Submission to the Review of the Water Act 2007 (Cth)
Submission to the Review of the Water Act 2007 (Cth)
Restoring Balance, Certainty and Accountability to Murray-Darling Basin Water Management
Submission by the Member for Murray September 2026
1. Executive Summary
I make this submission as the elected representative of the people of the Murray electorate and of communities whose economic, social and environmental future is inextricably linked to the Murray-Darling Basin.
The review of the Water Act 2007 (Cth) is an opportunity to correct a fundamental imbalance that has developed over almost two decades of Basin water reform.
The Water Act was established to provide for the integrated and sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin's water resources in the national interest. That objective cannot be reduced to the acquisition and allocation of ever-increasing volumes of water for environmental purposes. Sustainable water management must encompass environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and social wellbeing.
Our basin communities and our farmers have undergone an extraordinary level of reform since 2007. Sustainable Diversion Limits are established. Large volumes of water have been recovered for environmental purposes. Environmental water holdings are substantial and some not accounted for such as loss and conveyance water. Billions of dollars of public and private investment have been committed to water recovery, infrastructure and efficiency.
The Basin must enter a different phase of water management. Enough is enough as communities and some agricultural products are at a tipping point where business viability is in question.
The policy settings of the past cannot simply be carried forward indefinitely.
The principal question for this review should be:
How can Australia achieve the best possible environmental outcomes while maintaining viable agricultural production, resilient regional communities and a secure water entitlement system?
That question requires a fundamental shift from a predominantly volumetric approach to environmental management towards an integrated, outcome-focused approach.
Further reductions in the consumptive pool should not be the default response to every environmental challenge.
Where environmental outcomes can be achieved through complementary measures (including habitat restoration, riparian management, fish passage, pest and weed control, river operations, infrastructure improvements and other natural resource management measures) those measures should be actively pursued.
The people of the Murray have already contributed enormously to water reform.
Farmers have surrendered or sold water entitlements. Agricultural businesses have changed production systems. Irrigators have invested heavily in efficiency and technology. Regional communities have absorbed the economic and social consequences of prolonged adjustment. We cannot absorb anymore.
That contribution must now be recognised.
The next phase of Basin policy should provide certainty rather than perpetual adjustment; productivity rather than managed decline; and better environmental outcomes rather than simply greater volumes of water removed from productive use.
The Water Act should therefore be strengthened to:
give genuine effect to the triple-bottom-line objectives of environmental, economic and social sustainability;
recognise the strategic importance of irrigated agriculture;
protect the integrity and security of water entitlements;
ensure like entitlements are treated consistently;
maximise environmental outcomes through complementary measures;
avoid unnecessary further reductions in the consumptive pool;
minimise Commonwealth environmental water impacts on water markets;
respect the constitutional and administrative responsibilities of state governments;
simplify unnecessarily complex accreditation and planning requirements;
provide greater transparency around cumulative impacts on water reliability;
ensure that all communities affected by Basin decisions have a meaningful voice in determining the Basin's future;
genuinely account for the government owned water; and
ensure allocations are not reduced at the whim of the government and water department.
The Murray-Darling Basin is both an environmental asset of national importance and the economic foundation of some of Australia's most productive agricultural regions.
The Commonwealth has a responsibility to protect both.
2. The Purpose of the Review
The review of the Water Act should not be approached as an exercise in incremental regulatory amendment.
It should be treated as an opportunity to assess whether the legislative framework remains fit for purpose after almost two decades of unprecedented water reform.
The circumstances that existed when the Water Act was enacted are not the circumstances that exist today.
The Basin now operates under an extensive framework of:
Sustainable Diversion Limits;
Basin Plan requirements;
environmental water holdings;
state water resource plans;
water entitlement systems;
water markets;
environmental watering strategies;
infrastructure and efficiency programs; and
Commonwealth and state environmental management institutions.
The Commonwealth must now ask whether continued intervention through additional water recovery represents the most effective means of achieving environmental outcomes.
In many circumstances, the answer will be no.
The review should therefore establish a legislative framework that enables governments to move beyond the assumption that environmental improvement necessarily requires the removal of additional water from productive use.
3. The Triple-Bottom-Line Must Become a Genuine Legislative Principle
The central reform required is to give genuine effect to the triple-bottom-line approach.
Environmental sustainability is essential.
