Ms BADGER – In December 2023, just after the legislative changes were made last year, Tas Irrigation sent a letter to the Winnaleah scheme stating that the self-management would be discussed in January 2024. They didn’t receive anything and followed up with TasFarmers in February to find out where Tas Irrigation was up to. My understanding is the outcome was Tas Irrigation would have information to that group by October in regard to self-management. We’re now in December, and they haven’t received anything right when they need it. Have you attempted to send them any correspondence? If so, what have you sent them?
Ms HOWLETT – Yes, we certainly have provided them correspondence. Thank you, Mr Kneebone.
Mr KNEEBONE – Thanks for the question, but I’m sorry; it’s factually incorrect.
Ms FINLAY – Which bit is factually incorrect?
CHAIR – Ms Finlay, it wasn’t even your question and you’re interjecting. Please do not interrupt the officials at the table.
Ms FINLAY – Look, can I just –
Mr KNEEBONE – I’m happy to provide the detail. I wrote to Winnaleah to let them know that the legislation had passed and that we would now have to work through the development of the required components and processes that the legislation required.
Ms BADGER – This was December 2023, the letter that I said?
Mr KNEEBONE – That was 2023, yes, and I asked them for an indication so that could help us at the time to indicate what they thought the scope of their application might be and I never got a response to that. But in the interim, we developed our required guidelines and draft application forms. Winnaleah were engaged, along with every other irrigation group, through a public consultation process. They were individually written to. All of our irrigators were written to and invited to come to consultation sessions and to provide feedback on the drafts that we provided. Members of the Winnaleah board did come to our session in Scottsdale at the time.
We undertook all of that process because this is a state-wide issue – it’s not just a Winnaleah issue of community management – so we have to develop a set of systems and processes and draft contract documentation to go through that to satisfy the requirements of the act.
And we completed that consultation. It’s taken us a bit longer than we had hoped because there were some to go around the second round of consultation. We’ve finalised- we took on the feedback that we were given. We had to seek some additional advice from the department in respect of, particularly, prescribed fees and what structure they had to comply with. We didn’t understand that particular technical point of the legislation at the time. We’ve since put out a second round of consultation documents. We’ve written to every irrigator again, as well as the peak bodies, to seek some additional feedback in respect of that documentation. That was only a matter of a week or two ago. Because of the time of year, we’ve left that consultation open until the end of January. We’re still in the process of getting drafted the forms of contract people would need to enter into now, because we have never had these forms of contract before.
The lease contracts anyway, we’ve had sort of operations and maintenance type contracts previously, but this is a fairly large piece of work that actually needs a lot of detail put into it in terms of the specifications associated with it. The legislation passed was a fundamental change to our business model. It requires the board to decide about essentially the outsourcing of their responsibilities to third parties. They need to be assured that they’re making the appropriate risk‑based assessment when they’re considering those applications.
The only other point I’d raise is we have been engaging with Winnaleah. I understand through the minister’s office and we understand there is a terms of reference for a working group. We’ve agreed to a trial with them, to trial their application process and we will work with them to go through how they would prepare their application. We would use that as our test case ahead of finalising these documents.
They’re actually getting some assistance in preparing the associated documentation, but they’ve never had to comply or demonstrate these sorts of things that are required by the act previously in order to undertake this.
Ms HOWLETT – Can I add to that comment?
CHAIR – Very briefly.
Ms HOWLETT – I absolutely want to support Winnaleah and why I provided them with the terms of reference and I’m confident this will be a good outcome for all parties and they’ll be able to work through the details together.
Ms BADGER – I would like you to table the terms of reference and, as a part of what was provided to all schemes, not just Winnaleah, for that second round of consultation. Were they also provided with any kind of outcomes from the first round as to why the second round was necessary, going to broaden the scope of it to narrow that down?
Mr KNEEBONE – If I may, minister, the second round of consultation was always foreseen. We did an initial round. We said there would be a second round once we got and considered the feedback. As part of the documentation we’ve put on our website, there is a list of the feedback we received and our responses to that feedback, as well as marked up copies that show clearly the changes made to the draft documents. Whereas as a result of that consultation, it’s still open because we said we need to have them finalised. But we weren’t going to just do it on the basis of one set. We wanted to make sure that people had ample opportunity to give us feedback.
CHAIR – Is there a request to table document?
Ms HOWLETT – I’m happy to table the draft terms of reference.
CHAIR – Have you those here, minister, or do you need to take that on notice?
Ms HOWLETT – I’ll have them by the end of the session for you.
