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

I move:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is seconded. In seconding the motion, I take this opportunity to thank the member for Lyne for bringing this matter to the place and congratulate her for the outstanding contribution she just made.

I want to take you back. It's 2012 and I had been asked to be the Liberal candidate in the seat of Barker. That included the communities of the Riverland. As a young person living in Mount Gambier on a family farm I'd spent my fair share of time moving irrigation pipes. In fact, for as long as I can remember I was moving those pipes, or, indeed, from the point at which I could lift one, so I understood the importance of irrigation to farming entities. To be fair, I wasn't someone who'd spent a lot of time in the Riverland, but I was keen to correct that.

I remember one day I was in the Riverland driving along and I saw a strange sight near the bank of a river adjacent to a farm. It was an elderly man digging a trench from the river to a point. It piqued my curiosity. I stopped. I walked down and asked to speak to the man. He was a man in his 80s and he was digging a ditch from the river to a red gum. He said, 'Son, I'm digging this in the shadows of the millennium drought to make sure this tree survives.' In that moment I knew the people of the Riverland, farmers in those communities, care deeply about the environment. This was an elderly man who, quite frankly, should not have been digging at all, let alone that ditch. That is why the people of my electorate are so incredibly disappointed when they see that the sacrifices they make to ensure water has transferred from productive use to environmental benefit is not being treated with the same respect or all the requirements that have to be occasioned onto irrigators themselves.

The people of the Riverland want the CEWH to succeed. They want environmental outcomes, because otherwise that elderly gentleman would never have been there at the end of a long shovel. That's why this motion is so important. That's why this commission is important. We have to give the two million Australians who live within the basin confidence that the water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is being put to the best environmental use, that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is meeting the same sort of transparency and governance that irrigators themselves have to face.

It's not enough, as the member for Lyne said, to say, 'This is environmental water, so of course that's good.' It's only providing a social good if it provides the environmental outcome. Too often my constituents, and I expect others who live and work and represent areas in the basin would have heard this as well, ring me to say: 'Tony, what are they doing? They're irrigating in the middle of summer, in the middle of the day. It's a complete waste.' That's why this commission is so important, so we can hold decision-makers to account.

This is a significant capital asset that is held on trust for every Australian. Whether you live in the basin or not, you're a shareholder in that capital held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. That asset, in a continent as dry as ours, is just so valuable. It was Mark Twain who said, 'Whisky's for drinking, but water's for fighting over.' In that context, this water, this precious environmental water, needs to be managed appropriately. That's why this commission is so important. We need to ensure that people living and working in the basin have the confidence that that shareholding, that capital asset that's held on trust for every single Australian including everyone in this building, is being managed appropriately. It's only with that kind of transparency, that kind of accountability, that we will deliver that trust. And, by the way, without that trust, the work of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder will fail because it will lose political will.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those who have spoken in the debate are people who know the basin well, and so some of what I go through now is for the benefit of members generally. I don't want this to be seen by those who have had much of their livelihood or some or all of their livelihood within the basin as me explaining it to them, but I think there are some facts about water that, for the benefit of the House and the operation of the plan, are helpful for me to lay out. I do this in that context.

In the first instance—and I'm always troubled by the acronym CHEW because the letters aren't in that order, but anyway. It's the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder which was established under the Water Act. The office is actually a creation of the Howard government. The concept when the Water Act was brought in and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder was established, in the face of an acknowledgement from the Howard government and supported by our side in opposition, was that the river system had been overallocated to death. The concerns that were put by the member for Barker, in terms of people living within the basin wanting the system to be healthy, are something that has been acknowledge and acknowledged really strongly.

There is a regular characteristic within the basin that people will generally acknowledge overallocation for the water entitlements that are given to their north, effectively. In areas like the Riverland—I spent time in the Riverland when I was putting the basin plan together—there was a view back then, which I presume is still the view but I haven't ground-truthed it recently, that people were concerned that there was overallocation in catchments further north and higher up in the system. That certainly was the view back then. I remember the view by the member for Groom back at the time before he went off to his current minerals job—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, yes, yes. He used to say, 'The water falls on my land first, so I get it.' That was his perspective. But, state by state, the river system runs across the country, and what we had was, when it was viewed state by state, that the allocations were being done in a way that did not allow for the health of the system.

