BALDWIN, Ms Sophie Kate, Representative, Southern Connected Basin Communities

KENDELL, Mr Geoffrey, Chair, Central Murray Environmental Floodplains Group, Southern Connected Basin Communities

[08:51]

ACTING CHAIR: I welcome representatives from the Southern Connected Basin Communities. Thank you for appearing here today. I now invite you to make a short opening statement before we proceed to questions.

Ms Baldwin : Southern Connected Basin Communities was formed after a group of concerned community groups and members with a shared common goal wanted to see, once again, a productive and thriving southern basin. It represents members from the Darling in the north through the southern Riverina into Victoria and across into South Australia. We stand united in our desire to advocate for a future with water security, a sustainable business community and a flourishing environment.

The implementation of the Basin Plan has done little to deliver the key principles of a connected river system, a healthy environment or a thriving community. In fact, in the southern basin it has been the complete opposite and it has brought nothing but heartache and despair across these three fronts. Consultation within the southern basin is lacking. As a tri-state advocacy group representing a footprint of 10,000 irrigators and their disillusioned communities and damaged environments, sadly, there is none.

Problems in the basin extend back to the 1990s, when over extraction was identified as a key threat to our future. The 1994 cap level of extraction was implemented to protect the basin. Yet 27 years later, we are only just licensing flood plain harvesting in the north, and let's not go into the unsustainable volume they are trying to get over the line. Seriously, what have we seen? In February 2021, SCBC spent four days touring the Lower Darling region, and I would love to say we came home with renewed faith in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Water Minister Melinda Pavey and New South Wales DPI's ability to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. What we witnessed couldn't have been further from the truth. If environmental degradation, economic destruction and communities in despair right along the Darling, Barka and Murray rivers were the goal, then management is spot on.

A key principle of the plan is a connected river system and a healthy and sustainable basin. We stand by our claim that the Basin Plan is not delivering. From where we started, at the Barmah Choke and some 600 kilometres later at Wilcannia, the story was the same. Communities along the length and breadth are all suffering from the impacts of an out-of-control system and questionable leadership. Flood-plain harvesting in the north is draining the Murray-Darling system, as their greed for water has stopped the Darling-Barka from flowing. And contrary to claims, it is also impacting the southern basin, through reduced water reliability and environmental damage, by sending too much water down the Murray River.

At Wilcannia—and I should point out that this was in February—the Barkandji are meant to feel grateful to have received a 24,000-megalitre pulse of water after thousands of megs were taken in the north. Their river is now dry more often than not, yet a flowing river is an integral part of their culture. Barkandji woman Muriel Riley was stolen from her home and the river when she was just five. Now, 60 years later, the river is being taken from her again. Michael Kennedy can't even teach the traditional way of Barkandji fishing to his children and is heartbroken that in 2021 Wilcannia and it's people are still living well below the poverty line and have a life expectancy of 38 for men and 42 for women. He says it is a well-known fact that when there is water in the river crime rates are down and the people of Wilcannia are better physically, mentally and physically. 'Barkandji' means 'people of the river', but how can they be that without water?

Just down the road, at Menindee, we drove past thousands and thousands of dead vines and lost industry on our way up to Sunset Strip, a once-thriving community on the banks of Lake Menindee. Angela Clarke has lived there for near on 50 years, and she said gone are the thousands of birds, the yabbies, the fish and the happiness of the community. She said she will forever remember the stench of dying kangaroos as the lake dried and they dropped dead around her. At Boundary Bend we took a trip down Paul's Road, a functioning road five years ago. Today it is impassable at one point as the rising water table has forced salinity to the surface and rendered the low-lying area desolate. We saw the extremes of a river bursting its banks to deliver water to flow out to sea at South Australia to one that had stopped flowing because of greed in the north. We attended a New South Wales Senate hearing at Broken Hill on dams, water and the impact on the community. Barkandji CEO Derek Hardman used the analogy of a bottle of water to describe how his people are treated: they are the air bubble in the water bottle; sometimes they are at the top and sometimes they are at the bottom, but they are always the air bubble—they have no water.

