So if I wanted to, not that I do but just so that I can, any model only stands to reason if you can question the reason behind it and get delivery of the outcomes into it. In fact, if I want to buy that water back, where would I be getting it from? Ms Swirepik: If you wanted to buy it back, you would buy it back off us. Senator JOYCE: But where would I stick my water pump in? Ms Swirepik: The physical nature is not linked in the way that you are suggesting. What you do is buy the water back on the market and that then gives a different person the right to access part of the resource in the Murray system. So at any time anybody culls their water, whether that is us or an irrigator, what the river operators will do is actually assess whether that need can be met from flows in stream or whether they have to release from storages. So no one's water is actually held in any particular storage. Senator JOYCE: So for someone listening to this, if someone is talking about 123 gigs held over, this is really just a theoretical aspiration. You could not actually find the water, if you wanted to; it is not actually there. It is an aspiration. It is part of a model rather than the actual water itself. The water has long gone. Ms Swirepik: No. The water is part of the resources of the system and it is water that was not used last year, which any user can choose to carry over within the rules that apply to the users in that state. Senator JOYCE: Is any of it held in the public storage? Ms Swirepik: As a long-term average, yes, of course some would be held in the public storage.

20 Page 16 Senate Wednesday, 29 May 2013 Senator JOYCE: How much is held in the public storage? Ms Swirepik: That is not something that you can determine because, until you order the water and an operator assesses whether they can meet all of the orders in stream Senator JOYCE: It is a book thing in a paper tray, isn't it? Ms Swirepik: It is a paper tray, but it does relate to what is physically in the system. So in just the same way as there has been a very large amount of carryover from other users in the system over the recent years, basically that does mean that water is held in the various dams in the system it is not in a particular dam and, depending on where that flow is called to, an operator will decide whether they release water from Menindee Lakes, from Lake Victoria or from the Hume Dam. Senator JOYCE: Just going back to buybacks, how much water is going to come from buybacks in the southern system under the water recovery strategy? Ms Harwood: I am sorry, Senator? Senator JOYCE: How much water is left to come from buybacks in the southern part of the system under the water recovery strategy? Ms Harwood: Of that remaining 280, to get to 2,750, under the hypothesis that the full 4,650 of offsets is achieved, from memory, it is about 200 gigalitres in the south and 80 in the north. But I will confirm that, if that is wrong. Mr Parker: You asked a question about the carryover? Senator JOYCE: Yes. Mr Parker: The carryover figure from into is now reported as 564 gigalitres. That has reduced from earlier reports of 615 gigalitres because of, firstly, a spill in the Macquarie, which reduced the carryover accounting but obviously brought about environmental benefits in doing so, and also the settlement of an accounting issue in New South Wales which reduced the carryover but increased the allocation this year. Senator JOYCE: And the 200 gigalitres in the south includes any carryover, does it? Ms Harwood: No. And I should say that you asked me for the proportion of the buyback. But of course, the amount that comes from the buyback will be what has not been recovered through infrastructure. So, depending in both the north and the south on the rollout of additional contracted water infrastructure projects, that will influence the amount that needs to be purchased, in that the purchase is just for the remainder essentially. We have negotiations underway on a range of projects in the basin for further water efficiency projects and we would only need to purchase the water that does not come. So if a catchment has a large water infrastructure project, that catchment might not need to have much water buyback. I guess that is the point, that the water buyback is not a set amount that we are going and getting. We are moving in a very steady and measured way at a slow pace of water buyback, allowing space for both the infrastructure rollout and for the offset SDL adjustment projects to be explored through to Senator HEFFERNAN: But a carryover of 173 net, 370-odd gross, would fix the book. Are you being held to political ransom by New South Wales in that regard? Ms Harwood: No would be the short answer. Senator HEFFERNAN: Can I just CHAIR: You have a couple of minutes left, Senator Joyce. Senator JOYCE: Can you provide the committee with the model annual inflows of the Murray-Darling for every year since 1895? Please include these up to the latest year possible. Obviously, I want that on notice; I am not going to ask you to do it now. Is it possible to get that in the next Ms Harwood: I am sorry; what was the Senator JOYCE: Can we get model annual inflows into the Murray-Darling for every year since 1895? Ms Harwood: Yes. Senator JOYCE: Has the MDBA appointed members to the Advisory Committee on Social, Economic and Environmental Sciences yet? Dr Dickson: Yes; we announced that some time ago. I will have to check on the exact date. I think it was last year in fact, yes, November last year. Senator JOYCE: Whom have we appointed?