Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015 is, as far as I am concerned, a no-brainer. We are not going to abolish all the functions that the commission once had. We are simply sending them across to other agencies, like the Productivity Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology and ABARES. We are saying that what it used to do was important but we do not need to have a stand-alone entity to undertake the monitoring of Australia's progress on water reform. So I think it is a good move. If it saves us $21 million over the forward estimates, that is a good thing. If it saves us a few extra bits of regulation, red tape, that is to be applauded. I therefore want to move beyond this contest about whether or not we should have abolished the National Water Commission to talk about the significance of water itself: why we didn't simply put an axe through this agency and walk away; why we in fact retasked other important agencies to do the work.

Before getting to that point, I want to correct a few things that a previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, said. I know she is new to Bendigo. She is my neighbour in the electorate next door. I am very pleased that she is now engaging with this water issue. She has been north beyond Bendigo and has visited my irrigators. I applaud her for doing that. She quoted Kagomi as saying that their biggest problem was the management of water in the system and therefore they want to keep the National Water Commission. No. I have to make that clear. Kagomi's report—which I too have a copy of, and I have spoken at length to their MD—makes the point that they no longer have enough access to water in the Goulburn-Murray Water's system, which is part of the Murray-Darling Basin. Their access is now very much restricted, given half of the water has been removed from the irrigation system. The price of the water in the temporary market is often beyond what their tomato growers can pay. That is the No. 1 issue for this company, which is in fact one of the biggest tomato manufacturers in Australia. We are so pleased it is based in Echuca, employing great people and, even better, growing some of the best manufacturing tomatoes in the world.

I have to say, too, that the member for Bendigo kept stressing that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is all about the environment, that the No. 1 thing is the environment. No; in fact, it is not. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the Water Act stresses that the plan is a triple bottom line effort. It is the environment, the community and the economy. If you do not get the economy or the community right, for example, if you destroy the livelihood of the farmers, who are the backbone of the basin economy, and you drive them off to the point where they cannot produce food and fibre, they cannot do the job of managing the environment, which is what good farmers have to do to stay sustainable. So, no; it is a triple bottom line approach, which is enshrined in the Water Act itself and which has been repeated again and again as the objective of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We have to make sure that it is always remembered because it is an integrated triple bottom line. You cannot have one element without the other. We all love the environment and we depend on it—the soil, the water, the biodiversity and the air quality. It has to be a triple bottom line approach, or we all go out backwards.

Water is the life blood of northern Victoria. The Deputy Speaker himself, member for McEwen, knows that. His own electorate is dependent on water. The economy of most of my electorate is within the Goulburn-Murray irrigation area. That is why the density of my population is as it is. It is not like Jerilderie or the dry parts of Dubbo; it is a closely settled area. We would not have had all the food production, manufacturing and abattoirs built in most of our small towns unless we had this water supply. The Goulburn-Murray water irrigation system covers an area bigger than Tasmania. Without this huge irrigation and water supply system, we would not have, as we have, Australia's biggest registration of heavy transports—that is in Shepparton—outside any capital city. We would not have some of the biggest stock feed producers or, in fact, the biggest dairy farms, biggest orchards, biggest tomato growers, biggest piggeries, biggest mushroom farms, biggest olive groves, biggest poultry farms, the best independent wineries and the biggest workforces in food manufacturing in regional Australia. All of those are the case in my electorate of Murray and they are all dependent on a secure irrigation system, which is called Goulburn-Murray.

We thought this massive gravity-run irrigation system had drought proofed us—and it did for a century, for 100 years. But the Millennium Drought saw Eildon, Eppalock, Dartmouth and Hume dams that supplied this system fail. It failed to a point where, for example, at the height of the drought, the Campaspe irrigators agreed to close down their irrigation system permanently. They sold their 6,409 high-reliability megalitres of water to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. They now try and survive on a stock and domestic supply only. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is now the largest owner of water entitlement in Australia. It has 2,275 gigalitres of water, which is equivalent to 4½ times the volume of Sydney Harbour. All of this water was previously used for food and fibre production in the Murray-Darling Basin—every drop. About one quarter of this water, or 554 gigalitres of high security water, was taken from the entitlements of my Goulburn-Murray water system farms. You might ask: 'Why on earth did they do that?' The trouble is that they were at the height of the worst drought on record. Can you imagine the cruelty of an official act that said to farmers suffering from the worst drought on record, where farmers' debts to their lenders had doubled: 'I will offer you, as the minister for the environment, Senator Penny Wong, $2,400 or so per megalitre for your high security water and your banks will be pleased'—and they were. They stood on the necks of those irrigators and half of the water of my Goulburn-Murray water irrigation system was sold during that period to the Environmental Water Holder. Before the drought we had 1,900 gigalitres. Five years later, in the middle of the drought, we were down to 1,600 gigalitres. Today we are down to 900 gigalitres.

I want to remind you that for every 100 megalitres we have one job—that 100 megalitres supports one job—and there are 1,000 megalitres in a gigalitre. So do your maths. You can see the social and economic impact of this huge loss of water access for my region's food producers. Tonight SBS TV is going to feature the 25 per cent youth unemployment in the city of Greater Shepparton. I am hoping they will be kind to us, because we cannot help it. We have lost so many jobs. I guess you can imagine how devastated I was at, again, the official cruelty of the South Australian government that moved into my patch—my irrigators market—and offered up to about $2,500 per megalitre. They had, we understand, about $16 million to spend and they wanted eight gigalitres of high security water off my irrigators. Why? For their urban water users in South Australia. They have mothballed their $320 million desal plant in South Australia—and the money for that came from the federal government, of course. They have realised it is cheaper to raid the irrigators market at $2,500 a megalitre than to try and crank up reuse systems or harvest stormwater in Adelaide, Port Augusta and all those towns and cities outside the Murray-Darling Basin that have our precious food production water piped across the plains. In fact, the South Australian government's tender closed on Wednesday last week. The traders went from farm to farm and said: 'Come on—this might be your last chance to sell your water. You know you are in trouble financially; your dairy prices are not all that good, mate; you still owe money.' I am horrified and distressed to say that water was sold.

When you sell your water permanently to someone like the South Australian government to flush down the toilets in the city, to wash the concrete, to save the government enforcing water restrictions or conservation practices on your populations in the cities, then you have farmers who become dependent on a temporary water market. That temporary water market price was at about $50 about three years ago; last year it was about $70; this year it is up to $135; and two days ago water traders were saying it was $150. A dairy farmer can only pay about $90 maximum to make money off that one megalitre of water. Do your sums again, everybody, and work out how many of my dairy farmers—half of whom are now totally dependent on temporary water because their permanent water is gone—are going to survive. They are meant to be part of the 'dining boom' that is going to take over from the mining boom. Oh fantastic! The only problem is that their main means of production, their water, has been sold away.

It is so ironic that, while the South Australian government was raiding my irrigators market for what for them was cheap high security water, we here in parliament were working out how to get a cap introduced on any further buyback of irrigators' water through legislation—a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on any further buybacks. We have already found most of that water, but we are so aware now in this parliament, at least on this side, that further buybacks off irrigators are so ruinous to the Murray-Darling Basin economy that we want to cap any further buyback. Meanwhile we have the South Australian government in our irrigators market going as hard as they can to buy what is left of our high security water. I find that unconscionable, I find it immoral, and I have to say to the South Australian government: look to your own urban water conservation policies; stay away from food and fibre production water—buying that back is not right. When we have the next drought, it is going to be an extremely tragic situation. It will also be a bit sad for the urban water users of South Australia, because the water they bought will also be subject to the drought restrictions that will be part of the Eildon, Hume and Dartmouth dam allocations.

