Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007, the evidence is very clear that the health of our rivers is deteriorating. This is particular so for the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin. There is also an acceptance that the water in the basin has been overallocated, and most of us accept that climate change is real and that we will need to get used to having even less water in our rivers. That is why federal Labor has consistently supported greater national leadership in water policy and water reform. It is for that reason that Labor supports the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. The bills are not perfect—even the Prime Minister recognises that—but they are a step in the right direction. Labor believes that, by establishing a sustainable cap on water diversions from the basin, the bills are a step towards fixing some of the Murray-Darling Basin’s long-term problems. They give the Commonwealth greater control over water planning for the basin and should help deliver greater water security. The bills put in place a planning process to manage the basin and restore its health. It is only by doing that that we will secure the ongoing prosperity of the communities that rely on the system.

The Water Bill will help set up some of the structures to fix some of the basin’s long-term problems. Under the bill, the Commonwealth will establish a new expert based Murray-Darling Basin Authority to develop and oversee implementation of a basin plan for water management. However, Labor is concerned that having both a Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission will mean that the basin’s management and strategy will be confused. The layers of bureaucracy, coupled with a lack of information about actual program funding for the National Plan for Water Security, strongly suggests that a lot of the planning of this bill is being done on the run. Ending up with two Murray-Darling Basin agencies—the commission and the authority—will confuse decision making, and this should be sorted out. In broad terms, the plan will include a new sustainable cap on extractions of surface and groundwater in the basin, a salinity and water quality plan, an environmental watering plan and trading rules. But we await the details on all of this. The bill sets out processes for accrediting the catchment-level water plans prepared by basin states under their existing legislation to ensure the outcomes of the basin plan are achieved.

Labor are concerned that the separation of salinity from other environmental concerns may complicate management of the basin on a catchment basis. We must improve water security and planning while at the same time help water users adapt to having less water and to climate change. Of course it is possible that the long-term average sustainable water diversion limit for the water resource plan, otherwise known as the cap, will have to be reduced. That means there will be compulsory water entitlement reductions under clause 77 of the bill. But it is an open question as to how this will, in reality, be different from compulsory acquisition. Under clause 77 of the bill, when that cap is reduced it appears that the water entitlement holder may receive compensation for that reduction. Clause 77 sets out the way in which the liability for that compensation will be distributed. I note that clause 255 of the legislation does not authorise the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements. However, clause 77 sets up a mechanism for paying out irrigators for a legislated reduction in their water entitlement. I do not think this is a word game—and we will see how this works in practice, of course—but it is certainly arguable that forced acquisition of entitlements when the cap is reduced is really a compulsory process for acquiring water. Of course, compensation under clause 77 offers much less compensation than compulsory acquisition does, so it will be interesting to see how the government handles that one. It is a good step forward that the bill establishes a Commonwealth environmental water holder to manage environmental outcomes from the new water holdings purchased by the Commonwealth under the new funding program of the national plan—and, through the Bureau of Meteorology, the level and quality of information on water will improve. This will help our understanding of and ability to manage water resources on a sustainable basis.

Labor are concerned that, because of the haste to develop and pass legislation in an election year, the Water Bill 2007 represents a second-best solution on national water reform. We are concerned that more bureaucracy is being created and that the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority will have a very confusing mandate and not much authority. The overlapping and unclear decision-making structures are a symptom of a rushed piece of legislation in an election year. Labor deplore the government’s failure to consult in good faith with state governments and other stakeholders over the final version of the bill and the related intergovernmental agreement. We understand that the legislation we have before us today is very different to the versions circulated over the last few months. A key element of the national plan remains for basin states and the ACT to sign an intergovernmental agreement committing them to refer powers for an eventual basin-wide management structure and work cooperatively to implement all aspects of the Commonwealth’s Water Bill. The development of the intergovernmental agreement is critical to the effectiveness of the basin plan and future water management in the basin. We are very concerned that the intergovernmental agreement was not provided to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill, and has not been given to state governments or any stakeholders in the basin. The yet-to-be-released intergovernmental agreement will govern federal and state relations, guide investment and ensure water plans function properly—although the department conceded that the document would not be legally enforceable.

It is important that the government publicly release and circulate the intergovernmental agreement, set out clearly what the risk-sharing arrangements with states will be and explain why the states should carry more risk than was agreed to with the Prime Minister in early July, and explain why the water needs for towns and cities in the basin and the other downstream consequences of water planning are not dealt with in the bill and whether they will be dealt with in the intergovernmental agreement. Labor are worried that the Prime Minister appeared to change the conditions for the IGA at the very last moment. We are concerned that, as a result, states may not sign up. As a commentator said on The Law Report on Tuesday night, we may end up with a ‘constitutional Afghanistan’ when this is all over. We truly hope not, but by rushing the bill and playing political games with the IGA that is a risk the government is taking. More broadly, Labor believe the water reform process must continue so that we can properly fix the overallocation of water licences in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to ensure harmony between the environment and consumptive use, and help address the impact of drought and climate change on water supply.

I just want to step back for a minute from the details of the bill and put this debate in a broader context. Water is one of our most valuable natural resources, and the sustainable management of water is one of the most important challenges facing the nation today. It is a challenge that goes directly to the health and sustainability of our planet, to our everyday lives and to our economy. In many ways water is the lifeblood of the nation. It is universally accepted that where there is water there is life, and when the water dries up life itself often perishes. Indeed, when NASA looks for signs of life on the planets in our universe, they look for water.

One of the signs of a prosperous, growing, healthy community, society and economy is one where there is a secure and stable supply of water. But in recent years, with one of the longest droughts on record and the current and future impact of climate change, water supply and storage has been at great risk. We cannot allow sudden bursts of rain and floods to lull ourselves into a false sense of security. Make no mistake, the great global challenge of climate change is inexorably linked with the water crisis now affecting rural areas and our cities, suburbs and towns.

The greatest threat to the security of our water supplies comes from our changing climate: continuing drought, changing rainfall patterns, declining overall rainfall and reduced supplies in our catchments. That is why it is so disappointing that the good work done at COAG in the early nineties was not followed through by the Howard government. Valuable time to help Australia adapt has been lost. Diminished water supplies and restricted use of water impact on almost every aspect of our nation—on our farms and in our factories, in our homes and schools, on our environment and our community. In short, water is one of our most precious resources, but it is a resource that has become threatened—threatened now and increasingly so in the future—demanding new and urgent action. If we ignore this threat and fail to rise to this challenge, we will do so at our peril and risk our environment, our communities and our economy.

You cannot plan for the future if you do not have a plan for climate change—and you cannot begin to address our national water crisis without understanding the powerful driving force of climate change. Surprisingly, some in the government do not believe that climate change is anything to worry about. They dispute the science. They downplay the effects of the changing climate. Looking ahead, we are advised by the CSIRO that we face hotter and drier summers, the devastation of the Great Barrier Reef, the loss of our snowfields, increasing droughts, less water for our cities and more bushfires. Australia needs to be ready for these changes, but the government’s inaction has left Australia unprepared for the dramatic impacts of climate change.

The bill before the Senate is a step in the right direction, and in some ways will help Australia to better plan and manage our water resources. It will help Australia adapt. But why has it taken 13 years for this legislation to come forward? The COAG meeting of February 1994 laid out a framework for national water reform. It is very disappointing that it has taken an election year to get the Prime Minister’s attention on this matter. Dealing with the water crisis is integral to dealing with the climate crisis. Taking action based on the science and showing leadership is what is needed, not ignoring the state of the Murray for 13 years. And blaming the states is simply not good enough. The blame game is a game for losers. Leadership is required, but it has been in short supply on water and indeed on climate change for many years.

Across Australia, our families, our farmers and our businesses are recognising the effects of climate change on their water supplies. Water restrictions are no longer uncommon; farmers and businesses are starting to realise the need to be more energy and water efficient—indeed, some have taken the challenge up well before this government. Neither water nor climate change are simply environmental challenges.

As with climate change, the water crisis is a fundamental economic challenge. The history of our economic development has been closely linked to water, as most of our cities and towns are located where water could be sourced for personal and economic use. Water is critical to the industries that generate more than half of Australia’s GDP and over 80 per cent of our exports, including our farms and agricultural industries, the mining industry and the manufacturing industry. But the environmental and economic challenges posed by water shortages are not isolated; they are linked. For example, the Murray-Darling Basin provides a good example as to how the shortages of water can have a significant economic impact, as the production of rice, cotton, wheat and cattle account for around 40 per cent of the nation’s agricultural output.

While it is right for the government to focus efforts on finding a solution for the Murray-Darling Basin, we cannot ignore the other 18 million Australians who live outside the basin. The water crisis affects our cities, towns and suburbs just as much. Coming from a part of the country that is well endowed with water, I can sympathise with those that come from more challenged parts of the country, such as the state of South Australia. There are the farmers and agricultural producers who rely on water for their livelihoods; businesses who use a lot of water like restaurants and laundromats; the mining and manufacturing sectors, who use water at various stages of production; our hospitals, universities and research institutions, which are also large water users; families who want to water their garden, wash their car and fill up their swimming pools—it is about lifestyle; and our kids who want to swim in local pools and play on the local sporting fields and are seeing them drying out and their sport cancelled on weekends in some parts of the country.

Our national government can no longer afford to ignore this challenge facing our regional towns and major cities. Labor believes that there is an important role for the federal government in transforming the way we secure our future water supplies and use our water more efficiently. That applies to water use in the Murray-Darling Basin and right across Australia. Labor does not believe that finding solutions to the water crisis should be simply left to the states or local government to tackle alone; it requires all levels of government to work together. Labor supports this bill as a step forward, and we are putting down a very clear marker that more work needs to be done.

On behalf of Senator Wong, I move:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate:

(a)

notes that modern national water reform began with the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 and the historic Council of Australian Governments agreement on water reform in 1994 led by the Keating Labor government;

(b)

regrets that, despite clear warning signals about the health of the river system, it has taken 13 more years to see the next stage of Commonwealth action to address the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin;

(c)

is concerned that the legislation before the Senate represents a second best solution on national water reform;

(d)

deplores the Government’s failure to consult in good faith with state governments and other stakeholders over the Water Bill 2007 and the related intergovernmental agreement;

(e)

believes the water reform process must continue so we properly fix the over-allocation of water licences in the Murray-Darling Basin, ensure harmony between the environment and consumptive use, and help address the impact of drought and climate change on water supply;

(f)

notes that:

(i)

climate change will have a significant impact on water supply generally and the health of the Murray-Darling Basin in particular,

(a)

a cooperative and constructive approach with state governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure,

(b)

full implementation of the national water initiative principles agreed to in 2004,

(c)

fixing of the over-allocation of water licences once and for all, and the establishment of coherent, streamlined rules which ensure the problem of over-allocation never recurs,

(d)

recognition that economic instruments, including water trading, are necessary to address the fact that water has been over-allocated, undervalued and misdirected,

(e)

proper consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray-Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption and consistent use of efficient agricultural practices,

(f)

returning sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure the long-term health of all rivers, wetlands and all connected groundwater systems in the Basin and, as a result, ensure the health of the communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers, and

(g)

measures to ensure industrial and urban water users adapt to maximise water efficiency”.

(ii)

the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation will provide an important report in late 2007 on the hydrology of the Basin and what the sustainable extraction levels are for the Basin, and

(a)

a cooperative and constructive approach with state governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure,

(b)

full implementation of the national water initiative principles agreed to in 2004,

(c)

fixing of the over-allocation of water licences once and for all, and the establishment of coherent, streamlined rules which ensure the problem of over-allocation never recurs,

(d)

recognition that economic instruments, including water trading, are necessary to address the fact that water has been over-allocated, undervalued and misdirected,

(e)

proper consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray-Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption and consistent use of efficient agricultural practices,

(f)

returning sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure the long-term health of all rivers, wetlands and all connected groundwater systems in the Basin and, as a result, ensure the health of the communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers, and

(g)

measures to ensure industrial and urban water users adapt to maximise water efficiency”.

(iii)

the following is needed for national water reform:

(a)

a cooperative and constructive approach with state governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure,

(b)

full implementation of the national water initiative principles agreed to in 2004,

(c)

fixing of the over-allocation of water licences once and for all, and the establishment of coherent, streamlined rules which ensure the problem of over-allocation never recurs,

(d)

recognition that economic instruments, including water trading, are necessary to address the fact that water has been over-allocated, undervalued and misdirected,

(e)

proper consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray-Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption and consistent use of efficient agricultural practices,

(f)

returning sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure the long-term health of all rivers, wetlands and all connected groundwater systems in the Basin and, as a result, ensure the health of the communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers, and

(g)

measures to ensure industrial and urban water users adapt to maximise water efficiency”.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Democrats, I indicate that, whilst we have a range of concerns with this legislation, on balance it does limp things forward somewhat and therefore we will not be opposing it. Politics has been the key reason why the Murray-Darling Basin has got into such a terrible mess. Unfortunately, the process that has been followed to get to this point at the federal level has also involved a lot of politics, and that is one of the reasons why it is still far from perfect. That is politics across the board. None of us is immune from all of that, but it is a point that still needs to be made.

The point also needs to be made that the process for consultation with regard to the Water Bill 2007 was once again very poor, with the legislation itself only appearing last week and the holding of yet another one-day, last-minute, rushed Senate committee hearing. I can recall being part of the committee meeting to determine who the witnesses might be for a hearing that was to be held less than 24 hours later, with the apparent assumption that people could actually pull together adequate submissions in less than 24 hours. That sort of thing is ludicrous, and the fact that we are doing it so often that people are actually starting to think it is satisfactory is becoming a real worry.

But that is an individual example of a wider problem. There has obviously been engagement, particularly between the Commonwealth and state governments, and landholders to a certain extent, over the course of this year, but the point still needs to be made about the specifics of legislation. It is one thing to talk through all the issues; it is another to then properly examine the actual legislation when it appears. There has not been opportunity to do that. The one-day, totally rushed Senate committee hearing of last Friday happened to occur on exactly the same day as the one-day, totally rushed, completely inadequate Senate committee hearing into the Northern Territory emergency response legislation. Having both those hearings on the same time made it completely impossible for me, someone who has carriage of both areas, to participate in even that limited, inadequate one-day hearing.

