Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (13:24): I speak in opposition to the Water Management Amendment (Register of State and Commonwealth Water Access Licences) Bill 2025. I highlight a critical truth: New legislation is not the solution here, especially when existing systems are already delivering effectively. I support the member's goal of public transparency—

Mrs Helen Dalton: Because I won the debate yesterday.

Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: —but the fact is that, in this case, the bill is not necessary. I appreciate the interjection from the member. She is very passionate about water. Over the break I was surprised to see on the member's social media that one of her pet dogs is called Murray-Darling.

Mrs Helen Dalton: Exactly.

Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: There you go. The member is extremely passionate about our river system. I would probably have called one Murray and one Darling, but the member is the expert on the Murray-Darling, so I will leave the naming of pets up to her. The bill seeks to mandate a public register for government-held water licences. However, this great State already has an extensive and responsive water information framework that has evolved over time through collaboration, consultation, effort and innovation. In that spirit, I am sure that the Government and the Minister would be happy to sit down with the member for Murray and come to some arrangement to solve or improve some of the issues she has identified.

The held environmental water register was established some two decades ago. That register discloses details of licence holders, share components and environmental programs. In addition, the environmental trade register provides transparency on water market participation, volumes traded, financial considerations and trade purpose. Those platforms are not stagnant—pun intended. They improve without legislative intervention and do so very quickly. A recent enhancement to include trade purpose in the environmental trade register was developed and deployed within weeks—not months, not years, but weeks—in response to feedback from the member for Murray.

I go back to my previous point about the willingness of this Government to work in the spirit of collaboration, consultation, effort and innovation to improve the way we govern and manage water in this great State, because that is what good governance looks like. It is a system that listens, responds and, most importantly, adapts. Introducing a rigid, prescriptive register would slow the adaptive progress we have made, divert resources from genuine water management priorities and duplicate efforts to publish data that is largely already accessible—or could potentially be made available through existing systems if warranted.

I acknowledge that there are a lot of different systems, and I have rattled off two. However, different stakeholders have different information needs, and that is why those different systems exist. Trying to combine them all has the significant risk of creating a system that does not work for anybody. We need a system that works effectively for licence holders, share components and environmental programs. We need to recognise the strength of what we already have. There are multiple systems, but they are agile, cost effective and fit for purpose.

That is one of the primary reasons that the Government opposes the bill. It is not because we oppose transparency. In fact, we are pro transparency and we are very transparent on a number of issues. I could ask for an extension and go on for many minutes about transparent this Government is. One example is public funding. Who remembers the days of pork-barrelling and Pork Barilaro? We have done away with that. In March 2023 the sun came up. Sunlight provides the greatest transparency, both figuratively and literally. We have brought transparency to the State of New South Wales. We understand that meaningful progress comes from refining what works, not replacing it with rigid solutions that offer little added value.

I return to my opening point that the bill is unnecessary. We have publicly available reporting systems and registers that provide all the important information that the bill seeks to obtain. Ninety public information products on the use, management and outcomes for environmental water are published by New South Wales and Commonwealth agencies, demonstrating both the complexity of stakeholder interests and the high level of existing transparency. I acknowledge that 90 is a large number but one is a really small number. One is dangerous. Ninety is a little bit high but it is an effective fit‑for‑use number. Intergovernmental meetings, forums and discussions are ongoing at a State and Commonwealth level to lower the number. One day I would like to report to the House that we have got it down to 88 or 89 or even lower. But one is just too low.

Non-government-owned water access licences remain searchable via the NSW Public Water Register. The held environmental water licences register and the environmental water trades register provide all—or at least the bulk—of the information that the bill seeks to make available. There is no evidence that a new register would improve water management outcomes or stakeholder understanding. Mandating a register by law would reduce flexibility, slow down improvements to public water information and be costly to implement. The previous Government left us a budget crisis, with tens of billions in debt. The last thing we want to do is reinvent the wheel, especially when it comes to water. The Dutch are very good at building windmills, which involve wheels. We do not want to go down that path.

I have made my point, and the member for Liverpool has entered the Chamber to make the next contribution to debate. What great timing. The Government opposes the bill. It risks leaving water management in the State stagnant. No‑one in this House knows more about stagnant water than the member for Liverpool after the great mosquito crisis of 2024. I oppose the bill and suggest everyone else in the House do the same.