The perspective that was put forward by the Water Act was to be able to say, 'We need one of the irrigators within the system to effectively be someone who's job is to irrigate for the environment.' That's what the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is—an acknowledgement that the system will never go back to being a fully natural system. The Murray itself has locks and dams the whole way through. The system will never flow as a completely natural system, but to be able to ensure its health we need one of the irrigators to be someone who is charged to be irrigating for the purposes of the environment, and that's what the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is there to establish.

In terms of different forms of compliance and different forms of oversight that are there, there's significant parliamentary oversight which already occurs with respect to the Murray Darling Basin Authority. The Inspector General of Water Compliance is a really important role. It's a role which, for some of what is being here, I think is well-positioned to do a whole lot of the work that has been suggested in speeches so far. The Inspector General of Water Compliance is a position that I think those opposite should have some confidence in. It was originally proposed by the member for Maranoa when he was the minister for water. It was then implemented by Keith Pitt, first with the interim position in 2019 and then with the official position in 2020. The position itself is held by someone who I would have thought would have the confidence of those opposite. It's Troy Grant, who was a former National Party deputy premier for New South Wales.

There are different forms of compliance there. I think, in fairness, there is a view from some of those opposite that, notwithstanding that there was support for the plan at the time that I put it in, the bipartisan support for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan simply isn't there anymore. I think that's a reality.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You changed the plan.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the interjection that's coming from the former leader of the National Party. Let me just say that part of the plan—and a fairly critical part of the plan—was that the water to be recovered would be recovered. It was pretty fundamental that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder would be a holder of water.

In terms of the delivery of the plan, there are two sections on being able to acquire additional water. For the bit that's referred to as the bridging-the-gap target, we're now at 99 per cent. With respect to the additional 450-gigalitre target, when we came to office, of those 450 gigalitres, 24 gigalitres had been obtained. We've got that now to 225 gigalitres that have been obtained.

In fairness to those opposite, I put the former deputy prime minister who's in the chamber now in a different situation to others, because he did in fact vote against that 450 being included. He voted with the Greens to do so. He did cross the floor and took a position. He is consistent now with the position he took then, which is not consistent with the position he had in the middle. But at least on where he started and where he's ended up he is consistent.

The reality is that the work that is done by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which will always be complex but is effectively the pathway of making sure that that water is used for the environment, is essential for the health of the basin. Yes, jobs are essential and communities are essential. There are no jobs and there are no communities on a dead river. We need to make sure that the health of the system is retained.

People understand the role of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Anyone in those regions knows very well that any environmental watering event, the same as any flooding event, operates differently each time. It always operates differently each time. That's the nature of large volumes of water. Even though they are a very substantial holder of water within the basin in terms of irrigation licences, it is also the case that the work that needs to be done changes every year. The work that needs to be done will be different. You can conduct the same operation, whether it's to break up water with pulsating releases during a blackwater event or whether it's an overbank flow, and all of those events will operate differently on each occasion. The challenge, though, is to always ask: in the alternative, where would we be? In the alternative, we saw exactly what was happening. When the river system hits those critical moments, when the river system cracks, when the river system dries out because of overallocation without the proper use of environmental water, it's not just the environment that loses; it's the communities and the irrigators that lose. You end up with a system that cannot function.

If we were not in a circumstance where overallocation had occurred then we would not require the reform at all. But the reality is we had a river system which had been overallocated to death, and we had nine years where, effectively, acquiring additional water was brought to a halt. We now have a circumstance where additional oversight mechanisms were brought in during the course of the previous government. We supported those being introduced, we support them continuing and we also have support for the person who is in that role, who, as I say, is a former deputy premier of New South Wales, who held that role as a member of the National Party.

Murray-Darling reform will always be hard. It will always require maximum layers of consultation with the community. It will always involve making sure that you have adaptive management. That is part of how this is dealt with. But, essentially, those who now look back and want to imagine that the reform did not happen would be taking us backwards in a really substantial way.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just respond to the Leader of the House. As the former shadow water minister—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has now expired.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's extend it, Burkey. Let's move to extend.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Maranoa will resume his seat. The question is that the motion be agreed to.