We all heard the same repeated message: they listen, but they don't hear. Local knowledge is being ignored, and communities are being dictated to and bullied by the people who were voted in to serve and protect them. The Basin Plan is failing across many fronts, and I find it laughable that despite implementing a $13 billion plan there has been no mechanism to sit back and look at what is really happening on the ground, no place for reflection: are we achieving our goals? What is working and what is not? I'm not sure what number submission we are up to, what number Senate hearing this is, but forgive me for not being dubious that this will even make a difference. We spend hours of our time writing submissions to ICAC, DPIE, NRAR, ACCC, MDBA. Nobody listens. Our fatigue is real. Meanwhile, the Basin Plan rolls on. It must be delivered on time and in full. Volunteers spend hours of their time writing submissions, chairing groups and striving for change. But, sadly, in the end it appears to be for nothing. Mentally they are cooked, and financially they are not far behind.

Our communities are falling apart. We are losing water, our environment, our industry and our jobs. Transparency is a joke. Community isn't delivering the message that the MDBA want to hear, so we're simply ignored, left out from consultation, or a box is just ticked. The flaws in the Basin Plan are obvious, starting with the very premise that a connected river system is the key principle, and even that can't be achieved, when northern irrigators continue to take such vast volumes of water from the system that they have stopped the Darling River from flowing.

Another fundamental flaw is that there is no consideration under the plan to associate farming footprint with an environment. After all, it takes up around 70 per cent of the basin. Imagine what could be achieved environmentally if this were taken into consideration instead of ignored? This type of flaw is short-sighted and shows how disassociated this type of thinking really is and how far removed from reality the plan is. Do you want me to keep going?

ACTING CHAIR: Well, I'd like you to keep it relatively short, if you can, so we've got time to ask questions, so perhaps you can conclude.

Ms Baldwin : There are just a couple of other points—

ACTING CHAIR: Or you can just table the document, if you haven't concluded. If there's a lot more to go, we're happy for it to be tabled.

Ms Baldwin : Yes, there are just a couple of things that I do want to mention. One is the impact of flood-plain harvesting in the north on our region. It's been said many times that the southern basin isn't affected by this process, and that is not true. When the Darling River has no water flowing down it, the shortfalls of delivery to South Australia are taken from our productive pools. It does affect our irrigation allocation, our reliability and all those things. So that's a serious, serious issue. We have grave concerns for the future. If it is licenced at the current volumes, it will decimate our area.

Through the Basin Plan, all these things that are being implemented are seriously affecting our region. It's not just flood-plain harvesting; it's environmental water delivery. It's smashing our rivers and water quality—you name it. We had an SCBC meeting last night, from Murrumbidgee. The river there is running a bunker. There's nobody irrigating, so where's that water going? Obviously, it's going down to South Australia. At Mildura, there are blue-green algae in the water. There's so much weed and stuff in the water it's actually blocking up the people's pumps. The sandbars are covered in an awful muddy sludge. We're meant to have a healthy and thriving river under the Basin Plan, and it's just not happening. Anyway, I'll give Geoff a go.

ACTING CHAIR: Do you want to add something to that? I'm just mindful that there's a bunch of questions that I know senators have to ask.

Mr Kendell : I've just got an outline of part of one of the groups—part of the Southern Connected Basin Communities. Being part of that group, I can give you a snapshot of how it's affecting our region as part of that make-up, if you like.

ACTING CHAIR: Yes, please.

Mr Kendell : I'll hand you guys a copy of what I'm going to read right now, and it's got photos in it.

ACTING CHAIR: If it's several pages, I think we're going to have to cut it. If you could just pull out the really important points, we can absorb it later. I do want to ask some questions, and I know my colleagues do as well.

Mr Kendell : No worries. It's probably more photos in there, and that's the page density.

ACTING CHAIR: Sure.

Mr Kendell : Basically, the Central Murray Environmental Floodplains Group is based in the centre of the southern Murray-Darling Basin river system, the largest in Australia. Our region holds important social, cultural, economic and environmental values, supporting a strong rural community and economy. By 2000, it was the third most productive agricultural region in Victoria, but since then its productive status has diminished dramatically through the effects of the water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. You can go on and actually read there. We're also the cultural and spiritual home of the Aboriginal communities of the Barapa Barapa, Yorta Yorta, Wemba Wemba, Wadi Wadi and Dadi Dadi. Our not-for-profit group of community women and men has unique qualities, as we come from a diverse range of backgrounds and experiences which allow us to build on the ideas and research things from all angles. Our overall similarities and passion for the region draw us heavily together in finding solutions to the many problems we all face. We are open, transparent and accountable in our works and deliberations. As I said, we make up part of the actual group.

