MACQUARIE-WAMBUUL WATER SECURITY PROJECT
Production of Documents: Order

The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 15:30 ): I move:

That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness, Minister for Mental Health and Minister for Youth, the Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Heritage, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Treasurer or the Treasury relating to the Macquarie-Wambuul Water Security Project:

(a)all documents relating to the development of the Macquarie-Wambuul Water Security Project, including all correspondence between a department and minister;

(b)all documents relating to the flood mitigation zone option for Burrendong Dam, including all documents relating to modelling, analysis, feasibility assessments, cost-benefit analyses, engineering reports or advice regarding the proposal to raise the dam's storage zone;

(c)all documents relating to stakeholder consultation for the Macquarie-Wambuul Water Security Project or the Burrendong Dam flood mitigation zone option, including all documents received from local government authorities, water users, landholders, irrigation groups, environmental groups or Indigenous communities;

(d)all documents relating to the potential downstream, agricultural or environmental impacts of proposed changes to Burrendong Dam's flood mitigation zone, including all documents relating to modelling, impacts on licence entitlements, floodplain management, or downstream communities or ecosystems;

(e)all documents relating to the calculation, assessment or determination of Biodiversity Conservation Trust payments and the Macquarie-Wambuul Water Security Project or the Burrendong Dam flood mitigation zone option, including:

(i)all documents relating to methodology, formula, valuation advice or offset determinations;

(ii)all correspondence between a department and the Biodiversity Conservation Trust;

(iii)all legal or other advice regarding the basis on which such payments have been or may be calculated; and

(f)any legal or other advice regarding the scope of validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of the House.

Once again, we do not need to be here. We sought this information some time ago and were told, "We are happy to be open and transparent." I spent a bit of time on the Government bench when Labor was in opposition. We heard a lot of noise about transparency and that we were being secretive. Yet the Government is significantly worse than we were in government. The project proposes to raise the capacity of Burrendong Dam from where it is now to 120 per cent, which would become the new 100 per cent zone. The fact that my motion under Standing Order 52 is supported by members who oppose that proposal speaks a lot to the lack of transparency we have seen repeatedly from the Government. Six weeks ago, we asked a question seeking more information and we were told that it would be shared.

We asked a supplementary question for written answer so that it would be replied to the next day. At that time, we were told, "We will get you a briefing," but then the briefing was moved. We did eventually have the briefing, but do not forget that that briefing was first offered six weeks ago. And, even in that briefing, we got no information. A lot of stuff was taken on notice, and we still do not have that information. We have been chasing that information for six weeks. That is why we are debating my motion. What is even more unimpressive is that that information should be on hand. How can the Government make decisions to rule out a proposal without the information to back it up?

The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 11:29 ): It is interesting that the announcement for this project was made in Western Sydney and the Government dragged a couple of local MPs there to make that announcement and is talking to gas companies. Who has not been engaged in this conversation yet? The landholders of western New South Wales, who woke up to an announcement that their properties are, once again, under threat of gas exploration. I am not saying that they are going to be against the proposal, but they need to be taken on that journey. There needs to be consultation to make sure that they are not getting railroaded. The outcome will be that Western Sydney gets new power. We have an announcement that seems a little performative about new energy for Western Sydney. But what do the people of regional New South Wales get? They get absolutely railroaded once again by this Government.

The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 21:06 ): Like the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, I do not support the disallowance motion. One of the main reasons is that I acknowledge the need for cheap, reliable power and energy. Gas is obviously a major part of that solution. I acknowledge the Minister's comment that the exploration licences in western New South Wales are not directly connected to this disallowance motion, but the issues have been merged as a result of the contribution of Ms Sue Higginson, the mover of the motion. The timing of the motion also made them relevant. I do not support the motion but, in forming that position, I seek some assurances from the Minister. I know there will be plenty of opportunities for those assurances to come forward, both in this place and, hopefully, with future consultation with the people impacted.