It is not, however, the only legitimate public policy consideration.
A sustainable Basin requires:
healthy rivers;
productive farms;
strong regional economies;
resilient communities;
secure water entitlements;
reliable agricultural production;
planning for an expanded population to meet national food security needs, including future dam construction; and
responsible environmental management.
These objectives are not inherently incompatible.
Indeed, the most successful Basin policy will be policy that delivers multiple benefits simultaneously.
The current framework must therefore be strengthened so that economic and social considerations are adhered to.
Where a proposed policy has a significant impact on agricultural production or regional communities, that impact should be explicitly identified, quantified where possible and considered alongside the anticipated environmental benefit.
No single interest should have an automatic right of precedence.
4. The Human and Economic Cost of Water Reform
Water reform has imposed real costs on Murray communities.
Those costs should not be minimised or treated as an unavoidable footnote to environmental policy.
For many communities, the effects of reduced water availability have been profound.
Irrigation supports an economic ecosystem that extends far beyond individual properties.
A reduction in agricultural production affects:
farm employment;
agricultural contractors;
machinery and equipment businesses;
transport operators;
processors;
manufacturing;
local retailers;
professional services;
hospitality;
schools and community organisations;
local population and investment; and
the state and national economy.
The effect is cumulative.
A reduction in water availability can cause a reduction in production. Reduced production affects businesses. Reduced business activity affects employment. Reduced employment affects population and investment.
This is how water policy becomes regional economic policy.
The Commonwealth must therefore stop treating the economic consequences of water recovery as incidental.
They are central consequences of the policy.
5. The Murray Community Has Already Done Its Part
The communities of the Murray have demonstrated an extraordinary willingness to participate in reform.
Irrigators have responded to changing water availability through:
improved irrigation efficiency;
precision agriculture;
automation;
improved soil and crop management;
water monitoring;
technological innovation;
changed crop selection; and
substantial private investment.
Australian irrigation is highly productive by international standards.
The sector has not stood still.
It has responded to policy change with innovation.
That innovation should be encouraged.
Government policy should provide a stable environment in which agricultural businesses and rural communities can continue investing in productivity rather than forcing them to continually defend their viability against further reductions in water availability.
6. The Consumptive Pool Should Not Be the Default Environmental Bank
The fundamental policy position of this submission is straightforward:
The consumptive pool should not be treated as the default source of water for resolving every environmental problem in the Basin.
The Basin already holds substantial volumes of environmental water.
The priority must now be to ensure that water is used strategically and efficiently.
Where environmental objectives can be delivered through better river management, infrastructure, improved and new water infrastructure, habitat restoration or natural resource management, those options should be properly evaluated before additional productive water is recovered.
The relevant question should be:
What delivers the greatest environmental benefit for the least economic and social cost?
That is a much more sophisticated policy question than simply asking how much more water can be recovered.
7. Complementary Measures Must Be Elevated
Environmental water is important, but water alone cannot repair every environmental problem.
The Commonwealth should place significantly greater emphasis on complementary environmental measures.
These include:
restoration of riparian vegetation;
wetland restoration;
fish passage infrastructure;
management of invasive species;
weed control;
erosion control;
habitat restoration;
cold-water pollution mitigation;
improved river operations;
environmental infrastructure; and
targeted natural resource management.
These measures can deliver significant ecological benefits without necessarily reducing the volume of water available to productive users.
The Water Act should explicitly recognise complementary measures as legitimate and necessary instruments of Basin environmental policy.
8. Environmental Water Must Be Managed for Maximum Benefit
The question is no longer simply whether environmental water has been recovered.
The question is whether the water already recovered is being managed to deliver the maximum possible environmental benefit.
The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder should be required to demonstrate that environmental water is being used efficiently and strategically.
Environmental water management should also account for:
water market impacts;
impacts on consumptive users;
seasonal conditions;
river operations;
environmental priorities;
cumulative impacts; and
regional economic consequences.
The CEWH should have an explicit responsibility to minimise unnecessary disruption to water markets.
9. Water Entitlements Are Fundamental to Regional Investment
A functioning water entitlement system is essential to a functioning agricultural economy.
Water entitlements are long-term assets upon which farmers, businesses and financial institutions make investment decisions.
Uncertainty regarding the future treatment of those entitlements has consequences far beyond the immediate water market.
