The incoming Albanese government promised much, but two years later unfortunately recovery is far from progressing. The $800 million Resilient Homes Program, funded by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments, originally identified 2,000 homes eligible for buyback, retrofitting or raising. Today, we know less than a thousand will have that offer met, with no plan for the other thousand homes located on flood plains. There is no plan for businesses located on the flood plain. There is no plan for the Lismore CBD. Two years on, for those rendered homeless, finding a place to live remains the biggest challenge for these traumatised communities. The $150 million committed by the then coalition government for risk reduction and mitigation has funded projects unlikely to prevent or reduce the impact of future floods. Communities like Lismore pride themselves on their resilience and ability to cope with disasters, but many are frightened that recovery and housing won't come in time for the next flood.
To mark the two-year anniversary, Resilient Lismore has organised a gathering by the river for the community to reflect on the challenges it has faced and the journey still to come. I congratulate the Lismore community for its toughness and its patience, and I hope more is done soon.
]]>Environmental and animal rights organisations rake in tens of millions of dollars, often by making emotive and dubious claims, and then lobby governments. You just have to look at this government's current policy on live exports to see it that it worked. Farming organisations cannot compete against these cartels. The rise of billionaire trust funds that feed into green lobby groups and lawfare campaigns as well as politicians' election campaigns should be looked at more closely. We need to know whether the piper is being paid and for what. It is not loose change. It is powerful multimillions of dollars, and that sort of money brings influence.
]]>I agree with my colleague Senator Hume, because change takes time. It is vitally important that when we're going through these recommendations and working out how to implement them—when we're taking it from the theoretical to the practical—we strongly consider all the implications and ramifications of what is proposed to make sure that we don't inadvertently bring about unintended consequences that can actually make it worse for us, for our staff and for all the people who work in this building. We don't want to accidentally create a situation where we, by trying to address issues, create something that might have more risk. So it is right that we take a respectful approach to these recommendations and make sure that we are implementing things that are practical and enforceable but don't create excess risk.
One of the first things that the PLT did was manage to establish the PWSS, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. That has now been legislated and is always fully operational. I want to thank the staff at the PWSS and commend their early work and the work they continue to do. I have heard from both staff and parliamentarians that just having this service that they can go to for confidential information and feedback has given them a greater level of confidence in their own ability to manage staff, to manage complaints and to manage workplace issues. So I really want to commend the PWSS. I think it is a great service and, as time goes on, its value will be further recognised.
In the PLT, together we have worked to see 13 of the 28 recommendations fully implemented, and that is progress. There are also eight recommendations in progress, six partly implemented and one pending. That is a significant achievement that should be recognised, as well as the achievement of bringing together members from across the political spectrum to pass the legislation that was needed and to adopt the changes required to make this place a better, safer and more respectful place to work.
When I attended the breakfast held by UN women this morning to set the scene and establish the theme for this year's International Women's Day—the theme of 'Count Her In', to empower women and to address financial literacy across women—it really brought home what we're trying to achieve in the PLT, not just for women but for the range of diversity we should celebrate in this society, be it race, religion, gender, geography or heritage. That's what we need to support and that's what this place needs to recognise, because it should be all of that. We who are elected to this place have a responsibility to represent our constituents honestly and with integrity, and those we employ and those who are employed in this building to help us do our jobs should be able to go about their business safely, without fear of harassment or bullying, and with respect.
So I, too, thank the secretariat. I thank Vivienne Thom and I thank all my colleagues who are committed to working together to make this place a better place to work. Thank you.
]]>So I asked him what he has learnt, being on this side. He said he's gained a firsthand understanding of the depth of commitment and dedication exhibited by the staff across all departments within parliament. Witnessing the relentless efforts and sacrifices made by individuals who tirelessly work here within the House and the chamber has been an eye-opening experience for him. He acknowledged the immense workload and the sense of responsibility that comes with serving the nation. The realisation that people are willing to set aside personal time, often leaving family and friends, in order to contribute to the smooth functioning of our country has left a lasting impression on him.
Understanding the symbiotic relationship between elected representatives, their staff, the staff of the parliament and the community at large, he recognised that an informed and participative public are the backbone of a thriving democracy. It is a reminder that fostering strong connections between elected representatives and the community is pivotal to ensuring that the voices and concerns of the people at the grassroots are heard and addressed effectively within Parliament House.