Senator O'NEILL: Can I just ask what towns this covers?

Mr Kendell : Yes. The town areas are probably from Echuca through to Swan Hill, along that Victorian region of the actual Murray.

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you.

Mr Kendell : Firstly, I draw your attention to the definition of the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan was passed into law in November 2012, as I gather you all know, and has been a significant milestone in Australian water reform. The Basin Plan covers the social, economic and environmental demands of the basin water resources to ensure that there are strong and vibrant communities with sufficient water of suitable quality for drinking and domestic uses, including in times of drought, as well as for cultural and recreational purposes and productive and resilient industries that have long-term confidence in their future, particularly for food and fibre production.

The basin was a region that generated approximately 40 per cent of the nation's agricultural income and once supported strong and vibrant communities which no longer exist. As John Howard said when releasing the National Water Initiative in 2007:

The Basin accounts for the vast bulk of irrigated agricultural production in Australia and roughly 85 per cent of our irrigation water use. It has a population of two million …

He went on to say:

Australia has an enormous opportunity to consolidate and even expand our role as a global supplier of food and fibre in coming decades. We live in an increasingly urbanised world whose population is expected to reach 8 billion people by 2030. These people will demand food and clothing.

Unfortunately, the plan has done the reverse of John Howard's statement. As you go through a quick summary of the figures: over that period of time, to give you an idea population wise, there are 600 fewer students in the school system. The third-biggest prime land market in Victoria has closed with a throughput of 227,921 lambs annually, an estimated loss to the region of around $34 million plus. Similar figures have shown for the prime cattle market, the eighth-biggest in Victoria, which has now closed also. Around 34,000 stock there and prices estimated at about $34,200,000.

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Kendell, looking at the length of your statement, I think we're best taking this as a submission. We're literally down to a few minutes each for questions, if I may. I'm going to surrender my time to my colleagues, but I might make the point that I do hear your point about fatigue.

I'm fundamentally in agreement with much of what you've said. The purpose of this committee is to look at only one aspect; it's not to try and necessarily solve the entirety of the Basin Plan, but to look at how the multijurisdictional nature of the plan gets in the way. For example, if you have difficulty understanding who you go to to seek representation; if you have difficulty understanding what appeal avenues you have, whether it's a state or federal jurisdiction; or if you have confusion across the basin because of the different naming conventions for the different sets of rules. We're hoping that at the end of this process the committee can highlight and make recommendations on how to at least make that aspect of the plan easier to implement.

My bill associated with this committee is one of perhaps transferring, as Mr Downer suggested in the constitutional conventions, control to one parliament so that there's one group in charge. That's the nature of this inquiry. My colleagues may well ask questions that go to those particular aspects. With that, I'll hand over to Senator O'Neill.

Mr Kendell : I can answer probably part of exactly that straightaway. The whole lot of us asked the question, 'Who actually owns the water and who makes the changes?' I've listed some here that come to mind straightaway. We've got the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the MDA, the CEWH, BOC, DELWP, NCCMA, Parks Victoria, VEWH, GMW, New South Wales DPI, New South Wales DPI Water, the South Australian government, SA Water, the Victorian government, the Queensland government, MinCo, the federal minister for water, the water ministers for Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland—and we just go on. We're just duck shuffled around all over the place.

ACTING CHAIR: I come from a Navy background. On a ship, you know who's in charge: the captain. The saying in the Navy is, 'If you can't point to the person in charge then no-one's in charge.' It's in that context I thank you for pointing out the confusion. My only question might be what do you say the solution to that is?

Mr Kendell : Can we please just have one organisation we can go to that is responsible for water? When I say responsible for water: responsible for the management and the running of water, including the actual, as I call it, investors that have now found their way into the water market. Can we have an open and transparent organisation? We might have to have on the side something like the ACCC that, if we've got problems, we can go to and they can have an overall riding over the top of the organisation to have and make change if there's a problem.

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you. That sounds like it might be the inspector-general.

