Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendment (14) on sheet 5361:

(14)  Page 97 (after line 15), after clause 77, insert:

77A Acquisition on just terms

                 In order to maintain the reliability of water access rights and water access entitlements or return water use to sustainable limits, the Minister may acquire a proportion of every water access entitlement and water access right in a water resource area on just terms.

Note:       This would mean that water could be acquired only in a manner that is consistent with the principles established under the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 .

The Greens oppose clause 255 in the following terms:

(28)  Clause 255, page 220 (lines 22 to 31), TO BE OPPOSED.

These amendments relate to the issues around compulsory acquisition and just terms acquisition. I do understand why the government moved to rule out the issues around compulsory acquisition. As I understand it, they largely relate to the politics of the basin. Some people believe that there should not be any compulsory acquisition. Some pretty compelling arguments were put forward by way of submissions and in evidence to the hearings about acquisition on just terms, to keep as a last resort compulsory acquisition and use the just terms provisions, which we have just extensively debated in the previous legislation. Has the government considered that? It seems to the Greens, from the evidence that we received—and despite the fact that we have always said that, as a last resort, we will not necessarily rule that out as being one mechanism in the basket of mechanisms that you may want to use—that some pretty compelling advice was given around the use of ‘just terms’ and how that will potentially be beneficial to the farming community. Was that talked about at all and considered? If it was not and you did not proceed with it, can you enlighten us as to why you did not think those were useful provisions?