The only hold out was Lucas Ellis from the Sustainable Australia Party, who believes the option should be available in a voluntary capacity but that water policy placing equal importance on water for environmental and productive use.
As the forum was driven by the NSW Farmers Association, three of the 10 questions posed to the candidates in attendance were based on water policy specifically.
Two others questioned other areas which also directly impact on farming - rising costs of farmer inputs and the impact of net zero targets.
The remainder of the questions targeted opinions and policy platforms on healthcare, financial support for local government and candidate preferences.
The view on buybacks was the opening question of the night, and candidates quickly set to put the personal and party views across.
Responses from each candidate, in speaker order, are as follows:
Michelle Milthorpe (Independent) - In terms of water buybacks, I've been really clear for the last two years now that I can see that water buybacks are devastating our regional communities. We know with the Murray-Darling Basin review happening at the moment that we need to look at the submissions that have come in, and make sure that those are being heard in November. We have the environment and people being played off against one another. It's the people that are missing out. We need to ensure that we're reducing that.
Raissa Butkowski (Liberal Party) - So my position is no more water buybacks. My position is the coalition's commission of inquiry into the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. It was unanimously voted down by the Labor and Greens, We need to be fighting hard because that inquiry is the only method by which our communities are going to get the transparency and insight they need now.
Brad Robertson (The Nationals) - No buybacks. We need to re-establish the 1500 gigalitre cap that we put in place to protect industry from more buybacks, which the Labor Party and Greens reintroduced by removing and the buybacks that are killing all of us in all our communities.
Jamie Bonnefin (People First) - We don't support water buybacks, but we need to change the conversation. We need to start talking about when are we going to get our water back. And here's how we're going to do it. We're going to create an infrastructure bank so we can build another Snowy Hydro three, but up on the Clarence River. We're going to redirect that water down through the Darling and we're also going to remove the barrages in Lake Alexandrina, and then we're going to increase the height of our dams.
Gary Pappin (Independent) - I think the conversation needs to change from the fact of water buybacks because it's almost reached its end of tenure. What concerns me the most is, what are they going to come after next? I think they're going to come after more water after this buyback scheme finishes.
Lucan Ellis - To the disappointment of probably many people tonight, we don't support an end to voluntary buybacks. We want to stress that the process is voluntary for farmers who want to sell. We support a holistic approach that balances environmental flows, prioritising irrigation, food security and local community uses over export related uses. And we 100 per cent support a Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
David Farley (One Nation) - Water buybacks is a sign of a nation that's given up on its future. We're totally against water buybacks. We don't want an extractive model. We want an investment model, to invest in more capacity for water. If we're a modern Western nation, we need to bring ourselves up to a contemporary, modern position, and agriculture is part of the sovereignty of the nation. A nation that can't feed itself, and is reliant on imports, is a nation that's losing control of its own destiny.
• We’ll explore the responses to the other water policy and agricultural-based questions in a future edition.