Senator O'NEILL: I was just about to go there. The ACCC have been involved, but not just in this sector; in many other sectors. The ACCC seems to report but there are many, many times where people are just desperate and they can't get a response from the ACCC. It's limited in its role and it's contained by its level of funding, even though it has a high degree of expertise.

I have a question on the back of what you've just said about some activity that has been going on recently. We heard in estimates in Canberra recently from Mr Troy Grant. You'd be aware, because you've got consultation fatigue, that you had Mr Keelty undertake a review, which for the most part from the feedback I've received was very well received. People said he's actually sort of telling the story, as it was, across most of the communities we've been in so far. But he was an interim inspector-general. He left. Mr Troy Grant was approached. There wasn't a competitive process. He has been brought into the role. He's working three days a week on a salary of $200,000, and he tells us on the record that he is doing work up and down the river to establish five sites to be the inspector, which is to deal, really, with compliance. Those compliance issues go to some of the things you've been talking about: metering, flood plain harvesting, the management of that in the north plus all the other bits. He's got no power.

Mr Kendell : That's the problem. That's our problem. We continually come back here. We've been consulted, consulted and consulted and continually sit at these forums, these inquiries and so on, but there's no power for these people to make change on our behalf. We keep telling our story. Our area has been absolutely decimated agriculturally, community wise, culturally and environmentally. But no-one seems to be listening. I should say no-one seems to be hearing what we're actually saying. They're listening, but they're not hearing, and there is no change. You've got to have change.

Senator O'NEILL: The promise of the government is that legislation would be advanced through the parliament and that Mr Grant would have powers to be the cop on the river, basically, by 1 July 2021—so in a few weeks. No-one has seen the draft legislation. You've spoken about all these organisations that you're a part of that you consult with and talk to. Has Mr Grant shown any of you any draft legislation?

Mr Kendell : I was about to ask, 'Who is Mr Grant?'

Senator DAVEY: I believe he was in Deniliquin just the other week.

Mr Kendell : You've explained to me who he is, but I'm playing devil's advocate here for the community. We don't know who he is. This is the first I've heard about it. Sophie might have—

Ms Baldwin : I've heard about it.

Mr Kendell : Sorry, Senator O'Neill. I'm playing devil's—

Senator O'NEILL: Don't be sorry. We're here to get the truth of what's going on. I can hear your frustration. We're hearing it up and down the river. There's an announcement, then there's the front page and everybody is kind of: 'Oh, good. That's all sorted,' and then nothing.

Mr Kendell : Nothing happens.

Senator O'NEILL: Nothing happens because, clearly, the government isn't focusing on what it has promised to do. One of the things that has been put to us is that there is a leadership vacuum. You spoke about your disappointment in the New South Wales Minister for Water, Property and Housing, Minister Pavey. I'd like you to put on the record what the problem is as you understand it. I'd also like to understand from you, of all those names you had—and thank you for putting them together across five lines in your submission—

Mr Kendell : That's only some of them. They're the ones I rattled straight off that came to mind. There are more and more.

Senator O'NEILL: Talk about Ms Pavey and the New South Wales situation in particular. Is it MinCo that needs to be leading on this issue along with a policing of the river by an inspector for compliance?

Ms Baldwin : I think the community needs to have a leading role in the leadership of what's happening. Whichever way it goes—whether it's from one person or a state or federally—there has to be meaningful contribution from the community. We live here. We know what is happening. Somebody who comes in might live a million miles away and have no idea of what is actually happening on the ground. If we can get a bit like the old Murray-Darling Basin Commission back in the day or an organisation like that—the people who were making decisions actually knew how the river ran. They knew what different levels did to different areas and things like that.

Senator O'NEILL: Why were they able to do that, in your view? Were they living in community along the river rather than being fly-in fly-out?

Mr Kendell : They're people who have lived in those regions. You'll hear this story replicated as you go along. They're people who live it and breathe it. I don't know what your background is, but you understand your professional background. You've lived and breathed that all the way along in your life. These people have, and their families have prior to that. Their families might be third-, fourth- or fifth-generation families. They understand where the river flows and where it doesn't. It's like me giving you a watering shovel and saying: 'Hey, there's 500 acres. Can you go and water that pasture for me?' Do you think you could do it?

Senator O'NEILL: No, I wouldn't attempt to.