It has been a privilege to host this young student. I hope he goes back to university next year with a better understanding of the mechanisms of parliament and a renewed faith in our system.
]]>This bill has all the hallmarks of the pig-headed ignorance of this government that they continue to demonstrate through how they go forward and implement. Their lack of consultation and their ability to take a good idea and absolutely destroy it are becoming a standard mode of operation by this government. We saw it last week with the passage of the restoring our rivers amendments through this place, and we see it again today. Another key hallmark of the way they operate is their claims of consultation: 'We've put something online. The department accepts submissions. We got 180 submissions; look how well we've consulted. We've held a Senate inquiry. We took written submissions. We held two public hearings.' Where were those public hearings? This government is almost allergic to holding public hearings outside of Canberra, because where were the two public hearings for this bill that impacts rural and regional Australians more so than anyone else held? Here in Canberra; what a surprise!
Let me be clear: the original purpose of the bill that the coalition presented was to create the biodiversity credits along similar lines—robust and measurable credits through our work with the ANU—to the energy-generating credits which would allow a landholder to obtain tradeable certificates that could be used in a similar way to carbon offsets. The bill we are presented with today is far more complex, is less understood and creates unknown risks. Senator Grogan just said it herself: 'There is still so much work to be done on the design and methodologies.' It's typical of this government with their 'trust us' approach: 'Trust us; she'll be right. We'll work out the actual implementation phase later.'
One of the risks that this bill presents is the decision to extend the parameters of the market. The bill presented by the coalition was limited to agricultural land, but Labor's bill goes far wider and proposes to include all types of land tenure, including territorial waters, regardless of ownership or legal right. It includes all native title land, all Crown land and all Torrens system land titles. This means that the agriculture, mining, resources, forestry and fishing sectors could possibly all be forced for economic reasons to take up biodiversity credits which are of no overall benefit to the Australian economy.
The coalition did a considerable amount of work on our legislation, particularly with the ANU. It was based strictly on the application to potential projects and the specialised carbon and biodiversity and enhancing remnant vegetation assessment models. But Labor has veered away from that robust methodology. They're proposing to employ a very different way of legislating and regulating, by allowing potential participants in the market to define and apply their own idiosyncratic methodologies to the projects. This just adds to the confusion, the unknown implications and the limits of this legislation. 'But trust us.' they say. It's also not clear how Labor's work on new arrangements for offsets as part of the changes to the EPBC Act will interact with this legislation. There are a lot of unknowns here, which brings into question: what deal have they done with the Greens in order to bring forward this legislation and cut short their own request for an extension to the committee process?
I refer to what Greens spokeswoman, Senator Hanson-Young, said on Sunday. When asked about this legislation on Insiders, Senator Hanson-Young said: 'The idea of allowing the protection of one part of nature, a particular area of koala habitat, to be saved, in order to justify the destruction of nature somewhere else—I mean, that's bonkers. That's not environmental protection.' She went on to say: 'That's a red line for us. I want to see the offsets gone. If the offsets go, then I'm happy to sit down with the government and talk about where we go next.' If that was the position of the Greens on Sunday, given that we have not seen such amendments circulated as yet today, what deal has been done? What have the Greens traded off in order to bring forward this legislation?
There are grave concerns about offsets right through our communities. I have to quote my colleague from the other place, the member for Flynn, Colin Boyce, when he spoke on this bill. He had such a turn of phrase when talking about offsets:
The wealthy virtue-signalling elite want to invest billions of dollars in Australian agricultural land, lock it up and forget about it to appease their own self-loathing of their irresponsible lifestyles while they continue their jet-setting, latte-sipping affluence …
That is such an accurate description of the approach to offsets that is taken by sections of corporate Australia. Given this government's track record in the environment space and the lack of understanding by the minister of so much of what she's been pushing through this place, I would have thought it better governance to wait and allow the Senate committee to complete its work, as per the government's own request for an extension until April. Then they could've taken the time to consider all the implications of what is being proposed and come back to this place for a sensible and informed debate, as recommended by my colleague Senator Thorpe, who supported the full completion of the Senate inquiry and the full and informed consideration of this bill. That responsible approach is clearly not one favoured by the Greens or Labor. It's not one they want to see, so they're pushing through the bills, which few understand and even they haven't finalised. They haven't worked out how the bill will apply. The similarities and potentially disastrous consequences of this bill remind me of last week's debate on water.
