The NFF’s 5 March 2015 submission outlines that while farmers are not the direct recipients of the regulations imposed by the Water Act 2007 (the Act), they inevitably bear the ultimate cost of those regulations. Referring to its previous submission to the recent review of the Act, NFF notes that a comprehensive evaluation of the costs and benefits is required, not just an exercise in identifying and removing duplication. NFF underlines their support for the views of IIOs, and for their request through their peak organisation National Irrigators’ Council to have a more formal role in the inter-agency process. NFF suggests that detailed engagement with the IIOs would provide the best avenue for the interagency working group to best understand the concerns of the irrigation sector.
You may also like
Third Independent Review of the Water for the Environment Special Account
It remains unclear whether recent and proposed Commonwealth water purchases are being financed through WESA or via the undisclosed Federal Budget allocation. If the latter is correct, then remaining WESA funds should be...
Chrissy KerinAustralian Law Reform Commission: Review of the Future Acts Regime
At a high-level, NFF does not support the proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper. Reforms must be guided by the principles of efficiency, fairness, and supporting regional economic resilience. In our view, the...
Review of the Fair Work Act’s definition of ‘small business employer’
The National Farmers’ Federation’s additional submission to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s review of the definition of “small business employer”, following the consultation questions received on 5 June 2025. NFF...
Ashleigh Whittaker
Add comment