Mr Kendell : You've got to have some form of experience.

Senator O'NEILL: Deep and wide knowledge, yes.

Mr Kendell : That's what Sophie's saying. We're getting told from the top down too much. We need to incorporate the people who live and breathe it over a number of years and their experiences to get the equation right. The equation is seriously wrong at the present time.

Ms Baldwin : These people might have watched the river for decades and decades. They know what is happening with the erosion on the banks, the high and unseasonable levels, and sending water downstream just for developments downstream, far away from the sources up the top. Just adding water doesn't fix things. The river has a capacity, and it can only deliver to a capacity. We see now that it's imploding.

Senator O'NEILL: Do you want to talk about your concern about Minister Pavey's action with regard to water in New South Wales? It's as if there are two worlds: the north and the south.

Ms Baldwin : We're one connected basin, so we shouldn't be the north and the south. Here in the southern basin, we've been metered and licensed for every drop of water that we've taken. We'd struggle to actually pin that to a date, but whenever that point was—at least the last 15 or so years, or would it be 20 years, Geoff?

Ms Baldwin : It would be more. Historically, we are metered and measured and have been all the way along, as farmers taking water out of the consumption pool in the southern basin, whereas in the north, in the 12 months previous to now, there was nearly 2,500 gigalitres of water taken—basically Port Phillip Bay. It's been measured by Maryanne Slattery, with satellite imagery. The amount of water that's actually been taken out of the system and has left would basically fill Port Phillip Bay. That is taken away from the system to be connected from Bourke downwards. So obviously that's having a massive impact on community, environment and industry. Really, it's the Darling-Barka River. It's a river. It's being dried up, and it shouldn't happen. We've had a wet season, and that river should be flowing. Maybe sometimes, when we only get a little bit of rainfall in the northern part of Australia and it comes through the basin system, we mightn't get there, but we've had a couple of really wet seasons, and we're not getting that flow and connectivity right through the system.

Senator O'NEILL: We heard evidence in Dubbo and Moree in recent weeks, and we've heard about challenges with proper metering up there. We've heard: 'Don't worry; the flood-plain harvesting really isn't a big problem.' We continue to hear that. We've also heard evidence that New South Wales is not going to meet its targets. We've heard that the 2024 date is completely unrealistic and cannot be met. Again, I ask you to speak to the New South Wales minister's management of this big chunk of the river. What's going on?

Senator DAVEY: It is an interjurisdictional inquiry.

Senator O'NEILL: Yes. We're in New South Wales right now.

Senator DAVEY: Do you have any comments about any of the other state ministers while you're at it?

Senator O'NEILL: I'd love to get to South Australia in a minute, but let's hear about New South Wales first, because we're here.

Senator DAVEY: I have some questions as well—noting the time.

Ms Baldwin : I would also like to say, just getting back to the jurisdictional thing, water that flows into the Menindee Lakes is under New South Wales DPI control until it hits 640 gigs and then it goes to MDBA control. Even there, just in that one area, all of a sudden it's this and then the next minute it's that. That's an example of what is happening and who is controlling what, and that's just the Menindee Lakes.

Mr Kendell : That's probably where it is. When 640 gigs has kicked into gear, it returns 721 gigalitres of water, and that is half Victorian water and half New South Wales water, which, because the water hasn't been going through a connected system, is now placed back in the Murray system to be sent down to the South Australian contribution of water. That's 360 gigs of Victorian irrigators' water and 360 gigs of New South Wales Murray irrigators' water also. That's where we've got a full—

Senator O'NEILL: That's just one small example of the complexity and the lack of transparency about who's doing what.

Mr Kendell : Yes.

Senator O'NEILL: So what's the problem in New South Wales in particular?

Ms Baldwin : What I see happening in New South Wales is that, obviously, there is a push to licence floodplain harvesting in the north, which nobody has a problem with—everyone is accepting of that. It is the National Party who is in control of that, with water Minister Pavey as the representative in control of all that. With these large volumes that they do want a licence for, they are above cap levels. It has effectively seen a transfer of productive licenced and metered water in the south taken up to the north. With this licencing regime, if there's no end of system flow target where the Darling hits the Murray, how is the southern basin protected by a licencing regime that has no way to ensure that water will get downstream? Storage up there has increased by 2½ times over the last 20-odd years. The water that is taken from the system and is not coming down the river is not climate change; it's a direct transfer of water that used to flow through a natural system. It's now being caught upstream.