It affects:
land values;
investment;
borrowing;
succession planning;
farm development; and
regional confidence.
The Water Act must therefore provide stronger protection for the integrity of the entitlement system.
Like entitlements should be treated equally.
Government should not arbitrarily enhance or diminish the characteristics of one class of like entitlement relative to another.
Certainty is not a privilege for irrigators.
It is a necessary condition for a functioning water market and productive economy.
10. Commonwealth-State Relations Must Be Respected
The Commonwealth has an important role in Basin-wide water management.
That role does not justify unnecessary Commonwealth intrusion into matters that are appropriately managed by state governments.
NSW has established water planning arrangements addressing:
water security;
water quality;
climate;
flood mitigation;
environmental requirements; and
Aboriginal water interests.
These systems should be recognised rather than duplicated.
Overlapping Commonwealth and state requirements does not necessarily produce better water management.
It can instead produce:
regulatory duplication;
uncertainty;
additional administrative costs;
inconsistent requirements; and
reduced capacity to respond to local conditions.
The Commonwealth should establish national objectives and standards where necessary while allowing states appropriate flexibility to implement those objectives.
11. Water Resource Plan Accreditation Should Be Proportionate
Water Resource Plans must provide appropriate environmental protections.
However, the accreditation framework should not become an additional layer of unnecessary Commonwealth regulation.
Accreditation should be:
clear;
proportionate;
transparent;
efficient; and
focused on outcomes.
The objective should be to ensure baseline environmental requirements are met, not to create unnecessarily restrictive planning obligations.
12. Climate Change Must Not Become a Proxy for Further Water Recovery
Climate change is real and requires serious policy responses.
But climate change does not affect only irrigators.
It affects the entire Basin, including the environment. We know that we have an ephemeral environment so there are cycles of drought and flood.
Environmental water holders, towns, farmers and ecosystems are all exposed to changing rainfall, temperature and evaporation patterns.
Consideration should be given to the frequency and intensity of flooding. This is particularly important as we experience far more erratic climate events.
Climate adaptation therefore needs to be considered across the whole system.
Where NSW already incorporates climate considerations into its water planning frameworks, additional Commonwealth prescription risks duplication without necessarily improving outcomes.
The appropriate response is adaptive management based on evidence and improved resilience, not an automatic assumption that agricultural water availability must continually decline.
13. Water Security and Water Quality
Water security and water quality are critical issues for the people of the Murray.
However, responsibility for these matters should remain appropriately allocated between governments.
State governments are well placed to manage local and regional water security and quality issues.
The Commonwealth should avoid unnecessary duplication of these functions.
Where Basin-wide coordination is required, governments should cooperate through existing intergovernmental mechanisms rather than creating another layer of Commonwealth prescription.
14. Transparency Around Water Reliability
The cumulative impact of water policy on reliability must become more transparent.
Farmers and communities should be able to understand how successive changes to policy, planning, environmental water management, and river operations affect the reliability of access to water.
I therefore support the establishment of a public register of cumulative impacts on water access reliability.
This would provide a transparent evidence base for future decision-making.
It would also ensure that the consequences of successive policy decisions are not hidden by considering each decision independently.
15. Aboriginal Interests and the Integrity of the Water Framework
The Murray region has a profound Aboriginal cultural connection to its waterways.
Any reform of the Water Act must recognise and respect Aboriginal interests.
At the same time, proposed legislative concepts must be clearly defined and legally workable.
The implications for existing water entitlements and statutory planning arrangements must also be understood.
I do not support incorporating United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) principles into the Water Act.
UNDRIP is not legally binding and nor should it be. It is not also appropriate to transfer the Federal Government's Closing the Gap for the Federal Government's own political agenda.
Opportunities already exist in the Water Act whereby delivery of First Nations economic, environmental, spiritual and cultural outcomes can be enhanced. These programs can also be recognised in programs related to environmental water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH).
16. Strengthening Water Rights and the National Water Initiative
The integrity of the Australian water entitlement framework should be reinforced.
Relevant provisions of sections 28 to 34 of the National Water Initiative, or Outcome 7A of the National Water Agreement framework, should be incorporated into the Water Act where appropriate.
The objective should be a water entitlement framework characterised by:
security;
transparency;
consistency;
clear ownership and characteristics;
efficient trading; and
confidence for long-term investment.