Nonetheless, I was able to read the submissions, such as they were and rushed though they were, and the transcript from the hearing. The Democrats agree with a range of concerns that were expressed, particularly those put forward by environmental organisations and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. The scientific basis of those concerns should be particularly acknowledged. As I said, there is a lot of politics in this at the state and federal levels and a lot of vested interests among people who rely on the water, particularly producers but also communities more broadly. I say vested interest not in a nasty sense but as a simple statement of fact—people do have a vested interest in maintaining some access to the water, and naturally that can influence their perspective. That makes the view of scientists all the more important. They, as much as anybody and more so than most, are as objective and evidence based as possible.

Their views were that, whilst this legislation has the potential to move things forward, it still has some significant problems and things could certainly be done better. Some of that is due to the fact that agreement has not been reached with all of the state governments, Victoria in particular. I am not passing judgement on who was right and who was wrong in that one. It was a bit hard to tell, frankly, from the information received at the Senate inquiry or from the public arena. To some extent it really does not matter; the Senate has to deal with the legislation before it. But there is no doubt that if we could get a more clear-cut, cooperative approach across all states it would help move things forward.

Another key concern that the Democrats have is that, despite the atmosphere of urgency that has been placed around this legislation—we have to push it through this week after an inadequate Senate committee hearing—there is not actually a lot of urgency within the legislation itself. There is a very long lead time before a lot of the significant shifts in water consumption will be able to be made, which is a concern, along with what appears to be a capacity for too much rubberiness in terms of targets. On top that is the inevitable reality that you still have quite a mess. We will have the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority; we will still have the old Murray-Darling Basin Commission; state governments and the federal government will still have some responsibility. I know the federal government would wish otherwise, but that is what we are faced with. It really does need to be sorted out.

For me the big question mark with this legislation was whether passing it now would at least move things forward towards sorting this situation out. What can sometimes happen is people put so much effort into getting something in place that they then stop and all further improvements halt there, and you lose the momentum to continue towards the full reform that needs to happen. I think on balance there has been so much difficulty in getting movement in this area over so long a period that even this type of move forward is such that the opportunity should be taken.

Having said that, it would have been appropriate to have had a few extra weeks to properly examine the legislation and allow others to do so and to provide their views and then have the Senate consider it in September. But politics once again intervened and that has not happened.

Another very significant flaw in the legislation is that it does not provide for people to use legal processes to ensure the requirements of the legislation are enforced. In an area that is so politicised, that is a real problem. But there are some positives in the legislation. The linkage and use of powers relating to the protection of Ramsar wetlands and biodiversity protection is a step forward.

I think the legislation could have been strengthened, and I know Senator Siewert has some amendments that seek to do that. In particular, I think it could have been further integrated with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which does provide strong and very clear powers at the federal level. Those powers are not used often enough, I might say, but they are certainly there, and to link them more clearly would have been desirable. That includes, as I said, provision for individuals or affected people to have standing, as they do under the federal environment laws. It is only because of those standing provisions in the federal environment act, on a number occasions, that enforcement and proper assessment has occurred. I think that provision really should be in this legislation as well.

There are a range of other aspects to the legislation. As I said, it is certainly an imperfect beast. But, on balance, whilst we still need as the Senate chamber to try and improve it using the opportunity we have before us today, it is not so flawed that the Democrats will stand in the way of it. But we certainly signal that there is still a lot of improvement that needs to happen, and I think that the federal government would accept, at least up to a point, that this needs to be only a first step and that we need to push on with further momentum after this.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate speeches by Senators Wortley, McEwen, Hurley and Kirk.

Leave granted.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Labor has consistently supported national leadership in water policy and water reform…there is no doubt that what is required is effective legislation to ensure the restoration and protection of the Murray Darling Basin…

National water reform began with the COAG agreement in 1994 led by the Keating Labor Government, and the Murray Darling Basin Act 1993.

Sadly, the situation we are faced with today in many parts of Australia and in my home state of South Australia, with significant water restrictions in our cities and regional country towns, means even young children are concerned about the water crisis we face. There is no doubt about the critical condition of this most precious resource.

I have said previously that if there was a report card presented to the Howard Government, it would not be one that you would want to take home.

It would read: ‘Eleven years of inaction in the face of Australia’s greatest environmental challenge.’

Like many of my fellow Australians, I have long been aware of the escalating water crisis gripping our nation.

Everyone in this chamber now must accept that addressing such water issues as efficiency … allocation … quality … research and rights, is crucial and compelling.

Our rivers are overtaxed and because of their degeneration, indigenous animal and bird species and plants are facing extinction.

But while the Murray-Darling Basin becomes an even-more inhospitable host to unique flora and fauna … conversely introduced pests and weeds are thriving.

Almost 3 million people live within the Basin region, which generates approximately 40 per cent of the agriculture dollars earned in Australia.

The blight of climate change is only adding to our water woes … a fact that makes the Government’s unique and disturbing blend of indifference, indecision and infighting on this subject even more incomprehensible.

The situation is dire … we must work for change before even more irreparable damage is done.

The Commonwealth’s Water Bill 2007 is a step in the right direction … a step towards addressing some of the Murray-Darling Basin’s long-range problems.

At the one day public hearing of the Senate standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on this Bill, the South Australian Representatives, Mr Scott Ashby, Deputy Chief Executive, Departmental Affairs, Department of Premier and Cabinet and Mr Robert Freeman, Chief Executive Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation made it clear that South Australia supports a national approach to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin through an independent expert based authority.

However, concerns were raised that a number of elements important to South Australia were lost in this version of the bill including that:

• It does not address the issue of critical human needs.
• It does not include an end-of-basin flow target.
• It does not include a deadline for the basin plan.
• It does not include a No-net increase in cost provision for Basin states.
• It does not include compulsory consultation.

South Australia’s position is clearly that as far as possible the Bill and associated IGA should reflect and reinstate the full package of reform principles as agreed by First Ministers in February 2007, and subsequently negotiated at senior officer level.

In his letter to the Prime Minister, South Australia’s Premier, Mike Rann highlighted the following as issues that the legislation and the IGA should enure:

• The establishment of an independent, expert-based authority to prepare a Basin management plan, recommend allocation caps and undertake other functions previously agreed;
• Eligibility qualifications of members of the Authority are reflected in legislation;
• Any decision by the relevant Commonwealth Minister ever-rule the new Authority be tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament;
• Preservation of South Australia’s existing entitlement flow of 1,850 GL per annum;
• Basin States face no-net increase in costs under the new arrangements and agreed arrangements regarding compensation and liability are retained;
• Land use planning decisions remain with state and local government authorities;
• Commonwealth funding is directed on an objective and scientific basis to the areas of greatest need within the Basin;
• All states are treated consistently in the implementation of the National Plan;
• A review of the new arrangements in 2014
• As an interim measure, until replaced by provisions of a Basin Plan approved by the relevant Commonwealth Minister, The IGA to provide for an average of 200 Gigalitres  per annum of river “health and maintenance” flows to be delivered by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder at the mouth of the River Murray.
• As an interim measure, until such time as this requirement can be addressed appropriately through the Basin Plan, the Commonwealth to make alternative arrangements for the emergency provision of water to meet critical human needs, which would be reflected in the IGA.
• The proposed Bill to set a deadline for the adoption of a Basin Plan by the Commonwealth Minister, not being later than two years after the commencement of the legislation.

Under the Bill before us, a new Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be established to develop and oversee the implementation of a water management plan.

As part of the plan, there will be a new cap on water withdrawals in the Basin … water trading rules … a water quality and salinity plan … and an environmental watering plan.

Other moves will include increasing the amount of water information available nationally, in partnership with the Bureau of Meteorology … regulating the Basin water market … and establishing processes for accrediting catchment-level water plans to make sure Basin Plan goals are achieved.

Our hope is that this Bill will provide a structure under which the Basin can be nursed back to good health.

Only then can we secure a prosperous future for the communities who rely on the river system.

Labor unequivocally supports the need for greater federal leadership in water policy … especially in cases where resources traverse state borders.

But our call for action in this area is not new. For decades we have called for, and backed, moves to improve water planning and resources.

Since the 1980s, Labor has spoken out about the need for national leadership on water.

And under the watch of the Keating Labor Government, true national water reform began with the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and Bill of 1992, and the historic bi-partisan COAG Agreement of 1994.

There was no doubt Paul Keating understood the importance of this network of waterways. In December, 1992, he said:

‘‘The Murray-Darling is Australia’s greatest river system, a basic source of our wealth, a real and symbolic artery of the nation’s economic health, and a place where Australian legends were born.

‘‘Nowhere is the link between the Australian environment, the Australian economy and Australian culture better described.’’

Here we are 15 years later … and while warning signs on the health of our country’s main river system have been stark and clear for some time … only now is the current Government taking any action.

But while the proposition before us is worthy of encouragement into law … it is disappointing … and I’m disappointed to have to say, anything but watertight.

This recent legislation has been conceived in haste and out of expedience with a Federal election looming large.

Yes … the holes in this potentially lifesaving bucket are worrying to say the least…

The Howard Government has failed to consult in good faith with the stakeholders – including the states – over the final version of the Bill, which has been altered dramatically, and is disappointing in comparison to what it delivers…

The legislation also disappoints on the front of providing pertinent protections to my home state of South Australia …

Professor Mike Young, the Research Chair in Water Economics and Management at the University of Adelaide and member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, believes the Basin Plan’s goals list … as in Clause 20 … should be extended to carry ‘‘a requirement to consider the downstream consequences and ensure the water flows through the entire system’’.

As well as an apparent failure in the field of environmental flows … there’s the mysterious Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) associated with the Bill.

The Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (ECITA) … to which the Bill was referred … was not given a copy of the agreement.

In fact it has not yet been released …the States have not received a copy of the agreement,  despite the fact that the documented intended function of the IGA will be to steer water-based federal and state relations, make sure water plans work well, and to guide investment in the Murray-Darling system.

There are many questions raised by the reviewed Bill … as noted by ECITA committee members, including myself.

Why do we have both a Murray Darling Basin Authority, and a Murray Darling Basin Commission?

How will compulsory water entitlement reductions work under section 77 … which deals with payments to water access entitlement holders … and how are they different to compulsory acquisition?

When will the Government circulate the all-important Inter-Governmental Agreement?

What will the risk-sharing arrangements be with the states and why should the states carry more risk than was agreed to with the Prime Minister in early July?

Why aren’t the water needs for towns and cities in the Basin and the other down-stream consequences of water planning dealt with in the Bill?

Surprisingly people from many vantage points have expressed disquiet about legislation that is aimed in the right direction, is sorely deficient in detail…and lands slightly off target…

These shortcomings have brought together farmers and environment groups, irrigators and academics, Indigenous community representatives and governments.

For the sake of the Murray-Darling Basin…for the people who rely on it for their living and those who rely on it simply for their life sustaining water, Labor will not stand in the way of the passage of this legislation…

But that doesn’t mean that we don’t believe more needs to be done. We have not just sat idly back, we have made plans of our own.

In December 2006, Labor’s Shadow water minister Anthony Albanese released the discussion paper Protecting our precious natural environment and water supplies.

The basis of that paper … and the heart of Labor’s attitude to the water crisis … was to focus ‘‘natural resource programs on national priorities, streamline decision making and make sure that it is water that flows… rather than red tape’’.

While the Government seems to be overflowing with cynics and sceptics, Labor’s benches are full of believers.

We believe strategies dealing with climate change and with water are inextricably linked.

We believe the nation’s water resources need and deserve more than a spare-change commitment by the Government.

We believe it is essential to work cooperatively with the states and all interest groups to develop and instigate the plans and policies necessary for long-term solutions to the Murray-Darling Basin crisis.

In addition, Labor Senators agree that what is required for ongoing national water reform is:

• A cooperative and constructive approach with state governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure;
• The full implementation of the National Water Initiative principles agreed to in 2004:
• Fixing of the over-allocation of water licences and establishing coherent, streamlined rules which ensure the problem of over allocation never recurs:
• Recognition that economic instruments including water trading are necessary to address the fact that water has been over-allocated, under-valued and misdirected;
• Proper consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption and consistent use of efficient agricultural practices:
• Returning the sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray Darling Basin to ensure the long term health of all rivers, wetlands and all connected groundwater systems in the basin and as a result, ensure the health of the communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers and
• Measures to ensure industrial and urban water users adapt to maximise water efficiency.

We believe meaningful change is worth the hard work it takes.

We believe Australia’s future… the future of children and our livelihood and the survival of some of our most treasured and fragile natural wonders … depends on it.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Labor supports the need for greater Commonwealth leadership in water policy and has consistently called on the Government for action. Consequently, we will support this Bill as a step in the right direction.  However, Labor has concerns that this Bill does not go far enough to ensure security of water supplies for the people and businesses that rely on the Murray Darling Basin.

The Murray Darling Basin occupies fourteen per cent of Australia’s total area and produces some 40% of the value of our agriculture. Thousands of households and businesses rely on flows from the Basin. Its wetlands provide habitats for many threatened animal and plant species. If these wetlands dried up, some of those species would become extinct. For all of these reasons and more, we need to implement changes that will ensure the continuing good health of the Basin and the rivers that flow through it.

The health of Australia’s rivers has deteriorated over the last one hundred years due to a number of factors, ranging from over allocation of water for horticulture to planting of commercial and domestic flora that requires more water than native varieties. Rural research has gone a long way towards improving the efficiency of irrigation, yet a proportion of inefficient systems such as unlined channels on sandy soils remain and these contribute to inefficient use of  the Murray and other water courses in the Basin that are used for irrigation.

Other significant influences on river health have been:

Our growing population which has increased our water extractions by 500% since the 1920s;

The manipulation and diversion of flows, largely for irrigation, leading to a severe impact on the natural environmental flow.   According to CSIRO, the mean annual discharge from the Murray Mouth for the last ten years has been about 2,700 gigalitres, whereas without diversions the average annual figure would be about 12,000 gigalitres;

Salinity, pests and weeds which affect the health of major rivers in the MDB including the invasion of carp which have caused the decline of native fish species; and

Climate change.

The climate change issue deserves special attention. As we have already begun to see, when the Earth’s temperature increases at an accelerated rate, our  weather conditions become unpredictable and severe. 

The impact includes both devastating floods and long droughts. Numerous reports have been released identifying climate change as a genuine threat to the Murray-Darling Basin’s health, but the Government has taken over ten years to even consider responding to the threat. We need a comprehensive climate change adaptation plan for the Basin so that it can continue to provide for our country through drier and hotter climates.

According to an expert review panel appointed in 2001, the Murray River needs 1,500 gigalitres more water per year to be a healthy, effective river. But we have only seen an approval to purchase 20 gigalitres for return to the Murray. This is evidence that once again, the Government does not see the environment as a priority.

