Published name
Confirm that you have read and understand this declaration.
To start, we'd like your views on water management in Australia.
Question 1:
Having agreed national objectives, outcomes and principles on water is important for managing Australia’s water resources.
Question 2:
Is there anything you would add, change or remove in the principles that deal with climate change? Please give a reason for your response.
Irrigators are adjusting to varying climate all the time and existing water entitlement and allocation systems already factor in climate variability (and thus climate change). Maintaining these frameworks is already critical in our climate adaption strategy.
The existing entitlement and allocation frameworks already adopt a ‘precautionary approach’. Any changes to these frameworks will undermine business confidence.
Climate change scenarios include both wetter and drier conditions, but the focus is only on drier scenarios.
Under drier scenarios, all water users will need to adjust to ‘new climate futures’, not just consumptive water users.
There will be an increasing need for food and fibre production under dry climate change scenarios too, so consumptive users can’t carry all the risk.
Question 3:
Is there anything you would like to add, change or remove in the principles that deal with urban water reform? Please give a reason for your response.
Federal and State Government funding is required as communities cannot be left to fully recover the costs of water infrastructure and services in these areas as benefits are shared more broadly
Question 4:
Is there anything you would add, change or remove in the principles that deal with science, knowledge and partnerships? Please give a reason for your response.
The knowledge that informs decision-making must focus on the merits of that knowledge, and its integrity, and if it supported by multiple lines of evidence.
There needs to be improved processes to scrutinise academic research on water management in Australia.
Question 5:
Considering the draft principles as a whole, do you agree the draft principles are sufficient to support the achievement of the outcomes and objectives?
Question 6:
With regard to the principles, are there any gaps or changes required?
There needs to be greater recognition of water property rights, which set the basis of the entire water management system.
There is no section on water for irrigation, such as a vision for a productive and sustainable irrigated agriculture sector in Australia (including its role in Australia’s food security and agricultural sovereignty, and social and economic role).
Water property rights and transparency are vital for our nation. Governments must not erode the property right for any reason as this would be a form of compulsory acquisition without compensation.
Since the first National Water Initiate, Governments’ now own significant volumes of environmental water and there are no specific principles around ensuring the efficient and effective management of this water and how to maximize environmental outcomes.
Question 7:
If you would like to provide any other feedback on the principles included in the discussion paper, please do so here.
The principles can be read in full in the discussion paper.
The proposed principles are not fit-for-purpose in their current form.
The process has been rushed and there are considerable knowledge gaps on what the intent of the principles are and how they will be implemented, which need to be addressed before States commit to untested and unclear academic ideas.
The NWI set the foundations for water management in Australia and is incredibly important – this needs to be done right.
Many of the principles go outside the scope of water management and require much larger constitutional and institutional reform to address properly and transparently.
Question 8:
Overall, the principles will be helpful in achieving the objectives of a new national agreement on water and enable better management of Australia’s water resources
Would you like to upload a written submission?
Upload a submission
CENTRAL IRRIGATION TRUST
4 Fowles Street PO Box 34
Barmera SA 5345
Telephone 08 8580 7100
Email: office@cit.org.au
SUBMISSION ON DRAFT PRINCIPLES OF A NATIONAL WATER AGREEMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft principles of a National Water
Agreement (NWA).
Central Irrigation Trust (CIT) represents over 1,500 irrigators across the 12 irrigation districts of Berri,
Cadell, Chaffey, Cobdogla, Kingston, Moorook, Golden Heights, Sunlands, Loxton, Lyrup, Mypolonga
and Waikerie. CIT irrigators water 14,000 hectares of high value intensive horticulture.
As a nation a strong and well supported NWA is vital as it will shape our future for coming decades. It
is a document that needs to be taken seriously by all stakeholders and jurisdictions, and its content
upheld to be a first-class and best-practice approach to water management. The original National
Water Initiative (NWI) set the blueprint for water reform in Australia for the past 20 years and was
fundamental in underpinning Australia’s water management.
The NWI was the product of nearly a decade of consultation with jurisdictions and stakeholders (from
the 1994 COAG meeting when it was conceived, to 2004 when it was signed). The practical ‘bottom-
up’ process of shaping the NWI ensured it was a visionary approach to addressing water challenges
that was respected by a range of diverse stakeholders and jurisdictions as an appropriate roadmap
forward. It was and remains a world leading framework.
The NWA is too important to be rushed. Unfortunately, the current process is being pushed faster
than is acceptable, with many in the community totally disconnected from the process or inadequately
engaged.
Our experience is that regardless of any intent for governments to work through the detail in action
plans, any objective or principle within a signed agreement builds the expectation amongst
stakeholders that it will be implemented. We, therefore, must get the final agreement right prior to
signing.
Principles must be drafted to ensure consistent implementation across the nation, have clear
governance but not overreach the premise of water management, and ensure there is clear direction
in dealing with conflicting requirements. In rushing to deliver the NWA these pillars have not been
fully met, and draft principles need significantly more considered development.
Managers of the grower owned
Berri, Cadell, Chaffey, Cobdogla, Golden Heights, Kingston, Loxton, Moorook, Mypolonga, Sunlands, and
Waikerie Irrigation Trusts Inc. and the Lyrup Village Settlement Trust Inc.
GENERAL FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT PRINCIPLES
• We are concerned that throughout the draft principles the Australian Government is utilising
concepts of international rights and obligations with a view to relying of their ‘external affairs’
powers under the Constitution to gain greater powers from the States, on what is otherwise a
power of the states to manage water.
• Under a range of principles, the concept of “user pays” is outlined. There is not sufficient clarity
as to who that “user” is, with the potential for a disconnect between the community that
generally benefits and the licenced rights holders who end up paying. There is only so much
regional communities can continue to contribute to meet urban expectations.