That is what we have had happening in our part of the world. In the teeth of the drought in 2006 there were 2,721 dairy farms in Murray—we are down now to just 1,100. The numbers have halved. But we are a magnificent area, as I said—we have still got the biggest and best of everything; all we need is a fair go. We are not getting a fair go from the federal government at the moment and will not until we have that 1,500 gigalitre cap put on further buybacks. I beg the opposition to join us in supporting that. At the moment the Environmental Water Holder's regulations require that when it trades water it spends every cent it earns from that trade on further water buyback. We have got to support the independent Australian Water Act review recommendations and say, 'In the future, when the Environmental Water Holder trades its water it must spend every cent of that trade on environmental works and measures investment—not on further buyback.' We have agreed that more buyback kills the economy and communities in the basin—and we are supposed to be pursuing a triple bottom line outcome. If you kill your farmers, you kill your environment. You have got to have the triple bottom line balanced. So we have to have the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's regulations changed, as recommended by the independent report, so that they spend their traded outcomes—their financial gain from that trade—not on water buyback but on environmental works and measures. That would be a good thing for the environment; it would help with those regulators in the Barmah Forest or on Pental Island or the Menindee Lakes. It would be a good thing. I ask that the opposition support that piece of legislation. It is a small change, but an important change.

In Victoria we also have to address the horrific malpractices of Goulburn-Murray Water, the Victorian state-owned monopoly now employing over 800 full-time public servants who are mismanaging that great irrigation system. In their most recent three-year EBA they have given their huge workforce a pay rise of three per cent each year; it was a four per cent rise per year over the life of the last EBA. Imagine if their customers could get that level of increase in their farm earnings—but they cannot. They cannot pay the water prices that Murray-Goulburn Water is putting on them but, worst of all, they cannot stand by and watch Goulburn-Murray Water halve the irrigation system by deliberately taking water away from the spurs, the supply channels, leaving it only in the mains. This is part of the so-called foodbowl modernisation plan. I beg the Victorian government to have a royal commission into the mismanagement of Goulburn-Murray Water. The Ombudsman's report into the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project—NVIRP—found it so badly managed that it was abolished. We have to have Goulburn-Murray Water similarly investigated. Nothing less will do, because it is itself killing the enterprise in this great irrigation system. If that does inquiry not happen, I will be deeply concerned about our future.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the early part of this century Australia suffered a severe drought that was particularly intense in its effect on the Murray-Darling Basin. At its worst, the drought resulted in this great river system becoming dysfunctional. The wetlands of the Coorong at the Murray River mouth virtually dried out. The river mouth had to be dredged to accommodate the trickle that reached that part of the system, because upstream states had failed to properly limit allocations to irrigators in a manner commensurate with the effects of the drought. I, as the shadow minister for water, went to South Australia, down to the Coorong, and witnessed the dredging taking place. It was an extraordinary sight—that you needed to dredge at that point each and every day simply to keep the great Murray-Darling system open to the sea. It was an extraordinary circumstance, but it was one to which the then government, the Howard government, responded.

Droughts are a fact of life in Australia, but the real problem recognised at that time, by all sides of politics, was that there was a need for a basin-wide approach to manage the River Darling. You see, our great river systems did not recognise colonisation or the great state of New South Wales, or Queensland, South Australia or Victoria. Of course the rivers did not recognise that. But the way the system was managed failed to recognise that what occurred in any place in the basin impacted the rest of the basin, which is why you needed to have a comprehensive approach. The parliament at the time decided that cooperation was needed between Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia. Cooperation was needed in times of drought, but, importantly, cooperation was also needed in times of plenty so that you did not assume that the times of plenty were never-ending, so that you took account of the changes that occurred in the normal weather cycle and also so that you recognised that there was a need to manage and to mitigate the impact of climate change. That was something that was recognised by people on the land, by the bureaucracy and by people in the cities and towns that depended upon the Murray-Darling Basin system for access to that most fundamental of human needs: water—the basis indeed for ongoing life itself, whether human life or growing through agriculture or through farmlands with cattle, sheep and other activity that is so necessary for providing food for our nation and indeed potentially for the world.

If you did not have a structure for that cooperation, then each state government, under pressure from industry, would face a great temptation to act in its individual interests rather than in the interests of the entire basin. And of course if that action took place on the basis of sectional interests, then in the long run that would be counterproductive even to the interests that achieved a short-term gain, because the system would not be managed properly to the benefit of the entire system. To its credit, the Howard government worked through the Council of Australian Governments to broker agreements for a more sensible approach to managing the system. It was never a case of choosing between irrigators and the environment. It was understood that, without sustainable management of the resource, the resource would become degraded. It was also accepted that it was important to ensure that there was enough water in the Murray-Darling system to sustain wildlife. Protecting the environment would protect its value as a tourism resource. A new, cooperative approach, the National Water Initiative, was designed to guarantee greater interstate cooperation in the national interest.

Part of the new apparatus of this approach was the creation in 2004 of the National Water Commission. Its remit was to achieve a nationally compatible market, regulatory and planning system that would manage water for urban and rural use and optimise economic, social and environmental outcomes. One of the commission's roles was to audit states regarding the way they adhered to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was delivered by the former Labor government. Independent experts supported this reform process. They realised that it was in the national interest to take the management of water out of the combative arena of interstate rivalry and into the world of evidence based management. Yet today we are being asked, through this legislation, to abolish this organisation—the very organisation that was welcomed by organisations such as the National Farmers' Federation, by experts in scientific research and by communities in the basin and was the subject of unanimous agreement.

As the shadow minister for water I had the great privilege of undertaking visits to places like Griffith, Leeton, St George and other places in the basin to look firsthand, as a guest of the NFF, at what irrigators were doing in investing to make their land more productive, and what environmental sustainability measures were being put in place. It was great privilege, as someone who is from very much an urban seat, to be educated by people on the land. What I saw was people doing their bit for their particular properties, but also saw people who understood that there was a need for greater perspective. That is precisely what the National Water Commission was designed to do.

The bill before us proposes handing responsibility for the triennial assessment of progress and implementation of the National Water Initiative and the five-yearly audits of implementation of the Basin Plan to the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission is simply not equipped for that task. It lacks the expertise. The idea that the Productivity Commission would take the place of the National Water Commission is simply not appropriate. These issues are complex. The Productivity Commission's processes do not normally include the level of consultation with stakeholders required in such a contentious area. Proper management of this nation's water resources is about economic productivity—there is no question about that—but it is also about the environment and sustainability. It is about much more than a narrow approach which the Productivity Commission, in its wisdom, is designed to facilitate.

I believe very clearly that it is worth the $20 million a year that we spend on the National Water Commission. If you consider the environmental degradation that can came from not taking a basin-wide approach, that $20 million is money well spent. Have a look at how much it costs us every time there is a drought or an issue in which farmers need special assistance—much more than $20 million; much, much more every single time. If we get the management of the basin right, the future costs at times of drought or at times of oversupply, in terms of flood, will be less because you will have management that is appropriate and right across the basin.

The government's view is very much ideological. It comes from the Commission of Audit, put in place after its election to justify a slash-and-burn approach to public administration. Given that the commission recommended cuts to health and education spending and reductions in the pension and the minimum wage, I doubt the recommendation to abolish the National Water Commission was considered from any angle other than how much money it would save. I doubt also whether the commission considered the fact that a $20 million saving could lead to a much greater cost to government in the future as a result of not making sure that we maximise the appropriate management of the system.

This bill is opposed by all of the experts. The inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into the bill found little support outside the irrigation sector. I take more notice of the National Farmers Federation, which opposed the abolition of the commission. I listened carefully to the experts at the NFF when I was the shadow minister for water. I found the NFF took a balanced approach, understanding the importance of sustainable management. During that period, I got across what is a very complex issue, which is why I think the area of expertise is so important. The Water Services Association of Australia and the Australian Water Association oppose this bill on the basis that it would remove national leadership on water. The Australian Conservation Council also opposes the bill, attacking it as a short-sighted and backward step in the absence of an enhancement of the Productivity Commission's operation and mandate.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, which sets the standard for scientific rigour on water management, said in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry that the National Water Commission was central to guiding implementation of the 2004 reforms. The submission warned:

There are a number of signs that indicate we are departing from the strong leadership of the last decade …

It appears that our Australian governments are walking away from strategic water reform at the very time when we should be preparing for the next inevitable drought. The Wentworth Group believes that we urgently need to reinvigorate the reform effort in order to tackle issues that remain unresolved as well as emerging water challenges. Water reform must be seen as a long-term endeavour rather than a one-off endeavour.