Senator O'NEILL: So that's being facilitated.

Senator DAVEY: Can I ask some questions that are directly relevant to this, as we're running out of time?

Senator O'NEILL: Absolutely.

Senator DAVEY: It'd be nice if I could ask my other questions as well.

Senator O'NEILL: I know. I'd like to ask one final one, if I can. Please put anything further on notice that you want to provide, because it sounds like you're saying that what's in the north is basically creating a market for water up there that's completely unsustainable, and that's what's been constructed right now.

With regard to South Australia, in your submission, Mr Kendell, you talked about the New South Wales government water minister's continued efforts over the last four years to allow floodplain harvesting in the northern basin, which is what we've just been discussing, leading to the demise of generational family farms and commercial businesses that support them. You estimate $25 billion of commercial loss in the Murray Basin. Then you go on to talk about the movement of 721 megalitres of South Australia contribution water from the Darling system back to the Murray system, and you describe it as 'wastage'. Can you help me understand the connection now, through Victoria and into South Australia, from your perspective, and the jurisdictional issues that are there?

Mr Kendell : Certainly. Moving that water, twisting it around and putting it on the Murray system, where traditionally that water would have been used by Murray irrigators, with the water coming from the Menindee Lakes to the Murray, down the Darling, that water has been swung around now and put on. The contribution is still at 850 gigalitres in South Australia and they need their 100 per cent of water. That means the guys who were using the 360 gigalitres of water on both sides of the river in the Murray now have to let their water production go and their productive pool is now impacted, so 721 gigs in total of that productive water is now having to go to South Australia for the environment, where it was being used prior. That water that was part of the connective system in the Darling—historically, 39 per cent of the actual South Australian contribution—is no longer there. That's what I'm getting at, at the present time.

Now, if we go back to the northern basin, in 1994 the cap was set. That was 27 years ago. That was 27 years ago, and meters were supposed to be put in, and dams and everything were supposed to be set. We've gone way past that. It hasn't happened. It's continued to roll on. We're in the same situation right now and we are talking about it, but those measurements on those dams and stuff that are actually stopping the flow of the water into the South Australian contribution, down the whole connected system, haven't happened, and it doesn't look like they're happening right now.

Senator O'NEILL: Thank you, Mr Kendell.

Senator DAVEY: Thanks for your time this morning and for your opening statements. I had a whole list of questions, but I am cognisant of time.

Senator O'NEILL: Senator Davey, do you want to go until 9.40?

Senator DAVEY: Probably a little bit, but we have a jam-packed day. We have a huge day. I have questions on the northern basin flow. We were up there just two weeks ago. We have heard about the moves to metering. They've always had meters—just not the same teleconnected metres for their pumps and their surface water access and, indeed, even their on-farm recirculation. The contention is obviously: how do you measure or meter something that comes overland but doesn't go through a pump site? There's been a lot of work that's gone into that. They think they've actually got that. You said we've had a couple of good wet seasons up there. That's not what we heard last week. We heard that they've only just had their first opportunity at flood-plain or overland flow harvesting in the most recent floods. Prior to that, it was supplementary or river flows. We have taken evidence from Ms Slattery in the past, and we have asked her about her satellite imagery and whether she can ascertain definitively whether what is in a dam that she's taken images of is flood-plain harvested water, surface water or supplementary water. Can she differentiate? She said on record that she can't separate, but she can estimate quite effectively and efficiently what is in the storage. But part of the whole bone of contention about finessing these regulations is that people use their one storage for all of their different types of water.

Ms Baldwin : I would just say to that that I flew over the northern basin before the rains. We flew over acres and acres and acres of cotton crops ready to be harvested. I don't know how many—just miles. It just went forever. We flew over dams that still had water in them. If they've had no rain—

Senator DAVEY: No, as I said, they've had surface flows, but they haven't had flood-plain harvesting. They haven't had flood events.

Ms Baldwin : But, for them to get water, they're sitting on allocations of their water—that is what we call high-security water or river water—of 15 per cent. They're sitting on a 15 per cent irrigation allocation, yet they've got a crop that has a water use way above any of that. I've got some figures, which I will table if that's okay, about the cotton harvest; I actually can't remember them. The figures that we have done show that there is a discrepancy. That water has to come from somewhere, and it's obviously come from overland flows.