I really want to be clear here: it was the government that requested the extension of the reporting time lines of the Senate committee and proposed April next year. How disingenuous! We were happy to support it because we believed that this bill needed thorough investigation and needed to hear from all stakeholders. We would've supported the committee going out into regional areas to hear from stakeholders. But, no, the government only wanted to hear evidence here in Canberra. We would've supported that, but what we are now finding out is that the government just wanted more time to negotiate a dodgy deal with the Greens. We have no idea what the deal is or what it means and we are still waiting to see what it is. What 30 pieces of silver have been traded off today with this legislation? It's unfortunate that yet again in this place we find ourselves, as senators, unable to do our duty of scrutinising and testing the legislation comprehensively through the committee process. We are unable to listen to affected community groups and stakeholders, unable to go out on ground and talk to people on ground and hear their concerns and their evidence.
During the now curtailed work of the Senate legislation committee on this bill, there was frequent evidence from stakeholders about and frequent reference from stakeholders to concerns about this bill and its intended impacts, particularly concerns about offsets. There were concerns about putting this bill up before the proposed changes to the EPBC Act, and Senator Thorpe referenced that earlier. We've heard at length from this government of their desires and of their review of the EPBC Act and of the fact that they want to establish an environmental protection authority at a federal level, which raises all sorts of concerns. It flies in the face of less government and smaller government and creates concerns about duplication, but they want to put this bill up first. How is it going to interact with any proposed new authority? What will the governance arrangements be? But trust us; we'll get there!
I understand, and I take Senator Grogan's point, that the NFF has made some welcoming noises about the bill and about the intention of the bill. As I said, from the outset we supported the intention of the bill, but in the way this bill is drafted it has far too many red flags, far too many concerns and certainly not enough clarity about how it actually will be implemented, how it will operate and how robust the assessment and accreditation scheme will be. As I said before, despite the very good work the coalition did with the ANU and the robust, world-leading accreditation proposal that we had put forward, Labor have gone off on their own track: 'We know better. We just don't know how we know better, because we haven't got there yet. There's still work to be done on design and methodology, and we'll duck-shove that to delegated legislation. Trust us—it'll all be okay.' Well, I can tell you regional Australia doesn't trust this government, agricultural industries don't trust this government, the mining sector doesn't trust this government and I don't think the Senate should trust this government. I do not think we should be supporting this bill.
]]>Leave granted.
As I was saying, we need to understand the arrangements of the amendments that have been undertaken and the views and considerations of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. Indeed, I have had an order for the production of documents, notice of motion No. 318, that was originally tabled in September. As a courtesy, I was finally delivered some of those documents last Friday. Some of the requests in that order of the production of documents were to seek an understanding of the arrangements entered into by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and the advice or correspondence that had been undertaken by the MDBA or the department and the government in entering those agreements.
Interestingly, next to that request for the order of the production of documents, I got a big fat zero. That raises the question: did the government not seek advice before announcing on 22 August this year that she had reached an agreement with New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT for the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023? Did she not seek any advice and just enter that agreement with those jurisdictions without referring to her department or the subject experts? Or do I take it that the department has just chosen to ignore the order of the production of documents and is not providing the advice they gave to the minister? Either way, it is only fair that this chamber understands what that agreement means. As part of this referral, one of the terms of reference that Senator Roberts has included is matters relating to the approval of the amendment by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council.
We also know that Victoria has not approved or agreed to the water amendment bill. Victoria has stood fast in defence of their communities, so we also need to understand what that means. How can we have a Basin Plan without a jurisdiction and without one of the largest water users in the basin coming on board? What restrictions will there be on the rollout of things like the structural adjustment package and the leasing that I raised earlier? And how will the water recovery be made? In her correspondence with Senator Van, the minister also talks at length about her proposal to actually publish—basically, for want of a better word—a water recovery strategy. She will publish a public implementation schedule for the recovery of the 450 by 30 June next year. But how is she going to develop that public implementation schedule? What consultations will she have in devising that?
Last week, I and my colleagues held a press conference on the passage of the bill, outlining our disappointed that, in all of the amendments we considered, we did not include a robust socioeconomic test.
We did not amend to maintain the cap on buyback, and we did not get over the line a requirement to undertake a review and evaluate how to account for complementary measures—things like fishways, cold-water pollution management, riparian vegetation management and other things that deliver environmental outcomes on the ground.