Even the current government understands in its heart the value of the current approach. In 2004, the current Minister for the Environment—who does not talk very much about the environment these days—Mr Hunt, in a debate on the legislation that set up the commission, said:

It is now our—this generation's—responsibility to take the steps in our national usage and in our personal usage to allow genuine health for the next generation.

Mr Hunt was right then, but he is wrong now. Another submission to the Senate committee inquiry came from Associate Professor Stuart Khan of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Professor Khan wrote:

Without the National Water Commission, there is now no clear avenue through which to drive and harness the benefits from national coordination in water reform.

He went on to argue that national economic growth could be impeded by the lack of national oversight over water management.

Let me conclude by picking up on the view of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and its observation that water reform must be seen as a long-term endeavour, not a one-off exercise. I fear that the Commission of Audit, with an approach based purely on reducing spending, failed to understand this important concept. National co-ordination of water policy and management of the Murray-Darling Basin serves Australia's long-term interests. It is not just about the economy and it is not just about the environment. We hear much from this current government about intergenerational theft as it seeks to justify ideologically-driven spending cuts that hurt average Australians. Failing to exercise proper stewardship of our natural resources today could deny our grandchildren access to those resources. We want the Murray-Darling Basin to be more than just an environmental showpiece; we want it to also be a critical piece of economic infrastructure. It also has an ability to provide food for the nation and also to enable those people who live in— (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note in relation to the comments of the previous speaker that the Labor government previously tasked the Productivity Commission to report on the acquisition of water entitlements and required that water entitlements be acquired at the lowest price possible. The Productivity Commission itself has written various other reports on the water industry over the past 10 years that have been very well received. I would add those remarks as comments following the previous speaker.

On 25 September 2014 the government introduced the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 into the Senate to abolish the National Water Commission with effect from January 2015. This gives effect to the government's 2014-15 budget commitment to abolish the National Water Commission. Ongoing reporting functions will be transferred to the Productivity Commission. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which handed down its report on 24 November. The government has considered the report as well as submissions made by stakeholders and has made a number of refinements to the bill due to that committee process and has responded to the report.

The National Water Commission was established as an independent statutory body by the Howard government under the National Water Commission Act 2004. The National Water Commission was responsible for assisting in the implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative and for providing advice to the Commonwealth and Council of Australian Governments on national water reform. It is worthwhile remembering that the National Water Initiative is not limited to the Murray-Darling Basin. The work done by the National Water Commission in conjunction with the non-basin states should not be overlooked. In particular, I would like to thank Elaine Gardner of my home state of Western Australia, former chairperson of the irrigator owned and run Ord Irrigation Cooperative, for the work she did as a commissioner on the National Water Commission. Elaine brought a broader perspective to the National Water Commission, and some of her efforts have come to fruition in the funding for the development of northern Australia in the budget.

The principal role of the National Water Commission was to provide oversight and assessment of national water reforms. Since the Australian government and all state and territory governments agreed to the National Water Initiative in 2004, there has been considerable progress in enhancing the security of irrigation water entitlements, enabling water markets and trade, strengthening Australia's water resource information base and improving urban water security as well as environmental outcomes.

An example from my own electorate of the important work that has now been completed was the National Water Commission co-contribution to the establishment of the first national water register in Australia. The National Irrigation Corporation's Water Entitlement Register, NICWER, was established to comply with the National Water Initiative requirements for an online searchable water entitlement register for irrigator owned schemes. Harvey Water in my electorate of Forrest is a proud foundation member of NICWER.

The government remains committed to progress in national water reform and to supporting and promoting the implementation of the National Water Initiative. The National Water Commission has largely completed the important foundation work, and, whilst there is still work to be done in meeting all the obligations under the National Water Initiative, the primary focus will move to the ongoing reporting function established by the National Water Commission. For this reason, key National Water Commission functions will be retained and transferred to existing agencies. The Productivity Commission will take over primary responsibility for these ongoing functions.

The bill requires one Productivity Commission commissioner to have extensive relevant skills and experience in water resource management. It requires the Productivity Commission to establish a stakeholder working group appointed by the minister for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry. A stakeholder working group will be established, with stakeholders appointed by the productivity minister, who will participate on a voluntary basis. The group will consist of representatives of agricultural, environmental, industry, Indigenous or urban water bodies, or any other body with an interest in the matters referred to the Productivity Commission under the bill. The stakeholder working group will meet at least twice prior to the report being submitted to the productivity minister in respect of an inquiry referred to the Productivity Commission.

This bill retains two key statutory functions previously undertaken by the National Water Commission. Firstly, it keeps triennial assessments of progress on implementation of the National Water Initiative and audits of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated Basin state water resource. This triennial assessment function will be transferred to the Productivity Commission. The triennial assessments report on progress towards achieving the outcomes and objectives of the National Water Initiative, and the assessments may include recommendations on actions that National Water Initiative parties might take to better implement the National Water Initiative. Secondly, under the Water Act 2007, the Productivity Commission will take over the role of the National Water Commission for five-yearly audits of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Basin Plan and water resource plans accredited under the Basin Plan. In addition, the amendments make minor technical changes to the bill to update the bill's commencement to the day after the bill receives royal assent, and a consequential change to amend the period to be covered by the National Water Commission's final annual report.

I would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the work of the National Water Commission to date— the commissioners, the staff, the ministers, and the public servants in the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Most importantly of all, I want to thank the board and staff of all the irrigator-owned schemes who, at considerable cost to their own organisations, responded to the countless requests for information from the National Water Commission and changed their operating procedures to meet constantly changing legislative requirements. As a result of everyone's combined efforts, Australia is now recognised as a world leader in innovation in the rural water industry—something that should not be underestimated or overlooked. We should not underestimate either the value of irrigated production in Australia. ABS figures show that in 2013-14 $13.4 billion was made in fruit, vegetables, dairy, cotton, grapes; in nursery production and sugar cane; in meat, cattle, cereals and rice—an amazing variety of fresh and bulk foods.

Irrigated land accounts for less than one per cent of all agricultural land in Australia, and irrigated production is a very valuable stimulus to regional economies. There are about 40,000 irrigators in Australia and, on average, irrigators produce 30 per cent of all agriculture value and half the profit in agriculture. It employs hundreds of thousands of people and, with the food-manufacturing sector, is Australia's largest manufacturing sector of all and a major exporter. We have sustainable irrigation practices in this country.

I look at Myalup along my coastal strip; I will talk about Harvey Water, because it is in my electorate. It is a customer service business, delivering water to cooperative members—it is a cooperative of local growers—to small private irrigators and industrial users. They have employed innovative solutions to provide access to water based on efficient and sustainable irrigation techniques. Water is supplied via an environmentally-sound gravity-fed pipe and channel system, using some 2000 individual supply points, sourcing water from seven dams along the Darling Scarp from Waroona in the north to Wellington Dam near Collie in the south. The system spans over 112,000 hectares, with more than 450 kilometres of pipelines and 250 kilometres of channels. The water supplied is non-potable and is not suitable for household drinking and consumption, but it is ideal for providing prime dairy and beef cattle grazing pastures, horticultural irrigation and water for industrial use. The regional economic benefits are enormous, estimated at $100 million in gross value added production from agriculture, horticulture and from the water supplied.

As a result of reviews of the operation of the scheme and Council of Australian Governments in1992 and reforms in water management, the irrigation system is now an irrigator-owned cooperative. It took over ownership of those assets and management in 1996. It is a dual cooperative business structure and that model was selected, with very good advice, to provide ongoing security for the assets. The business is owned by a management cooperative and the assets by a separate asset mutual cooperative. This structure has also enabled the ownership of entitlement to water to be separated from the land title, allowing water to be traded separately to the land. Irrigators own water in the form of shares in the cooperative, plus a corresponding certificate of water entitlement. In forming the cooperative, irrigators accepted that they should pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure because it provided a direct benefit to them. Harvey Water is very well-known; it resonates very well all around Australia, especially in my part of Western Australia.