Senator DAVEY: Well, if it's not overland, it can't come from overland. This is my point.

Ms Baldwin : It doesn't have to be a flood to get water. With the set-ups up there now, rain will be—

Senator DAVEY: One of the things that we are looking at as a committee is the different terminology, the different language and the different accounting. We know accounting in the north is what they call continual accounting, so it's quite different. It doesn't stop and start at the beginning of the water year as it does down here. They are unregulated systems up there, so they can't put a water order in and four days later get their water at their outlet as they do here. If we all went on the same sort of accounting system, so we were all talking the same language, and we all understood the difference—with 15 per cent here, you've got that 12-month opportunity, whereas up there the 15 per cent is on a rolling basis—that might just help us all understand what everyone is talking about. So you understand whether you're talking about an overland event or a surface water event.

Ms Baldwin : Regardless of that, whatever is trying to be implemented up there is unsustainable. And there are levels of that. To the nature of the system that it is, it should be an opportunistic system, but they're trying to turn it into one that isn't. They want to have cotton crops every year and they want to take the water. Nobody has a problem with floodplain harvesting, and in years when there's lots of water around and whatever, they should be allowed to grow crops and stuff. But in the years that there's not, the water is still being held up there in the large dams, and it's just not coming down through the system.

Mr Kendell : There are a couple of things there. The first one would be that, over the last couple of years, they've had significant rains in the actual plains area. So the water has been able to come through prior to that. Yes, we've had dry seasons—I understand exactly what you're saying—but in any business you've got to be able to measure what you're taking so you can actually manage it. You talk about a hypothetical 15 per cent. Let's have a look at the actual figure of the actual water that has been metered, so we can actually manage it. Across our part here in New South Wales and Victoria—especially in Victoria—I know that the environmental water is modelled; it's not measured. It's never measured. It is modelled. The modelling has been all wrong, because it's been set on historical data and not climate change, as we've seen. We've got 50 per cent less water here in the catchments, because of climate change. Yet, in South Australia, we are now looking, still, at the 100 per cent of water—they need their contribution of 100 per cent of water. So let's get back to what you were saying and say, 'Hey, come on; let's measure this so we can actually manage it and know what's in the system.'

Senator DAVEY: I want to ask about the most recent flood event, which is now coming down the river. We have actually had connecting flows from Menindee Lakes to the Murray for quite some time following the last flushes and the river events. We've now got significant volumes flowing into Menindee Lakes. They've opened the gates to let the water flow into Menindee. As you said, Ms Baldwin, when those lakes hit 640 gigalitres, it'll click back into MDBA control. What are your thoughts? You've both mentioned you need the connecting flows and you need end-of-system flows. When you talk about end-of-system flows, is it that you effectively want translucent flows through the lakes? You don't want it held up in Menindee Lakes, or do you want it held in Menindee Lakes so it can be managed? My understanding of the allocation system—certainly in New South Wales, and I believe Victoria is the same—is that the allocation is dependent on what is held in storage, not necessarily what is flowing out the end of the system, which can't necessarily be reregulated, held and managed until there's an order for it. What's your preference with the Menindee Lakes?

Ms Baldwin : We would like to see water stay in the Menindee Lakes, like it always used to. That was drained within 12 months, and look at the mess that was left behind after that time. Wilcannia had no water. Why would we want to see water bypassed through the Menindee Lakes? It's a natural storage system. It supports hundreds of thousands of birds. It's a breeding site for fish. It's integral to the Barkindji culture. Why would we want to see it drained as soon as possible and sent down—

Senator DAVEY: So you would prefer to see a set minimal flow out of the lakes down the Lower Darling?

Ms Baldwin : We just don't want to see the lakes drained in a massive hit, like they have been previously. I mean—

Senator DAVEY: Noting that until the sixties and the infrastructure was built, they were ephemeral systems beforehand.