Labor has a much better record on water and on climate change  than the current Government. Before the election of the Howard Government, the Labor Governments were dealing with the issue of water, particularly in regards to the Murray Darling Basin. In 1987 Labor created the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in a partnership between governments and the community. In 1993 a new agreement was reached and legislation was passed in relation to management of the Murray-Darling Basin. In 1996, Queensland became involved and took part in all discussions.

It was also Labor that negotiated the first national drought policy, which we did in 1992. Unfortunately this good work was not carried on or built upon, and 11 years after the election of the current Government we are discussing a water bill for the first time during the term of this Government.

Not only has the Government not introduced water legislation, but in the 2003 budget it cut funding to water initiatives. Though this should hardly be surprising, remembering we are dealing with a Government that refused to acknowledge climate change existed until it was swayed by public opinion. We are, after all,  talking about a Government which will still not  ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

As a representative of South Australia, the state that is the driest and that is home to  the mouth of the Murray River, I feel very strongly about the importance of this Bill.  Every South Australian has an affection for the Murray. It is part of our heritage, integral to our economy and a much visited holiday destination. Tell any South Australian that you are “going up the River” for the long weekend and they will know exactly what you mean and where you are going.

There are also many South Australians who live in the Riverland where fruit trees, in particular citrus, are grown as well as grape growing and winemaking. We are fortunate to have the benefits of the Murray Mouth, the Lower Lakes and the Coorong in our wonderful state. We are not as fortunate when it comes to rainfall.

The South Australian Labor Government has attempted to manage current water resources wisely, but is facing an uphill struggle as rainfall is increasingly sparse and unpredictable. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, “in the Mt Lofty Ranges catchment areas of South Australia’s main reservoirs, the winter of 2006 was the driest on record, and the first two months of spring were the driest since 1914.”

In South Australia, despite having average rainfalls this year, inflows into rivers are still well below the long term average. July inflows, for example, were 450 gigalitres compared to the long term July average of 1190 gigalitres. Catchments take a long time to recover after severe shortfalls of rain over a period of time. Another reason that water management should have been dealt with consistently by this Government instead of by the  legislation-by-press-release method we saw with this Bill, and which seems to be the policy setting method preferred by the Prime Minister when he knows that public opinion is turning against the Government

Obviously no Government can directly control rainfall, but Governments can decrease and, hopefully, stop the deterioration of our rivers. To ensure all Australians have access to water, it is crucial that we work to save not only the Murray Darling Basin, but all of our water systems.

The South Australian Labor Government supports a national approach to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, but expressed significant concerns in its submission to the Senate Enquiry to this  Bill. The South Australian Government  noted the Bill  does not implement all of the National Plan for Water Security.

Of considerable concern is the open-ended adoption date for the Basin Plan. The plan places limits on water extractions to provide for long-term sustainability. The SA Government believes “the Water Bill 2007 should set a deadline for adoption of the Plan of two years after the legislation takes effect”. This is necessary because without the Basin Plan in place, nothing will change.

The South Australian Labor Government also stated the Water Bill 2007 in its current form does not include mandatory provisions for meeting critical human water needs. Without this provision, we won’t be able to supply a sufficient amount of water during shortages to towns and cities throughout SA, Victoria and NSW which rely on the river.

Another matter raised by the South Australian Government is the changes to the institutional arrangements. It is concerned that states will have increased responsibilities without being provided with the necessary level of consultation. The South Australian Government believes that it will be critical that states are appropriately consulted regarding membership of the newly created Murray Darling Basin Authority and key legislative changes.

There is also an urgent need for better research and data to enable the nation to plan properly for water security. The  February 2006 CSIRO paper “Water for a Healthy Country : The Shared Water Resource of the Murray Darling Basin” , identified, among other things the need to:

Establish water requirements for environmental needs (Living Murray)

Develop hydrology models to consider ecosystem health consequences of changing flow regimes

Quantify the effects which improved irrigation practices have on the volume of return flow to river systems

Urgent clarification of such parameters will lead to appropriate allocation of funding to restore the health of the Murray Darling Basin. It will also  assist with the framing of regulations and practices to ensure there is sensible use of water resources for agricultural production, clean water supplies, and environmental protection.

Lastly, something that I seem to be mentioning every time I speak on a Bill is the lack of detail provided in the legislation. Unfortunately, this Bill is no exception. In fact, key stakeholders were not even provided with a copy of the legislation before its tabling last week.

I note the additional comments of the Labor Senators who participated in the Senate Enquiry into this Bill with regard to the refusal of the Prime Minister to provide the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement to the Committee to assist its deliberations.

A Bill of such high national importance needs detail, it needs proper examination and it needs to be written with adequate consultation. Rushing the Bill through both houses, allowing people little over a day to make a submission to the  Senate Committee does not allow for these things.

This Bill is a move in the right direction, but there are many more steps that need to be taken to help protect and improve our water supplies. The additional comments of the Labor Senators included in the Senate Committee Report of the Bill outline those additional steps.

I look forward to seeing  more comprehensive water legislation in the future,  however I believe we will need to see a Labor Federal Government for that to happen.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

For many decades, Australians ignored clear warnings about the health of the Murray Darling Basin. When I returned to South Australian in 1983, I worked in an office next door to the then Member for Hawker, Mr Ralph Jacobi. Ralph Jacobi was a passionate advocate on several fronts, but one of his major campaigns was redressing some of the damage that had been done to the Murray Darling Basin. He was successful in raising awareness of the need for action by the federal Parliament. He was especially effective in getting a number of influential South Australians interested in the matter. I only regret that not enough of his vision was carried out at that time. Here we are, nearly a quarter of a century later, still trying to get some concerted plan to deal with the management of the Basin.

In my State of South Australia, early action was taken to regulate water use and allocation. South Australia put in place a self imposed cap on diversions from the Murray River in 1969. Successive State governments have worked with agricultural interests and other users to develop more effective management regimes. Some action caused friction and dissent but focus was maintained on the overriding interests of improving the health of the system. So, for example, much more efficient irrigation systems were introduced along the Murray River. Unfortunately, not enough was done, at least partly because users upstream were not able to be brought on board. As we are on the lower reaches of the system we had early first hand experience of the effects of the over allocation and declining health of the Murray Darling. Salinity affected formerly arable land and the potability of the water, and flora and fauna along the river deteriorated.  The Murray Darling Basin is critical to South Australia not only for much of our productive agriculture, and tourism, but also for urban use including drinking water for Adelaide.

South Australia has therefore been very eager to work with other Basin States to manage the system better. Consequently I support this Bill and am pleased that the federal government is prepared to contribute a significant amount to the budget required. I do share the frustration though of many stakeholders that this new management regime is not optimal. The announcement was made hastily, and the resulting Bill was put together quickly. The government of South Australia in its submission to the Senate inquiry on the Water Bill 2007 identified some significant concerns:

• mandatory provisions for meeting critical human water needs were lost
• environmental returns are not guaranteed
• there is an open ended adoption date for the Basin Plan
• no allowance is made for increased implementation costs faced by states
• more complex institutional arrangements are established.

Again and again, reports have been made and plans prepared with poor results. If the commonwealth government is prepared to take the radical step of assuming management of the whole Basin, then it should put in place sensible and measurable outcomes and deadlines for action. The commonwealth is assuming control, but it will find it difficult to achieve its objectives without putting a reasonable proposal before the States. 

It should also put in place the measures required to ensure implementation. I find it difficult to believe that the reforms required will be possible without some form of compulsion but the government continues to dance around this issue because it has political difficulties. Having made the announcement of the takeover and basked in the political benefit of riding to the rescue of the Murray Darling, the government now finds itself dealing with the negative political consequences. Or rather finds itself trying to avoid the negative political consequences. It suffers from internal divisions and confrontation with some of its National Party colleagues.

This matter is far too important for short term politics to impede progress and once the election is over I urge the government, which I naturally hope will be a Labor government, to direct strenuous urgent efforts to ensure the management of the Basin works effectively, and with the powers it needs to achieve concrete results.

There are many competing interests within the Basin. All can make compelling cases for their use of the water. If the federal government is to intervene to achieve progress and implement reform, using its sweeping powers to make it happen, it must make fair, firm and justifiable decisions. If any decisions it makes, particularly early in the regime, are found to be flawed then management will become very difficult. The only way, I believe, to avoid errors is to base those decisions on sound scientific evidence and make the process very transparent.

One of the best results to come out of the recent focus on water resources is that some money has been devoted to a study of what resources there are and monitoring how they are used. There is probably far more to be learned about the nature of water reservoirs and the behaviour of the Murray Darling river system. The ecology of the area must be very complex, and I am certain that the more that is learned about the nature of the system, the better the decisions will be on how to manage it. There is, for example, still considerable debate about the quantity that should be assigned to the so called environmental flow – that portion of water that is needed to flow unallocated down the river to maintain the health of the ecosystem.

There is also much more to be done in research to assist agricultural interests who will have to cope with a severely curtailed water allocation. Ongoing research and development has been the framework for much of Australia’s agricultural advantage, and I am confident that our scientists and technologists will be able to assist farmers to maintain their crops or switch to more appropriate crops. Adequate funding should be made available to ensure that this research and development is possible, not from the funds made available for the Basin management, but from increased funds for the scientific community.

It is disappointing that after bold statements about taking control of the Murray Darling and getting something done at last, it appears from several submissions to the Senate inquiry that there is a widespread view that the new regime is overly complex. A bureaucratic system chews up funds, and unnecessary complexity runs the risk of having another scheme bogged down in endless discussion and reporting. The time for action really has come.

There is great goodwill in many quarters to ensure this Bill achieves its stated objectives, and many support it despite its flaws. I am one of those, and I hope I live to see the late Ralph Jacobi’s vision implemented.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I rise today to speak on several issues raised by the Government’s twin Water Bills. Labor believes in strong national leadership in this area, and acknowledges the step that this Bill takes. We are therefore supporting these pieces of legislation. However, there are several concerns about the manner and form of the particular Bills before us today. Notwithstanding the obstacles appearing in negotiations with the States, there have been some significant short comings in the development of this legislation. I would like to speak to some of these as well as outline specific issues affecting South Australia.

Water is, as can be clearly seen by any Australian, especially in recent years, a very serious and important national issue. The Murray-Darling Basin, spanning four States, over a thousand kilometres, and impacting on a myriad of diverse interest groups, is a water resource worthy of careful scrutiny and prudent management.

Indeed the Basin has been on the agenda for a most of our history. As early as 1886 the need for water management was debated in the States. The Shadow Minister, Mr Albanese in the other place, reminded us of the involvement by the Commonwealth in the negotiations with the States in 1915 and later of the 1980s, the landmark Murray-Darling agreement of 1992 and the subsequent Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993. 1994 saw the COAG agreement on national water reform and in 2004 the National Water Initiative. In the same COAG meeting the Intergovernmental Agreement on Addressing Water Overallocation and Achieving Environmental Objectives in the Murray-Darling Basin was agreed. 

Perhaps it is obvious to say that there has been much concern and discussion about the need for nationally coordinated water management in this area.

Recently the matter of Global Warming has brought into focus the need to guard our natural environment and resources, especially in areas that have been taken for granted in the past such as air and water supply and quality.

Yet in the face of all this discussion and compelling reality, the Federal Government waited until 25 January 2007, the first month of this election year, to announce a significant commitment to securing the Murray-Darling Basin for the future.

It was difficult to criticise Prime Minister Howard when he stood up on that day and pledged 10 billion dollars to save and manage the Murray-Darling. Labor gave our “in-principle bipartisan support”, we have long seen national water security, and national water leadership as being important future-focused issues. That the Coalition needed an election year to address this issue was something forgivable considering Mr Howard’s substantial financial announcement.

Labor’s in-principle support for the Government’s plan reflects our willingness to support the idea and objective of the Government’s policy. But, in our view, measured decisions and prudent management of the Murray-Darling Basin are the only way to move forward on this matter of national importance. Unfortunately we have not seen this reflected in the Government’s actions since the Prime Minister’s January announcement.

We now know that the Prime Minister did not consult either the Treasury or Cabinet before his announcement, demonstrating from the outset the kind of reckless present-minded decisions that have seen the Murray-Darling Basin descend into an environmentally unsustainable state.

Turning the Senate’s attention to the Bills before us today, and specifically the Water Bill 2007, we see another example of abrupt decision making and inadequate consultation. I am referring of course to the manner in which the Bill was presented to the Parliament, the pressure exerted by the Government for a speedy passage of the Bills, the subjugation of the Bill to just a one day hearing, and the general lack of parliamentary scrutiny.

Unfortunately, this approach to law-making is becoming more the rule than the exception under this Government. It seems it regards the Parliament as a mere rubber-stamp – not as a place for careful scrutiny of legislative measures. This is exacerbated by the fact that the Government has the numbers in the Senate and can therefore dictate the timing of debate and ensure that the legislation passes without amendment. This is exactly what we do not need when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin. Almost 250 pages of legislation regarding such an important investment in the future management of the water supply of over 2 million people not given the appropriate scrutiny which is expected by the Parliament and the Australian people. For the Murray-Darling it has the potential to be extremely damaging.

Unfortunately this is what we have come to expect from this Government.

It is no wonder that there have been criticisms raised by Farmers Federations, Irrigators, leading environmental scientists and even the Queensland National Party. Not to mention various State Governments.

South Australia sits in an interesting position as it is touched by the very end of the Murray-Darling Basin. In the one-day Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts committee hearing last Friday the South Australian Government outlined its particular concerns about this Bill. I would like to reiterate some of those concerns.

Firstly, as Senators are well aware, Australia is in the grip of a particularly severe drought. In times like these there can be serious critical human need for water, perhaps in larger quantities than may be sustainable in the longer term. In extreme dry periods it may be necessary to raise caps or even suspend them. This has happened this year with the Murray-Darling Basin agreement and associated Acts which have been set-aside. It is therefore predictable that the same may be necessary in relation to the Water Act. It would be preferable to have an emergency provision included in the Water Act to cope with such a situation and to ensure consistency and preserve the longevity of the legislation.

Secondly, as I mentioned earlier South Australia sits at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin. For this reason and for the practical significance of having an end-of-basin flow target in achieving environmental goals, it is preferable that such a target be incorporated into the legislation. I say this however while acknowledging that the Basin plan should contain such a goal as well as general flow goals and other such targets. Like the South Australian Government I see no reason why the Commonwealth Government could not place some general and important long term goals in place for end of flow outcomes, as running guidelines to direct and coordinate the efforts of the Basin Authority in creating the Basin plan. Perhaps they really do have “goal-phobia”.