I want to talk briefly about the piping project that Harvey Water undertook. It was a three-year, $72 million project to pipe the Harvey Irrigation district. This particular project delivered over 17 gigalitres of water savings, which has now been transferred to the Water Corporation on a permanent basis—an efficiency gain. The Harvey pipe project is highly regarded on the national scene and is recognised as being the best of its type. It has a broad vision and a practical ability to save and trade water and to provide funds for what is a world-class water delivery system. I have spoken about this particular delivery system in various places around the world. The Harvey pipe project was the inaugural winner of WA Water Awards and the WA Engineering Excellence Award in 2006.

The farmer cooperative proved a whole lot of people wrong. Many people said at the time that they would fail, but they have not. They have gone on to deliver in a very efficient way and they have a very sound business structure because they took very sound advice when setting up Harvey Water. They are still working towards replacing further channels with new piping. They will not stand still and they will continue to provide a range of solutions to the various issues and challenges they face. On that note, I conclude my remarks and support this particular bill.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the outset I make it clear that I support the position outlined by the member for Port Adelaide and other Labor speakers in their contributions to this debate on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. I have listened to almost all the speakers thus far with a great deal of interest. This is a matter that does interest me because it is important to the state I represent, South Australia, and because I was part of the committee, along with the member for Riverina—who is sitting across the table—that was known as the Windsor committee, which looked into the Murray Darling Basin in recent years. It probably did so more extensively than any committee previously.

I noted the member for Murray's contribution, and I would like to make some comments about that before I get to the substantive part of my contribution to the debate. I can well understand her comments and I certainly respect her for standing up for her community, but in my view she highlights just why we need a Murray Darling Basin Plan, why we need agreement to that plan from each of the four states and the ACT and why the National Water Commission should be retained. It should be retained to ensure that, once that plan is in place and once there is agreement to it, it is complied with. If there needs to be any changes to it, those changes should be based on objective and independent evidence, which to date has been provided by the National Water Commission.

I want to correct another point, which I hear time and time again from members in the eastern states with respect to what happened in recent years. The claim that there was a push to ensure that South Australia got more water simply to save the Lower Lakes is simply wrong. The reality is that in the years leading up to the last drought we had, which commenced in the late nineties, water allocations and water use in Victoria almost doubled and in New South Wales they trebled, whilst in South Australia water use had remained pretty flat line over the previous 40 years. It was because of the over allocations in the eastern states that we reached the point where the system was totally unsustainable.

The purpose of this bill is to abolish the National Water Commission and transfer its tasks to the Productivity Commission. Those tasks include the five-yearly audits of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the triennial assessments of the National Water Initiative and the biennial National Water Planning Report Card. The National Water Commission was established in 2004 by the Howard government. It was a coalition government that put it in place, and it did so for the right reasons. It did so in response to the need to better manage the water resources of this country, and it did so because the issue came to ahead in the midst of a drought, when there were serious problems confronting Australia widely with respect to that drought. In particular, those problems threatened the future security of the agricultural sector and primary industries—literally right across the country but certainly in the Murray-Darling Basin region. Those problems threatened the future of farming families, the country communities and the environmental assets that all relied on that water.

Indeed, national water security had emerged as a national priority a decade ago, just as it has across the world today. Climate change and population growth have seen a serious depletion of water resources right around the world. The National Water Commission has put Australia, over the last 10 years, at the forefront internationally of good water management policies. It has provided consistency and certainty for both government and the private sector, and it has provided non-political, evidence based guidance on national water management issues. Whilst my remarks will be focused on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, I take the point made by the member for Forrest in her contribution that the commission was indeed responsible for more than the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and that responsibility extended to all water resources across the country.

In respect to the Murray-Darling Basin, the basin spans the four states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and also covers the Australian Capital Territory. It is an area of about a million square kilometres. It is home to over two million Australians and it produces almost half of Australia's irrigated agricultural products. It is a major Australian economic, environmental and social asset. Its sustainability is vital to Australia's future. The last drought exposed just how poorly the basin had been managed in the past. Indeed, that mismanagement resulted in the distorted water market, in the buybacks that we had, and in growers and farmers being unable to access water at critical times in the production of their crops. The result was that farmers lost properties or sunk into debt, towns struggled to survive, businesses closed down, farms were abandoned, and environmental disasters occurred across the basin—nowhere more so than in South Australia at the Lower Lakes and at the Coorong.

That drought highlighted the urgency of a national agreement on the Murray-Darling plan—something that the states had been bickering over for about 100 years. Labor, after 100 years, led by the minister at the time, Tony Burke, was able to secure an agreement that we, on this side of parliament, believed would at least provide the necessary security for the future of the basin, and the families, communities and businesses that lived within it. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the National Water Commission were both critical to the security of the two million people that lived within the plan.

It seems that—just because in recent years we have had some good rain falls and water inflows have been restored into the basin—we have now slipped back, or at least the government has slipped back, into a position of complacency about management of the basin. The reality is that water security is still under extreme uncertainty, with both climate change and mining activities in the basin area adding to the need to carefully manage the national water resources that we have. Yet what has occurred is the opposite. We have seen the Council of Australian Governments abolish the Standing Council on the Environment and Water. We have seen the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative ceased. We have seen the water buybacks cutback to 1,500 gigalitres; indeed, in South Australia we have seen the cuts to the water buybacks threaten the additional 450 gigalitres that had been secured as part of the 3,200-gigalitre target by the previous government. This government has pushed those water buybacks back by a couple of years and capped the total number of water buybacks to 1,500 gigalitres.

We have also seen a government that does not take climate change seriously. It is still clear that climate change sceptics in the coalition continue to influence government policy on their side of this House. Indeed, when the world response to climate change appears to be growing, and when leaders in countries like the US, China, and India are all increasing their commitment to tackling climate change, the responses that we see in Australia are sending Australia in the opposite direction. I focus on climate change because, in my view, it remains the single largest threat to water security across Australia—as it does across the world. That threat transfers directly onto farmers, primary producers and country communities whose livelihoods depend entirely on access to water. Good management of Australia's water resources minimises the risk and provides added security. That is why having a body such as the National Water Commission is so important.

It is very likely that we will see another drought sometime in the future. Even the climate change sceptics who claim that droughts are a feature of the Australian landscape will have to acknowledge that if that is the case sooner or later we will face another drought. When it does come, it would be much wiser for us to be prepared as a country—unlike during the last drought. An independent, expert and objective body overseeing Australia's water resources serves the national interest—as the National Water Commission has done for the last 10 years.

The Abbott government's approach of transferring responsibility to the Productivity Commission is a change that, as other speakers on this side of the House have made clear, has very little support from the stakeholders—the people who understand best what is required and how to best manage the water resources we have. We have no guarantee, from listening to the government speakers on this bill, that the Productivity Commission will have the necessary expertise or the necessary resources required to competently carry out its job. It is not a question of whether the people there are expert or not; it is a question of whether they are going to be given the support staff and the resources they need to carry out the role. And if they are, at what cost will that come and what will the savings be, given that the government claims that this measure is going to save some $20 million? Equally concerning is that, rather than having such a national asset managed by a group that is solely focused on that role, it will be transferred to a department that has oversight of so many other roles. I do not believe anyone can seriously claim that managing water resources will get the same level of scrutiny and attention that it would have had the National Water Commission continued.

I suspect the real objective in abolishing the National Water Commission, apart from the meagre savings referred to by the government, is to remove scrutiny of the Abbott government's commitment to water resources in this country, and to avoid any criticism of the government for mismanaging Australia's water resources. In other words: get this group out of the way so the government cannot be scrutinised in the same way. We have already seen the Abbott government cut some $650 million of water buybacks, which, as I said earlier, seriously jeopardises the government's ability to get to the 3,200 gigalitre target that was set by the previous government. South Australia, the state I represent, is at the end of the river system. South Australia will be the loser if that 3,200 gigalitre target is not met. That may not matter to the people in the eastern states, but it certainly does matter to South Australians.

I heard the contribution from the member for Barker. His predecessor was indeed a member of the Windsor committee that looked into the Murray-Darling Basin. I doubt very much that his predecessor would have agreed to the abolition of the National Water Commission, and I will say something about that in just a moment. But what I noted from the member for Barker's comments was that he talked up the importance of the farming community that he represents, and its reliance on the waters that come into South Australia, but then said nothing about how he is going to take a stand to support and secure those water resources. The Windsor committee, which the previous member for Barker was on, made 21 recommendations with respect to management of the Murray-Darling Basin. The first thing I do not know is how many of those recommendations the Abbott government is committed to. What I do know is that recommendation 21 clearly stated that the National Water Commission would be tasked with a whole range of responsibilities, including the very responsibilities that this bill seeks to take away from them.