17. Review the Science and Management of the Coorong and Lower Lakes in South Australia
Why the science underpinning the Water Act should be reviewed
The Lower Lakes and Coorong are among South Australia's most important and complex water-dependent environments. They support internationally significant wetlands, threatened ecological communities, native fish and bird populations, productive agricultural systems, tourism and communities whose livelihoods and wellbeing are closely connected to the health of the Murray-Darling Basin.
The science underpinning the management of these systems has played an important role in shaping decisions under the Water Act. However, science is not static. As new observations, monitoring data, modelling techniques and ecological knowledge become available, the assumptions on which legislation and water-management arrangements are based should be periodically tested and, where necessary, updated.
There is therefore a strong case for an independent review of the scientific evidence underpinning the Water Act as it applies to the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
The system has changed, and our understanding has changed with it
The Lower Lakes and Coorong are dynamic systems. Their condition is influenced by river inflows, rainfall, evaporation, sea levels, salinity, barrage operations, groundwater interactions, climate variability and longer-term climate change. These factors do not operate independently; changes in one part of the system can have consequences elsewhere.
Since many of the assumptions underpinning contemporary water-management arrangements were developed, there has been substantially more data and scientific understanding of how the Lower Lakes and Coorong function.
A review should therefore ask a fundamental question:
Are the ecological assumptions, conceptual models and scientific thresholds currently used to inform water-management decisions still supported by the best available evidence?
The south east of SA marsh area, Lower Lakes and Coorong should be considered as a connected system
One of the challenges in managing the Lower Lakes and Coorong is that they are often discussed through separate objectives, indicators and management frameworks, despite being physically and ecologically interconnected.
The system includes Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert, the Murray Mouth, the Coorong lagoons and their surrounding wetlands and estuarine environments. Each component has different ecological characteristics and responses to freshwater, saline and estuarine conditions.
A contemporary scientific review should examine whether the current framework adequately captures these interactions.
In particular, it should consider:
the ecological requirements of freshwater, estuarine and saline environments;
historical flows;
the role of natural variability in water levels and salinity;
the importance of connectivity between the River Murray, Lower Lakes, Murray Mouth and Coorong;
the ecological consequences of different barrage operating regimes;
the role of seawater exchange and tidal processes;
groundwater and surface-water interactions;
the resilience and adaptability of key species and ecological communities; and
whether management thresholds adequately represent ecological processes rather than relying on individual indicators in isolation.
Climate change makes periodic scientific review more important
The Water Act and associated management arrangements should be informed by the best available understanding of both.
A review should therefore assess whether current environmental water requirements and management objectives remain appropriate.
Management objectives should be tested against measurable ecological outcomes
Scientific review should also examine the relationship between water-management actions and actual ecological outcomes.
It is important to distinguish between:
the amount of water delivered;
the environmental conditions created; and
the ecological outcomes achieved.
A robust review should therefore examine whether existing water-management rules and environmental water requirements can demonstrate a clear and defensible connection between water allocations, hydrological conditions and ecological outcomes.
An independent scientific review should transparently identify:
which conclusions are strongly supported by evidence;
which depend on modelling assumptions;
where scientific disagreement exists;
where evidence is limited or outdated;
what uncertainties materially affect policy decisions; and
what additional monitoring or research would most effectively reduce those uncertainties.
This would strengthen, rather than weaken, evidence-based decision-making.
A contemporary evidence base should bring together western scientific knowledge, long-term monitoring and Traditional ecological knowledge in a respectful and appropriately governed manner.
Independent review would improve confidence in the Water Act
It should examine:
The scientific assumptions underpinning current Lower Lakes and Coorong objectives.
The ecological thresholds and indicators used to determine environmental requirements.
The hydrological and ecological models used to inform decision-making.
The relationship between environmental water use and ecological outcomes.
The influence of climate change and sea-level rise on future system behaviour.
Alternative management scenarios.
Uncertainty, knowledge gaps and research priorities.
Whether the Water Act's objectives and associated management settings remain scientifically defensible and fit for the future.
An independent, transparent and multidisciplinary review would provide the evidence that would ensure that future decisions are based on the best available science, sound ecological principles and a clear understanding of the risks and opportunities facing the Lower Lakes and Coorong.
18. A New Direction for Basin Policy
The Basin does not need another generation of water reform defined principally by taking more water from productive use.