Ms BADGER – I want to touch on Tas Irrigation’s involvement with the working group responsible for their data monitoring and reporting in terms of the water data and monitoring around the different sites. What are you currently doing to make that water monitoring – and the very specifics of it, not just the overarching part that is available in the environment reports and your annual report – more publicly available and user-friendly to the communities around the areas?
Ms HOWLETT – I thank the member for her question. It’s a very important question.
Mr KNEEBONE – If it’s okay, I’ll take the first part and then hand over to Sophie who can provide some greater detail. With the water quality and water monitoring data we provide, elements of that go straight through to the portal that NRE runs. That is live data but that’s more about flow. We are part of a working group that that NRE have in place which is looking at the consolidation of all of this water quality data from not just ours, but across the state. They’ve got a working group looking at that and part of the outcome that working group is looking at is the development of a system. That’s all under the remit of the Rural Water Use Strategy and that’s ongoing work that is funded. I think the outcome of that is likely to be a consolidated database that then allows for this to be aggregated and much more easily prepared for analysis.
In respect of our own water quality results, they are embedded in our water entity reports which are submitted to the government every year. We have recently made some decisions in respect of how that is going to be publicly displayed. Do you want to take that on, Sophie?
Ms GRACE – This year we will be making that data available through our website and we’re currently working on the details of what’s contained on the website as well. Essentially, this financial year we’ll be making that data available.
Mr KNEEBONE – Just one point of clarification on the previous question. The exact amount of funding is $403,000.
Ms BADGER – In terms of groundwater monitoring, that was independently reviewed in 2023 and TI updated their practices in line with the review recommendations. Is that review publicly available to understand if all of those recommendations have been fully implemented.
CHAIR – To be clear, Ms Badger, the question needs to through either the chair or the minister.
Ms BADGER – Through you, minister.
Ms HOWLETT – Thank you.
Ms GRACE – It’s not a report that we’ve made publicly available but it’s certainly something that is available through RTI.
Mr KNEEBONE – The groundwater monitoring is a condition of our environmental approvals for the south-east 3 scheme, so if there’s a requirement for a report, it’s to go to the federal department. I’m not sure what the process of public release of those reports is, but we’re accountable to the federal department in respect of ensuring that we’re not doing environmental harm in those schemes. One of their ways of ensuring we’re not doing environmental harm is to monitor the groundwater. It’s only in south-east 3 because of the Ramsar wetland sites.
Ms BADGER – Just to clarify, I wasn’t speaking about the reports as such, but the review of the reports that happened in 2023 and whether that review done by TI is publicly available or whether it could be tabled. Not the reports themselves.
Ms GRACE – The review that was done, we currently having a further review of our actions over the past 12 months. As I said before, we’re going to be making that water quality data available through our website, so all of these different activities we’re doing will be also available. In short, yes, the outcomes and the tracking of what we’re actually doing about it will form part of that body of work.
Ms BADGER – Either to the minister or the chair. In your annual report, what probably stands out the most is the increase in irrigation water that’s been delivered from over 56 megalitres in the previous year to over 100,000 and 2023‑24. Your report describes this as unprecedented, but surely that has to be considered now as part of the new norm under climate change and that we are going to see massive demand growth in the future. It is not unprecedented. What are you doing to plan for that into the future?
Ms VINOT – Thank you very much for your question. If I can, do you want me to take that one, minister? Unprecedented is a very highly used word in the context that we presented it in the annual report. It was the amount of water that we delivered in a year compared with the previous years. Tas Irrigation has gradually got bigger. Obviously, we’ve got the Don scheme that we were providing water to last year as well and it was an extremely dry year. The capacity of all of the schemes collectively, has not been used to that extent in the past. Nonetheless, we were not exceeding any of the capacities of anything that’s gone through construction and environmental approvals. It’s just that the total quantity of water was higher than we’ve ever used before.
I totally concur with you that we are going to have more and more unprecedented levels of droughts and flooding rains in the face of climate change, and that’s something that we absolutely take into account when planning new schemes and also when operating the existing schemes. In the particular case you’re quoting, the capacity that has been approved and built is easily sufficient to deliver that quantity of water. It’s the first time that it’s been needed.
I don’t know if the CEO would like to add anything to that?
Mr KNEEBONE – That’s exactly right.
Ms BADGER – In past years you’ve advised the Greens that you assess the potential environmental impacts of your scheme on a single‑year basis, but that you were looking at an option to consider trend data across time to assess potential environmental impacts of the schemes. In light of climate change, have you made this change to consider those impacts and the trends data across time rather than just at a single moment?