This bill flies entirely in the face of, and is contrary to, the recommendations of the last committee of this parliament that looked into the management of Australian water resources. By and large, the committee's recommendations—and certainly recommendation 21—were not contentious. They were bipartisan recommendations from both sides of this parliament, and yet the government now chooses to throw them out the window for nothing more than its own political agenda of, firstly, not having to face up to the scrutiny that would be applied to it by the National Water Commission, and, secondly, claiming that it would save a meagre handful of dollars. As the member for Grayndler quite rightly pointed out, we are talking about a basin that sustains a $66 billion economy, and yet we are prepared to put it at risk for the saving of a few meagre dollars. (Time expired)

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for this opportunity to speak on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. There is no question, despite all the murmurings and mutterings—call it what you will—of those opposite, that the Abbott coalition government is committed to ensuring that this country protects its water resources, and at the same time it is equally committed to developing new water infrastructure.

The National Water Commission was established, as we have heard so many speakers reflect on, in 2004 by the Howard government to improve water security for all Australians in the face of a widescale drought in regional and rural Australia. These were the cries—the requests, the pleas—of the Australian people, and the Howard government responded accordingly. The commission was designed to uphold the roles of the National Water Initiative. This starts to get a little complicated, but let us not forget what I just said—the commission was designed to uphold the roles of the National Water Initiative. The National Water Initiative is designed to uphold the principles of trying to improve the efficiency of Australia's water use to promote investment for regional Australia—particularly towards the farming community—and, through programs, to promote environmental concerns. Of course we want to focus attention on our farming community, the great wealth creators of our nation, the people who put us on the map across the world as far as branding goes and whose produce is increasingly being sought by the growing Asian middle class. This is done through creating markets and trade for water and increasing urban water security. It is quite simple.

This government firmly believes the National Water Commission's work can be better carried out through the Productivity Commission. It will also be done through consultation between the state and territory and federal governments so that the public remains confident that government institutions make sure that the National Water Initiative is maintained. I want to spend a moment on this point. This work will be undertaken by the Productivity Commission. It will also be done through consultation between the state, territory and federal governments. Those opposite would have you believe—as the previous speaker, the member for Makin, was insinuating—that there is some conspiracy here, where all levels of government—

Mr Champion interjecting—

excuse me; are you right over there?—are conspiring to act in an untoward way when it comes to the national security of water. Well, we have good people working in the Productivity Commission and we have good people working at a state and territory level. We have experienced, qualified and committed people who will work, I am sure, to meet the principles of the initiative.

The reality is that the function of the Water Commission was more about auditing. Anybody who knows anything about that commission knows that it was more about auditing than it was about developing future water infrastructure. We ought to know a little bit about what happened here and we ought to put the record straight: the reality is that the function of the commission was more about auditing than it was about developing future water infrastructure. The development of water infrastructure is very important to my electorate, very important indeed.

The state and federal governments have a great history of working together, believe it or not, to reform water security for both country Australia and urban population centres. A key example of how the state and federal governments can work together to develop water infrastructure is to be seen in my home state of Tasmania. My lower house colleagues Eric Hutchinson and Andrew Nikolic, our Tasmanian colleagues in the Senate and I have joined the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, who is also the Minister for Primary Industries and Water, and local farmers to work together alongside Tasmanian Irrigation to come up with five tranche 2 projects for Northern Tasmania. We made an announcement in relation to federal funding of $60 million just recently; that is going to be on top of the state contribution of $30 million.

I take this opportunity to highlight one of those projects, rather than to repeat much of what my colleague from Lyons, Eric Hutchinson, said earlier in this place, in a terrific speech. I encourage those either listening to or watching this to go to the member for Lyons' website and have a look at the speech that he made, which was a very creative way of explaining what has been happening in Tasmania over a certain period. It even had its own little hint of poetry and romance, which was a really excellent way of explaining the rainfall, the run-offs and the complications of the climate, as it is, for Tasmania. I recommend people go and read that.

The project I wish to highlight in this place is the Circular Head project, which is one of the five projects listed for priority funding. It will provide key pipelines to improve the ability to irrigate in the Circular Head region, one of the great pacesetters for dairy and all that comes from the dairy industry in our state. It is a blessing. Every day, they wake up down there with their pastures, and the quality of the milk that literally flows from that region should be, shall I say, shouted from the rooftops. That project will also increase the number of pump stations so that many, many more farmers can gain access to quality water. This project will release 21,400 megalitres to give that access to farmers in the region. It will create up to 150 jobs and help improve the ability of farmers to export their quality produce to both interstate and overseas markets, as well as improve the water security of the region.

What is happening in my home state when it comes to agriculture and horticulture is exciting. It is exciting, indeed, to see the levels of confidence and the increasing levels of investment coming on the back of people's own belief in what they can attain in the global economy. Obviously, it would be an understatement to say that the agricultural sector in Tasmania, more particularly in the north-west of my electorate, is excited about the prospects that are going to flow from the free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China, and, hopefully, a free trade agreement with India, by opening up those export markets for these products—which will now, by the way, be able to be freighted to these export markets, with the enhancement of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, making them more competitive.

In our electorates, we see people from all over the world all the time. They want Australian produce. But, dare I say in this place, above Australian branding, they want Tasmanian branding. They want Cape Grim beef, they want King Island beef, they want the cleanliness of Cape Grim water, they want the top-notch whisky, they want the cheese, they want the berries. My job is to be an ambassador for my electorate, and it is quite an easy task when you have such good produce to sell.

So there are exciting days ahead, but for that to continue to grow in our state—at the state level, not just in my electorate—we need water infrastructure. I know we get plenty of rain, but we have more run-off as a percentage than pretty well anywhere else in the country. We have to capture the run-off from the rainfall in our great state and make sure it is put back where it is needed.

I take this opportunity to thank Jeremy Rockliff, the Minister for Primary Industry and Water in Tasmania, and the Prime Minister for their willingness to work together with the Tasmanian Liberal team to make sure that all Tasmanians can benefit from the work of their governments.

Some Tasmanian senators—not from this side of the House—have made statements in the Senate which are totally incorrect. I suspect that that will come as no surprise to many.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's this got to do with the bill?

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, can we just—

Mr Champion interjecting—

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wakefield.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: you have to be relevant to the bill. This is completely irrelevant to the bill.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wakefield will resume his seat. I take the point of order. The member for Braddon.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member who has just resumed his seat. He is totally irrelevant to this House. Senator Urquhart, in the other place—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's this got to do with the Murray-Darling?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Wakefield, we will hear the remarks and then decide whether they are relevant.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Urquhart has stated that abolishing the board would be short-sighted, that the savings are not worth it, that the government is not about standing for accountability and that we are only going backwards with our approach. Senator Singh has also made similar points. Well, the first point I want to make is that this body was originally intended to go for eight years. Eight years is enough to improve how we look at water security and improve our systems with major effect. A large chunk of the hard yards has already been done by the National Water Commission, and keeping it going would simply be a waste. What is not short-sighted is to make efficiencies where there will be minimal difference or no difference in the ability for the work to be done. In my view, it is short-sighted to keep a bloated body going, and I support this bill.

This government has always considered water to be, in the words of Senator Urquhart, an A-level issue. This is why we are debating the merits of this bill for all. This bill deserves the support of the House.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to this bill, and for good reason. One of the main reasons is that it was not what the government told the people of Australia when they were in opposition. What did they say when they were in opposition? In Our plan: real solutions for all Australians they talked about 'the direction, values and policy priorities of the next coalition government'. They have broken every single commitment in this document. It says a lot about their values. They do not judge these commitments as important at all; they throw them out the window like confetti. There is only one dot-point on improving water security and better water management: 'We will deliver on the 10-point plan for the Murray-Darling announced by the Howard government. We will restore the Murray-Darling to health' et cetera.