In that press conference, I called on the government to, in developing their implementation schedule, please get together a committee of wise heads. Call in food processors, food manufacturers and the unions that represent those workers. I never thought I'd have to tell the Labor Party to consult with the unions, but that's what I'm doing. Call in the farming sector and, importantly, local government, and listen to them and their ideas of what a water recovery implementation schedule should look like. At the very least, give them the decency of talking to them then, because we know you didn't talk to them when drafting the water amendment bill. We know consultation was a series of four invite-only seminars to talk only about schedule 3 and an online webinar—one online webinar for the millions of people that live in the Murray Darling Basin, the small farm businesses, the food processors, the dairy manufacturers, and all of those people impacted by this bill.
At the very least, form that committee. I urge the Senate to support this motion so we can have a proper inquiry into the implications of the amendments that were rammed through this place without sufficient debate last week.
]]>There has been correspondence between Minister Plibersek and Senator David Van from Victoria. This correspondence has now been distributed widely amongst stakeholders and it's flying around, so I feel fairly confident that I can actually refer to this correspondence. In that correspondence the minister said, 'I am advised that leased water will only count'—to a target—'if an entitlement is transferred to the Commonwealth and the water is contracted before the 31 December 2027 deadline.' Some people read that and interpret that as the lease arrangement will only contribute to a water recovery target if the Commonwealth purchases the water, the water is transferred to the Commonwealth before the December deadline and then, through some form of an arrangement, is leased back to the farmer.
Having read that, I obviously had some questions. I asked in the committee stage: can the government clarify for me if the leases form part of water recovery totals and which way they work? I was told that the act already indicates that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can hold rights as a lessee, which is true. I then went further to ask if it would contribute to the 450 target and I got read word for word the response I just quoted from Minister Plibersek's office.
Given that Senator Van has significant interest in this area as well, he also came in to ask for clarity about the leasing arrangements. It was a very confusing exchange in its entirety. Leasing is one of the tools in relation to the 450, but we never got clear whether the leasing is a one-way agreement or not. This is why we need to support this reference to a committee. These sorts of questions need to be thoroughly investigated so that communities can understand the implications of this bill.
A further issue that the minister referred to in her correspondence with Senator Van was the supply and constraints projects. These projects are controversial and have been controversial from the get-go because these projects make the difference between someone being able to actively managing their farmland and them having to enter an agreement to enable the Commonwealth to flood their productive land at a whim. There is no clarity of what the government's water amendment bill means to the supply and constraints projects. It is discussed in a no-regrets manner—the MDBA will write a road map as to how to do it. But we are not convinced.
There are also the social and economic considerations. The minister has said: 'Yes, we'll develop a structural adjustment package. We won't tell you how much might be in the package. We won't tell you how any such funds will be distributed. We won't tell you how they will be assessed.' In fact, there was even a suggestion that impacted communities themselves will have to prove what the negative social and economic impacts on their community are. Can you imagine that? That would mean in my home town the Edward River Council having to undertake a social and economic impact assessment to prove that the loss of up to 100 jobs at the Deniliquin rice mill, because of the reduction in rice deliveries year on year, was a direct result of water buybacks and water leaving our district. Why should it be up to communities to prove that? The burden of proof, the onus of proof, should be on the government. They should have to prove they are not having negative social and economic impacts.
But there's no such suggestion, and there is no clarity. This is why we absolutely need to support Senator Roberts's motion for a referral. We need to understand as well what the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council means. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
]]>The first motion for the order for the production of documents was moved on 6 September, with a request for the documents by 14 September 2023 in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the defunding of the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations. On 14 September we were told that, due to there being over '1.8 million documents since May 2022', the government would not comply until 1 December. On 16 October the Senate again supported a motion requiring the minister to comply by 17 October. But again the government ignored that request from the Senate, and another motion was passed on 19 October requiring the minister to provide an explanation.
In Minister Gallagher's statement of the chamber, she claimed that there were more than 1.8 million documents and, to comply, it would take 8½ years for one person working in the department to review each document. Well, the actual documents provided were just 37 in number and covered just three of the 10 areas requested. When will this government treat this chamber with respect?
]]>We would also like to see—and we will be moving amendments through this process—the government acknowledge complementary measures and rules changes as part of environmental recovery and as part of the Basin Plan. We know that the hard work hasn't been done by the department or this government of looking seriously at how that moves, so we have an amendment before us to require the government to undertake an independent review of complementary measures—things like fish passage, cold water pollution, addressing riparian vegetation and rules changes. We know that the New South Wales government has actually called on this government to do that work to enable rules changes to form part of the recovery process. We're calling on the minister to require that that work be done and not just accept when the department says: 'It's all too hard. We don't want to look at it.' It's much easier to rely on the transfer of a piece of paper. A licence is effectively only a piece of paper. That's what this government has been relying on.