One of those assurances is that consultation with landholders affected by the exploration licences will improve. A lot of them woke up the day this was announced to see maps of their properties with exploration licences put back over them. Seeing it on the news was the first they heard of it. I understand there might be some meetings in the near future about that, but it would be good to know that those landowners will be taken on the ride. More and more, our landowners are waking up to new regulations, rules and developments that are totally out of their control and that affect their livelihoods and their lives. The developments get dictated to them, and the benefits predominantly go to metropolitan areas rather than those in which the people so badly affected live.

The other assurance is that we do not have cowboys in this space. There was a concern, when the reduction in the rate first came out, that anyone could go out there and start drilling. We need assurances that they will not speculatively dig wildcat holes throughout western New South Wales and then end up going broke, leaving behind mess and damage, problems for the areas and, ultimately, heartbreak for the affected landowners. If these projects go ahead, there are other considerations as well. The roads in that part of New South Wales are already ordinary and drastically in need of improvement. For instance, rain cuts them almost immediately, and any increase in traffic will worsen the problem. It is a real problem for the people who live there. Those roads are their only connection to town. They are how they transport stock to and from their properties, so they directly affect their livelihoods. Those roads need improvement already, so any development like we are talking about here needs some significant improvement to them.

Obviously, there is the potential impact on the water. The impact if we get that wrong is unfixable, so we cannot afford mistakes in that area, and every measure must be taken to make sure that no bad impacts occur. There is also the issue of having strangers on someone's property, where people live. I think that is often overlooked. Kids might be riding their bikes for fun and come across some stranger. There is the impact on working farms. Trucks and machinery may impact lambing ewes or kidding goats, impact mustering and cause disturbances around waterholes. These are all things that need to be considered.

Many landholders would greatly appreciate if this conversation opened up discussion around the transfer of leases to freehold, which would have a big impact on the people who live in these areas. It would give them greater security and certainty over their land, improve their access to finance and have other control benefits, and decrease the Government's control on their land, which would be beneficial for them. So I oppose this disallowance motion. I support the search for more gas, which is badly needed for us. But this cannot be the end of this. We need to take pastoralists on the ride and make sure that the benefits are not all going one way.

The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 16:55 ): I move:

That, under standing order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Roads and Minister for Regional Transport, the Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, the Treasurer, Transport for NSW or the Treasury relating to the Regional Roads Fund projects:

(a)all business cases, short-form assessments or risk assessments, including all draft or interim versions, prepared for Regional Roads Fund projects, including projects that did not eventually receive funding;

(b)all documents sent between Transport for NSW, the Minister for Roads and Minister for Regional Transport, the Treasury or the Treasurer relating to the selection, prioritisation, scope or funding of projects funded, or proposed to be funded, from the Regional Roads Fund;

(c)all documents relating to the allocation of additional funding totalling $84 million to Regional Roads Fund projects in the 2025–26 New South Wales budget, including:

(i)all advice, proposals or submissions prepared by Transport for NSW or provided to the Minister for Roads and Minister for Regional Transport or the Treasury; and

(ii)all documents recording directions or decisions of the Minister for Roads and Minister for Regional Transport.

(d)all documents relating to the transfer of Regional Roads Fund projects from the Urban Roads Fund, or other funding sources, to the Regional Roads Fund, including:

(i)all documents recording the rationale for the transfer, or legal or eligibility advice regarding compliance with the Snowy Hydro Legacy Fund Act 2018; and

(ii)all advice regarding whether the projects satisfy the requirement that they primarily benefit regional New South Wales as defined in the Snowy Hydro Legacy Fund Act 2018.

(e)all documents relating to the release of project contingency funding above P50 levels for Regional Roads Fund projects, including:

(i)all internal submissions to the Investment and Assurance Committee, or records of committee decisions; and

(ii)all documents relating to the basis for authorising funding releases above the policy thresholds.

(f)all documents relating to the grant funding provided to local councils under the Regional Roads Fund, including:

(i)all grant funding agreements or correspondence with local councils prior to the execution of those agreements;

(ii)all documents recording the merits assessment or value for money advice for each council-led project; and

(iii)all documents relating to compliance with the New South Wales Grants Administration Guide.

(g)any legal or other advice regarding the scope or validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of the House.

