Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 7315 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 37), after "by", insert "at least".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (after line 17), after subparagraph 86AD(2)(a)(iv), insert:

  (iva) undertaking research and development relevant to the use and management of the Basin water resources;

  (ivb) adopting emerging technologies to better use and manage the Basin water resources;

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 5), after subsection 86AD(2), insert:

  (2A) In debiting amounts for the purposes of making payments in relation to projects mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or (c), priority is to be given to:

     (a) projects that will produce the maximum guaranteed increase in the volume of Basin water resources that is available for environmental use within the shortest time; and

     (b) projects that involve the adoption of emerging technologies to better use and manage the Basin water resources.

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (line 20), after "by", insert "at least".

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (line 34), after "by", insert "at least".

These amendments relate to the kinds of projects and the priority of projects. In my second reading contribution on this bill last night, I did make mention of the fact that there seems to be a dearth of rigour in the way that projects are allocated, and this particular amendment is to give a priority to projects that maximise the impact to the environment and do so in the most economically effective manner possible. That is effectively what this amendment is about. Yesterday, when I spoke in the second reading contribution, I spoke of the difficulty of Dave and Anita Riley from the Riverland in getting funding for their pioneering work on date palms, which has enormous potential as an industry in the Murray-Darling Basin because once they are established they are virtually drought proof. The Rileys have received awards from the Middle East for their work. What this amendment proposes to do is to ensure that there is a structure and mechanism in place for projects to get priority based on the return they can give to the environment but also to put an emphasis on R&D and innovation and to acknowledge the early adopters of water efficiency measures.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Greens will be supporting Senator Xenophon's amendments.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had an inclination that there were two areas of the amendment that we could have changed to get to a position where we would support it, but we cannot support three, so we will not be supporting this amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Uncharacteristically for Senator Joyce, I could not hear him. I could not hear that big, beautiful, booming voice of his. It was not clear; maybe it was the microphone because Senator Joyce's elocution is usually so perfect.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Joyce, if you are so inclined, would you like to repeat your remarks?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am only too happy to break into song—into an aria—for Senator Xenophon! What I was going through with the people up this end of the chamber beforehand was item 2. Upon reading it, I was thinking, 'This is close; this is something we possibly could support,' knowing that, if we did and we had the numbers, the bill would then bounce back to the other place. We could not support item 3—definitely not. On a further reading of item 2 we decided that it started to wander off into an area that we probably could not support. We would actually have to sit down with you and change it, but that is not going to happen now so we will be succinct and say that we are not supporting it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government does not support this amendment either. As I have said quite a few times today, there is a package arrangement. We are very keen to proceed with the legislation and we do not support this amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to Senator Joyce for that more elaborate explanation. I am grateful to the Australian Greens for their support. I would like to put this on the record so that we know what we are talking about here. The first part of the amendment, which the coalition, as I understand it, thought of supporting but did not quite get there—close but no cigar—would allow for an undertaking of research and development relevant to the use and management of the basin's water resources and the adoption of emerging technologies to better use and manage the basin's water resources. I think it is fair to say, without verballing Senator Farrell, that the position of the government is: 'The deal has been done and we do not want to know about anything else.' Can the government please tell us what mechanisms there are to take into account emerging technologies and research and development so that we can be the best of the best when it comes to water efficiency—the sorts of things that Professor Mike Young, one of Australia's pre-eminent water experts, has talked about in the past?

We can be world leaders in adopting water-saving technology measures and having a level of R&D so that we can go further. Particularly in the Riverland in South Australia, where they have already adopted a number of water-efficiency measures over many years, their only way to survive will be to adopt and be at the forefront of these emerging technologies. So how will the plan deal with these issues of research and development and the adopting of emerging technologies?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you well know, Senator Xenophon, I am quite familiar with this particular place that you refer to in the Riverland. I am very familiar with the good work that they do up there. But I think it is fair to say that I do not think any government in Australian history has committed as much money to a range of water-saving measures as this government. Admittedly we did it because of the dreadful circumstances that existed in what I think is generally now known as the Millennium Drought, but we committed a huge amount of money to coming up with water-saving programs. Some of that involved new technologies. I am in a privileged position because urban water is one of the areas I look after, and I think it is fair to say technologies that we have developed through that 10-year drought are now being picked up by countries all around the world. We are selling a lot of our technologies. So there is a heap of work being done out there right now with money that the federal government is providing by way of grants, generally met with equal amounts of funding from other organisations like states, councils and individual companies. If you look at the work that this government has done in terms of trying to encourage innovative ideas with federal funding then I think we have a really good story to tell. So I have no hesitation in saying to you, Senator Xenophon, that we have an arrangement here and we want to stick to that arrangement. There are lots of other areas where this government is doing really good work on new technologies with water saving. We want to get this bill through. We want to restore the environmental conditions of the Murray-Darling. We want to get those Murray-Darling communities back to good health. That is what we are doing with this legislation. There are plenty of other things we are doing right now around Australia in the area you are talking about in seeking these amendments.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The response of the Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water reminds me of that British sitcom line: 'Never mind the quality, feel the width.' It is not a matter of how much you are spending; it is how you spend it. I appreciate what the parliamentary secretary said, and I think it is fair to say that the money committed by this government is in fact a continuation of the money committed by the previous government. The amount is the same—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are spending it better.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell's very helpful interjection was 'we're spending a better'. Well, I am just trying to help you spend it better by having allowance in the bill through these amendments: having research and development relevant to the use of management of basin water resources, adopting emerging technologies and, further, looking at projects that will produce a maximum guaranteed increase in the volume of basin water resources available for environmental use within the shortest time, including projects that involve the adoption of emerging technologies to better use and manage the basin water resources. That is what this is doing. I know that Senator Joyce wants to make a contribution on this, but the issue here is that unless and until we give appropriate precedence to emerging technologies in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, my fear is that we will see a continuation of the Commonwealth Auditor-General saying that we are not spending money wisely or that the processes are inadequate.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you can hear me down there, just wave.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear you, Senator Joyce!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good. Not wanting to be a smart alec but to assist the minister somewhat, if you go to schedule 1 of the water amendment legislation, in 86AD(2)(a)(i) and (ii) you will note that they already talk about 'improving the water efficiency of the infrastructure that uses basin water resources for irrigation' and 'improving the water efficiency of any other infrastructure that delivers, stores or drains basin water resources for the primary purpose of providing water for irrigation'. On that purpose, we had something of a similar nature to what you have set out in the section which we were inclined to support. The reason we were inclined to support it was that it was already in the act. However, by supporting that section, if we sat down and amended it that would have meant that the bill would bounce and go back to the lower house. From what we can gather from your section (2) compared with what is already there, we believe that, although we are philosophically on side, it would be an addition that replicates what is already there but the purpose of that addition would mean that the bill then goes back to the lower house, comes back here and is tied up. So, for the purpose of trying to work with the government to get this through, we thought that, even though item (2) warranted support, it did not warrant it to the extent that we would get an extension of the capacity of this bill beyond what is already there, but it would bring about this bill wandering off.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 7315, moved by Senator Xenophon, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Progress reported.