We do support the work that will now go into looking to enable long-term leases. Either way, we believe it's appropriate for farmers to hold onto their water entitlements and be able to lease them to the Commonwealth at certain times and in certain scenarios. We believe that is one of a swathe of options that should be on the table for the government to consider. I congratulate my colleague Senator Van for his efforts to make sure that that gets across the line. It's funny that in the past I myself raised that option with the government. Admittedly, at the time I raised it I was not fobbed off immediately, but clearly the minister has determined that she will talk to the Independents more than she'll talk to the opposition on this.
A lot of the government's amendments before us do raise significant questions, particularly when it comes to the idea of a one-off SDL adjustment. I will have questions for the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to try and get to the bottom of what that one-off adjustment means, particularly as to whether both credits and debits will be given equal weight and whether those one-off adjustments then go on the register and will be carried forward—and carried forward after water resource plans have been accredited. I note that these amendments were circulated only late yesterday. From my reading, it appears that the one-off adjustments are to allow for recording on the register of take in areas where there aren't resource plans accredited.
There are also questions about what the leases will look like and whether there are any case studies or examples the government can point us to to make sure that our interpretation of leasing is actually consistent with what is going to be in the bill. There are questions about the expansion of the additional held environmental water to be water access rights, water delivery rights or irrigation rates—or part thereof—and about whether those are the areas that facilitate leasing. I have some further questions about the meaning of the Greens amendments, specifically in relation to what some of the notes mean, and I will be asking about those through this process.
To cut to the chase, this is a moving feast, and it has always been a moving feast. The Basin Plan has for many years enjoyed bipartisan support. We did approach the government to talk about keeping the socioeconomic test for the recovery of additional environmental water. I understand that that is part of what is being talked about at the press conference that is underway right now, but we have not seen that amendment, and I really need to ensure that that amendment will go far enough. Not having seen that amendment, I have proposed an amendment that will insert a socioeconomic test into the bill, which I know is robust, which I know is consistent with the 2018 agreement of the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council and which has the support of basin communities from top to bottom, including South Australian basin communities, which I know everyone likes to fob off on one another.
There are so many questions, Minister. Through the committee phase, I should start asking those questions. The first question is: are you able to explain, Minister, the purpose of the one-off adjustments? Can you clarify that they are just to allow the register of take to record, in the absence of accredited water resource plans, where basin valleys or water resource plan areas are at, or do these one-off adjustments apply to any water resource plan area?
]]>Before they were elected they promised to reduce power bills by $275. That hasn't happened. Your power bills have gone up. They promised your mortgages would go down. That hasn't happened. Your mortgages have gone up. They promised that real wages would increase and, while there have been wage rises, real wages have gone backwards, thanks to inflation. They promised to reduce the cost of living. Well, I'm sorry, but that has not happened.
Now they are going to come and hit your hip pocket again because of this ideological deal. This deal with the Greens will strip further water from productive use in the Murray-Darling Basin on top of what has already been recovered and what is already set aside purely for the environment. It is not the case, as the Minister for the Environment and Water promised on the 7.30 program the other week, that water recovery under this deal will protect drinking water and town water because that goes against the objects of this act. You cannot use this water for drinking water or town water unless we are in an absolutely devastating crisis, which we hope we never get into again. You can't: this water is not for that. So anytime someone stands up and says. 'This water is going to help Adelaide,' or 'This water is going to protect your drinking water,' that is an out-and-out lie. It cannot be used for those purposes. But, taking this water out will drive up input costs for farmers because it will increase the price farmers pay for their water, it will drive up the cost of delivery of the water and it will drive up the cost of groceries.
Just in the last fortnight, Murray-Darling Basin MPs and senators hosted a 'Taste of the Basin' event here in parliament. It was very gracious of the minister to come and to talk to the cotton growers, the fruit growers, the farmers who had come up and the producers. She went across to the SPC stand. SPC produce those beautiful tinned peaches and tinned tomatoes. She said she always likes to use Australian produce in her cooking and that she uses SPC tomatoes. Well, she's just made it harder for that to happen. At our Senate committee inquiry, we heard from the head of SPC that anything that drives up the costs for his farmers and increases the cost of production makes the job of SPC harder and makes it harder for them to compete against cheap Chinese imports. That's what we're seeing today, and to what end?.