This bill abolishes the National Water Commission, which was set up by the Howard government. Imagine if they had gone to the last election—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

The member for Mayo knows all about breaking commitments to South Australia—on cars, submarines and many other things. If they had gone to the people of South Australia at the last election and said they were going to get rid of the National Water Commission—a $20 million save—imagine the response from South Australia! The reason they did not put that in Real Solutions is that they knew that would lose some votes. They knew that their broken promises, their broken commitments, their broken word would lose them votes. The National Water Commission looks into the health of the Murray-Darling Basin—oversees it all, provides expertise, provides updates, provides information to the public and to government. Everybody knows that the reason for getting rid of it and giving it to the Productivity Commission is about not just a $20 million saving, but getting the policeman off the beat so that they can go back to 'business as usual'. And we know what 'business as usual' is. In 1943, my Labor predecessor Sid McHugh asked Menzies the exact same question about the usage of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. So this has been an issue for—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your favourite Liberal Prime Minister fixed it. John Howard fixed it.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Mayo talking about 'my favourite Liberal Prime Minister'—and I think that is perhaps stretching it a bit far. But give Prime Minister Howard some credit. He did the right thing on guns. He showed some courage on guns. He would have shown more courage if he had taken his Murray-Darling Basin Plan to cabinet. He probably should have taken it to cabinet; that would have been good.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It did go to cabinet.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before or after the announcement, member for Mayo? Those were the days of benign despotism in the Liberal Party. We know that John Howard put this framework to the people of Australia, to the parliament, and it was all about fixing the Murray-Darling Basin. Many South Australians took that very seriously indeed—because we are affected by it, because we are at the end of the river, and everybody knows we have to live with the consequences of what goes on.

The National Water Commission, created by the Howard government in 2004, provides independent assessment on the progress of governments on water reform; audits the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; assesses the performance of basin states in implementing milestones under the National Partnership on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin; plays a role in the assessment of carbon farming initiatives; and publishes water market reports and national performance reports on metropolitan and regional water agencies. Those are important things for government, for the public and, in particular, for my state of South Australia—and everybody knows it. People regard it as important, and this has been a big issue in South Australia for a long time. I have seen some of the benefits for the Murray-Darling. In places like the City of Salisbury, Playford and in the Gawler River we have undertaken big projects to take the pressure off the River Murray.

There is a tendency amongst governments and, indeed, the community to take the foot off the accelerator a bit when it rains, to say she'll be right. But I heard a news report the other day about South Australian dam capacity this year. It is meant to be 55 per cent and it is more like 44 per cent at the moment because the rain is falling at different places. You do not need much to go wrong in Australia in terms of rainfall for there to be serious problems.

The Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May this year said 'Parched New South Wales seeks help as National Water Commission axed'. You have Premier Baird writing to Queensland, Deputy Speaker Vasta's state, basically begging about the situation in Broken Hill, where they are down to four per cent of their reserves. This is a major town in New South Wales. Broken Hill is a great city, a great home of the Labor movement, and they have to ask the Queenslanders for water. It is a very concerning thing when we have the National Water Commission being axed. The people of Broken Hill are in a dire situation and they have been in that situation for quite some time.

And what does the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists say? John Williams from the Wentworth Group said, 'This is the very time we should be building on water reform.' That gives you some idea of how the public sees things, how expert groups see things.

The National Farmers' Federation in their submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee wrote to Senator Ruston. They said:

I am writing in response to the call for submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 (herein the Bill). While the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) was disappointed to see the National Water Commission (NWC) abolished, the Government’s commitment to continuing many of the NWC’s key roles is welcomed.

The National Farmers' Federation generally do not criticise the government, so that is about as close as they get, but in this letter they reiterate their desire to make sure that the Productivity Commission actually does the role of the National Water Commission. Here is an idea: rather than tasking the Productivity Commission with doing it, why don't we just keep the National Water Commission? That would be the sensible thing to do.

We know the submission from the National Water Commission by the Hon. Karlene Maywald, who does know something about the River Murray. She makes some very good points about the commissioners and says:

Commissioners strongly support the continuation of independent oversight and public accountability of governments and government-owned enterprises beyond the life of the NWC. Strengths of the NWC have been that it reports to all Australian governments and to COAG, its Commissioners were nominated by all states and territories as well as the Commonwealth for their specific expertise, and it provided a skills-based national perspective not driven by shorter term interests.

So this is a government commission that underwrites the national interest in an area we know has been plagued by the states' interests, by sectional interests and by personal interests. It is sad because it is a great river and we all have some attachment to it.

I have been to places like Mildura. My first girlfriend—my first real girlfriend!—was from Mildura, and I know it is where the member for Mayo is from. I remember going up to Mildura in the 1990s, and people were going crazy developing underutilised water licences. They would buy the block next door for the water licence and they would exploit that water licence. They would say to you, 'We're going to do this because we know we won't be able to do it five, 10 years down the track.' The states are given water of value through the Hilmer reforms, and perhaps not one of the best effects was that it set off a bit of a gold rush in places like Mildura, sadly. I think we had some exploitation of water licences that previously lay dormant.

So we have to be a bit concerned about this government making a $20 million saving. I am surprised that a South Australian minister like Senator Birmingham would fall for this save, because we know what will happen: the old state interests will come back into play and they will aim in the short term to manipulate river flows for their own interests. What we need is a national approach, and that is why we had the National Water Commission.

Stuart Khan is quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald on 26 November last year:

"Simon Birmingham's assertion that 'the purpose of the NWC has been fulfilled' is akin to saying 'water management in Australia is fixed and there's nothing more to do'," Dr Khan said. "This is a patently ridiculous assertion ... and the looming east coast drought will make that clear for all."

We certainly hope we do not suffer drought, but you only have to look at some of the bureau forecasts to know that it is a possibility. If South Australia experiences drought and if South Australia experiences difficulty then they will look at this decision of the government, and it will be one more broken promise by this government.

We know the Australian Conservation Foundation in their overview to the Senate committee said:

To abolish the National Water Commission (NWC) and give responsibility of water management to the Productivity Commission would be a short-sighted and backward step, particularly in the absence of substantial changes to the mandate and operation of the Productivity Commission. It would likely result in another wave of conflicts over water due to the absence of what all sides regard as a well-respected expert independent body.

The ACF rightly points out that we will go back to South Australia pointing upstream, New South Wales pointing downstream and upstream and Queenslanders doing what they please, being at the head of the river.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a bad thing!

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton says that's not a bad thing! But we love Queensland. It is a great place. But we cannot have the state governments finger-pointing upstream and downstream. We need a National Water Commission as an independent umpire and trusted body providing that expert information so that we can make sound public policy decisions and so we can be judged on those public policy decisions. We do not want to go back to the situation that Sydney McHugh talked about in one of his first questions in the old House to Prime Minister Menzies. We do not want another 50 years of inaction. As I said before, this was Prime Minister Howard's framework. This was largely his policy design. Yet we have a coalition government destroying it and ripping it asunder at a time when it is not right to do so because we have not fixed the job.

We oppose this bill, and we oppose it for good reason. There has been plenty of evidence to the Senate inquiry to say that this is a foolish move by the government, it is a silly save and it will do long-term damage. That is something we should not welcome.

This is one of those broken promises. You see them with the National Water Commission. You see them on the river in South Australia. You see them in the car industry. Every week I see the damage inflicted on my state by decisions of this government on the car industry. We have seen them with the submarines. We have seen them in health and education across the country. We know this is a government of broken promises, and they should be held accountable for this broken promise.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure about broken promises, but we just heard a broken record. The member for Wakefield is somebody from South Australia who is passionate—I will give him that—but he was talking about the overarching responsibility for water. It does not belong to the National Water Commission. It is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. We heard the member for Makin earlier talking about meagre savings. That is precisely what is wrong with Labor. Labor cannot manage money. This is going to save $21 million. This is going to take $21 million off the bottom line. Those are not meagre savings; that is a substantial amount of money. That is what is wrong with Labor. If they do not think that $21 million is worth saving then there is something seriously wrong.

