We need to talk about dams. I know that dams have been on the agenda this week, but there's one dam in particular that we need to talk about, and that's Warragamba Dam. The New South Wales government's proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall continues to be exposed as reckless and a simplistic response to a very complex and important issue.

This is supposedly not a proposal to increase the availability of water supply for Western Sydney, although Premier Gladys Berejiklian did cite that as a reason for wanting to raise the dam wall during the New South Wales election campaign. Apparently that's not the reason—not that there are any clear plans for supplying drinking water to the aerotropolis which is to be built around the nearby Western Sydney Airport, perilously close to Sydney's major water supply, but that is another issue. What we're told is that the purpose of raising the Warragamba Dam wall is to reduce the risk of flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. But what we have learned about are the consequences for the Blue Mountains of this proposal to build a wall and leave it empty. A report on the leaked draft environmental impact statement reveals that up to 1,300 hectares of World Heritage bushland could suffer permanent damage. That's permanent damage from temporary inundation. This is an area that is rated unique in the world. The local tourism industry depends on that World Heritage listing, and anything that undermines it also threatens this key economic plank of the Blue Mountains. If this is the sort of impact that is being anticipated, the New South Wales government needs to come clean with the community and international agencies, like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, because this would seriously undermine our World Heritage listing, the basis of so much that matters for the Blue Mountains.

Now, in June this year, a UN report assessing the state of the Blue Mountains World Heritage listing raised concerns about the proposed addition to the dam wall. UNESCO said any increased temporary inundation was 'likely to impact on its outstanding universal value'. It called on both the New South Wales and federal governments to send it any environmental impact statements before any decision on the dam was made. I welcome the comments from the federal Minister for the Environment, who told the ABC that no construction activity on raising the dam wall would happen unless all government approvals were in place. She said:

The Federal Government acknowledges the concern expressed in the draft World Heritage Committee decision about potential impacts of development on the Greater Blue Mountains Area.

She said:

I look forward to working closely with the World Heritage Committee and keeping them informed about the actions we intend to take which recognise the value of this world class natural landscape.

But it isn't just environmental assets at risk. The New South Wales government's assessment of cultural heritage is a 2,000-page report the traditional owners were given only 40 days to respond to. Many sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage would be flooded, and I think the historical context is important. We need to remember that the Gundungurra people were forced off their land in the 1940s when Warragamba was built. I want to single out two women in particular who have been instrumental in helping raise awareness about the impacts. They are Kazan Brown and Aunty Sharyn Halls, two strong Gundungurra women.

What remains of our Aboriginal heritage in this region is crucial, and I support the traditional owners in their plea for more time to consider the 2,000-page report on cultural heritage impacts. I also welcome the New South Wales Legislative Council's inquiry into the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. That inquiry is going to look at things like conflicting reports on the planning height for the dam wall raising, which vary from 14 to 17 metres, and the potential use of the raising for additional storage capacity as well as flood mitigation. It will also look at plans for future property development on the flood-prone land in the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain. It's not called a flood plain for nothing. It will also consider the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment process to date, including the assessment of impacts on World Heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, the ecological values of the greater Blue Mountains National Park, the Warragamba community, and communities on the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain. It will also examine the nature and extent of the alternative options for flood management that form the basis of the cost-benefit analysis of the project.

So they have much work to do, and I look forward to the findings of that inquiry. I do note that already a joint submission from 17 Indigenous and environmental NGOs from six countries has been made to this inquiry. They've raised concerns about the consultant commissioned by the New South Wales government to do the cultural and environmental assessments, SMEC, with concerns that there is a history of abusing Indigenous rights across the globe, most notably in South-East Asia, Mongolia and Africa.

I also want to address some of the silly and dangerous comments that have been made when this issue has been discussed. Any politician who tries to paint this as a trees-versus-lives debate should be ashamed of themselves. There has been development on flood-prone land across the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley that should never have been allowed. Yet, here we are, and we have another plan designed to allow the opening up of more land for development and, as I said, according to the Premier, to provide additional water storage capacity. The state government cannot continue to ignore the mounting criticism coming from all directions, including those international bodies, federal and state departments, and leading scientists.

I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of Harry Burkitt from the Give a Dam campaign, the Colong Foundation and the former member for Macquarie Bob Debus, who have all helped raise the issues of concern, which the New South Wales government would so happily have swept under the carpet as they tout purely a benefit approach to this project. In fact, the New South Wales government's own charts, which have been leaked, suggest that a 14-metre lifting of the wall only provides a small benefit during extreme flood events. As Professor Jamie Pittock, a flood management expert at the ANU, said, 'It really undercuts the argument for raising the dam wall.' His view is that no matter how high you build the wall, floods will still happen in this area. And, as I said, there are some leaked documents suggesting a 17-metre wall raising. So there is much to be examined before decisions are made on this. Right now, the focus should be on fully exploring all options, including the provision of major regional road evacuation options for existing residents in the event of a large flood—something that has not been prioritised by the New South Wales government.

One of my biggest fears is that raising the wall could lull governments, developers and residents into thinking that they are safe, when we need to actually be preparing for a flood, and that, at a stroke of a pen, a future minister could change what might be empty space in case of flood into water storage, thereby increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic flood. All affected communities need to be involved in consideration of a range of strategies that could protect lives in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley and that don't result in the destruction of World Heritage areas.
The dam raising proposal ignores the reality that several rivers contribute to flood levels across the Hawkesbury, including, among others, the Grose River, the Colo River, South Creek and Macdonald River. In fact, the problem outlined in the 2015 Hawkesbury Nepean Flood Plan shows that the Grose River in particular drains a high rainfall from the Blue Mountains and can have a significant effect on flooding at Windsor. In addition, the flood plan includes the fact that the river level rises at North Richmond even before floodwater arrives via the Nepean River or Warragamba Dam.

The New South Wales government should also be looking at the serious issue of long-term water supply for this ever-expanding Western Sydney population. These are issues that are simply not properly being addressed. I'll continue to demand that the New South Wales government consults with our whole community