Thirdly, and related to my second point, there is no particular deadline attached to the creation of the Basin Plan. As “the plan” is such a pivotal instrument in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin it should not of course be rushed. However, we should equally ensure that it not be left to an open-ended deadline leaving the Murray-Darling in the same unsustainable situation for potentially several years. Mr Turnbull spoke of a two year period in his second reading speech, this is fine, but it would seem prudent to place some form of deadline in the legislation itself.

Fourthly, concerns were raised about the costs involved in the implementation of the Basin Plan. Again, if we cast our minds back to the 25th of January, to that grand and impressive figure of 10 billion dollars over 10 years, questions appear about exactly where that money will be spent. The Prime Minister outlined that the jurisdictions would suffer no additional cost as a result of this plan. There is however no assurance of that in the Water Bill before us. Similarly, so far we have in the May budget a mere $53 million of that $10 billion commitment being flagged for the upcoming financial year. There has been no specific plan outlined for the distribution of funds for this endeavour and it once again demonstrates a lack of sensible practical planing that is so desperately needed to secure the Murray-Darling.

Finally, the South Australian Government submitted their views about the lack of legislated requirement for consultation between the States and the Federal Government.  It should be noted that section 93 of the Water Bill requires consultation with the States to be included in any regulation made concerning water charge rules. However, this is the only compulsory consultation in the Act. Given the nature of the Basin, the deep stake that the States hold in its welfare and the significant effects the management of the Basin can have on the people of those States, it would seem appropriate to have some form of legislated requirement for consultation with State Governments regarding any major changes in the operation of the legislation.

In conclusion I would like to state once again Labor’s view that the Murray-Darling Basin and Water generally form some of the most important and precious resources in Australia. It is an issue that affects so many Australians, crosses State boundaries and is so universally appreciated that national leadership is the best and most appropriate way to move forward. In supporting this bill Labor is acknowledging the need of Australia to better manage and preserve our environment. This Bill begins to address these issues and while more can be done and better ways found, it is a step in the right direction.

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

The issue of the management of Australia’s shared water resources is one of the utmost importance. This issue is made all the more fraught in the Murray-Darling Basin by the problems of the overallocation of the system, particularly during periods of wet years; the complex governance arrangements within the basin; the sheer number of players involved; significant differences in the complex and varied systems of water allocations and water rights across the different jurisdictions; and the prospect of significant reductions to available water and increasing uncertainty in the face of climate change. While there has been recognition of the problems facing the Murray-Darling system for decades, it is fair to say that governance arrangements in the basin have been characterised by inertia and a lowest common denominator approach to resolving conflict. Quite frankly, it has been a basket case.

The agreement on the National Water Initiative in 2004 was a major conceptual step. However, despite knowing how bad the problem was and what was needed to fix it, the necessary on-the-ground progress in reforming water management in the basin has not happened. The announcement of the National Plan for Water Security by the Prime Minister in January 2007 represented a recognition of the seriousness of the issue, with a commitment of $10 billion, but was another disappointing example of the continuing politicisation of the issue, coming as it did without consultation and with significant strings attached in the lead-up to a federal election.

Given the crucial importance of these issues and the significant amount of public money that is now at stake, it is particularly disappointing that so little time has been afforded to proper consultation over these bills, particularly when they have changed so significantly over the last month or so and that the time given for the committee inquiry to review the legislation was so short. Also, as Senator Bartlett said, the inquiry was held on the same day as the Northern Territory emergency response bills inquiry, which meant that for those of us who are on both committees it was extremely difficult. As people can see from our minority report, we are also concerned that during the committee inquiry, although a number of very serious issues were addressed, not all of the significant issues were addressed.

We believe that there are significant amendments that need to be made to the Water Bill 2007. There are very positive aspects of this bill, including commitments to determine sustainable extraction levels, a shared planning framework and a whole-of-basin perspective, realising the promises of the NWI and creating greater water security for all stakeholders. There is an opportunity to overcome the inertia and infighting that has characterised basin governance, and a commitment to meeting international commitments by using our treaties power. However, as I have just said, the Greens believe that the bill in its current form has a number of significant weaknesses. We believe that many of these weaknesses could be addressed through legislative amendment, and I welcome a brief opportunity to suggest some constructive improvements that members of the Senate may wish to consider.

To this end, the Greens will be putting forward a number of amendments, which I hope will give us the opportunity to further discuss some of the complexities of this bill. I hope that these amendments will be taken on board, because they address some of the issues that I am about to talk about. The problems that we see with the bill include the long lead time before the basin plan effectively comes into operation, which has been brought about by the recognition of existing plans for the lifetime of those plans. Most of them go to 2014 but some—in Victoria, for example—go to 2019. Other problems include the lack of clear environmental targets and time lines, the risk that the return of environmental flows could be too late to prevent irretrievable damage to some important ecosystems, the creation of yet another large bureaucracy within the basin and the complexity of having multiple agencies and institutions with overlapping jurisdictions, the lack of independence of the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the provisions that allow the minister to direct the MDBA in setting the sustainable diversion limit and in developing the environmental watering plan.

Other problems include the risk that institutional arrangements within the bills may effectively freeze reforms, possibly delaying them for many years; the extent to which many of the reforms are now dependent on the content of the intergovernmental agreement, the IGA; the possibility that the process of reaching agreement could drag out and even further delay on-the-ground outcomes; the lack of community consultation and engagement, in particular in the IGA but also in the legislative process; the lack of consultation with Indigenous stakeholders; the manner in which the debate has become politicised, with particular reference to compulsory acquisition, which I will come back to later; and, finally, the risk that investment decisions could be strongly influenced by political considerations

This is a once-in-a-very-long-time opportunity. We believe that we need to take the time to get this particular piece of legislation right, because it has been a long time in coming. One of the biggest questions for us is: will the response be quick enough? The Australian Greens are particularly concerned by the time frame of the proposed interventions. On the one hand, the government is pressing the urgent nature of the issue and saying that this is the reason that the bills need to be pushed through the legislative process in a short space of time in this session. On the other hand, the decision to recognise and protect existing catchment plans effectively means that there will be little change in the basin until after 2014. For many of our threatened ecosystems and for our rural communities in which our farmers are struggling with uncertain seasonal water allocations, this delay could mean that action is too late to significantly help our farmers, to preserve our precious environmental assets and to protect irrigation industries.

In theory, the Prime Minister has already committed to spending $6 billion to improve irrigation infrastructure and $3 billion to address overallocation and buy back environmental water. However, much of this investment is now contingent on all the states signing up to the intergovernmental agreement. I am concerned that the need to negotiate this complex and fraught intergovernmental agreement could result in considerable delays in undertaking needed water reform and returning environmental flows. This is why the Australian Greens are calling on the government to immediately begin buying back water from willing sellers, which would increase both the amount of environmental water available and the certainty of existing water entitlements by reducing the extent of overallocation. The purchase and return of water to environmental flows needs to be addressed urgently as the combined impact of extended drought and overallocation is severely threatening the resilience of many of our iconic ecosystems.

There is a real risk that we may soon pass thresholds beyond which these systems cannot bounce back. The Greens are particularly concerned that there is nothing within the legislation which guarantees speedy action in implementing both the basin cap and the environmental watering plan. As the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists stated in their submission to the inquiry:

We are concerned that if existing plans are protected then little change will be seen within the Basin until after 2014, by which time many of the environmental assets and the rural wealth of irrigation could be destroyed. This task is urgent.

We note that the Victorian government indicated that its recently revised plans, which it expects the government to honour, will run through to 2019—that is, another 12 years. There is nothing within the bill to ensure that the first basin plan is completed within two years of the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. I am aware that this was discussed in the committee, but the Greens very strongly recommend that the government addresses this issue during this discussion and that the minister gives an undertaking that he will direct the MDBA to finalise its first basin plan within two years of its establishment.

The Australian Greens are concerned about the lack of consultation and the lack of recognition of Indigenous rights and interests in the bill. We share Indigenous people’s concerns that the Water Bill 2007 should include explicit recognition of traditional owners’ inherent rights to land and water and provide a consistent approach for Indigenous participation in natural resource management. We also believe that the legislation should include provisions of water for cultural purposes.

To save the ecosystems of the Murray-Darling Basin, we need to set a robust and ecologically sustainable limit on diversions. That, quite clearly and simply, is the key task that confronts us in reforming water use within the basin. The bill does not guarantee any environmental outcomes. The Australian Greens are concerned by the lack of environmental goals and time lines within the bill and with its failure to require end-of-basin and end-of-valley targets. While it will be the job of the MDBA to put in place the specifics of these targets and plan how they will be achieved, we believe that the very failure to stipulate that there should be environmental targets and to indicate the principles upon which such targets and plans should be reached is a major shortcoming.

In setting the basin cap and determining a limit on diversions from the basin that is ecologically sustainable, it is essential that we have a good understanding, based on the best possible science, of both the hydrology of the system—that is, how much water is in the system—and of the ecological requirements for the health and resilience of the system—that is, how much needs to be set aside. This is a very important point. The Australian Greens are concerned that, as it stands, the CSIRO study into sustainable extraction limits is effectively focused primarily on hydrology, only providing half the data needed to set the cap. Determination of the level of sustainable extraction—the cap—must be based on both the knowledge of total available water and the science of what is required for ecosystem health.

We remain concerned that there seems to be an assumption that the cap will be a magic, fixed figure, whereas we believe it likely that the requirements of adaptive management to maintain and enhance resilience will mean that this figure is likely to vary. It is critical in setting the limit on diversions that we ensure that we are accounting for the needs of ecological communities in critically low- or medium-flow years and the need to protect and enhance the resilience of these systems after periods of extended drought, and that we are taking into account the impacts of climate change in both the reduction in the amount of water within the system and its increased variability, including more extreme weather events—that is, more droughts and flooding rains.

This is why the Australian Greens believe that the bill needs to directly address the need for a robust, ecologically sustainable diversion limit for the basin and outline robust criteria to guide the development of those limits. This is why we believe that it is important to use median figures which reflect the reality of flows in the system more effectively than long-term averages, particularly for the more variable, and often ephemeral, event driven systems of the northern basin. This is why we believe that it is critical that we set end-of-system and end-of-valley flow targets. Further, this is why we believe that the MDBA must be given direct responsibility for ensuring environmental outcomes and for systematically monitoring the health and resilience of the system and its dependent ecological communities. Professor Cullen, who gave evidence to the committee inquiry, said:

I fear that the inflows into the Murray-Darling have dropped by about 40 per cent over what has been the reasonably long-term average.

…            …            …

I believe we need to adjust to this water scarcity and learn to live without a number of wet years. It is probably more serious in that we have now run all the storages to empty and it is quite possible that some of those storages will not refill without a run of quite unusually wet years. They will not fill in average years. We are not dealing with a stable system. We are dealing with one that has quite a lot less water and which might be continuing to decline.

There is clearly a need for better science on ecosystem resilience and for more work on its adaptive management. Emerging knowledge on the resilience of our drought adapted ecosystems now makes it seem likely that after a big drought there may be an environmental requirement for a high-flow flushing event onto the floodplains and through the wetlands to ensure recovery and restore resilience. We believe that there are two critical issues that need to be considered: how we manage to protect and enhance the resilience of our riverine, flood plain, wetland and estuarine ecosystems; and whether the proposed governance systems and water-sharing arrangements are flexible enough to deal with the requirements for ecosystem survival in low-flow and critical-flow years in the face of climate change predictions. To this end, the Australian Greens recommend that the government commit to funding the best possible science into how to maintain and enhance the resilience of our river ecosystems and into how to deal with climate shift. We also recommend that water-sharing arrangements be reviewed to ensure that they are compatible with the requirements for managing resilience. The Australian Greens will be moving amendments to require information gathering on ecosystem health and resilience by the MDBA and to add consideration of these issues to the objects of the bills.

The Australian Greens support the contention of the Wentworth group that the option of compulsory acquisition needs to be kept on the table as an option of last resort. We believe that we need a mechanism to allow acquisition of water on just terms, and that ruling out compulsory acquisition as an option of last resort may not be in farmers’ best interests when they are faced with a need to relocate or restructure. Compulsory acquisition offers the possibility of compensation on just terms—in other words, more than market value—and exemption from capital gains tax. The Greens will be moving to strike out section 255 to enable compulsory acquisitions as an option of last resort.

We are also concerned about the independence of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The Australian Greens are particularly concerned by the issues relating to the independence of the MDBA and the proposed powers of ministerial oversight and direction. We are concerned that, as the bill stands, the minister can direct the authority in setting both (1) the sustainable extraction level and (2) the environmental water plan. We believe that the powers of the minister to intervene in the exercise of the authority’s functions in the basin plan and to create exemptions to the basin plan by regulation compromise the MDBA’s independence and authority. We therefore will be putting forward amendments to address these issues. The Greens also believe that a Commonwealth environmental water holder needs to be free from inappropriate limits.

We believe that the responsibilities of the authority also need to be looked at. We support the comments of the Wentworth group on the need to ensure that the MDBA is explicitly given responsibility for meeting the environmental objectives laid out in the objects of the act. The Australian Greens will be seeking to amend the bill to ensure that the authority is given responsibility for meeting these objectives of the act. We believe that this makes sense and is the only reasonable option. We also note the suggestion by the Wentworth group that part 5 of the bill should be amended to direct the authority to progressively establish a central, secure basin register of water entitlements, and we will be seeking to amend section 103 of the bill to that effect. The Wentworth group said:

The commonwealth should build a top class water registry system for surface and groundwater systems, with appropriate guarantees. All commonwealth water should be on such a registry, and irrigators should have the opportunity to migrate to this registry if they wish to have greater certainty as to titles.

In the short time I have left, I would also like to address the issues around international commitments. The Greens welcome the recognition within the legislation of Australia’s commitments to a number of international conventions, including the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, about which I have spoken in this place at length; the Convention on Biological Diversity; and the various migratory bird conventions. We are concerned, however, that the legislation should not merely be consistent with these international obligations but should be seeking to give effect to them. In seeking to use Australia’s commitments to these international conventions as a way of invoking the Commonwealth’s external affairs powers, the Commonwealth has an obligation to ensure that it is fully implementing its commitments under these conventions.

The Australian Greens believe that the basin plan and water resource plans needs not only to be consistent with and give effect to relevant international agreements but also to be consistent with and give effect to plans and strategies developed for implementing those commitments under the EPBC Act. We believe that water resource plans should be required to implement relevant Ramsar management, recovery or threat abatement plans. As you would expect, the Greens will be moving amendments to this end. We also believe that the legislation should specifically implement important and relevant elements of the climate change convention, and we will be moving amendments to put this into effect. This is particularly important given the impact that climate change will have—and we contend is already having—on the basin.