We saw in the six years under Labor that Labor could not manage water. The National Water Commission is going to be wound up, consistent with the Commission of Audit recommendations and measures outlined in the 2014-15 budget. It is outlined in that budget. This bill abolishes the NWC by repealing the National Water Commission Act of 2004. It makes consequential amendments to the Water Act of 2007 to enable that to happen. It will transfer certain NWC functions to the Productivity Commission, where they should be, and it will provide transitional arrangements to facilitate the closure of the NWC.

I do not often listen to the member for Wakefield and give him too much credibility, but someone I do give a lot of credibility to is Debbie Buller from my electorate. Debbie Buller and her husband, Stuart, own and lease 900 hectares of broadacre irrigation farm at Murrami. They grow rice, corn, wheat, oats, canola and barley. She is the president of an organisation founded in 2010 which I am also a founding member of, and that is the Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association. She is also an executive member of the Ricegrowers' Association, NSW Farmers and the New South Wales Irrigators' Council. So when Debbie Buller sends me an email or says something on the phone, I listen. She talked to me this afternoon about increased bureaucracy. She is absolutely furiously in agreement with the coalition's bill that we are debating here now. We are about to hear from the parliamentary secretary, who will sum up on this bill, and then we will vote on it.

When Debbie Buller recently wrote to me about increased bureaucracy she said: 'While there is some rationale behind claiming that some of the states had overallocated water, the Water Act 2007 and the subsequent Murray-Darling Basin Plan have not recognised the historical reasons for that overallocation and therefore not repaired the problem. They have instead exacerbated the problem.' She continued: 'Instead of simplifying and streamlining water regulation and management, this process has added at least four extra levels of independent bureaucracy.' She mentioned that CEWH, BOM, MDBA and the ACCC seem to be in a power struggle with the corresponding state entities. She listed the number of bureaucracies, state and federal, just in the southern connected system that are directly involved in informing water management operations, regulations and pricing. For the sake of the Hansard, I am going to read them out. They are: the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Primary Industries, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, Local Land Services, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, ministerial councils, the New South Wales Office of Water, the Office of Environment and Heritage, Snowy Hydro Ltd, the State Water Corporation, the Victorian government, the South Australian government, Coleambally Irrigation Ltd, Murrumbidgee Irrigation and Murray Irrigation Ltd. I am almost out of breath! That is how many organisations and layers and levels of bureaucracy that good farmers, such as Debbie and Stu Buller at Murrami, and the good people of the Murrumbidgee, Murray and Coleambally irrigation areas have to contend with.

That is fine. But we are getting rid of the National Water Commission because we believe that the job can be done by other entities. We can lessen the bureaucracy. The Productivity Commission will be responsible for the triennial assessment of progress towards achieving NWI objectives as well as the biennial national water planning report card which is produced under the triennial assessment.

Mr Champion interjecting—

You should listen, Member for Wakefield: you might learn something. Obviously in the 15 minutes of my life that you wasted talking about your ex-girlfriends, cars, submarines and all the rest of it—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

At least the member for Braddon was talking about water, Member for Moreton. The Productivity Commission will also have responsibility for the independent audit of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated water resource plans. The Department of the Environment will be responsible for assessing milestone payments to Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the national partnership agreement on implementing MDB reform. The department will also provide advice on the status of the implementation of the National Water Initiative to the Clean Energy Regulator, as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule regulations of 2011. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES, will take responsibility for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report. The Bureau of Meteorology is working with state and territory governments and the water industry to continue the national performance reports for the urban water sector, which will provide a crucial annual snapshot of this section of the industry. The 2013-14 NPR was released on 7 May. Interestingly, just a week after that NPR was released, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, who, in his budget in-reply speech, said:

Confidence for new rail and roads and new ports and bridges, better social housing, smart energy grids, efficient irrigation projects and of course, the best digital infrastructure.

So there we have the Leader of the Opposition talking about efficient irrigation projects. Labor members would not know an irrigation channel if they fell over one!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I worked on one. I was a cotton chipper for six years. My sister owned a cotton farm.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For six years we had a man-made drought. We had the Millennium Drought inflicted by mother nature on the irrigation communities of my area, the Riverina, and then for six years—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Take that back!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, I will take it back. There you go. He worked on an irrigation channel. Most of the members of the Labor Party would not know an irrigation channel if they fell over one.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

I see the member for Moreton nodding, because he knows—present company excluded—that that is so true. Admittedly, Tony Burke came to Griffith, which is in my area, and bravely fronted the good folk there. Certainly, I gave him credit at those meetings, because it was important that we heard from him. He had a title as long as your arm—'population', 'sustainability', 'communities' and 'water'—but essentially water was in there. He was also a former minister for agriculture. At least he did go there. But the trouble with the minister was that he went, he listened but he did not act. We had a Murray-Darling Basin Plan which took so much water out of productive use in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, the MIA. It was just cruel to those farmers.

I read now from a report from a very old book titled Water into gold. I have to say that water is the most important thing that we will discuss in this House today. National security is obviously very crucial, too, but at this point in time water is one of the most crucial things that we will discuss in this House. The foreword to this book was written by Alex F Bell, CMG. He writes: 'The vision of Alfred Deakin that given water the most arid spaces could and would furnish produce the equal in quality of any grown throughout the world was realised by the courage of the Chaffeys and those who served under their banners and who, in the face of great handicaps, carried these river areas to a success, which has given prosperous cities and towns where 50 years ago a few sheep grazed on stations and regarded as dangerous country by the settlers who were opening up the pastoral districts of the Murray River area.' He could have easily included the Murrumbidgee area as well. That was out of the 1946 edition, the seventh edition, of this book. It is correct.

What we saw when Labor was in power—and we talk of bureaucracy—

Mr Champion interjecting—

I am not using these reports as a prop—was that Riverina farmers, the good farmers in the Murray and Coleambally areas and elsewhere in the Murray-Darling Basin area, including South Australia, were expected to go through these sorts of voluminous tomes, to analyse and read them, whilst they were getting on with the job—and they do a fine job, too—of growing the food and fibre to feed and clothe our nation.

In the Riverina alone, the ABARES statistics for 2012-13—so that is a while ago and they have obviously increased in value since then—were that the gross value of agriculture production in New South Wales was $12.1 billion, of which 16 per cent came from the Riverina region. It is probably higher now. In 2012-13 wheat contributed $443 million to the value of agriculture production just in this region. Fruit and nuts, excluding grapes, accounted for 12 per cent—that is $231 million—with the major crops being oranges, $129 million; apples, $36 million; and cherries, $6 million. Canola accounted for 11 per cent at $227 million; rice seven per cent at $148 million; and vegetables six per cent at $127 million. The parliamentary secretary, Mr Baldwin, who is sitting beside me and who will in a moment sum up the bill, knows this well. He recently came to my electorate and visited Narrandera, Griffith, Coleambally and Whitton—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

and Southern Cotton—and he saw for himself the great benefit that water gives to the Riverina region and the great benefits that the Riverina region gives by transforming that water into food and fibre to feed this nation and, indeed, many others. The parliamentary secretary saw it with his own eyes. He was impressed—as he should be. This legislation is very, very important. The cap on water buybacks of 1,500 gigalitres makes it doubly important that this legislation passes. The Abbott-Truss government is strongly committed to progressing water reform, and we will continue the principles of the National Water Initiative. The water sector has made great progress on water reform. The sort of reform that we want to see from this side of the House will make sure that we do not continue to buy water ad hoc out of those productive areas. What we are doing is we are capping the buyback, which is important, and we are capping—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can only buy it from willing sellers, can't you.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But willing sellers, member for Wakefield, were only willing sellers in many instances because their banks were forcing them to pay back the debt that they had, and there were many of them who were not willing sellers. They wanted to get on with the job of farming as their fathers had done, as their grandfathers had done, as their forebears had done when they first settled in the Griffith, Leeton and Narrandera areas back in the early 1900s. They were sent there by government to grow the food to feed this nation, and the government of their nation turned its back on them and implemented bad water policy, which we are now trying to fix.