The government cannot definitively say what improved environmental objectives they are going to achieve with this water. We know, from the work done by the previous Labor government, between 2010 and 2012, that just holding this volume of water in the portfolio of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is not enough. To actually have improved environmental and ecological outcomes from this extra water, you need to address constraints, and there's nothing in this deal today that's going to address constraints. Are they proposing to continue to put pressure on the Barmah Choke, the Goulburn River Choke and other vulnerable environmental areas by trying to ram an ideological volume of water downstream just so they can say they ticked a box? That's what this is about; this is about ticking a box. And at what cost?
We saw on the weekend the Minister for Climate Change and Energy refuse to answer questions put to him by David Speers on Insiders about what the cost of this rush to renewables will be to the Australian taxpayers. Minister Bowen refused to answer the question. We're seeing the same from Minister Plibersek.
She said, 'You don't go to an auction with your cheque pre-signed to tell everyone what you're willing to pay for a house,' but we're not talking about what she's going to pay for the individual entitlements. We're talking about what she's going to pay in total for all of this. How much is this policy going to cost the Australian people? What we do know is that there's an extra $100 million for Aboriginal entitlements. They still don't know how they're actually going facilitate that—they still haven't spent the $40 million that the coalition government set aside for Aboriginal water entitlements because they can't work out how to do it. So instead of fixing the problem they're just going to throw more money at it and hope that, somehow, it works out. So we know that cost, but we don't know the cost of anything else. Even with the past government, we saw that every time Penny Wong went out with a tender she would announce what the total value of the tender process was. But the current minister is absolutely refusing to be clear about what it will cost.
We were talking to the government as well—and, congratulations, Senator Hanson-Young, on reaching your deal. That's the glory of politics. I would have preferred her to support what I was offering to put on the table. What I was offering to put on the table was consistent with what the then Labor government wrote into the original Basin Plan. And don't just believe me: in a press release in October 2012, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated that there would be, 'An additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water to be obtained through projects to ensure there are no social and economic downside for communities.' That was Prime Minister Gillard. And in his second reading speech to the House on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012, then Minister Burke stated, 'Importantly, the plan being proposed by the MDBA stipulates that an additional 450 gigalitres of water only be acquired through methods that deliver additional water for the environment without negative social and economic consequences.' That is what I was taking to the government: to maintain the original intent and to keep a social and economic test as a safeguard to our communities in this bill. But that, clearly, is not the objective of this minister. For all of her words about having regard to the social and economic impacts of water reform on basin communities, she was not committed enough to that to write protections into the bill. I think it's a sign this government acknowledges that what they're proposing will hurt basin communities.
At the press conference we saw this morning, the minister refused to state how much will be from buybacks and how much would be through other mechanisms. One thing we know for sure is that the buyback will be more than 225 gigalitres, because if it weren't going to be that much there would be no requirement to lift the cap on buyback as is proposed by this bill. That was my other ask of the minister: if you are honest about your commitment that all options are on the table, that new projects can come forward and that buybacks are only one part of the package then keep the cap on buybacks, because there are still 225 gigalitres available under that cap. Keep the cap on buyback to force your department and your people to focus on alternative options. There would be nothing to prevent the government coming back in 18 months time to say, 'We're near the cap, let's have another crack.' But at least it would signal that they were going to put the hard work in first.
Let me make it perfectly clear: while, yes, I've heard the economists say, 'Buyback is the cheapest form of water recovery,' it is the laziest form of water recovery. It is the simple option. It is pulling out a chequebook and waving it in the air over the heads of stressed farmers—like farmers who are struggling with the current wine industry situation. These are people who will get compensated; they will—farmers will get compensated. And mark my words: the government will pay a premium, because that's how they'll get the water. They're just not being clear on how much premium they will pay. But then the truckies who cart the grapes or the grain to the processing plants will lose their contracts. Then the rice millers and the dairy processors will lose their jobs. Then they'll leave town, so they'll take their kids out of school. Then you'll have teachers who are all of a sudden being told, 'Thanks, but you don't need to come back next year because we're closing one of our classrooms.' And it goes on.