I do not think it would come as a surprise to anyone who has seen the Audit Office's report on the Regional Roads Fund [RRF] that the Opposition is seeking further information about this slush fund. It is quite a doozy. It is pretty clear from the report that this program was an absolute mess, which I find particularly galling given that when I sat on the other side of this Chamber in government, Opposition members would yell and shout about transparency, pork‑barrelling and The Nationals doing this and that.

The Auditor-General's report found that business cases were not complete, despite funding having already been approved; projects did not comply with the Government's own grant guidelines; there was an inability to demonstrate that projects met investment requirements before an extra $84 million was dumped into this slush fund; and there were no guidelines in place to ensure that funding did not exceed the funding cap. Those are just a few things from pages 3 or 4 of the report. The further you go into the report, the bigger the mess you see. One thing that particularly puts a burr under my saddle is once again the tinkering of the definition of "regional" by this Government. The Government just seems to move the definition around whenever it suits its fancy. The Auditor‑General's report states:

Four projects previously funded from the Urban Roads Fund were changed to RRF projects without documentation of the rationale for the change of funding source.

The Government pilfered money from the Regional Roads Fund to fulfil election commitments in the cities. Does this Government have any respect for regional New South Wales? It is literally funding metro projects with money set aside and guaranteed for regional areas with zero explanation. The Auditor-General also states:

Bulli Bypass investigation and M1 Princes Motorway entry and exit ramps at Dapto – are located within the Wollongong metropolitan area. The locations of these projects do not meet the purpose of the Snowy Hydro Legacy Fund …

FARMING COMMUNITY
The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 14:04 ): When people think of farmers, a few cliché images come to mind: the stockman on the back of a horse behind a mob of cattle, picking fruit in a misty orchard, a tractor driving over a golden crop or the dusty silhouette in the sheep yards. The reality is that there is no single image of what a farmer does or is. Farmers across New South Wales are many different things. Increasingly though and much to their frustration, more of their time is being spent not on the farm but in front of computers, buried in submissions and reports for major projects largely out of their control. They are spending hours at information sessions, consultation meetings, on the phone, and writing submissions and emails to politicians, departments and multinational corporations. I am not talking about efforts to improve their productivity, grow their business or become more efficient, which are all the things we need farmers to be focused on in challenging times.

More and more, farmers are being forced into offices away from the work they actually do damn well simply to fight for their existence. They are fighting against new rules, regulations and unwanted developments that threaten their farms, livelihoods, way of life and future. Those are not battles they sought out. They have been thrust upon them by the decisions and desires of others, often people with little understanding of the practical impacts on regional communities. One of the clearest examples of that is the relentless rollout of renewable energy infrastructure. While we listen to the gaslighting about how everyone supports those projects and how great they are, across regional New South Wales farmers and local communities are burning countless hours dealing with the consequences.

Instead of farming, they are being forced to become experts in environmental impact statements, the processes around State significant developments and understanding bureaucratic language. Their office is often not an office at all; it is the kitchen table, a desk in the corner of the bedroom or papers spread across the lounge room floor. They attend consultation sessions, write submissions and suggest improvements to projects they never wanted in the first place. To make all that worse, far too often those concerns are acknowledged with little more than a box ticked to say that consultation occurred. People want to celebrate farmers and thank a farmer for their next meal. That is great and warranted. But instead of those platitudes, how about we stop making things harder for farmers and farming communities and stop cutting them off at the knees. We should show some respect and let farmers produce the food and fibre we rely on, which they do better than anyone else in the world, rather than railroading them in the race for a headline in Sydney.

NSW YOUNG NATIONALS
The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 22:29 ): I congratulate the NSW Young Nationals for constituting its Greater Sydney branch tonight. Earlier in the week it constituted its Central West branch. It is great to see young people getting involved and being active when there seems to be shrinking engagement with politics. Some might ask why The Nationals need a Greater Sydney branch of the Young Nationals. There are lots of young men and women who come to the city for education or work, and it is great for them to have a platform to discuss and debate policies and, more importantly, provide them to us in Parliament.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( The Hon. Emma Hurst ): The House now stands adjourned.