The key outcome sought from the legislation is the transfer of two statutory NWC functions to the Productivity Commission on an ongoing basis: the triennial assessments of progress by the National Water Initiative parties towards achieving the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative and also the five-yearly audits of progress towards implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That is what the National Water Commission was doing. It was not an overarching body, as the member for Wakefield made out in his contribution. It was implementing those five-yearly audits of progress towards the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It was set up, as the member for Wakefield quite correctly pointed out, in 2004 by the former Howard government, but only for a period of eight years. Now we are 11 years on. The National Water Commission has done its job and it is time to say: 'Farewell and thanks.' With that, I will now sit and I will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to sum up this important piece of legislation.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity today to sum up debate on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. It has been a long journey since last year. I would like to thank the Senate for passing this bill, and all the senators and the members of parliament who have contributed to the debate. As I outlined in my speech earlier today, the purpose of this bill is to repeal the National Water Commission Act of 2004 in order to abolish the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission has played an important role in the monitoring and auditing of water reform policy implementation and management nationally since the National Water Initiative was agreed to a decade ago. This legislation abolishes the National Water Commission as a stand-alone agency, but—and this is a very significant point—the Abbott government will not be abolishing the key functions of the National Water Commission, which is something that seems to have escaped members opposite. We will not be abolishing the key functions carried out by the National Water Commission; our government will ensure they are enshrined with the appropriate body to ensure these auditing and monitoring functions are undertaken.

Firstly, I would like to point out that water reform in this country is directed by the Commonwealth and state governments—the governments responsible for managing water each and every day in this nation. Those in opposition would have the public believe the water reform that was implemented on the ground extensively across the country in both the urban and rural water space was only achieved because of the National Water Commission. That is absolutely false. I am appreciative of the work of the National Water Commission. They have done an outstanding job, a great job, in encouraging national water reform and in making sure, particularly in the early years, that the states and the Commonwealth worked to implement the National Water Initiative principles. That is the key point here; it was the implementation of the National Water Initiative principles—they drove it and made sure it was adhered to. It was the states, however, that improved our urban water management, the states that drove the development of our water markets and the states that are working with the Commonwealth to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

As I say, I thank the National Water Commission for the work they have undertaken since 2005, but I have to be honest and acknowledge the work undertaken by the responsible ministers and departments at state and Commonwealth levels to make Australia a world leader in water management. The National Water Initiative principles that continue to guide us today were developed and agreed to by all governments in 2004, and this important milestone helped to set our nation on a pathway of improving the management of our most important resource—water—with a national focus. Most significantly, this happened in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, which has been the most significant water management exercise in the world, perhaps only surpassed by the work that is currently happening in the Mekong.

From listening to the speakers on the other side of the House you could be mistaken for thinking that the National Water Commission is the primary body responsible for developing and implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The plan was developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and is being implemented by relevant departments of both Commonwealth and basin states. The Abbott government has committed to delivering the Basin Plan in full with triple bottom line focus that ensures the future for farmers, the community and the environment. The abolition of the National Water Commission will not impact upon this commitment. I want to restate that, because obviously members on the other side are not listening: the abolition of the National Water Commission will not restrict the ability of governments at a state or federal level to deliver plans in full with integrity on time.

We will meet the needs of every aspect of the environment through investing in water efficiency and infrastructure projects that will underpin the future productivity of our regional communities. In continuing with the understanding that it is the Commonwealth and state governments that continue to drive the nation's water reform agenda, our government will ensure that the oversight of the work being done to uphold and further the National Water Initiative principles continues. As many of the speakers have outlined today, the Productivity Commission will now be responsible for this work. This is a body of respected individuals who are well known for their independent advice to government, but I regret to say that, given the statements made by members on the other side of the chamber here today, they doubt the abilities or the integrity of the Productivity Commission. They doubt that they have the expertise to undertake key functions that are assigned to them; they doubt they can understand the complex nature of water issues. As colleagues of mine on this side have said, we are appalled to think that those opposite think so little of the Productivity Commission and their integrity and their ability.

Over many years the Productivity Commission has demonstrated an ability to handle wide-ranging and complex issues, including water. They are no strangers to water. The Productivity Commission has released no fewer than 40 separate reports on all areas of water, from urban water reform to declining water quality and diversity of farm irrigation. These reports include the 2006 research report Rural water use in the environment; the 2011 public inquiry into the Australian urban water sector; Towards urban water reform in 2008; Arrangements for setting drinking water standards in 2000 and so on—as I said, 40 separate reports covering all areas and aspects of water. This work achieved a complex, nuanced examination and was well received across industry, particularly by the urban water industry and their representatives—the Australian Water Association and the Water Services Association of Australia.

There are many other stakeholders who have supported the Productivity Commission's work, including the National Farmers' Federation—I want members opposite to hear this: including the National Farmers' Federation—who have been referred to extensively by opposition speakers in absolute ignorance, or arrogance. Yes, the NFF has some concerns with the transfer of functions to the Productivity Commission. But we actually listened to these. We addressed them. And in the government amendments that were moved in the Senate—which if members had actually looked at they would have understood—they bolster the stakeholder consultation and ensure the appointment of an associate commissioner with expertise in water resource management for each and every inquiry referred to the Productivity Commission. This is something that the Labor Party would have known if they had actually bothered to talk to the NFF. You see, the NFF put out a media release on 14 May which welcomed the passing of the abolition bill through the Senate and which commended the government for ensuring 'continued independent oversight of water reform'. I thank the NFF for working collaboratively with this government to ensure a positive outcome to this legislation. What it shows yet again is that the Labor Party is devoid of any ability to contribute to sensible, responsible policy development and legislation in this nation.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved and reiterate the functions that will be continuing under the government's legislation. As I said, the Productivity Commission will be responsible for the triennial assessment of progress towards achieving the National Water Initiative objectives, as well as the biennial National Water Planning Report Card, which is produced under the triennial assessment. The Productivity Commission will also have responsibility for the independent audit of implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated water resource plans. The Department of the Environment will be responsible for assessing milestone payments to the Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the National Partnership Agreement on implementing Murray-Darling Basin reform. The Department of the Environment will also provide advice on the status of implementation of the National Water Initiative to the Clean Energy Regulator as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011.

ABARES will take on responsibility for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report. The Bureau of Meteorology is working with state and territory governments and the water industry to continue the national performance reports for the urban water sector, which will provide an important annual snapshot of this section of the industry. The 2013-14 National Performance Report was released on 7 May 2015 by the bureau, and the states have committed to supporting an additional two years of the report at this time. I would like to reiterate that final point for the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, who is at the bench here: the Bureau of Meteorology has continued the production of the National Performance Report for the urban water industry, which provides an annual snapshot of the industry each year, and just this month they released the most recent, the 2013-14, report, and each state has committed to continuing to support this into the future. Contrary to the statements made by the member for Port Adelaide, we have not axed this important report, as he claimed here today. Whether it was ignorance, arrogance or a failure to do his job as the shadow minister and actually be on top of his own brief with the reports that are being put out, I find it abhorrent.

I am confident that our approach will deliver a win-win for water reform. We will continue the key functions of monitoring the work on implementing the National Water Initiative, the work of undertaking the five-yearly assessments of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Productivity Commission and the Department of the Environment embody significant and respected expertise in the water reform area. I am confident that our nation will be in good hands with the Productivity Commission monitoring the progress of implementation of the National Water Initiative principles. Our farming communities, environmental communities, tourism communities and the community as a whole, as I have travelled the basin, have demanded certainty and integrity in the process. Despite reaching out to members opposite, we have had no cooperation. Yet when I talk to their state colleagues we receive good cooperation. When I have raised this with the various states there has not been any great reason for concern, because they understand the independence and the integrity of people like ABARES and the Productivity Commission in their ability to do their job.

What we are seeing is opposition for opposition's sake. Even in the Senate, their senators on the crossbench understood the importance of doing this to save money, to make sure that the integrity was there in the reporting process. So, they understood, and with that support the bill passed the Senate. Tonight, here in this chamber, if Labor oppose this bill it shows again their total ignorance and arrogance towards members of regional farming communities who rely on water, the lifeblood of their community. As I said, the integrity lies with the referral of reporting to the Productivity Commission, to ABARES and to the department and of course the report from the Bureau of Meteorology. So, I propose that the question be put that this bill be now read a second time.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.