We know that both the Victorian and New South Wales governments have proposed alternatives. Both of them have requested that the government work out how to account for complementary measures such as incidental water savings, rules based changes and changing infrastructure to support fish movement. That work is hard. I admit, that work is hard. The department has continued to refuse to do the work, and the minister has not put the hard word on the department.
So I will be moving a second reading amendment, and I have a series of amendments which I will be proposing through committee of the whole, because I haven't given up. I have to fight, for the sake of the communities in which I live, and the communities that produce 40 per cent of Australia's food and fibre, and the dairy processors, the rice millers, the winemakers and all of those industries in the Murray-Darling Basin. I have to fight until the last minute. I have to throw everything I can at this, to try and take some of the rough edges off this bill which I fear is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for a lot of our small communities in the Murray-Darling Basin.
We saw rallies last week in Deniliquin, Griffith and Leeton, all at the same time, because these people are saying, 'How can we be here again?' The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and thinking you'll get a different result.
Now, this is not the first time we've removed water from productive uses, and we're not getting the environmental outcomes we want. There are other ways. We've seen it. Land and water management plans worked, because they're holistic—the Barmah-Millewa choke and so on— (Time expired)
]]>My colleague Senator Hughes spoke about the bushfire risk of transmission lines. We can't all run around with fire hydrants in the bush. We're too far away. It is a significant risk. The other risk that is often not considered is the insurability of our landscape. I am already hearing from farmers who've had their little, black, waterproof envelope stuck to their farm gate, saying: 'You lucky person! You've won the transmission line lottery. Your property is under a route for a transmission line. We will be in touch to talk.' Those farmers are then also getting phone calls from their insurance companies. Yes—you've won the double lottery, because, if a transmission line goes through your property, your property will not be able to be insured against bushfires. All the farmers that will be under transmission lines won't be able to have bushfire insurance for their farms, pastures, crops—if indeed they can crop—woolsheds and family homes. That is a massive risk.
In a nation like Australia—with my emergency management hat on—insurability is a major issue that I know this government is looking into. This government has set up the Hazards Insurance Partnership program specifically to look into how to mitigate risk and reduce pressures on insurance premiums. At the same time, the Rewiring the Nation program doesn't even consider the flow-on impact those projects will have on insurability. It's similar for people who are next to solar farms. They've also got similar risks. It is a significant risk. The other issue with transmission lines is this. I live in an irrigation area, which is smack-bang underneath the VNI West project, which is to connect a renewable energy zone near Coleambally—an irrigation area—to Kerang in north-west Victoria. This particular project goes directly across an intensive irrigation farming area.
For those who don't really know about irrigation farming, when we're talking broadacre cropping, when we're talking the staples that feed the world, that people turn to for food aid programs and the likes, when we're talking wheat, oats, barley, rice, canola—those beautiful yellow flowers that all the tourists come out to take their photos with—a lot of that work is done using aerial agricultural assistance. You fly on your fertiliser using aerial ag pilots—brave aerial ag pilots I might add. But they're not so brave that they want to dodge transmission lines, I can tell you. And, even if they were, they're not allowed to. There is a 120-metre exclusion zone each way around transmission lines for aerial activity, be it drones going out to check the cattle water on board rangeland or ag pilots flying on urea or other inputs for maximum cropping potential. That's 120 metres each way. That's a 240-metre exclusion zone across the length of the transmission lines. That is going to put a big gap in how we operate and manage our agricultural production in this area.
There isn't an easy alternative. People say, 'Just get the tractor out and put the fertiliser on with the tractor.' Well, I don't know how easy it is to drive a tractor through a flooded rice bay. I'm pretty sure it would get bogged. It doesn't matter how good the tractor is. And we can't just stop growing rise because our rice in this country feeds 50 million people around the world in a good year. We export our rice around the world. If we didn't export our rice around the world, someone else would have to produce it, and I can guarantee you the quality of the production systems, the labour force protections, the chemical protections wouldn't be there. There is a reason why Australia has such a good reputation as an agricultural production country, and it is because we've got very high-class quality controls—chemical usage controls, fertiliser usage controls and labour controls. We don't use child labour. We have water quality controls to make sure that the water we're putting on our crops is of a decent quality and also to make sure the water we're taking off our crops doesn't get back, as a contaminated water supply, into our river system. If you run hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines through our high-quality agricultural production zones, you will have an impact on our productivity and on how we produce.