The Greens will also be moving amendments to deal with the issue of public-standing provisions. We believe that, to ensure that the authority and the minister can be held accountable in exercising their public interest functions under the legislation, the water legislation should be amended to provide for public-standing provisions equivalent to those in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This will allow interested persons to be able to assist in the enforcement of the legislation by applying for injunctions if someone has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct that would constitute a contravention of the act. We believe that the amendments that we are proposing will significantly improve this legislation. I will be talking about the specific amendments in the Committee of the Whole.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak on the Water Bill 2007 today from a Victorian perspective. The lack of support of the draft bill from the Victorian government and their differences of opinion on it have been well canvassed in the press. I support Victoria’s position on this legislation. The Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis—there is no doubt about that. It is facing ecological collapse, with 90 per cent of wetlands having been lost, and a similar level of loss of populations of waterbirds. Three-quarters of the river red gum forests in the lower Murray are now dead, dying or highly stressed. When we combine this with toxic algal blooms and salinity problems, we have a serious problem at hand. Add to this a 40 per cent decline in the inflows reaching the Murray-Darling Basin and instability in the weather patterns due to climate change impacts and it is clear that the situation is serious. Healthy rivers are obviously vital to our prosperity and economy. A healthy Murray-Darling River basin is vital to both of those.

The Victorian government says it supports national leadership in the Murray-Darling Basin management and it is also committed to the sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin. It agreed to negotiate with all governments to improve the management and is proactively implementing the National Water Initiative. Victoria argues that it has established state based processes and policy which have been developed and agreed with the Victorian community. This includes annual water resource planning, annual allocations and control of river flows, land use planning in the Murray-Darling Basin and managing the associated economic development and community impacts. Victoria does, however, object to the removal of state rights and the overriding of the state processes and policy that have been negotiated with the community, have been proven to work and, most critically, have been able to manage urban agriculture and environmental allocations through the worst of the recent drought.

The Victorian government says that it agrees to giving the Commonwealth the constitutional powers and ability to set and reset a cap across the Murray-Darling Basin and to set subcaps catchment by catchment, with compliance to be enforceable through the Federal Court. It also supports giving the ACCC power to advise on water-pricing policy structures and to control market behaviour across the basin. It supports the powers to prevent any changes to water shares amongst states and the ability to hold environmental water in Victoria and to be not hindered in its use for environmental purposes. It accepts the ability to access any necessary information to determine whether the caps are being complied with and the ability of the Commonwealth to enforce compliance via the Federal Court.

A terms sheet establishing these principles and complete drafting instructions was, as I understand it, provided to the Commonwealth so that its legal advisers could see how we plan to alter Victorian laws to allow the Commonwealth to achieve its stated objective of sustainable water management across the basin. All of these terms were outlined in the Victorian terms sheet and provided to the Commonwealth, but so far the Commonwealth has not bothered to respond to those points. The representative of the Victorian government, Mr Peter Harris, said at the 10 August hearing:

The rejection by the Commonwealth of this approach was curiously framed. It did not respond to our proposals. Rather, it issued a demand for compliance with its own draft legislation, to which Victoria had never been a party. We were given no choice but to reject such a demand. I can table this terms sheet if the Senate would like that.

Victoria has rejected complete transfer of powers to the Commonwealth over our water sources because we have a very reliable water allocation system. Victoria’s irrigators and environmental groups agreed with the government that the certainty with which we had endowed their entitlements in negotiations over water reform between 2002 and 2004 was to be preferred to an unknown system of Commonwealth control. The Victorian water allocation system is a reflection of Victoria’s agriculture and relatively dense urban concentration within the basin, just as the more flexible allocation models of other jurisdictions reflect their agriculture and pattern of urban settlement. This is the heart of why state allocation systems vary.

In Victoria we allocate water already in the dam. As a result, we have a very high proportion of our water in high security and we closely restrict water access by providing allocations under bulk entitlements to water authorities. We keep within caps under the Murray-Darling Basin agreements because we simply cannot legally offer entitlements in excess of bulk entitlements, and bulk entitlements in turn match caps. The nature of our high regional population and our higher value permanent planting style of agriculture is vital to Victoria, and thus our system has always been more controlled and more reliable. As I mentioned, neither our farmers nor our environmentalists were prepared to give up this reliability, particularly after water allocations in Victoria held up so well during the worst ever irrigation system in 2006-07.

We believe Commonwealth negotiators never understood the nature of this issue, which is at the heart of Victoria’s objection. This was not ever about money. Victoria did not seek a special deal on funding. The Victorian government is actually spending today the first of more than $1 billion in real funds on irrigation modernising in Victoria over the period between now and 2012.

So I think it is fair to say that Victoria is more advanced with development, water resource planning and water management policy than other states. It has a water allocation system that is reliable and is moving at least towards sustainable practices, balancing consumption of water and the environment.

Victoria also argues that it is more advanced in controlling interception activities and farm dams and including within water planning plantation forestry, farm dams and groundwater, and flood-plain harvesting. Victoria has made commitments to the healthy river agreements and a red-gum policy and systematic assessment of river health.

The Victorian allocation system may be reasonably good, but in my experience the infrastructure in most irrigation areas is still fairly poor. The Victorian government has committed $1 billion to infrastructure, and an irrigation committee will be deciding where and how that will be spent. I understand it will create roughly 225 gigalitres of water savings which will be shared in thirds between the environment, the farming community and urban users. That seems to me to be a good start. Much more needs to be spent, but at least we are on the way.

Victoria’s irrigators and environmental groups are backing the Victorian government, preferring the certainty of the water allocation to the unknown system being proposed by the Commonwealth. The Victorian government reports that there has been a lack of consultation with key stakeholders and there is a lack of involvement of subject matter experts. Of course, allocating only one day to the Senate inquiry has not assisted in the understanding of the implications of this bill.

That there has been no consultation with state governments to discuss and resolve community and state government concerns is, I think, a disgrace. I understand that there has not even been consultation with the National Water Commission, the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury or the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, so I think that the Victorian government is right to be cautious about the haste with which the Commonwealth is passing these provisions. There has been very much an attitude from the Commonwealth of, ‘Trust us; we’ll address that issue in time,’ but that is not an adequate response to what are quite reasonable questions from the Victorian government, such as how the cap would be set and issues of seasonal allocations.

In reality there are a number of key instruments and details missing from this bill. They include the intergovernmental agreement, which has not been developed—certainly no-one appears to have seen it so far. There is no clear statement from the Commonwealth on policy objectives, beyond obtaining the referral powers from the Murray-Darling states. And there is no statement of environmental protection, for example. Victoria wants clear objectives for water resource security for environmental protection and the enhancement of environmental values. There is no clear indicator of the extent of the control and the definition of the Murray-Darling Basin. As it stands, the interpretation could be that the Commonwealth will control the catchment area north of the Dividing Range to north-west Victoria, an area that includes the Goulburn Valley, north Gippsland, Wodonga, Seymour, the Grampians, Western Desert, the Mallee, Mildura, Campaspe, Loddon, Coliban, Ovens and Keilor valleys and catchment areas. That is two-thirds of the landmass of Victoria.

There is no specific plan for improving the health of the Murray River, and the bill fails to recognise mechanisms established by governments under the Living Murray and Snowy River initiatives. We do not know how the Commonwealth will set seasonal allocations. Currently, allocations in Victoria are made under a conservative regime, more conservative and secure than other states. And it is not clear who is going to manage and set the level of the allocations to the irrigation community. We do not know how the four per cent exclusion from water trading will be handled. The original intent from the National Water Initiative was to retain this four per cent to maintain the integrity and resilience of farming communities; however, that too would seem to have been compromised.

Other problems include the compromising of established water resource planning for a catchment and making allocations outside the longstanding process established between the Victorian government and the Victorian community; making way for ‘interception allocations’ like farm dams and weirs without addressing how these activities will be policed; and the absence of a definition of a sustainable level of extraction of water from the Murray-Darling Basin. A legislated guarantee is needed to protect Victorian irrigators and the environment from any impacts on Victorian water entitlements or loss of production caused by the Commonwealth proposal.

Other concerns include the additional administrative overhead of $1 billion that does not result in any water benefits, protection of water rights or drought management. If this legislation is to be effective, the Commonwealth needs to conduct proper consultation and work cooperatively with state governments rather than rushing to pass the bill in an election year. It is also worth noting that the urgency to pass the Water Bill is not reflected in the time lines set out in the $10 billion funding package, which spans a period of over 10 years.

Because Victoria is advanced in its progress and management of water resources, allocations and resource and development planning, there are differences between state practices, and this may genuinely mean that there is a need to bring all the states into a consistent basin structure. But the Water Bill will be meaningless without a commitment to time lines and targets for water recovery. The Victorian government agreed to the ACCC managing and overseeing the enforcement of water rights. But of key concern is ensuring the Water Bill enshrines the independence and power of the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority to keep water use at a sustainable level and to make sure the environment gets its fair share. We need to see a strong, truly independent authority that has the power to enforce a sustainable cap on the amount of water taken from our rivers and to deliver the water needed to restore river health. Also of critical importance is the need to preserve and capitalise on the expertise, experience and intellectual capital of the personnel from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to ensure ongoing involvement with the new authority.

The federal legislation still needs more work if it is to deliver on its promise to fix the problems of overuse and overallocation of our river systems. The Murray needs at least 1,500 billion litres by 2012. We need to be able to manage within that figure and define what a sustainable level of extraction is going to be, and also to manage for seasonal and annual variations. The intergovernmental agreement needs to be finalised as soon as possible and in a spirit of cooperation. This will only be achieved if federal and state governments get serious about buying back water entitlements and ensuring that the market works. This will not happen if the Commonwealth takes over all the functions. To be effective and to move to full implementation of the National Plan for Water Security this must be based on a cooperative approach between the states and the Commonwealth. There are still critical roles for the state and local governments in this planning.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate the speeches of Senators Ronaldson, Kemp and Birmingham.

Leave granted.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today and to stress my strong support for this Bill and for the Government’s approach to water.

The State Labor Governments’ in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia should hang their collective heads in shame for allowing the situation to deteriorate to such an extent that the Commonwealth is required to step in to address a matter of national concern. That the action required is urgent is not in dispute and on that basis it beggars belief that the Brumby Labor Government in Victoria continues to play cheap politics.

The Victorian community quite rightly judges the Brumby Labor Government as totally abrogating its short, medium and long term responsibilities to the people of Victoria.

I will now turn to the extraordinary decision of the Brumby Labor Government to build what has been called the North-South Pipeline. This is a pipeline running from the Goulburn Valley via the Eildon Reservoir to Melbourne. There is extraordinary and justified anger about this proposal from many regional and rural communities. It is proposed that Melbourne will steal 75 gigalitres of water from the Goulburn system and in doing so will potentially seriously impact on the Bendigo pipeline which will put at risk Bendigo’s future critical water needs.

The North-South pipeline will reduce the water supply available for the Bendigo pipeline which is due to feed Lake Eppalock from next month. The threat to the supply is because there will be less water available in the Goulburn system because of the Melbourne pipeline. This is particularly so until the water savings I am about to refer to are made.

The Brumby Labor Government has justified the theft of the 75 gigalitres on the basis of savings being achieved from the piping of irrigation channels. This work is not even due to start for several years and given the Brumby/Bracks Labor Governments’ appalling record on infrastructure delivery it can be expected that there will be considerable further slippage.

The Brumby Labor Government believe they can achieve 225 gigalitres in water savings with a third of this water going to Melbourne, a third for environmental flows and a third to farmers. It is criminal that Melbourne gets first call on these proposed water savings and it is even more criminal that Melbourne will receive this water before the savings are even achieved.

There is one person who has been strangely silent in relation to the impact of the North-South pipeline on Bendigo. That person is Steve Gibbons who has refused to stand up to the Brumby Labor Government and in doing so he has failed the people of Bendigo. The question that the people of Bendigo will be asking is why their Federal Member of Parliament puts the interests of his State ALP colleagues ahead of the people who elected him.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

This is an historic Bill and I congratulate the Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, for his bold vision.

We now have a genuine opportunity to have the Murray Darling Basin managed in a sustainable fashion.

The Bill has overwhelming support.  Of course some would like to make further changes, but it is certainly true to say virtually all stakeholders want this legislation in place.

Four Labor governments, the ALP Federal opposition, farmers organisations and many environmental groups support the Bill.

In short, a remarkable consensus has emerged. But there is one stakeholder that has fought tooth and nail to derail this historic reform. I refer to the State Government of Victoria.

As result of the wreaking activities of the Victorian Government the original proposal announced in January seeking a referral of powers from the States in now not practical and the Commonwealth has now had to legislate to bring about the necessary changes.

Nevertheless, as Mr Turnbull points out, through this legislation the Commonwealth will obtain about 75% of the reforms we set out to achieve. While we are disappointed with the Victorian Government’s lack of cooperation, this reform, this legislation, represents the biggest, most important reform of water management in our history.

It is 100% better than the current arrangements in the Murray-Darling Basin.

As I indicated, everyone has offered their contributions to the development of the proposed bill. There has been an extensive consultation process prior to finalisation of the Bill. 

But, the Victorian Government has been singularly uncooperative in that process.

Almost from the word go, it appeared that the Victorian Government was prepared to wreck this proposal.

But, while Mr Bracks was apparently giving early signals Victoria was prepared to support the plan, it is now apparent that they were never going to negotiate in good faith.

And I don’t expect things will be getting any better given the attitude of Premier Brumby.

Premier Brumby’s attitude has been reflected in the attitude of Victorian Public servants.

Numerous meetings have been held with state officials over the last 5 months to finesse the proposal. I understand the Victorian officials made virtually no contribution to the deliberations of these committees.

The Bill was considered by the Senate Environment, Communications, IT and the Arts Committee on Friday.  I am sorry to report to the Senate that the performance of Mr Harris, Secretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment in Victoria, surprised a number of members of the Committee.

Mr Harris’ comments were strangely political for a public servant.

All the senior Public Servants from other states were careful not to enter into political debates. But not Mr Harris. His efforts to score political points were poorly received.

He also made several statements that were hard to reconcile.

For example, he argued that the Victorian Government position enjoyed widespread support from the farming and irrigation communities as well as environmental groups.

But the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Northern Victorian Irrigators—the two peak bodies representing irrigators in Victoria have publicly supported the Commonwealth Bill.

The environmental groups appearing before the committee, while, certainly raising some issues, still wanted the bill to proceed immediately.

So Mr Harris’s claim of widespread support for the Victorian Government’s position seems to be totally unfounded.

