On Tuesday, 28 July 2026 I attended the Health, Environment and Innovation Committee estimates hearings to ask questions about water quality on the Great Barrier Reef.
You can read my exchange with the Director General of the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation below or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings here.
Mr BERKMAN: I have some questions on Great Barrier Reef water quality. I have to say that I do not know whether to be flattered or concerned that the minister is tracking my comms so closely. Nonetheless, we all know that water pollution is one of the greatest threats to the Great Barrier Reef. I note specifically the World Heritage Committee has asked for an update on water quality improvements by December 2028 to keep it off the ‘in danger’ list. Director-General, what has been the actual reduction in pollution flowing into the reef as a result of payments made under the Best Management Practice program since 2020?
Mrs O’Callaghan: The Great Barrier Reef is a World Heritage asset that I know Queenslanders, as well as the team at DETSI, are exceptionally proud of. It has been great working with our government colleagues and industry stakeholders on delivering the Reef 2050 Catchment Water Quality Strategy, which comes with a $330.5 million investment to improve reef health. I am also equally pleased to see that the reef is not on the UNESCO World Heritage ‘in danger’ list. Having lived in North Queensland for a big part of my life, I think that is sound and welcome news. There is certainly more work to do. We are focused on keeping the reef off the list and improving the reef health. As you have noted, we do have to report back in 2028.
There is progress in water quality targets, which is great to see, including: 53.5 per cent of the way towards reaching the dissolved inorganic nitrogen target; 71.2 per cent of the way towards reaching the sediment target; 87.8 per cent of the way to reaching the particulate nitrogen target; and, obviously, 100 per cent attained the particulate phosphorus target. We have a lot more work to do, but there has certainly been a lot of progress as well.
Mr BERKMAN: Thank you. Director-General, I appreciate those measures by reference to the targets, but your answer did not include any measure of what has been the actual reduction in pollution flowing into the reef. If you could answer that directly, I would be grateful. Beyond that, I am also interested in whether any payments to landholders from that $330 million will be dependent on proven environmental outcomes.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One second, member for Maiwar: there are two questions there. Let us go to the first question first, which was potential answers around the actuals, and then we will come back to you.
Mrs O’Callaghan: I thank the member. It is really pleasing to table some of the reductions that you are noting. Queensland government projects working in partnership with landholders and key stakeholders have achieved progress. For example, the Grazing Resilience and Sustainable Solutions program has helped graziers across 3.2 million hectares of land to move to better management, with an estimated 4,861 tonnes of sediment stopped from reaching the reef. The Grazing Practice Change Program has so far improved ground cover, pasture quality and land condition across more than 70,870 hectares of land, saving around 725 tonnes of sediment going to the reef. The Sugarcane Practice Change Program has provided the agronomic support for growers to fine-tune their nutrient management and stopped an estimated 45,600 kilograms of dissolved inorganic nitrogen from reaching the reef. Banana growers have been supported to improve nutrient management in the Banana BMP program, and an estimated 3,752 kilograms of dissolved inorganic nitrogen has been prevented from reaching the reef. The current phase of the Smartcane BMP program has supported growers to reach an estimated reduction of over 7,000 kilograms of dissolved inorganic nitrogen. From those programs alone—and there are others—you can see that there are reductions, which is really positive news. Again, we acknowledge there is more work to do.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Maiwar, your next question.
Mr BERKMAN: Thank you. Director-General, as I was asking, from that $330 million for the Reef and Catchment Water Quality Program, will any payments to landholders be dependent on specific proven environmental outcomes, and how are those to be measured?
Mrs O’Callaghan: Member, just for clarity so I can provide a response, when you say ‘proven environmental outcomes’, is it okay if you clarify what you are referring to?
Mr BERKMAN: I could perhaps describe it as demonstrated environmental outcomes. Will recipients of funds under that $330 million be required to demonstrate particular environmental outcomes and how will they be measured?
Mrs O’Callaghan: Yes, through those programs and initiatives there is demonstration and monitoring of progress.
Mr BERKMAN: But how will those be measured? What are the measures? That is what I am getting to. What do they have to demonstrate and how is it measured?
Mr POWELL: Sorry, I missed the question.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was to the director-general.
Mr BERKMAN: I was really asking what needs to be demonstrated to get those payments, and how will the positive outcomes be measured specifically?
Mrs O’Callaghan: Without having to read those programs again and take up more time, under each of those programs—the Grazing Resilience and Sustainable Solutions, the Grazing Practice Change Program, the Sugarcane Practice Change Program, the BMPs for banana, the Smartcane BMPs—there are actually measures and targets within them that landholders have to report on. A lot of this is negotiated in the contracts with these agencies. There are a number of them, but I think what we are seeing is that it has been effective to date.
Mr BERKMAN: May I have one further question?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Maiwar, we will move to some government questions now.