Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am amazed that this motion relating to Snowy Hydro Ltd has come before this chamber today. I am sure many other members of this chamber were, like me, not aware that this was to happen. All of a sudden, on a very important issue we find that the removal of an asset of the Australian people is going to take place on the passing of a motion in this chamber. I listened to the member for Calare, and he made a very important point that this is a very important asset. It is not only an asset in terms of its dollar value but also an asset in terms of the Murray-Darling system and the Murray system in particular. It is an asset in terms of the future of one of our key environmental precincts: the ranges of the Snowy Mountains and the Snowy River. There are a whole range of interrelated factors that this sale could involve.

I am told—and I am open to persuasion here—that the agreement that is being contemplated here could essentially lock the environmental and water entitlement outcomes in place for the next 100 years. If that is the case, we are talking about a much broader debate than that of the sale of a garage block parked on the corner that a government—in this case, the New South Wales government—does not particularly need or does not particularly want. I do not believe that there has been nearly enough information put in the public arena or nearly enough debate within this chamber—or within the broader public domain—for us to be considering this motion at this point in time. I definitely will not be supporting this motion before the parliament.

I note that my Independent colleague from Victoria, Craig Ingram, has made certain suggestions and complaints about the possible impacts on water entitlement holders, the environmental needs of the Murray system into the future and the way in which the full privatisation of the Snowy system could impact on other people further downstream in future. It brings to mind the Telstra debate. What we were told during the Telstra debate—and the President of the National Farmers Federation at the time said he had received guarantees—was that the government would lock in place, in legislation, equity of access to and pricing et cetera in broadband and telephone services for country Australians. No-one has seen that yet. No-one from the Prime Minister down will indicate where that actually appears. The Leader of the National Party made some obscure remark one day that it appeared in a statement that some senator had made in the Senate. We have been unable to find that statement.

Irrespective of that, a statement in the Senate is not law that binds a future owner to the delivery of certain services to country people—particularly if those services have not been invented yet. As we all know, this parliament—and I note with some interest the amendment that the Labor Party are putting up—cannot bind a future parliament to anything. It is not within its constitutional jurisdiction to do that. So it was fantasy, with the privatisation of Telstra, to say: ‘Don’t worry, it’ll be okay, it’s locked in legislation. We, the government of the day, can demand that the future owner or owners, either in the national or international interests, will deliver services, some of which haven’t been invented yet.’ I am sure we will see those utterances and commitments ploughed under in the decades to come as some new technology comes online. The demands from country people will be heard and the political system will say: ‘We don’t own that anymore. We don’t have the capacity to tell a private company what it can do. We don’t have the right to interfere with their capacity to borrow to provide services that are not viable in terms of their bottom line to country people.’

I think we are seeing another instance of that occurring in this motion in relation to the Snowy Hydro that is before the parliament today. There are so many unknowns about the Murray-Darling system that this is not the time to place into private hands an instrumentality that could have an impact on the environmental and water entitlement needs of that system. To reinforce that argument, we have recently had appointed by the Prime Minister a parliamentary secretary to look into the water issue. In recent years we have seen the formation of the National Water Initiative. In recent weeks we have seen great concerns expressed by people heading up the National Water Initiative that it is failing to deliver. Here we see a motion before the parliament to put into private hands an instrumentality that could have a dramatic impact particularly on the environmental and water entitlement needs. It could have a dramatic impact on the availability of water and the environmental and economic impact and effects that water may have downstream.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has been asked to look at a whole range of issues. I will highlight a bit of the history of the water debate and why the National Water Initiative is failing. In 1995 the Commonwealth and state governments signed off on an agreement of the Council of Australian Governments on national reform. That reform was to embrace gas, transport, electricity and, very importantly, water. The states and the Commonwealth quite rightly, and I congratulate them, recognised, as the member for Calare mentioned a moment ago, that there is a need for a national view to be taken on water—and other things but particularly on water—that crosses state boundaries and for a national solution to be adopted.

From 1995 to 2006 a whole range of intergovernmental and bilateral agreements have been made. We had the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. We had a whole range of things occurring. It all looked good and read well. We also had this process of water reform that was underpinned by two things, one of which the new parliamentary secretary is very interested in and the other one he is not so interested in. One was the establishment of a trading mechanism for water so that, under competition policy rules, it could be traded to its highest value use. That was the logic of 12 years ago. The other one that he is not so interested in—and I can understand that; he comes from a market driven background where people make profit out of selling things rather than producing them—is that a properly constituted and recognised property right be established. Those were the two basic pillars on which the COAG arrangements and the whole water reform process were underpinned.

Various ministers recognised that the National Water Initiative—which is really a rebadging of the old process—was not working. It was obvious it was never going to work when there were differences in trading mechanisms and security levels within the various states, differences in security levels between ground water and river water and the nontransportability of some of those waters—the incapacity of water to run uphill, for instance—and the impact of that on licences and the various market arrangements that you could put in place. It is becoming very clear that that market driven mechanism of 11 years ago that was talked about has not worked and is unlikely to work within the structure. The Snowy Hydro motion that we are talking about is a very important ingredient of that mechanism and the entitlements of that mechanism.

Since 2005, as I have said, we have had all of these utterances. The lever for the COAG process to demand that the states comply with those two basic pillars was to be the capacity to withhold national competition payments from the states. That was the lever. The Commonwealth was being the champion by bringing these renegade states together to formulate a national policy for the betterment of the nation and, if they did not do it, the Commonwealth would withhold those funds from them.

I have been accused in this place of having some sort of personal vendetta against the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, but one matter about which I have taken great issue with him—and I still do because I think he failed—is that he, the Prime Minister and others within the government allowed this constant flow of competition payments to the states without compliance with those two basic pillars that were set in place in 1995 and reinforced in every intergovernmental and bilateral arrangement, reinforced in the national action plan and reinforced in the National Water Initiative. We have gone through a whole series where we have run out of competition payments and it is all being renegotiated again. So I hope we do not go into this fantasy land again where the minister of the day says, ‘If they don’t do it this time, we’ll withhold their competition payments.’ So we have seen this farce.

I remember asking the Prime Minister some years ago about, I think, $300 million being handed over to the states to comply with the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, and the Prime Minister said that the property right issue would be addressed. We have heard for 11 years that it would be addressed. Now we see the new parliamentary secretary is looking at that issue. There is a fear of the word ‘compensation’. We have seen over that period property rights not being recognised. There is a mealy-mouthed phrase in the National Water Initiative and there is a mealy-mouthed phrase in the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000, to which there was an amendment in the New South Wales parliament only a few days ago to embrace this property right issue.

We have seen nearly $5 billion come through the federal system and be paid to the states when the major issue of reform that was talked about back in those days has not been touched at all. To be here today talking about a motion to sell one of those instrumentalities that has an impact on the downstream water entitlement holders of the Murray system is an absolute disgrace. Irrespective of whether or not New South Wales is stupid enough to sell this piece of infrastructure, the Commonwealth should not be compliant with it just because they believe that privatisation is a good idea, that the word fits with page 8 of the Liberal Party bible. That is not good enough. The National Water Initiative should in fact be that, not a National Party slush fund where $50,000 will be passed out to little community groups. The main focus of sustainability will pass us by, as it has over the last 12 years.

We have seen this absurd situation in the last few weeks where the government is taxing the compensation payments of ground water users. I implore the parliamentary secretary, Malcolm Turnbull, to look at the basic features of the National Water Initiative, look to do something about that, but look at those two pillars that were put in place. Unless you look at those pillars and recognise compensation for those who are going to lose an entitlement, the National Water Initiative will fail. (Time expired)

See this speech in context