It needs a new generation of integrated management.
The priorities should be:
better environmental outcomes, not simply more environmental water;
greater productivity and stronger regional economies, not further unmanaged economic contraction;
secure water rights, not perpetual uncertainty;
complementary measures, not reliance on a single policy instrument;
cooperative federalism, not unnecessary Commonwealth overreach; and
transparency, not decisions whose cumulative effects are difficult to identify.
This is not an argument against environmental protection.
It is an argument for better environmental policy.
19. Recommendations
I recommend that the Commonwealth Government adopt the following reforms through the review of the Water Act:
1. Integrated management Amend the Water Act to give greater effect to integrated management of the Basin's water resources.
2. Genuine triple-bottom-line decision-making Strengthen the Act to require transparent consideration of environmental, economic and social outcomes.
3. No automatic precedence Ensure that no single stakeholder interest is automatically given precedence over legitimate competing environmental, economic and social considerations.
4. Recognition of irrigated agriculture Explicitly recognise irrigated agriculture as a strategically important contributor to Australia's food production, exports, employment and regional economies.
5. Protect the consumptive pool Do not pursue further reductions in the consumptive pool where equivalent or better environmental outcomes can be achieved through other measures.
6. Complementary environmental measures Require governments to properly consider non-volumetric measures, including habitat restoration, riparian management, fish passage, pest and weed control and environmental infrastructure.
7. Maximum environmental benefit Require environmental water to be managed to maximise environmental outcomes from water already recovered.
8. CEWH market responsibility Give the CEWH an explicit responsibility to minimise unnecessary impacts on water markets.
9. Equal treatment of entitlements Include in the Act the principle that "like" water entitlements should be treated equally.
10. Entitlement security Strengthen statutory protections for water entitlement security and integrity.
11. Remove WESA Remove WESA provisions from the Water Act.
12. Simplify WRP accreditation Simplify Water Resource Plan accreditation while retaining appropriate environmental safeguards.
13. Planned environmental water Modify the definition of planned environmental water to provide appropriate flexibility for state water management.
14. Climate change Do not introduce unnecessary additional Commonwealth climate-change requirements where these matters are already addressed through state planning frameworks.
15. State responsibility Respect state responsibility for water security and water quality and avoid unnecessary Commonwealth duplication.
16. Reliability register Establish a public register tracking who owns our most precious natural resource and cumulative impacts on water access reliability.
17. Aboriginal water concepts FPIC should not diminish the practical value, reliability or usability of an existing entitlement.
18. UNDRIP Do not incorporate UNDRIP principles into the Water Act.
19. National Water Initiative Incorporate relevant provisions of sections 28 to 34 of the National Water Initiative or Outcome 7A of the National Water Agreement framework to strengthen the water entitlement system.
20. Conclusion: A Fairer and More Sustainable Basin
The Murray-Darling Basin is too important to Australia to be managed through a single-dimensional policy framework.
It is simultaneously:
an environmental system;
a food-producing region;
an economic engine;
a network of regional communities;
a cultural landscape; and
a national asset.
The Water Act must reflect that reality.
The people of the Murray have accepted substantial change in the interests of Basin reform. They have invested in efficiency, changed farming practices, surrendered water and endured years of uncertainty.
They should not now be told that the only pathway to environmental improvement is to surrender still more productive water.
The Commonwealth should use this review to establish a new policy settlement based on balance, certainty, accountability and outcomes.
Environmental water already secured must be used effectively.
Complementary environmental measures must be elevated.
The economic and social consequences of water policy must be properly recognised.
Water entitlements must be secure.
State responsibilities must be respected.
Rural regional communities must be respected and allowed to have a meaningful voice.
And future decisions must be based on the principle that a sustainable Basin is one in which the environment, agriculture and communities are all capable of thriving.
The people of the Murray do not ask for special treatment.
They ask for fair treatment, sound policy and a seat at the table when decisions affecting their future are made.
The Commonwealth has an opportunity through this review to restore confidence in Basin water policy.
I urge the Government to take that opportunity.
The next chapter of Murray-Darling Basin reform must not be about taking more from the communities that have already given so much. It must be about achieving more: better environmental outcomes, stronger rural regional economies, secure water rights and a sustainable future for the entire Basin.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Dalton MP Independent Member for Murray