The House adjourned at 22:30 until Tuesday 2 June 2026 at 12:30.

CROWN LAND LICENCES
REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 22:06 ): I was not expecting to speak tonight, but I appreciate the opportunity to do so after receiving a couple of phone calls recently about Crown land licence agreements. These are paid by users of Crown lands. In some circumstances I can see this is totally appropriate, including for clubs with season‑long leases on sporting grounds, and waterfront landowners with pontoons, jetties and boat ramps that extend onto Crown land. There is probably a pretty good argument to mount that a fee should be charged in those cases. But the phone calls I have been getting relate to showground users. It started with a show society in a community that I am very fond of.

It is one of several users of the local showground. This happens in many communities around regional New South Wales. The show society uses the showground together with pony clubs, dog clubs and Scouts. It may be used for car meets, swap meets, and campdrafting, team penning and showjumping events. Schools use showgrounds for cross-country events. An array of different community groups use these community assets, and those groups are important to our communities. They foster spirit in our regional communities. They provide critical social outlets and connectivity. Yet these not-for-profits are being asked to put their hand in their pocket in order to access grounds that they have been using, in many cases, for more than 100 years and that they have put a great deal of blood, sweat and tears and their hard-earned cash into improving with infrastructure and different facilities.

During Monday's parliamentary hearing into access restrictions on public lands we heard from Narrandera Shire Council, which had to pay this fee to access Crown lands to improve those lands on behalf of the Crown. That seems utterly insane. As I understand it, the fee is to cover the cost of Crown Lands. Obviously, the people who pay this fee are wondering what they get in return. From what I can work out, it seems to cover the cost of Crown Lands auditing parcels of this estate, resolving disputes and helping users navigate their way through the Crown Land Management Act. This all seems incredibly internal. Making people pay a fee to help them navigate rules that have already been set seems an unproductive use of community money.

I can fully understand why community groups that have been asked to pay that fee are brimming with frustration. It is a fee to access grounds they have been using for more than a century—grounds with assets paid for by money raised through sausage sizzles and cake drives. That is made more frustrating when we consider that many of those grounds have several users. I listed some of them before. They might have six, eight or 10 users, and they all have to pay. Perhaps that is subsidising other areas where one regular user exists, and they have to manage disputes and issues not experienced in regional areas. This seems like an incredibly unfair tax on regional New South Wales and the groups at the heart of its communities.

As we head into the long weekend, I give a massive shout-out to the people who will be heading to regional New South Wales. It is a great opportunity to visit those parts of the State. One reason people will be travelling there is for kids sporting carnivals. Orange is holding the under-13s rugby championships, and a similar event is being held in Dubbo. Such events bring thousands of people into our regional communities to play sport, stay in motels and visit our restaurants and bars. They are a great drawcard to bring people to regional New South Wales.

An added benefit is that people then go home and say what wonderful places Orange, Dubbo, Kempsey or Tamworth are. They report back to their family and friends in metro areas, and that then brings more people and success to those areas. I urge the Government to think about that. People love travelling to regional areas, and they want to go home and tell stories about good roads, good facilities and good communities. We will look after the good communities if government can help us with the roads and facilities, starting, of course, with the Great Western Highway, which we need up and running as soon as possible.

I thank the House for the opportunity to address drought once again in this place. There has been some rain about, but drought conditions are driven not by events but by patterns. The patterns of late have not been good, nor unfortunately are the forecasts. The June quarter Agricultural Commodities Reportfrom ABARES contains some sobering reading. The gross value of agricultural production is set to fall in 2026-27. Admittedly, we have had a couple of good years. But that drop will still mean pain across regional communities, and that pain will soon be felt in our towns and cities. Those are national results from ABARES figures. With New South Wales struggling as it is at the moment, the fall in gross value will be felt more keenly. The ABARES report attributes the drops to the dry seasonal outlook, compounded by high fertiliser and fuel prices combining to reduce yields overall. Production values are forecast to decline across all major commodities, including wheat, canola, cotton, cattle and lamb. That is troubling when looked at through a farm-by-farm lens. The report states:

