Water Management Amendment (Easements For Inundation) Bill - speech
I speak in support of the Water Management Amendment (Easements for Inundation) Bill 2025, as The Greens water portfolio holder. The bill was originally introduced to remove a clear policy barrier to restoring the health of rivers and flood plains across the Murray-Darling Basin. It was brought forward in the context of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and, in particular, the growing focus on constraints relaxation. The intent of the bill is to facilitate the removal of one of the policy constraints affecting the ability to connect rivers and their flood plains. That is different to what the urban householders experience, which I will address later.
Under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, States and Territories have proposed a range of constraints relaxation projects aimed at improving river health by improving the timing, frequency and duration of environmental flows, rather than relying solely on recovering more water. "Constraints relaxation" refers to removing or mitigating physical and policy barriers that prevent environmental water from reaching flood plains. In December 2024 the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released its Constraints Relaxation Implementation Roadmap. That road map makes it clear that relaxing constraints is essential if the Basin Plan is to achieve its goal of protecting and restoring rivers, and if governments are to get maximum ecological benefit from water already recovered for the environment.
The bill is one of the steps needed to progress constraints relaxation projects in New South Wales, where the biggest barrier is not a bridge or a levee but a policy and governance problem—specifically, who holds and manages inundation easements. It builds on the Government's work under the Reconnecting River Country Program, under which the New South Wales Government is seeking to voluntarily acquire easements across which it could deliver larger environmental flows to better connect flood plains and wetlands in the lower Darling and the Murrumbidgee. Therefore, the Greens believe the need for the reform is stark. Floodplain wetlands only function if they are regularly inundated. Yet currently just 2 per cent of floodplain wetlands across the basin are inundated each year by managed environmental flows. The Commonwealth already holds water for that purpose, as does the New South Wales Government. But delivering that water requires cooperation from landholders and sometimes upgrades to roads, bridges and levees.
Let us be clear. Managed inundation is not a threat to landholders. In fact, it can deliver benefits, including reducing the impacts of uncontrolled natural floods. As Jamie Pittock, a professor in the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University and expert in the sustainable management of water, has said, "Managed inundation can benefit landholders, such as by reducing the impacts of natural floods." By the way, the Government has not communicated that very well. We have seen significant pushback in recent years around floodplain easements—the contribution of the Hon. Susan Carter was a case in point. That is often fuelled by misinformation and, frankly, by sections of the irrigation lobby stirring fear around so-called "forced flooding". That fear has been amplified through media campaigns suggesting that the Government is seeking to seize land or deliberately damage farms—claims that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
I am not sure how much of north‑west New South Wales, and the areas there that are literally massive flood plains, the Hon. Susan Carter has visited. There are so many wetlands, flood plains, rivers and tributaries in north-west New South Wales, west New South Wales and the Murry‑Darling Basin that the entire area is a flood plain. To suggest therefore that someone who has bought land in that area over the past 100 or 200 years should not expect water at some time to make its way down the tributaries or to reach, for example, wetlands—and there are a hell of a lot of beautiful Ramsar-listed wetlands on private land—and to inundate their property is just la-la land. The Hon. Susan Carter is a very smart woman, usually. I put on record that the Hon. Susan Carter is very intelligent; however, on this inundation issue, urban New South Wales is not the same as regional New South Wales.
The Hon. Wes Fang: Thanks for the lecture.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I acknowledge that interjection. I did grow up in country Queensland, so I do know the country. I have spoken to and met with many landholders who understand and rejoice in the benefit that water crossing their land has for the health of their land and for the health of the trees, insects and birds on their land—everything that makes their land healthier and gives them healthier crops and healthier stock. Most of them actually want that and rejoice in and understand it. However, not every landholder wants it. That is what the Government is attempting to address with this piece of legislation before Parliament. It is very important.
I also note the issue that was uncovered a few weeks ago at the Gwydir Wetlands relating to the poor turtles that have been literally stuck in the mud because the water has not been able to reach their wetlands. That is because of a complaint from at least one, possibly two, landholders downstream from the wetlands—one of whom knowingly expanded his crop into that broad area very close to the Ramsar‑listed wetlands and said that he would sue the Government if the water reached his crop.
Ms CATE FAEHRMANN: I will speak in more detail about the issue of inundation at the Gwydir Wetlands in the Committee stage, because the Government will move an amendment to deal with that situation. Regardless of that amendment, The Greens support the bill. It goes one step further towards getting more water for the environment, where it is needed. We thank the Government for bringing it to the House.