Mr KNEEBONE – What you’re referring to, I believe, is the water quality data and those reports that we undertake in respect of that. That’s how we assess the longitudinal impact of irrigation on the receiving – not the receiving environment, but the broader catchment. That really now is in scope of this rural water strategy work that NRE is doing because it’s a much broader remit than just the Tasmanian Irrigation. We are only 10 per cent of the irrigation water that is supplied in the state. The vast majority of it is supplied through licence directly with NRE or through supplies out of the hydro schemes.
We’ve decided not to do anything just on our own other than publishing our data, as Sophie outlined earlier, because it’s now been effectively subsumed by the rural water strategy work that’s being done across the state.
CHAIR – Minister, just for the benefit of Hansard, I need you to actually say what you have just given us to the table.
Ms HOWLETT – Thank you, Chair. I’ve tabled the draft terms of reference for the Winnaleah scheme.
Ms BADGER – Forgive me if I’m wrong, but under the legislation, absolutely TI don’t have that authority to return the RWE, but the minister does, am I right? We can check and take that on notice if you like.
Mr KNEEBONE – We can’t. It’s up to them.
Ms HOWLETT – Yes, I believe you’re correct.
Ms BADGER – Great, thank you. Given that this scheme really is, and for this program to proceed as Ms Finlay has outlined, is reliant on that RWE being returned to Winnaleah, you said that you support the minister, will you step up and see that it’s returned if that is a non‑negotiable part of this trial proceeding?
Ms HOWLETT – Let’s sit down with Winnaleah, with TI and the farmers’ representative from Tasmania Farmers, and let’s work through the process. But I certainly want it to be a successful process and I’ve made that very clear to them.
Ms BADGER – I just want to quickly touch on that there’s been a bit of noncompliance with the farm access plans. I know TI made the education program back in about 2023. Could you please confirm whether that’s helped to reduce the level of non-compliance and how you’re assessing how that education plan is performing?
Ms GRACE – It’s an ongoing program. We’re at the moment finalising this last lot of auditing. At this stage, just looking at the figures that are coming through, no, it isn’t decreasing the number of non-conformances coming through. The non-conformances, however, continue to be related to what we’ve been reporting in the past on the administrative aspects of the farm water access plan. It’s an area of focus we are continuing with.
The issues we have here is when we are auditing, it is a random selection. We’re not going back necessarily in every year auditing the same people. I think it’s going to take a little while and a few years to actually start seeing a bit of a shift.
The other aspect is some of the things we are focusing on changing or improving with our program is making sure the farm water access plans are appropriately updated and current. That’s also an aspect that will help reduce some of those issues we’re finding.
Ms BADGER – I had question on the South East Irrigation Scheme coming online. The entire Derwent River and that section is under a lot of pressure. Farmers that have normal water take agreements that may or may not be part of that irrigation scheme have concerns over the lack of research that’s gone into how the river flow would be different under the Marinus Link scheme.
We saw before, Basslink, there was a tremendous amount of research on all the major river systems in Tasmania and we haven’t seen that happen as yet with Marinus Link. What is Tas Irrigation doing for the confidence of your customers, for Tasmania’s, in terms of making sure the proper research is done in preparation? That there is that research done prior to the May 2025 Marinus Link business case to sure up what the different river flow situations might be to and how you will deal with that in terms of meeting demand?
Mr KNEEBONE – In respect of the question, we actually don’t have any irrigators on the Derwent River, they’re not our irrigators, they’re not people who take water that we supply.
Ms BADGER – I understand. That was part of the question. Sorry, Mr Kneebone, I did point that out. I’m just wondering, we have an obligation to make sure that they still have confidence they’re going to be able to get water, that the waterway is still going to be healthy as well.
Mr KNEEBONE – In respect of this Greater South East Scheme, we currently extract water or water is extracted on our behalf at Bryn Estyn and supplied to us under licence. Under the new scheme, we’ll be taking water directly out of Meadowbank Lake. In agreeing the water supply agreement with Hydro, they have to make an assessment that it’s not going to impact at all their releases into the Lower Derwent below Meadowbank.
We can’t have that impact, and in fact the amount of water we’re taking over a 12-month period – if all of its ever taken – would be less than 1.3 per cent of the total volume of the of the dam. In respect, there should be or is to be no impact on the status quo of the river below Derwent on the basis of what TI are doing, other than we will no longer need our water extracted at Bryn Estyn and we’ll have a licence we won’t need to use. We still haven’t worked out whether we’re handing that back to NRE or what we’re doing with that particular licence at this point in time because it’s a number of years away.
Ms BADGER – That assessment’s current model, I guess, is firming my question and it does sound like it’s a question for Hydro, not TI, but it’s based on the current river flows, not projected for Marinus.
Mr KNEEBONE – Yes.
