Senator BARTLETT —My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, and it relates to the water licence agreement for the Snowy River. Is the minister aware that two expert advisory panels have recommended a flow rate for the Snowy of no less than 28 per cent and that a flow rate of 15 per cent, as suggested in the final report of the Snowy water inquiry, will not be sufficient to restore the ecological integrity of the Snowy River? Could the minister outline what the current situation is regarding the reaching of an agreement between the federal, New South Wales and Victorian governments on the distribution and usage of water from the Snowy River?

Senator HILL (Environment and Heritage) —I think I should say that progress is slow, Senator Bartlett. It started off with great enthusiasm and identified, as was suggested, what might be an appropriate environmental flow for the Snowy. That of course caused attention to be drawn to the consequences of such a diversion, in particular the consequences to the Murray, not only in terms of the commercial aspects but also in terms of how it would change that landscape. The problem of course is that the original Snowy Mountains scheme very substantially altered the whole of the environmental aspect of both the Murray and the Snowy. Negotiations are continuing between Victoria and New South Wales. As I recall, submissions are currently being made on the report that has been tabled and the matter will be progressed. I will see if I can find out a more explicit timetable, but the last time that I looked at it it seemed to me that the process had considerably slowed.

Senator BARTLETT —I thank the minister for his answer. I appreciate the difficulty with slowness of progress in negotiations between different levels of government but surely, regardless of differences of opinion on the ideal outcome, everyone agrees that the existing flow rate is grossly inadequate. Does the minister acknowledge that the preferred option outlined in the final report of the Snowy River water inquiry does not meet the minimum environmental flows required to save the Snowy as determined by all expert studies, including the inquiry's own scientific reference panel findings? What is the federal government's view of the minimum necessary flow rate to keep the Snowy River alive? What extra can be done to ensure that action is taken and progress is made so that the Snowy does not die while everybody figures out what to do about it?

Senator HILL (Environment and Heritage) —There is an ongoing debate as to what is the appropriate flow rate. There is no settled science as to what a necessary environmental flow is. There is a range of opinions. Certainly, as the honourable senator has suggested, there are many opinions that are of the view that the flow recommended in the inquiry is inadequate. But that is part of the very issue that is being currently addressed during this response period—what is necessary for an adequate flow rate and, as I said to the honourable senator, from where will that water come? That is the issue being addressed at the moment—the environmental consequences not only to the river system that will be enhanced with a further flow but to the river system that will lose flow. It is very complex, but I understand the importance of the matter and we will continue as an honest broker to play our part.