Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity, as one of my first actions dealing with water legislation in this chamber, to deal with the issues of the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. As was rightly pointed out by the member for Riverina, water is absolutely fundamental, not only to the economy of the people—around 2.2 million—who live in the basin but also to our nation as a whole. He also rightly pointed out that you can have all the gold you want, but you cannot eat it. You certainly require a feed—if you can get it, at least three times a day. Also, reflecting on the member for Riverina saying, 'You might need a priest once in awhile; you might need a solicitor once in awhile; you might need a policeman once in awhile,' all I can say is: I hope I don't see them all on the same day!

But to carry on: water is a precious resource for our communities and the economy and the environment, and it continues to be the critical input for agriculture. The Water Act 2007 underpins the management of our most important river system, the Murray-Darling Basin, in the national interest. I am pleased to be bringing forward my first bill amending the Water Act in my capacity as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The bill delivers on the Australian government's response to the independent review of the Water Act. The review was conducted by a panel of experts in fields ranging from irrigated agriculture to business, regulation, law and science. The government's response, which I tabled in this place on 3 December 2015, accepted all 23 recommendations made by the expert panel, in full or in part.

The water amendment bill makes the legislative amendments that are needed to improve and streamline the operation of the Water Act and to achieve balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes—and that is so important: to make sure that the social and economic outcomes are in balance with the environmental outcomes. The bill delivers win-win outcomes for agriculture, communities and their environment in a number of ways, including by enabling the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to use water-trade proceeds to fund environmental works. This is incredibly important. This is a change that shows that the profits from the CEWH do not have to just go back to buying licences, which would exacerbate the problem, but can be reinvested in environmental works so as to alleviate the problems that are caused by buybacks, which we all acknowledge have a direct correlation to social and economic detriment in communities.

Part of what we are doing is requiring five-yearly reviews of socioeconomic impacts of the Basin Plan. This is also vitally important. At the start of the modelling of the plan, we talked about a social, economic and environmental triple bottom line. We have to make sure that we deliver on that. We have got to reflect on the assumptions. We have got to reflect on the outcomes. We have got to take into account that we now have better knowledge because we are in a process where the purchases have been made, and we should be looking at what the effects were and asking: did they fit with our initial model?

We are ensuring a further review of the Water Act in 2024, at which point the full outcomes and impacts of the Basin Plan should be known. We are allowing the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to sell water in circumstances where allocations would otherwise be forgone—that is, in certain continuous accounting systems for water. This is also important. We must make sure that this vital asset—this massive asset held by the Australian taxpayer—is used for its purpose but also used in a prudent way so that, if water would otherwise be lost, it should be able to be sold to those who can use it, so as to underpin the economic basis of so many of our regional towns, especially in the basin.

The bill delivers all of these outcomes and, in doing so, underpins the government's commitment to support basin communities, businesses and the environment. As a further outcome of the review of the Water Act, proposed changes to the Bureau of Meteorology's water information arrangements will cut red tape by reducing the regulatory burden on the irrigation sector and state government agencies.

I would like to thank the members of the expert panel for their work in reviewing the Water Act. I would also like to thank state and territory governments and community and industry stakeholders who provided input into the review and helped to inform the panel's recommendations and the government's response.

The bill is a vital piece of legislation that will deliver sensible and balanced outcomes now and into the future. It builds on the government's commitment to sustainable agricultural production, healthy rivers and strong communities—a commitment that includes the most significant water infrastructure investment in Australian history and the 1,500 gigalitre cap on water purchases that was passed by the federal parliament last year. I must say how important that cap is, because it gives at least some sense of confidence that the government will not go on continuing buybacks.

That is a word that we have heard over and over again: people want security. In some instances they feel that more security is needed, and each step is making sure that we work to a process that understands that those in the irrigation industry are not just the farmers, the agents or the water traders but that they are also the people who live in the quiet streets of regional towns, whose houses' value has a direct correlation to the wealth of the area, and that the wealth has a direct correlation to the irrigation of the area. You cannot say to a person: 'We're not going to compensate you. We're sorry. How sad; too bad. The water's gone, so the value of your house has fallen through the floor, but we don't concern ourselves with that,' and then think that there is some form of social mobility or some model that can actually in reality pick a person up from a street in Dirranbandi or Shepparton or Deniliquin and somehow miraculously move them to a different place, into a new job and that everything will go along fine. No. What happens is: the capital base in their life, which they have worked hard for, is lost. Their employment opportunities in the industry that they are trained in are lost. So if their life is affected by reason of our actions as a government, those actions are certainly called into question. We will continue to work in partnership with basin state and territory governments, and industry and community stakeholders, in delivering balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes for the Murray-Darling Basin.

It is a great privilege to have—and I believe it is well suited to have—water and agriculture together, as they were. Over the course of the history of this parliament, it was always the place you would have expected to find them. It was only for a certain period of time, and for a purpose that is now clearly relegated, that they were split apart. Now that that purpose is predominantly over, they have been placed back together again, as they should be. I believe that, while I have tenure as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and into the future, they should remain as one.

What I do say is that it is vitally important that the role of water and agriculture be taken up by the opposition. No doubt we all acknowledge one thing that is an absolute truth: we are in an election year. We will be looking forward to the Labor Party, the Greens and the Independents working together and coming forward with a clear policy, a clear outline, for the Australian people as to what their views are in the agricultural and water resources space. Let's remember that our nation now relies more and more heavily on the outcomes of the soft commodities sector. We have clearly stated that agricultural exports are now the second biggest export after iron ore. They have overtaken coal and they continue to grow. This requires real attention by a group that sees themselves as the alternate government. This is a section of it. I compliment them on their bipartisan support of this.

See this speech in context