• States should also be concerned as to the costs and responsibilities that will be imposed on them
under the agreement. They will be left to implement the document and there is no clear direction
about funding support, if any from the Commonwealth.
• For Objective 4 Science and Knowledge the principles should reflect that all information must be
rigorously assessed on its merits, and strongly scrutinised to ensure accuracy and no bias. The
objectivity and accuracy of knowledge generation is of the utmost importance and the knowledge
must be assessed for its merits, rather than on simply who it comes from.
• The NWA is intended to be a ‘living document’, which raises concerns about certainty, as there
are no clear processes for governance nor amendment. In contrast, the NWI provided a stable
foundation for water planning over the past two decades, which we risk losing without a
structured approach. Our regions and members make life changing decisions based on water
management frameworks and rules, being unclear about how future changes may or can occur
significantly increases risk or potential for harm.
• There needs to be more flexibility to consider the variability of climatic outcomes and not only
who bears the risk when times are drier, what happens when they are wetter and how is this
benefit shared.
• There are many Water Markets and Trading outcomes from the original NWI which has not been
carried across into the NWA principles, such as minimising transaction costs and protection of
third-party interests. It is noted that there is a concurrent process regarding water market reform
and that the NWA should align with that process and contain the core principles from that
process.
FEEDBACK ON SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES:
Principle 1.26:
The wording of this principle has been amended from “fully explored” to just “explored”. This amendment weakens the existing protections and for this reason the wording from the NWI should be reinstated. The inclusion of the potential to utilise unused water access rights to meet water demand raises concerns for existing water rights holders as there is no clarity on limitations e.g. it cannot be detrimental to existing rights holders.
Principles 1.41 and 1.42:
These principles state that the parties will apply the NWA Pricing Principles and National Urban Water
Planning Principles at the relevant schedules. However, the relevant schedules are not available for review at the time of consultation. As a result, it is expected that these principles will be adopted prior to a full understanding of the commitment.
Managers of the grower owned
Berri, Cadell, Chaffey, Cobdogla, Golden Heights, Kingston, Loxton, Moorook, Mypolonga, Sunlands, and
Waikerie Irrigation Trusts Inc. and the Lyrup Village Settlement Trust Inc.
Objective 3
We respectfully suggest elements of the principles proposed for Objective 3, in their current format, go beyond the scope of an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) on water management and supporting development of appropriate actionable outcomes. If the Australian Government wishes to make these forms of acknowledgements it should be done through the appropriate instruments, the relevant proper processes for amending those instruments, and with transparency to the Australian people.
Principle 3.3:
In the context of the draft NWA principles, it would appear more appropriate for the document to reflect that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognise waters to be living entities.
A wider recognition of waters/rivers as a 'living entity' has elsewhere been associated with a change to the legal framework, as it can be recognised as 'legal personhood' (therefore capable of bearing rights and duties). This approach has begun to emerge in some countries particularly since 2017 (for example, the Whanganui River in New Zealand in 2017 through an Act). In Australia, this concept has emerged in Victoria with the Yarra River (also by an Act of the Victorian Parliament in 2017).
As an emerging concept in law, the implications to all parties (including water users within the existing legal framework, agricultural and environmental, as well as governments) needs to be understood, and arguably are not fully understood at present given the relatively new concept.
Principle 4.1.1:
Recommend amending this principle to be “Strong, durable partnerships between decision makers, the research community, on-ground and traditional knowledge holders”.
Principle 6.1.1:
Recommend amending this principle to be “Manage the risks and opportunities of lower increased water climate variability availability and the need to balance or rebalance between for both environmental and consumptive uses”.
Principle 6.5:
For many water resources a precautionary approach to allocation is already used. Care must be taken that the introduction of the precautionary approach is not interpreted as an obligation to take a more precautionary approach, rather it is an obligation for a precautionary approach to be adopted for resources where it is not already utilised. In addition, clarification of what is considered when taking a precautionary approach is required. For example a precautionary approach towards whom and what hazards and what constitutes a high uncertainty.
Principle 6.13:
The amendments to the original wording in the NWI need clarification. For example, what defines an undeveloped system? How does the granting of new water rights impact on existing water rights?
How does this integrate within existing water planning frameworks?
Managers of the grower owned
Berri, Cadell, Chaffey, Cobdogla, Golden Heights, Kingston, Loxton, Moorook, Mypolonga, Sunlands, and
Waikerie Irrigation Trusts Inc. and the Lyrup Village Settlement Trust Inc.
Principle 7.12:
The word "any" has been removed from the risk assignment principle, as well as “in accordance with pathways agreed ….”. The intention of removing these words is unclear. An interpretation is that these changes suggest an intention to weaken when the risk assignment framework has to be applied – i.e.
it gives greater discretion and/or flexibility to Governments. There is no longer anything in the new
NWA which requires that this ‘must’ be applied. The recommendation is that the original wording from the NWI be retained.
Principle 7.16:
The principle has been amended to include the words “permanent reduction”. This change is not supported and the original wording from the NWI should be retained.
In closing CIT restates that the National Water Agreement is too important to be rushed. The significant benefits that arose from the original National Water Initiative were built on a foundation of a well-considered, thoughtful and ground-up approach. We ask that the Australian Government honour the importance of our national water resources with time to get the new National Water
Agreement right.
Managers of the grower owned
Berri, Cadell, Chaffey, Cobdogla, Golden Heights, Kingston, Loxton, Moorook, Mypolonga, Sunlands, and
Waikerie Irrigation Trusts Inc. and the Lyrup Village Settlement Trust Inc.
