Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Lyne presenting a Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into the behaviour, practices and performance of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and

(3) any questions required to complete passage of the bill then being put without delay.

As the Nationals member for Lyne, I rise to speak not just about this bill but about what is at stake for the people, towns, farms, businesses and communities of the Murray-Darling Basin. As one of the inaugural independent directors of the Riverine Plains Farming Systems Group, which operates across southern New South Wales and north-eastern Victoria, the issue of water rights and access is critical. As a farming extension and research development body, for most of its projects there needed to be water in the right place at the right time to ensure that projects could proceed, be tested, be verified and be turned into practical advice for growers and farmers.

Across the Murrumbidgee, the Riverina and the basin, water policy is not theoretical. It's not abstract. It's about the health of catchments, town water security and flood preparedness. It's about the viability of our growers, producers and farmers—whether they're in dairy, beef, horticulture, mixed farming or cropping—who rely on predictable water rules and practical on-ground management. It is the difference between a town and a community growing or slowly fading away. Right now, people in those communities are asking a very simple question: who is standing up for them when it comes to water?

This bill, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Commission of Inquiry Bill 2026, goes directly to that question. It establishes a commission of inquiry into the behaviour, practices and performance of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the CEWH. It will examine the management, use and outcomes of Commonwealth environmental water holdings, whether they are delivering real ecological outcomes and, critically, what impact those decisions are having on agricultural productivity, regional economies and basin communities.

Let me be very clear: this is scrutiny that is long overdue. Under this Albanese Labor government, water policy has become increasingly opaque, increasingly centralised and increasingly disconnected from the people who live and work on the land. Labor likes to talk about 'environmental water' as if that label alone gives it a social licence. But communities in the basin know better. They know that behind that label are decisions—real decisions—that affect river flows, irrigation allocations, land values and ultimately livelihoods.

The CEWH is not some passive observer. It's one of the largest water holders in the country. It decides when water is delivered, where it goes, whether it is traded and whether it is carried over. Those decisions shape markets, they shape river systems and they shape communities. So why is it that, under this government, scrutiny of those decisions has become harder, not easier? Why is it that communities are too often told what has happened after the fact, instead of being properly consulted before decisions are made? And why is it that farmers and regional businesses are expected to comply with strict rules, metering and reporting, yet, when it comes to the Commonwealth, transparency is treated as optional? Let me say this again: irrigators are required to account for every drop of water without fail, yet the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is not. That is a double standard this bill seeks to address.

What we are hearing loud and clear from basin communities is that trust is breaking down. Stakeholders are asking basic practical questions: What watering action is proposed? What does success look like? What risks are being taken? What impacts will there be on private land, infrastructure and local communities? Too often, they are simply not being told. Instead, they're getting bureaucratic language, delayed reporting and decisions that seem to prioritise Canberra over communities. This matters because environmental watering done poorly has real consequences. It can cause bank slumping. It can put pressure on private crossings and pumps. It can waterlog productive land. It can damage private infrastructure. It can put pressure on local roads and councils. None of that is an argument against environmental outcomes; it's an argument against bad policy and poor implementation. And that is exactly what communities across the Murray-Darling Basin are reacting to right now.

This bill comes at a time when some of the basin community and those in the electorate of Farrer are facing a by-election. Let me be clear, this by-election is a referendum on the Albanese Labor government's approach to regional Australia, and nowhere is that clearer than in water policy. What people in Farrer are seeing is a government that keeps shifting the goalposts, a government that keeps expanding Commonwealth control over water and a government that talks about balance but delivers policies that hollow out irrigation communities and undermine confidence in the future. Businesses cannot plan; farmers cannot invest; families cannot make long-term decisions. Why? Because they do not trust that the rules will stay the same, and trust once lost is very hard to rebuild. That is why this bill is so important, because it does not just add another review; it establishes a targeted, agile and urgent independent commission of inquiry with real powers. It can compile documents. It can test evidence. It can hear directly from communities and experts. And it will report to this parliament, not just to the government of the day. That is a core difference from a royal commission.

The commission will examine the size and composition of the CEWH's holdings; how watering priorities are set; how decisions are implemented in practice; whether environmental outcomes are actually being achieved; the impacts on third parties, on farmers, irrigators, councils and communities; and the CEWH's trading behaviour and governance and accountability arrangements. These are not academic questions. They go to the heart of whether the Basin Plan is being implemented in a way that is fair, transparent and effective. Water uses comply with complex rules, metering and reporting because the community expects integrity in water management. That expectation must apply equally to the Commonwealth. When the Commonwealth holds and moves water, it should be subject to clear reporting, independent audit and strong scrutiny. It is also important that the commission is credible with commissioners that have the right mix of expertise and lived understanding of basin communities and river operations. It also means terms of reference that get to the heart of the issue and processes that give stakeholders confidence they will be heard.

The government will say that there are already reviews underway—and, yes, there is a review fatigue in basin communities; communities are tired of being consulted without being heard—but this bill is different. It's not another broad bureaucratic exercise; it's a focused inquiry into one of the most powerful actors in the water system, the Commonwealth itself. If the government is confident in its approach, it should welcome that scrutiny. Scrutiny is not a threat; scrutiny is a safeguard. It's a safeguard for the farmers who rely on predictable water rules. It's a safeguard for the towns that depend on agriculture. And it's a safeguard for the environment itself, because good environmental outcomes depend on good governance.

The explanatory memorandum says that this bill has no financial impact. But let's be honest: the real cost has already been paid. It's been paid for by communities that have seen water taken out of production without clear outcomes. It's been paid for by businesses that cannot plan for the future. And it's been paid for by families who are wondering whether their towns have a future at all. That is what is at stake, and that is why, in the context of the Farrer by-election, this issue resonates so strongly. People are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness. They are asking for transparency. They are asking for a government that understands that water policy is not just about environmental targets, it's about people. This bill is about restoring that balance. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context