Ms Baldwin : People talk about that, but we don't live back in the sixties anymore. We live now. We have dams. We have to feed our country. We have to support our environment. We have to do all those things, and we need to find a management system that is going to benefit that whole basin—not just some people in the north or in South Australia. There's a whole big swathe of us in between, and we're all suffering. I don't have any answers 'bang'—just like that—for you. It's a complicated system, and it's been turned into that. We don't know who runs this or who runs that. If we've got a problem we have to go through 27 organisations to get an answer or they don't give an answer. They say, 'That's state,' or 'No, that's federal.'

Mr Kendell : Consultations and consultations, and written submissions and more submissions to a whole host of groups.

Senator DAVEY: That's a very good segue to my last line of questioning: Southern Connected Basin Communities and, Mr Kendall, as central Murray flood plains communities, you're one member organisation. Who are your other member organisations?

Ms Baldwin : We represent and about 14. I don't think I've got that with me written down. We represent the upper Goulburn—

Senator DAVEY: You can take that on notice. That would be good.

Ms Baldwin : Yes, I'll let you know.

Senator DAVEY: We have a jam-packed program today. We have a lot of different organisations, including Southern Riverina Irrigators, the Murray Regional Strategy Group and the Speak Up 4 Water campaign. I know of the Murray Valley Private Diverters association, and we've got the Ricegrowers' Association here. So when we're talking about consultation, governments need, when we go out to consult—you've quite rightly said there are multiple government agencies involved and you don't know who to turn to. Who do we turn to? There are so many organisations, and all of these ones are community based and then you've got the environmental organisations. We're seeing a couple tomorrow. We've had the Inland Rivers Network before us and we've had the Lifeblood association. So who do we go to as the voice for this region so that we know—

Ms Baldwin : That was the instigation behind Southern Connected Basin Communities, really.

Senator DAVEY: I thought it was also the instigation behind the Murray Regional Strategy Group.

Ms Baldwin : The Murray Regional Strategy Group is not a member of SCBC. The Murray Regional Strategy Group is only a Murray regional group; whereas SCBC has a footprint from the Darling right through to South Australia.

Senator DAVEY: That's the difference, okay.

Ms Baldwin : That's the difference. And we have some of those groups involved with SCBC.

Mr Kendell : I think you've demonstrated the fact that, because all these people are here putting their information forward, there's a problem. If there wasn't a problem you wouldn't have us here, and you wouldn't be sitting out there trying to rectify the problem we've got. Because there are so many of us putting forward submissions to you guys, you understand now where we are and you can see those lists we've got to deal with, and that is causing the list that you've got to now deal with.

Senator O'NEILL: Despairing but still showing up.

Senator O'NEILL: You might want to take this on notice. You've spoken quite eloquently with some very deep knowledge, I think, about what's going on in those First Nations communities. There was $40 million committed three years ago by the federal government. Zero has flowed through. Are you aware of any consultation that led to the establishment of that number, $40 million, and is that anywhere near adequate to provide the cultural flows that we are hearing are vital to the 50 Koori Aboriginal nations up along the river?

Ms Baldwin : We've spoken extensively with the Paakantyi, and the Paakantyi don't want water; they just want their river to flow for everyone. To them, the $40 million—they just want water in their river.

Mr Kendell : Yes. The money, they didn't want. They want to have water in their river, to have it flowing again.

Senator O'NEILL: Which could be, more or less, but they're required to deliver that. There's no reason for $40 million.

Ms Baldwin : I'm not speaking extensively, because I don't have a lot of knowledge. We did speak to another group, the other day, but we do need to go back and have a much broader discussion. They said that even with the environmental watering occurring in the forest, they don't have any say over that. They can't even get that delivered to some of their sacred, important areas. They have a right to be able to keep their areas alive so they can culturally pass them on to the next generations. I'm speaking out of school, so I don't know, but I would have thought that $40 million—I don't know where that figure came from or what was behind saying $40 million will fix the problem. I highly doubt that would fix the problem.

ACTING CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for your evidence that you've given here today. I think you have taken some questions on notice and returning those before 31 May would be useful. But again, we do have a water day coming up at estimates, I think on 28 May.

Ms Baldwin : So those questions go on notice? Do they get—

Senator DAVEY: They all get emailed to you, you don't have to take notes.

Ms Baldwin : I've got no idea what they were!

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you very much for your evidence.

Ms Baldwin : We have a couple of things to table, do we talk to the secretariat about that?

ACTING CHAIR: Yes.