Mr Harris’s evidence in relation to Victorian initiatives to upgrade infrastructure was also unsatisfactory. He indicated that Victoria had committed $1 billion to a water reform package to upgrade Victoria’s infrastructure. 

But when I questioned him on this he admitted that it amounts to just over $150 million per year, over 6 years.

If I was a Victorian irrigator I would certainly want to carefully monitor the delivery on this promise.

Then, by his own admission, he explained that really the Victorian Government needs a further $1 billion to undertake the necessary upgrades.  The Victorian Government needs to spend $2 billion to upgrade their aging and very leaky water infrastructure.  Yet they have committed to invest half this amount over the next 6 years.

In short the Victorian Government has at least a $1 billion black hole when it comes to investing to upgrade their water infrastructure.

By stalling, by refusing to cooperate, Premier Brumby is rejecting the biggest and most important reform of water management in Australian history.

The weak performance of the Victorian Government on the National scene is not surprising particular given its mishandling of domestic water supplies to Melbourne.

We are now in the tenth year of the worst drought in one hundred years. Victoria is facing a water crisis. Where, has been the forward planning?

What we have is a dog of a project, the North-South pipeline, which is being imposed on the good people of the Goulburn Murray Valley.

It is already a huge issue in Victoria.

Prior to the election Brumby and Thwaites strongly criticised the Liberals proposal for a desalination plant. But now they have embraced this concept. But as is the practice with Victorian Government initiatives, there are already problems over implementation including the location of the plant.

Water policy is going to be a major area of public debate in Victoria in the years ahead.

The performance of the Victorian Government to date, in particular its efforts to wreak the National approach to the Murray Darling basin gives little confidence in their capacity to deal with the massive water challenges facing the state.

With an incoherent water policy, despite a desperate lack of water, I cannot see why the Victorian Government is so eager to reject the Commonwealth Water Bill, and the significant investment that comes with it.

Premier Brumby has everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Plan, and were it not for election year politics, he would readily admit this. 

This is a vital piece of national legislation, and not just for our generation but for the next as well.

I, for one, commend the Water Bill 2007 to the Chamber.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Second Reading of Water Bill 2007 and consequential amendments

I record my support for the Water Bill 2007 and associated legislation, which forms part of one of the most important reform packages as it relates to the state of South Australia in recent times.

The ongoing health of the River Murray and, as a consequence the entire Murray Darling Basin, is of vital importance to South Australia. Our irrigators and many primary producers depend on it, parts of our tourism industry depend on it, and indeed the city of Adelaide depends on it for urban water supply.

Importantly, the beautiful natural environment of our state depends on it too, especially the unique wetlands of the Coorong, which are found at the end of the Murray Darling system, near the Murray mouth. Being at the end of the system, the Coorong is especially vulnerable to the reduced flows the river has been experiencing.

In some states the debate about the river and its usage is dominated by the demands of irrigators and primary producers. And, having worked in the wine industry, where grape growers rely on the river system in many regions, not just in South Australia, I appreciate the importance of treating those whose living is derived from the river, and who generate much wealth for our country from the river, both fairly and equitably.

However, in South Australia we are acutely aware of the need to balance more than the needs of irrigators, we must also balance the needs of those in urban areas who rely on it and, most importantly, balance the environmental demands to sustain the river well into the future. I believe this package and the associated package achieves this balance.

This action is needed because of decades of mismanagement of the river and the emerging realisation that the consequences of this mismanagement will have severe and long term effects.

Our founding fathers—those who established this great Commonwealth of Australia through the federation of states in 1901—got much right, but they got it wrong when it came to the management of our waterways, especially the mighty Murray-Darling system.

By placing the powers of management in the hands of the states, they put the river at the mercy of vested interests. Over the years those vested interests have over-allocated the available water, allowed the prolonged occurrence of inefficient irrigation practices and starved it of effective environmental flows.

It didn’t have to be this way. At the 1897 Constitutional Convention in Adelaide a draft of the constitution under debate included a proposed clause 50 (XII), which gave the new Commonwealth jurisdiction over:

“Fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits and in rivers which flow through two or more States.”

Regrettably, it was not to be. As one of the founding fathers, Charles Cameron Kingston, a former South Australian Premier and an inaugural member of this parliament, said at the time:

“it augurs ill to Federation that the representatives will not trust the Federal Parliament representing all the States, in which Victoria and New South Wales will have a much larger representation than we can have, in connection with this matter in which we feel so deeply, and on which we have sought so long and vainly to obtain a recognition of our rights. It is a pity indeed that the decision we have arrived at has been reached. I hope it may be reconsidered, and that a measure of hope may be held out that the Federal Parliament will be trusted with federal questions of the gravity involved in the use of the waters of the Murray”.

Yes, even then South Australians were arguing passionately for national control over the Murray.

Just as future generations are always beneficiaries of the achievements of those who have gone before them, it also falls to future generations to address the mistakes of the past. That is what the Howard Government is doing with our water reforms.

This Bill must be considered in tandem with the National Plan for Water Security announced by the Prime Minister in January this year. This plan commits the government to investing $10.05 billion to modernise irrigation infrastructure, address over-allocation problems, reform the management of the basin and ensure the collection of accurate, effective data into the future. To make the plan work, the Commonwealth sought a referral of powers from the States.

The plan was widely greeted within the community, especially the South Australian community. As is to be expected with any significant government policy announcement, the Opposition was also quick to greet it and agree with it. In fact it sparked the spectacle of the Opposition Leader going on a national tour to sell the Prime Minister’s plan to the Labor Premiers. This was all part of his claim to being able to achieve a new kind of federalism.

One by one, after discussions with the Prime Minister and Minister Turnbull and media stunts with the Opposition Leader, the states fell into line and committed support for the plan. But not Victoria, where self interest and political opportunism continued to be placed ahead of the national interest and the health of this great river system.

Mr Rudd failed to bring Victoria on board. His new, cooperative federalism was dead before it ever got off the ground. And he has rarely spoken of the water plan ever since. Both he and his other state Labor colleagues have lacked the courage to publicly criticise Victoria’s position. They have put their Labor mates ahead of this important environmental issue.

Without Victoria’s referral of powers a new approach was needed. And so we have the package before us today. This package, which utilises the external affairs and corporations powers of the Commonwealth to achieve implementation wherever possible, remains a good package. It will deliver improvements. The original plan was better and preferable, but with Labor acting as a spoiler we must accept this as a strong, viable alternative.

This Bill will establish the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. An independent, expert body, it is charged with the responsibility of developing an evidence-based Basin Plan that balances the needs of all stakeholders, including the health of the rivers. The Basin Plan will include an Environmental Watering Plan, which section 28 of the Bill says must “safeguard existing environmental water” and “plan for the recovery of additional environmental water”. Further, it must “protect and restore the wetlands and other environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin” and “protect biodiversity dependent on the Basin water resources”.

The Bill will expand the role of the Bureau of Meteorology, to ensure that the new authority and other policy makers have accurate data and information at their disposal, and establishes a role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in managing the market for water trading and water pricing.

These are critical reforms that, when undertaken in tandem with the significant investment announced by the Prime Minister, will save water, put more control in the hands of experts rather than vested interests, improve environmental outcomes and guarantee the water entitlements of South Australia and its urban users. The reforms of this government will increase the chances of the system surviving into the long term, which will be of benefit to all stakeholders, right along the system.

I was pleased to participate in the inquiry into this Bill by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Standing Committee. I note that after hearing from industry, agriculture, environmental, scientific and government interests the Committee concluded that although there was broad support for the Bill, it recognised “the preference of most stakeholders for the original referral of powers model”.

Once again we see just how much the Labor Government in Victoria was out on a limb, standing in the way of progress on this matter. The Victorian Government sent public servants to appear before the inquiry and attempt to justify their position. Yet in a shameful performance these public servants resorted to political points when it suited them, while hiding behind their policy makers at other times. Meanwhile, the other Labor states sat back, muted and unwilling to criticise their Labor mates.

It is also worth noting that those in this place who are always the first to claim the high ground on environmental matters – the Australian Greens and Australian Democrats – failed to ask a single question during the full day of hearings and were almost completely absent during the entire day. These reforms, the approach of the Howard Government and of Government Senators demonstrates clearly who really cares about getting practical outcomes for the environment.

Despite the pathetic performance of the state governments, I would like to record my thanks to the other witnesses for their constructive input into the inquiry, especially given the short time available to them. I also thank Dr Ian Holland and the Committee staff for their valuable work on this inquiry.

I have every faith that this Bill and the associated National Plan for Water Security is a good measure. It deserves to be passed and it deserves the support of all Senators. But, as Labor has forced a compromise upon us, we must ask if it will be good enough? We must question whether the Labor States, especially Victoria, will cooperate with the inter-governmental agreement that will accompany this Bill when the election has passed, or if they will continue to play politics with the river?

I hope we do get the best out of this package and quickly see the benefits of it. I prefer to be optimistic about these things, even though that optimism might be misplaced where the Labor Party is involved. The river needs this to succeed. The surrounding environment needs it to succeed. And the river communities, especially those in South Australia, need it to succeed.

But if it doesn’t, then a future government must take this matter to the people and seek the powers in the constitution that should have been there from day one. If it takes a referendum to ensure sound management of the Murray-Darling Basin once and for all, then ultimately that is what we should have. As Kingston continued to argue, in relation to power over the Murray River, at the 1898 Melbourne Constitution Convention:

“we ought to give to the Federal Parliament which we propose to call into existence the power, when it deems fit, to legislate on this question in order to remove this fertile source of friction between colonies.”

Indeed we ought.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about water and to briefly outline a couple of areas. I acknowledge the comments that have been made by colleagues in the Senate today in the debate on the Water Bill 2007 and related bill. The thing about water is that it is a resource. You have to exploit a resource if you want to have a nation of wealth. Here today we are not sitting on a rug on the grass; we are sitting in a building, and it exploits a resource. Water is political. Water is the ultimate in politics because it is the conduit of wealth, it is the conduit of everything that sustains an area—it sustains jobs, it sustains economies. In a period of drought it also very much reflects the pressures that certain people are under. The financial pressure for some people in this drought is absolutely immense—in fact, I would go so far as to say that for some people it will be terminal.

The issue in Queensland has always been that we were the last to develop our water resources and therefore we have been playing catch-up to where New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia were. It is always important to put on the record that Queensland is the second lowest user of water in the basin. It uses less than five per cent. The only state or territory that uses less than us is the Australian Capital Territory. And one of the greatest uses of the resource in this town is as something to look at—Lake Burley Griffin. So everybody is exploiting the resource, and I would say that everybody is parochial about their exploitation of the resource.

We know that when you deal with an asset that people have borrowed money against the pressures are exacerbated. People have borrowed money against an asset and they have the expectation that that asset will be maintained, and they have borrowed money in a completely legal framework to develop that asset. It is absolutely fundamental in any economy that you underwrite the sustainability and the sanctity of what an asset is. If there is an asset that you have a mortgage against—an asset that you have spent most of your life paying off, an asset that is a conduit of wealth in a family from one generation to the next—and that right is taken away, then we have fundamentally changed the basis of a conservative society; we have usurped the right of ownership. It is very important in this bill that we deal with that right of ownership—and I believe we have—and that inherent belief of so many people that the asset that they own and have paid for is theirs and that, if somebody wants it, they have to buy it; they cannot take it from them.

If there is a strong community belief in and aspiration for the water to be allocated to other resources and a belief that that is for the betterment of the nation, then the nation must be prepared to put the money aside to purchase that asset. There cannot be an expectation that it can take that asset, because that is theft. We have had to deal with that in Queensland under vegetation laws, where assets owned by the individual have been vested in the state. Once they are vested in the state without payment—the belief in communal ownership of assets—that is communism, and I do not believe anybody supports that idea anymore. So, if you want it, you should buy it.

I would like to thank the minister for his support throughout debate on this bill. I will be completely frank: at times it was a very robust relationship, and I suggest that some of the 27 amendments before us today have resulted from pressures that were conveyed to me and Senator Boswell by the Queensland Nationals in relation to issues that they wanted brought to the fore. We have given of our best endeavours to do that, and those issues are reflected in some of the amendments that we have here today.

This has been an arduous and drawn-out process. In reality we note that this plan has bipartisan support. It is through consultation and discussion with the minister that the property rights of Queensland irrigators had to be secured. I would like to thank the minister for his work; he never closed the door to further consultation. It is also a reality—and I have to say this on the record for those in Queensland who are listening—that, in relation to some of the amendments that you may have wished me to pursue, I would possibly be the only voice; they would not get any further. There is a bipartisan feel behind this and there was no point of leverage that we could express. We had to do it through consultation and negotiation; it was the only alternative at our disposal.

There is at the end one issue, and I have notified the minister that I will put on record how it should be addressed. Of the 26 resource operation plans, 22 finish before the Commonwealth liability comes into place on 1 January 2015. This includes all four plans in South Australia, all four plans in Queensland, 14 out of the 18 in New South Wales, and because Victorians are not listed they will not be scheduled to the act. We need to allay the fear of this timing difference between the cessation of a plan and the start of the Commonwealth compensation on 1 January 2015. There is an inherent black hole in there, and it has to be addressed because that is the uncertainty that drives bank managers to be concerned and to start putting a discount on your asset. It has to be addressed.

We need to allay the fear that this timing difference has been carefully protected as an outclause for government responsibility for compensation over a government decision to reduce entitlement. I ask the minister to put on record how we will deal with this, as has been suggested by an intergovernmental agreement, and to commit the government to a bona fide resolve to pursue resolution on this issue. I will not ask a question in committee on this issue, as I expect the issue to be addressed in the minister’s closing remarks. I believe that, from negotiations that have been held over a period of time, that is the last outstanding issue that needs to be addressed, and I look forward to that comment. I look forward to the commitment by this chamber and the government to make sure that what we have is a future of sustainability and a future of the enshrinement of the property rights of water.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition federal government has taken the difficult and brave step of putting its hand up to fix the Murray-Darling water system. This is a historical, nation-building move backed by $10 billion. For over 100 years the Murray-Darling Basin has been managed between four states, with each state competing against the other to obtain the best outcome for their state. Over time this has led to a host of problems, including overallocations and neglected infrastructure.

For the first time there will be one Murray-Darling Basin Authority for the whole Murray-Darling Basin to plan the basin’s water resources, making decisions for the benefit of the basin as a whole rather than just for a state interest. The authority will prepare the basin plan in consultation with the basin states, including Queensland, and the wider community. This plan and the funding of the plan would not have been possible if not for the responsible economic management and disciplined policies of our federal coalition government—and I would like to mention that Labor has opposed every one of the government’s reforms and policies that have made our economy strong.