Average broadacre farm business profit is forecast to fall in 2026-27, down by 70% or $151,000 in real terms … driven lower by a combination of lower revenue and higher input prices across the broadacre sector …

That point alone should send shivers down the spines of the Treasurer and everyone who is interested in the strength of New South Wales. I spent a lot of time in drought affected communities in 2018, 2019 and 2020 and they were incredibly fragile, if not broken. When our ag sector slows, as happens during drought, towns and communities also slow. Shops shut, opportunities dwindle and jobs disappear. On the other side, during drought we can take advantage of feral pig control. As pigs congregate around shrinking water and feed sources, they are more likely to take baits. Despite the headlines and the numbers we keep hearing about, there does not seem to be any real impact on that problem.

Kangaroo management becomes particularly important during drought. Even if we forget the impact that kangaroos have on dwindling pastures, efforts to maintain ground cover, and damage to infrastructure like water sources and fences, kangaroo management is important for welfare reasons. During drought conditions—and I have seen this myself—tens of thousands of kangaroos die miserable deaths. They get stuck in mud, baked in the sun or eaten alive by predators and scavengers. I note that earlier in the year the Pastoralists' Association of West Darling wrote to the Government, suggesting that it follow the lead of South Australia and Victoria, which have practical approaches to kangaroo management that are worth looking at. It seems like that advocacy has resulted in some additional funding allocated for kangaroo management, with a program due to kick off next month. So I acknowledge that those pleas seem to have been heard.

The Government has provided more support. I am sure the Minister will talk about that. That support is welcome and I am sure that some people are making the most of it. But what is most noticeable is what is not on the list, including transport subsidies for fodder, water and livestock, and waivers for dog fence and Local Land Services rates. They were key planks in the support packages during the previous drought and high on the list of calls from those living through the conditions. The Government could also be looking at assistance for fencing off waterholes. That would help pasture management, improve pest management through better trap placement, provide wildlife refuges through improved vegetation, and reduce the physical and emotional burden of pulling dead and dying animals from bogs.

We also need to think bigger. We cannot keep having the same issues popping up every drought. We need farmers to continually upskill. We need to build the infrastructure to manage drought conditions. Broadly, we should consider things like fodder and seed storage and secure water supplies. It is about food security for the State and the nation. It is about our ability to contribute to feeding the planet. I make one final point. While the motion might seem bleak and there are tough times ahead, it is not a "we'll all be rooned" situation. Conditions will improve. Regional communities will continue to thrive. Our farming sector will continue to be a world leader, driving the economy, protecting the environment, and feeding and clothing the world. We could just use a little bit more help from the Government in doing that.

The Hon. SCOTT BARRETT ( 14: 39 ): I speak on behalf of the Opposition to support this Standing Order 52 motion. It seems a very obvious thing to do for transparency, but also for the licensed gun owners of New South Wales, who were kicked pretty hard in December last year for no real reason and no real outcomes. We have seen no real safety outcomes at all since we were rushed back here in late December for the performative bill that took us into Christmas Eve.

In terms of suppressors themselves, we are talking of only 726 permits in New South Wales. If the Government, through its agencies, cannot keep an eye on those 726 people, we have much more serious issues to deal with. I have been told there have been no changes around suppressors since those laws went through in December. That is very different to what we are hearing on the ground. It is becoming more and more difficult for people to get these tools—and that is what they are. They are tools for people to do their jobs. I have heard other speakers say that these are not the Hollywood things that many people are picturing. They are not a Van Damme thing or something you might see in movies. These are practical tools that shooters use to muffle the sound. We are also talking about professional hunters. There are 726 of them. It is not every weekend warrior across Western Sydney that we are talking about here. They are professional shooters whose job is to remove feral animals from our environment. This is a very important tool for those people to have.

The Opposition will support this motion to get more transparency. It seems that the only silencing and suppressing going on here is of information coming out of the Government. We support this Standing Order 52 motion. I thank the mover for bringing it on. We will look to get more information for the shooters of regional New South Wales and also for the businesses of people who trade in these tools and rely on the selling of them for their business. They are small businesses on which regional New South Wales depends. We support the motion.