Mr WINDSOR (4:21 PM) —There are a number of issues that I would like to raise. Firstly, in relation to the comments the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has just made, it is a difficult area that he is working in and I take on board the points that he made—that if you remove quota from one area and impose it on another you obviously have an impact on that particular area. Although the meat processors in my electorate are not delighted with the process, under the circumstances they are supportive of the minister's removal of the RMAC recommendations. Given the make-up of RMAC—the fact that not all members of the group are involved in the export of cattle meat—maybe there is some need to review that as a proper consultancy body in relation to these sorts of decisions so that this sort of thing does not occur again. In summary, I would say that it is a very difficult area to work in. However, even though my people will suffer some degree of quota loss in percentage terms because of the jobs that are in their area at the moment, they would encourage you to keep going.

There are a number of other comments I would like to make. I am particularly pleased that the minister is in the chamber because it is an area that he has been involved in for some years now. Maybe he can clarify some of the issues that I am about to raise, which specifically relate to the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. There have been various utterances over time from the minister, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others in relation to the definition of property rights and how that can be wound through the system not only in terms of the national action plan but also in other areas of resource management. I refer the minister to the launch of the national action plan on 10 October 2000. In welcoming the $1.6 billion announced by the Prime Minister in October 2000, Mr Truss—and if I am verballing him no doubt he will let me know—said:

This is a comment with which I agree. In a briefing note entitled `The action plan at a glance', Mr Truss went on to say:

· land-clearing controls on salinity risk areas;

· caps on surface and groundwater allocations;

· improved security of property rights for water together with improved water pricing and trading arrangements;

· `buying back' water allocations to achieve sustainable water use.

Since then, there have been a number of negotiations with the various government authorities in the various states and obviously we have had the argy-bargy of state-Commonwealth relations about who bears what. However, an intergovernmental agreement was signed last year and, in that agreement, the issue of property rights was essentially not raised at all. There was a perception that the property rights issue would be raised with the bilateral agreement, which each state has now signed with the Commonwealth—although it may be that Western Australia still has not done so. The Prime Minister only recently signed that particular document, which involves something like $398 million, half of which is to be borne by New South Wales and half by the Commonwealth. On the signing of that document, we again had no mention of property rights. The only property right that is included is the definition of property rights as included under the New South Wales water act 2000.

So there are some very real concerns that a number of comments have been made by previous ministers and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is here today. We are still drifting on in terms of questions such as what is a property right, is there a clear definition at the federal and state levels, and can how programs such as the national action plan and the Natural Heritage Trust embrace the property right? (Extension of time granted) When I was critical of the Deputy Prime Minister recently at the signing of the bilateral agreement with the New South Wales government, he was very quick to respond to my criticism that property rights have not been included in the national action plan bilateral agreement with the state of New South Wales, and put out a fairly scathing press release entitled `Windsor's lack of understanding on water astonishing'. As part of the criticism of my `bizarre' press release claiming that the signing of the national action plan had signed away property rights for farmers and any leverage that the federal government may have had over the states, which he described as being quite bizarre and `unmitigated rubbish', John Anderson stated:

I would like the minister to answer some questions: which plan are we talking about, where is it and when was it put in by the Commonwealth? The Deputy Prime Minister went on to say:

this is the intergovernmental agreement, not the bilateral agreement—

This is a very important point about the regional catchment plans, because they are currently in draft form in New South Wales. I think there are 21 regional catchment blueprints across New South Wales that the NAP covers. But the key point here—and I am quoting the Deputy Prime Minister—is:

This is the one that has just been signed by the Prime Minister for $398 million. The Deputy Prime Minister also said:

Minister, as you are responsible for this, what do you deem to be `to the federal government's satisfaction'? I understand meetings are being held in Sydney today, where members of your department are talking with the people of the Namoi-Gwydir and other catchments. Are you aware that the regional blueprints that Mr Anderson referred to do not include a definition of property rights? Does that mean that, if they do not include property rights—and they definitely have not been encouraged by the state government to include property rights—there will be no flow of federal funding through the bilateral agreements that the Prime Minister has just signed?

I would like you to make a few of those things clear, if you could, because it seems to me that a great deal of significance is being attributed to these regional catchment blueprints. The community is involved in putting those blueprints together—because there was an expression through the NAP, which I agree with, that the community has to drive the process—but the community is not driving the process towards any recognition of a property right. There is a need for some leadership from the Commonwealth in relation to that particular issue. I also draw the minister's attention to the Senate estimates committee of 28 May, where a senior officer of AFFA, Ian Thompson, referred to the national action plan as being a possible source of federal funding for the Namoi groundwater entitlement adjustment process. I would be interested to hear the minister's comments as to how that can possibly occur if there is no recommendation coming back through the regional catchment blueprint that the Deputy Prime Minister has referred to as being the key ingredient in the process. Will the $40 million that the federal government is talking about as part of an adjustment package for the Namoi groundwater issue be partly available for compensation in terms of entitlement loss or will it be only available for other sorts of structural adjustment?