But it isn't just agriculture that will be impacted. These transmission lines, this rewiring the nation, will impact state forests, and our koalas love our state forests. But apparently it's okay! We'll just bulldoze a swathe of land—because you've got to have cleared land—through state forests at the expense of the koala habitat! It will also impact our national parks. There are some transmission lines going through national parks and above historic homesteads and villages. These are all under threat.
I particularly commend Senator Van's acknowledgement of the lack of social licence. The amazing thing is the small social licence that ever existed with these projects is diminishing by the day. If we had our transmission Tuesday inquiry, perhaps, by having that forensic look, we could actually work on turning that around. But, because Labor and the Greens steadfastly refuse to give us our inquiry, I have no choice but to support Senator Van.
]]>Hello to all listening.
My name is Patrick Jones, and I'm a fourteen-year-old from the electorate of Richmond.
Something that I have become painfully aware of in the last year is the undeniable influence of misogyny in our society—it manifests itself as sexist humour and attitudes; harassment at work or on the street; and as crimes of violence against women.
Only when my eyes were opened to the realities of how women are treated in "developed" countries did I become at all aware of the magnitude of these issues.
This being said, I call on the government to take immediate and significant action to combat the epidemic of misogyny and violence that is killing our society and poisoning our youth, the latter being under the constant influence of people like Andrew Tate, now under investigation for rape and sex trafficking.
When 23 per cent of men believe it's ok to use misogynistic language online, it's time for change. When 90 per cent of rape cases go unreported for fear of victim-blaming, it's time for change.
And when a woman is killed by her partner every 10 days, it's time for change. All of these are true—so why aren't we changing?
Well done, Patrick. It is so heartening to see this recognition of a serious issue.
]]>The Albanese Labor Government's policies are driving up the cost of living while driving down confidence in the farming sector and failing to keep farmers farming.
With the cost-of-living crisis smashing Australian families, relief is urgently needed. The last thing any government should do is introduce policies that have the potential to exacerbate the problem. What government would implement policies that have the potential to stop our farmers farming, add to the cost of production, make homegrown produce less competitive than cheap imports, and deliberately make food and fibre more expensive? More importantly, what government would implement such policies without a comprehensive understanding of the impact of them? Well, as we found out in question time today, this government would. This government is banning live exports. This government is failing to introduce a dedicated visa pathway for agricultural workers. This government is pursuing renewable energy projects and transmission lines across prime agricultural land and introducing punitive industrial relations reforms that will hurt farmers.
But probably most egregious of all is this government's policies to reintroduce water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin. Irrigated agriculture is a key mitigation tool in dealing with the extremes of climate change. It is one of the best tools to cope with increasing droughts punctuated by floods. Capturing water during floods and using it to grow food and fibre during the dry times is key to providing an economic base for many agriculturally dependent communities and businesses.
Tonight politicians across the spectrum will get the opportunity to savour a taste of the basin, with food and fibre producers from across the Murray-Darling Basin bringing their goods to parliament, and I welcome some of those producers in the chamber today, listening to this debate. This event has been organised by basin based MPs and senators to highlight the vital role the Murray-Darling Basin plays in the production of food and fibre. There will be a wide variety of produce, including wine, dairy, fantastic Australian rice from my home town of Deniliquin, fruits, nuts, and cotton—all of which are dependent on irrigation.
But there is another motive for these producers coming here to showcase their wares, and it's the motive of having the opportunity to tell politicians firsthand how important our rivers are to food and fibre production, from Queensland to South Australia and everywhere in between, because it is our nation's food bowl. They want the opportunity to talk about the impact of buybacks, because we know from question time today that this government hasn't modelled the impacts. No regulatory impact statement is provided with the water amendment bill that we are going to be asked to vote on in the Senate in the near future. The consultation on that bill consisted of a webinar and less than a handful of invite-only consultation sessions that the department carried out. And the minister has barely set down on the basin.
Unlimited water buybacks will impact our productivity and will make food in Australia more expensive, leading to greater pressure from imported products from countries that don't have a government actively working against food and fibre producers. Make no mistake: everyone wants a healthy river, including our food and fibre producers. But they also want and need healthy industries and communities and to provide the jobs across the supply chain to get our food to the supermarket, to your table. And a healthy working river is about more than flow, yet we have a basin plan that is a one-trick pony, with water recovery the only tool to improve environmental outcomes. We need more than water recovery from the productive pool to ensure that we have working rivers and healthy working communities. Thank you. (Time expired)
]]>