So far Labor and Kevin Rudd’s only ‘visionary’ input to Australia’s water solutions has been to cancel the construction of the Wolffdene Dam in Queensland in 1989 when he was an adviser to Wayne Goss, who at the time was the Labor Premier of Queensland. I am sure those in the south-east corner of Queensland, who are now on level 5 water restrictions, are still thanking him for that little piece of insight.

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, has worked tirelessly with representatives from involved industries on a day-to-day basis to ensure that the Water Bill 2007 was workable and acceptable. He and his staff have also always been available for discussing and resolving the issues that my Queensland constituents and industry representatives have raised with me and Barnaby Joyce over this legislation.

The bills follow on from and incorporate the principles of the National Water Initiative and deliver on key proposals as per the National Plan for Water Security, which was announced by the Prime Minister on 25 January this year. From the announcement, there were some concerns from Queensland irrigators and their associated representatives. Since the announcement was made, Barnaby Joyce and I, and other coalition members, have been working constantly with them to address their concerns.

Water rights, as assets, underpin the value of any farming property. Without the surety of their water assets, their property values do not hold up. This issue is important to their future. As legislators, we need to ensure that we put a high value on these assets as an investment in the future of whole regions. With this in mind I requested the Prime Minister to a write a letter to the Premier of Queensland confirming that resource operation plans that were negotiated with the Queensland government would be honoured. The Prime Minister wrote that letter on 25 March 2007. The letter was the basis of our commitment to Queensland irrigators. When the Water Bill first came out, it did not meet the commitments detailed or implied in the letter. After many amendments and many consultations that Barnaby Joyce, the Queensland irrigators and I held with the office of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, we now have a Water Bill that meets our commitment to Queensland irrigators.

It came down to two remaining concerns, which we resolved the other day. The first concern was that the Queensland resource operation plan would finish in September 2014 and the Commonwealth would not accept the risk liability until the beginning of 2015, leaving what the irrigators believed would be a three-month gap. As we cannot amend the state legislation, the Commonwealth will be requiring the agreement of the states—through intergovernmental agreements—to bring forward the risk liability. In Queensland’s particular case this will be to September 2014. That is the best that we have been able to do and I believe it should give the irrigators sufficient comfort—but it was not for the want of trying that we did not push it further.

The other remaining issue was an overland flow issue. There are a whole range of different water entitlements in Queensland and the irrigators were worried that some of these entitlements, including overland flows, were outside the national water plan’s definition of ‘tradeable entitlements’. The Commonwealth was sure that they were covered by the definition in the legislation but, in good faith, to remove all doubt we have included the word ‘authorised’ in 26 different parts of the legislation to ensure that the definition of ‘entitlements’ is covered. It now complies with the way that it is written in the Queensland legislation—so there can be no doubt. We have also included a further explanation of the definition in the explanatory memorandum just to be absolutely certain.

Around 15 to 20 issues have been addressed since the drafting of the Water Bill. We now have written confirmation from the QFF and the NFF of their support for the amended legislation. We have done our best—we can go no further. I believe that we have done our bit for the irrigators. We have achieved our commitment.

I will clearly state that the bill ensures that there will be no compulsory acquisition of water entitlements or allocations. The National Plan for Water Security underwrites property rights pertaining to water entitlements and prohibits compulsory acquisitions. Existing water entitlements will not be affected. The current state water share plans under the Murray-Darling Basin agreement will be guaranteed. This includes the resource operation plans in Queensland. The bill will establish a new role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor and enforce rules for water charges and market rules in the basin.

The bill gives us funding of over $3 billion to address overallocation and overuse of water resources in the basin. An amount of $1.6 billion has been allocated to on-farm efficiencies in irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a comprehensive bill encompassing a range of sensible, practical initiatives for water reform that will benefit the Australian community long after we are all gone. It is not a quick political fix to a popular issue, as indicated earlier. We have worked hard to create this bill. It is yet another example of how the federal coalition’s good management will secure the future for the environment, the communities and the industries that rely on the Murray-Darling Basin.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to briefly address the Water Bill 2007, which is the first water reform program that has been introduced into the parliament in 106 years. This is a nation-building bill, not just for our generation but also for generations to come. This bill will ensure the sustainability of one of our great national assets—one of our great natural assets. It will underpin our nation’s water resources and secure the future of industries and communities and the environments on which they rely.

I want to congratulate my Liberal colleague Malcolm Turnbull on his consultation, his determination and his ability in getting this bill to the parliament. It has not been easy. He consulted with all forms of politicians, with various industry groups, with the states—which is something in itself—and he has come up with this bill. I am proud that my Liberal colleague has been able to deliver a bill that many before him have not been able to. This bill contains the key proposals that are outlined in the National Plan for Water Security, which was announced by John Howard on 25 January this year. It addresses the modernising of irrigation and the overallocation and overuse of water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin, and it is supported by a $10 billion investment.

Forgive me: I get very frustrated and angry when I hear some of the speeches in this chamber from people who allegedly have some idea about this bill. Senator Allison did not even bother to attend the committee hearings on this bill, and her speech was loaded with inaccuracies. It seemed clear to me that her speech had been written by the Victorian government. She went on at length about the problems in the Murray-Darling Basin system and why they had not been addressed before this. But when there is a piece of legislation before the parliament that actually addresses the problems, she says, ‘There’s not enough consultation and it should have been delayed.’ She was also inaccurate in suggesting that the Victorian farmers were opposed to the bill. Clearly, if she had been at the committee hearing she would know that the Victorian farmers support the initiatives and the direction of the bill.

Everybody at the committee was concerned that the bill did not go as far as it could, but the only reason that it did not was that the Victorian state Labor government would not come in and play ball. Every other state government in the basin was prepared to cede its powers. Victoria would not, for what I can only determine, having heard the evidence, were pretty cheap political purposes. It should be rammed home: yes, there are some deficiencies in this bill; yes, everybody would have liked it to contain other things—and it would have contained other things had the Victorian government been prepared to cede powers as every other government did.

Senator Allison was criticising the bureaucracy and the duplication. Sure, we all know that. Most of that duplication and additional bureaucracy would have gone had the original intention been put into place. As for suggestions by several of the opposition speakers that there was not consultation, the consultation on this bill was enormous; in fact, the consultation—a bit like the with Aboriginal children’s legislation we have just been dealing with—has been going on for the last 20 or 30 years. But people have not been prepared to go ahead with it because it might offend some sensitivity; someone might not have been spoken to. Here is a government that on two issues this week has addressed the difficult positions, the difficult things, that people have been talking about for decades. We are doing it this week but what do we get from those who profess an interest in and a concern for the Murray-Darling Basin system? A criticism and an urge to delay it till we have yet further talks—more talks, more consultation; don’t do anything.

I was pleased in the committee session to be able to say to those who were sort of mirroring or predicting the concerns that Senator Allison was raising: ‘If this bill is this bad, do you want me to vote against it? Do you want me to propose that the bill be put aside, bearing in mind that there will be an election before the end of the year? By the time the new government led by Mr Howard is put in place and starts consultation you’ll be in the middle of next year, and it’ll be this time next year before we think about passing a bill; is that what you want?’ To a man, to a woman, the people at that inquiry all said: ‘No, do not talk anymore; do not delay. Go ahead with this because, while it is not perfect because of the Victorian government’s intransigence, it is a great start.’

I have often said I think we have been a bit wimpish. I would much rather have had a referendum put to the Australian public on this question—that the national government should take over management of our Murray-Darling Basin system, which crosses four states and is so important to all four. I have for several years attended meetings of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, and my attendance at those meetings simply confirmed that people were not interested in the Murray-Darling Basin system. The national government was, but the states all went there with particular agendas that were very parochial or, worse still, political. The state Labor ministers would gang up on the Commonwealth, hijacking them at times, just to score political points. As I sat through those meetings, I used to think: if only we could get a national arrangement that looked after the health of the river, the interests of those who are served by it, then we could get something done. And this bill does it. It establishes an independent authority which will have considerable powers, but not as many powers as we would have had if Victoria had come on board. We are still hopeful that, once this bill is passed and the intergovernmental agreement is made, Victoria may come on board and we can fix some of the difficulties in this bill that have been caused by the Victorian government’s intransigence.

We have the constitutional power for this bill. It is not as good as it would have been had the states ceded their powers, but we have been able to get this bill on the back of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The new authority will be one basin-wide institution. It will be responsible for planning the basin’s water resources and making decisions in the interests of the basin as a whole, not along state lines. As a Queenslander and one who travels widely in the Murray-Darling Basin part of Queensland, I know that most people in the basin—and Australia—want to have a system that is fair and healthy and that serves all of those that it is meant to serve.

The basin plan will be one of the tasks of the new authority, and the central element will be the introduction of a sustainable, integrated cap on groundwater and surface water diversions. The basin plan will set the limits on the quantity of water that may be taken from the basin water resources as a whole and for particular water resource plan areas. The cap will be enforceable by the authority in the interests of everybody. A Commonwealth environmental water holder will be established to ensure that water recovered through the rollout of the irrigation efficiency program and structural adjustment program of the national plan will be used for environmental water purposes, and this independent person or body will hold the water for the environment.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be involved, as my colleagues have mentioned. The Bureau of Meteorology, which I once had the honour of leading in a ministerial sense, will also be very involved. They will be putting their expertise into collecting up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information on water use and availability across Australia. This is going to be critical to the input to the basin plan.

The bill provides for metering of stock and domestic water use under the basin plan. As the minister has previously confirmed, there is no intention to require metering of stock and domestic bores, except in very special circumstances where a groundwater system is under stress or where there are local disputes about water sharing. Those issues were canvassed in the National Water Initiative. In very rare cases where the metering of stock and domestic bores is warranted, the cost will not be borne by the landowner other than with his or her agreement. Governments will pick up the bill there.

Our objective remains to have a comprehensive Commonwealth water law. We will seek to negotiate that law through the intergovernmental agreement with the basin states. Under that agreement, the states will refer powers to underpin this comprehensive legislation within 12 months of signing.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a long 10 minutes.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, your understanding of the time is about as good as your understanding of procedures in this parliament—very poor and very wanting. In spite of the interjections that seek to delay my speech beyond the 10 minutes that I allocated myself, I want to applaud the bill, applaud the minister and congratulate the Prime Minister on at last doing something about one of the major issues that have been confronting Australia since Federation. I commend the passage of the bill to the Senate.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I have to put on the record that I am a farmer and declare my interest—I have a water licence, unlike probably most people who are speaking to the Water Bill 2007. I strongly support this bill and the minister. I am aware that over many years—I got a water licence in 1968—water has been catastrophically mismanaged in Australia by governments of all persuasions. We are now going through the routine again of trying to find someone to blame, as we did with the Indigenous matter. We are all to blame. Every government in New South Wales has mucked up water, and a lot of that has been due to the fact that they did not understand the science of water—even the simplicity of the connectivity between groundwater and overland river water. We are just coming to terms with that now. In the US, that issue has been locked up in the courts for 20 years; it has provided a lawyers’ feast.

The Murray-Darling Basin, which this bill is about, represents 6.2 per cent of Australia’s run-off and 23,000 gigalitres, of which 13,000 gigalitres is extracted. It is seriously overallocated. So, whatever way you want to do the sums, the sums are not going to add up. So this legislation is very important to enable us to come to terms with that. In the committee hearing the other day, we were very grateful that all state governments were represented, with their correct bureaucracies, but not one of them has done any modelling on what it means if the CSIRO science is right and we lose between 3,500 and 11,000 gigalitres of run-off over the next 30 or 40 years. No-one has even thought that through, which is all the more reason why we need this legislation.

Victoria owned up that they were prepared to put in $1 billion and that they needed a further $1 billion. But, as I said many weeks ago, they are bloody stupid for not signing up. They can pretend that they are representing the interests of the irrigators but the fact is that the two representative bodies for irrigators at the hearing said that they agreed with the government’s position. You can hide behind all the bloody garbage in the world you like, but the fact is that this is very important legislation.

At the hearing the other day, I asked Peter Cullen to describe what an irrigation area in 2020 might look like. Also, given that there is a 50 per cent vagary in the science, the best of the worst-case scenarios is that somewhere between 3,500 gigalitres and 11,000 gigalitres will disappear from the system. What does that mean? I know what it means: it is going to be a catastrophe. We need to come to terms with that. If I can put in a little plug for the north, that is why we are looking at developing it.

I would also like to talk about some of the things in the legislation that are wrong and some of the things that might have to be handled federally, which is going to take more than political courage and require some robust use of this process. As we are not going to talk about this legislation in committee, I want to mention two things that ought to be changed in the legislation. I am not a lawyer. I am a worn out wool classer and a welder. In section 172(1), we should insert ‘The authority has the following functions: (a) to pursue the objectives of the act’ so as to give it more power. All those layers of lawyers out the back here might think there is something flawed with the English in that statement. It is a very simple statement. If we do not want this new body to turn into another Wheat Export Authority, which is a complete bloody failure, we need to give it some teeth. Also, in section 178(6), which refers to appointments, why can’t we say that members ‘may be’ and not ‘must be’ part time? If the right bloke comes along in the right circumstances, why wouldn’t we give ourselves the option to make him a full-time member? Best of luck to the wordsmiths.

For many years we have had a group of people in New South Wales above the wetlands and the Macquarie Marshes thieving water. We all know who they are. I asked the question in the committee hearing the other day, and the people from New South Wales said, ‘Senator, we’re working on that.’ Everyone knows who they are. You can go there and take beautiful colour photos of the water being diverted. As they send the water down to the Macquarie wetlands, you see it being diverted out onto pastoral properties. These are the sorts of things which, despite the politics, we have to have enough courage to deal with, and that is why I support this bill.

Another concern—and I will not describe the sort of sandwich which we have been given by the states, but is a pretty messy sandwich—is the hideaway of the problem that has occurred in places such as the Hay shire. Because of the separation of the water title and the land title, the rate burden will be taken from the people with the most capacity to pay the rates and given to the people who have the least capacity. The state government in New South Wales have no idea what to do about it. They put a moratorium in place for two years, they have provided no solutions and, I presume, they are hoping that under this act it will be the Commonwealth’s problem, which we will inherit from them—and I guess it will be. I can give one example of that for rate based purposes. A picture paints a thousand words. For example, a place in the Hay district—and I must confess that I have had a place there since 1967—has a 28,000-megalitre water licence. It has thousands of acres of irrigation in country that naturally and normally is dryland. There would be a sheep to four acres. It is beautiful sheep country. But now, it is probably four sheep to the acre, with the irrigation water.

