Senate debates

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Bills

Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012; In Committee

1:18 pm

Photo of Bill HeffernanBill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I understand, from speaking to the officials, that this money will not be used to, shall I say, subsidise estate purchases. But, in the Nimmie-Caira instance, which is a complete fraud on the public purse, there is a proposition, which was agreed to before the licences were issued—and they were issued with no environmental plan—to pay for the licences before they were issued 2¼ times the value of the water in those licences, which will enable them to acquire the land. How do we know that value? Given that this is in this agreement in this bill, how do we know that this money will not be just blown buying land? That is acquiring a flood plain and, because there is a constriction from the Maude weir to Balranald, when there is just above a supplementary flow the water must go down that flood plain. It has been agreed with the minister's office that they are going to buy this flood plain. This is a complete fraud because when the river is constricted between Balranald and Maude the water is going to go down that flood plain and the only way to get it down there without going over the flood plain will be to shepherd it somehow through the flood plain. And if you then shepherd it through the flood plain, you will turn that flood plain into a desert of blow away grass and poverty bush. Given that this actually authorises the acquisition of that sort, which is to buy the land, which in this case has been covered by the bureaucrats and the filling of the water-buyback book of 370 gigalitres gross and 175 gigalitres net average annual calculated flow, calculated without any measurement, how do we know that under this agreement to which this parliament is about to agree that this money will be spent in the best way possible? That is the vaguest proposition I have ever seen in water management. I agree with you, Minister, that the management of the water, under all governments and for all time, has been buggered up. It started with allowing the trading of supplementary licences in the Murray-Darling Basin. How do we know that this will be used? It says here:

… entering agreements to acquire an interest in, or in relation to, land (including easements)—

In the case of the Nimmie-Caira thing, they are actually going to acquire the fences, the gates, the windmills—and there is no likely proposition that that water will get back into the Murrumbidgee. How vague do you have to be to get political cover to get you past the next election? This is an agreement to buy land.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Farrell, I would note that questions are supposed to be directed towards these amendments. These are broad remarks. Respond if you feel like you need to.

Comments

No comments