Because of what is occurring in New South Wales with the separation of land and water titles and many of those water titles disappearing into office blocks in Sydney and all over the place—people up on the Gold Coast making a living out of them and all sorts of carpetbaggers—the people of Hay will be asked by the Shire of Hay, after the moratorium has been lifted, to pay rates for the wealth that is created by those water licences. So this particular property will get an 80 per cent reduction in its rating notice, and in the bill it has to pay, and that will be loaded onto people who have no water on their land. That is a crazy situation. As some members on this side of the chamber will be aware, I raised that issue in the party room the other day and the best we could get out of it was, yes, it is a problem. I would like to know what we are going to do about it.

Senator Barnaby Joyce will not be surprised to hear me say that the draft ROPs in some of the river systems in Queensland have had no science applied to them. They pretend the science has been applied. Peter Cullen was present in the committee hearing the other day. He is the standard bearer for the ROP in the Balonne, and he has been the most misquoted scientist in Australia. I think there should be a corruption inquiry if the draft ROP for the Balonne is implemented. I cannot see how an independent chair of the process can be a co-owner of the largest water licence that will be issued under the draft—it is still in draft form—with no science applied to it, for overland flow, in a system where the land flow eventually returns to the main stream, so it is the riparian right of someone downstream. This is a national disgrace. Do not ask me how it is compliant with the National Water Initiative, the ROP and the water resource plan of 2003. Do not ask me how it is compliant, because it is not. I asked John Cherry, who represents the Queensland farmers, that question the other day in the committee hearing—and, Senator O’Brien, you heard him—and he said, ‘We can’t answer that.’ And, when I asked the Queensland bureaucrats, they said, ‘We can’t answer that.’

How do you get an entitlement conversion to a licence, based on earthworks and capacity to harvest water when you do not have that capacity? What do you do? You have a commercial-in-confidence arrangement with your upstream neighbour and do it that way. I think it is a disgrace. As Peter Cullen said the other day, before that ROP is implemented there should, at the very least, be a full scientific study of that system. I have spoken to people such as Bobbie Brazil at the top of the system. They have given up. They said, ‘We couldn’t work it out with the bottom mob, so we just let them go.’ We need a full scientific review of that ROP before it is implemented. I think it would be a catastrophic fraud of the public purse to issue a licence for some 400,000 gigalitres and have to then retrieve it because we do not have the science. These sorts of issues will have to be dealt with under this plan and it will take a lot of guts to do it.

There are all sorts of state planning decisions, which is pretty scary. Given the emergency circumstances at present—and there is a catastrophic circumstance confronting many of our permanent plantings in the Murray Valley—you cannot help but feel overwhelmed by the concerns that farmers would have down there, given what Mother Nature is dishing out, according to the science. If you have a little mole on your arm and the doctor says, ‘It’s a melanoma, son; you’d better get it taken off,’ I think I would get it taken off. The scientists are telling us there is going to be a decline of between 25 and 50 per cent in the run-off in the Murray-Darling Basin, and we ought to have a plan to deal with that.

We had the announcement in Albury that they will tip the outflow from the Albury paper mill into the river, so the people down at Corowa, I presume, will be drinking the outfall. I do not know what science has been applied to that decision, but it sounds mighty odd to me. Much of this comes about because of the economic intimidation argument, so everyone is scared of the politics of it all. I understand there will be a full scientific review of the outfall of the Tasmanian pulp mill. I will look with great sensitivity at what it all means. I know that 200 tonnes a year of the most serious carcinogens and chemicals, out of 60,000 tonnes a day, will flow into Bass Strait. If I were a fish swimming around there, I would probably grow three heads and five legs.

So there is a lot of stuff that has to be dealt with. No-one should be in denial that we need this bill, and I commend the courage of the government. To say that it is somehow a political exercise is incorrect. This is another thing that is in the national interest for us to do. Obviously if there were no state borders we would not be here having this legislation; we would manage the system as Mother Nature designed it. Mother Nature did not design it to change the rules when it got to the bloody border. So there you go. I fully endorse the bill. I am very grateful to the minister for the way he has accepted approaches from people like Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce and for being patient with people like me. But my plea is that it just does not turn into another bureaucratic process that eats its head off.

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Heffernan should withdraw the word ‘bloody’.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw it.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First believes Australia needs a plan to help fix the nation’s water problems and the key to that is fixing the Murray-Darling Basin. That plan needs to strike the right balance between the needs of all water users, including the main water users, who are the irrigators. Seventy per cent of water use is for irrigated agriculture, so there is a good argument that investment in infrastructure to help irrigators save water is one of the most important things we should do.

The Murray-Darling Basin is the home of Australia’s largest river system and the 15th largest river system in the world. It provides Australia with 40 per cent of its food supply and is often referred to as ‘Australia’s food bowl’. In a time of climate change and on what we hope is the tail-end of one of our worst droughts on record, the need for us to ensure that the Murray-Darling continues to be the lifeblood of Australia’s food bowl is all the more important.

We face a real problem within the Murray-Darling Basin. The amount of available water is falling and demand for water by irrigators, farmers, towns, industry and for environmental flows exceeds supply. Something needs to be done to address this problem. Currently the Murray-Darling Basin Commission sets a cap on the amount of water that can be taken out of the basin each year. These caps are not sustainable. They do not take into account all water sources, such as surface and ground water, and there is no way for the commission to enforce these limits. It is clear the system is broken and it needs to be fixed. We need a holistic strategy that treats the entire basin as one water supply and not just the sum of many parts. We need a strategy that can put an end to the difficulties faced by states, catchment areas and other groups that depend on the Murray-Darling Basin for their livelihoods. We need a system that can enforce caps on the amount of water taken out of the basin each year, with penalties that ensure compliance.

Family First believes this bill addresses many areas of concern. The plan proposes a single authority and sets a sustainable and enforceable limit on the amount of water that can be taken out of the basin. The government would give the Bureau of Meteorology power to assess and set the water information standards. It would also appoint the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to take control of water market trading with the aim of ensuring a fair and equitable market administered by an independent body.

While all states acknowledge the need for the federal government to assume control of the Murray-Darling Basin, there is obvious disagreement from some of the states, notably my home state, Victoria. Family First understands the Victorian government’s position. There is some merit in the Victorian government’s argument that it should not refer its powers to the Commonwealth. Simply, the state does not want to refer its powers to the Commonwealth because it has worked hard to establish a good irrigation plan. Over many years Victoria has built a reliable and highly structured water allocation system. It has kept its end of the bargain and has stayed within the set caps. Victoria’s farming industry is different from other Murray-Darling states. To have a successful dairy and horticulture industry, as Victoria has achieved, you need to secure water. Victorians cannot easily change to other crops to adjust to a water shortage. As a result, the Victorian government is concerned that the federal plan would replace its existing system with an inferior version that would not cater for these special needs in Victoria. Family First encourages both federal and Victorian governments to continue working towards reaching an agreement as soon as possible. Victorian farmers are concerned that because they have managed their water well they are at the greatest risk of losing from a national water deal.

It is important to have an overarching authority to look after water in the Murray-Darling, but changing the system is a risk to Victorian irrigators. They need to be convinced that change is worth while, and you cannot convince people of that unless you are willing to give them enough detail so they can see that for themselves. Why should the farmers and irrigators sign up to a deal where they bear the risk and have no guarantee of benefits? Seven months after the federal government’s announcement they still do not have that detail.

Family First is also concerned about the concept of water markets. What happens to farming families when they sell their water and their land is separated from water? Does the trading of water rights undermine the family farm? Does it mean that big business farms that can afford to buy water will survive while smaller family farms will not? Family First believes the Murray-Darling Basin plan sets out a direction for the future of our most important water asset. Without action, the Murray-Darling faces an uncertain future and therefore the irrigators and towns that draw their water from the system face a similar uncertain future. The government is likely to face significant hurdles in the adoption of this plan with the states, especially through challenges to the constitutional right of the Commonwealth to assume the control detailed in the bill.

While the bill is significant, the pending intergovernmental agreement will be almost as important, as it will address many of the details of the operation of the plan. It is disappointing that the IGA is not available so we can all scrutinise that detail. Family First has consulted widely on this legislation with irrigators, the Victorian Farmers Federation, the Victorian Premier, the minister and other groups. There is room within this plan for a positive outcome for all players, from the federal government through to the individual irrigators. Even though this plan is not the complete solution, it is a start. Family First will, therefore, support this legislation.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the summing up, I will talk generally and then will seek to deal with some of the matters that were raised by honourable senators. The reforms embodied in the Water Bill 2007 before the Senate today represent the most significant reform to water management in the Murray-Darling Basin in over 100 years. For the first time in the basin’s history, one institution will be responsible for planning the basin’s water resources, requiring planning decisions to be made in the interests of the basin as a whole and not along state lines. The Water Bill and the National Plan for Water Security will accelerate the 2004 National Water Initiative, signed by all Australian governments. This bill will greatly enhance the Commonwealth government’s capacity to implement its commitments under international agreements such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The current governance model for the basin, which has remained largely unchanged since 1915, requires the agreement of all basin jurisdictions before any reforms can be implemented. It enables the parochial interests of one state to stand in the way of the common good. The waters of the basin do not respect state borders, nor should the way we manage them. The Water Bill establishes an expert independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The authority will develop a basin plan that will enable the waters of the basin to be managed as one interconnected system. The central element of the basin plan will be the introduction of a sustainable and integrated cap on groundwater and surface water diversions. The basin plan will set enforceable limits on the quantity of water that may be taken from the basin’s water resources as a whole and from particular water resource plan areas. The authority will consult widely with communities, irrigator groups and other stakeholders in the exercise of its functions, including the formulation of the basin plan.

The bill establishes a new role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in developing and enforcing consistent rules for water charging and operation of the market across the basin, consistent with principles agreed in the National Water Initiative. A Commonwealth environmental water holder is established by the bill. It will be the custodian of water access entitlements obtained by the Commonwealth through the savings generated under the irrigation refurbishment program and the overallocation funding provided for in the national plan. Under this bill, the Bureau of Meteorology will collect up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information on water use and availability across Australia. The cooperation of basin states remains an integral element of this reform and for the effective implementation of the Water Bill.

I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for their work on the inquiry into the Water Bill as well as the representatives of stakeholder groups, scientists and officials who appeared before the committee and made submissions to the inquiry. The bill has enjoyed strong support from a wide range of groups, including environmental interests as well as irrigators, which I think is a reflection of the government’s commitment to consultation throughout the formulation of this legislation.

Let me say that this is the first reform of its kind—the first time the Commonwealth government has reformed water management in Australia to give the Commonwealth powers over water management. This is the first fundamental reform of its kind and this historic legislation is only possible because the Howard government had the courage to implement it. Where the Victorian Labor government would not cooperate in the interests of the basin, the Howard government was determined to move forward with this much-needed reform. The reforms in this bill are needed to meet the future challenges facing water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, one of this nation’s great natural assets. With scientists predicting a hotter and drier future for southern Australia, these reforms will ensure the viability of the basin’s water-dependent industries. They will ensure healthy and vibrant basin communities and they will ensure the sustainability of the basin’s natural environment.

I will turn to some of the contributions that were made. I did have a few notes that I jotted down in relation to the Greens and Democrat contribution but, if I might say, Senator Ian Macdonald dealt with them quite well. I thank him for that contribution and remind honourable senators of that and indicate that I say, ‘Hear, hear!’ to that.

In relation to one other matter, I remind honourable senators that we have three-year parliamentary terms. As soon as you are in the last year of a parliamentary term, according to the opposition, everything that the government does seems to be election driven. It really seems, according to those opposite, that, after two years have clicked over, the government ought to just free-wheel, not introduce any new initiatives and not do anything. Of course, if we did that it would be a tired old government without any initiatives and without any legislative programs. So you do have a legislative program, you come up with new initiatives and of course then, according to the opposition, it is all election driven. What I would invite honourable senators to do is actually look at the legislation, see what is in it and judge it on its merits.

Senators Joyce and Boswell made contributions. I will respond to the matters raised by Senator Joyce. The Commonwealth will meet the commitments it made with the adoption of the national plan in February, but on the basis of the full referral of powers for implementing the plan. The Commonwealth has no intention of exposing irrigators or the states to liabilities they would not have assumed had the original intent to implement the national plan with full referral of powers by all basin states been realised. We intend addressing the issue of the National Water Initiative liabilities for new knowledge applied to water plans through the intergovernmental agreement. It is not appropriate that these be dealt with in the legislation. We are fully aware that in the case of Queensland, relevant water plans expire in September 2014. The challenge for the IGA will be in ensuring an appropriate share of liabilities between the Commonwealth and the states ahead of 2015. We will present the draft IGA to the states this week. Senator Joyce asked what is to guarantee that a future government will respect these arrangements. As the senator will know, we in this place—unfortunately, we think sometimes, but chances are it is fortunate in the total scheme of things—cannot commit future governments to any policies, programs, intergovernmental agreements or even legislation. Historically governments have respected commitments made through intergovernmental agreements.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except Western Australia in relation to the regional forest agreement.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes—a point that I do acknowledge, but I will move on. Senator Heffernan raised some issues. I indicate to those opposite that my dealing with these matters in the second reading debate will mean that they will not be contributing through the committee stage. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s main role is the preparation and enforcement of the basin plan. Clause 20 of the bill sets out the purpose of the basin plan, which is to provide for the integrated management of the basin water resources in a way that promotes the objects of the act. The government considers that this requirement gives the MDBA responsibility for meeting the objects of the act within the scope of its functions. The government notes that meeting some of the objects of the act is more a responsibility of the ACCC or the Bureau of Meteorology than a responsibility of the MDBA.

In relation to clause 178, I indicate to the honourable senator that the structure of the authority reflects the workload and functions of the body. Should a full referral of powers be made then the structure of the authority would be reconfigured consistent with its expanded functions to include full-time membership. Retaining part-time membership of the authority will ensure that expenditure on its resourcing is commensurate with its functions.

In relation to Senator Fielding’s contribution, the final contribution, I engage with him in relation to the assertion that no detail has been presented. This is wrong. There have been seven months of consultation. There were over 50 meetings on the detail of the bill, including with irrigators across the basin. It would be fair to say, unfortunately, that the Victorian state officials provided little or no contribution. My colleague Minister Turnbull met several times with the National Farmers Federation, who represented the irrigators across the basin. Having made those comments, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I want to make a brief correction to something I said, just so it is on the record. In my speech I referred to amendments in the Senate; they were amendments in the other place, not in the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.