Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To understand the Nationals' confused, contradictory and weak behaviour over many years, let's step back to their predecessors, specifically former Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister Mr John Anderson. He was presiding when the Water Act was passed in 2007, appeasing the globalists. He was presiding when the coalition government stole farmers' property rights and went around the Constitution to do so, appeasing the globalists and stealing from the farmers. He was presiding when the carbon trading scheme was first put out as a policy by the Liberal and National parties—the first policy for a carbon tax—appeasing the globalists. He was in power when the Renewable Energy Target was introduced, when the National Electricity Market was introduced and when the privatisation of electricity assets was stimulated—all to appease the globalists. He was in place when they introduced carbon farming, which increased neighbouring farmers' costs because of feral animals and weeds, appeasing the globalists. Basically to appease the globalists, they destroyed agriculture and the regions.

The common factor in all of these is a contradiction between the policy and the empirical scientific data. It's a contradiction of science, a contradiction of reality and a contradiction of the truth. Look at coal, for example, which is very important to the regions. We took the lead. Senator Hanson and I were the first to support Adani. We went to them to ask why they were being delayed. We were the first to push coal-fired power stations. The first to raise Collinsville.

While we were doing that, recently we saw the Western Australian Liberal leader, now defunct, going to put policies that were more green than the Greens and more destructive than those of the Greens. I put it simply: many Liberals in this place are simply Greens who favour not taxing multinationals. That's the distinction with the Greens. The Nationals use One Nation words and policies, yet support Trent Zimmerman's globalist policies. They follow the globalists. They follow the Liberals. Senator Hanson and I have exposed the Nationals' dishonesty and gutlessness. The core message from Mr Barnaby Joyce's leadership vote is that Australia—cities and regions—needs more One Nation MPs to continue pressuring the Nats. Without us, they kowtow to the globalist Liberals. There's been five years of our presence and at last they're starting to change. Remember Senator Mathias Cormann? When I repeatedly sought the basis for his climate and energy policies, he never replied with data but always with the term 'fulfilling global commitments'. Now he's head of the globalist institute called the OECD.

The core issue in this debacle that has become the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is shoddy governance and dishonest governance that is not in the national interest. That's the ultimate reality and the core. Good governance needs data and teeth. Let's talk about this bill specifically, now that we have the context. Specifically this legislation creates the office of the inspector-general who will be responsible for policing, among other things, water trading. How can this office police water trading without a register of water trades? Well, he can't. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is being blamed for environmental damage to the Murray and Goulburn rivers caused by sending water through for water trades at times when the river would not normally host such high flows. The Barwon-Darling system is perpetually dry, when local First Nations people reliably tell us that the river carried flows eight years out of every 10, so only dry in two years out of every 10. Recent critically important data shows that water inflows into the basin are only down by less than 10 per cent over the last 20 years. It's entirely natural.

The culprit here is not climate variability; it is much more simple. The culprit here is water mismanagement by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The culprit is terrible governance. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority tried to blame the environmental damage on a sand slug, sedimentation from gold mining 150 years ago, making its way lazily down the river and reducing capacity. This ludicrous sand slug theory is suggesting normal volumes of water is causing massive damage, because the sand slug is making the river more shallow, increasing water velocity and causing scouring of the banks. The information that we need to make better decisions is not available, so how the inspector-general is going to do his job properly is beyond me.

We don't have data on how much water is being taken in illegal flood-plain harvesting in northern New South Wales. It seems to be hidden. We do not have volumetric data on all the inflows into the basin or at the critical outflow point of the barrages in South Australia. We don't know how much water is being diverted away from the Coorong and Lake Albert in South Australia by the man-made drains built for that purpose. Restoring natural inflows of both surface and groundwater into the Lower Lakes is probably enough to complete the plan. We don't know how many water trades are conducted. We don't know how much water is transferred from one zone to another without any accuracy.

Today, I will be introducing an amendment to implement a requirement of the Water Act to maintain a transparent register of water trades. This provision of the Water Act has been there for 14 years. The council of water ministers approved a water trading register in 2008. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority made an attempt to introduce such a register in 2009. By 2012, they had spent $30 million, and still no water trading register. Then they gave up. What a perfect example of the poor performance we have seen out of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority under both the Liberal-Nationals and Labor. I hope the inspector-general can shine a light on the criminal behaviour, self-interest and cronyism that has reduced the Basin Plan to a nonsense, a nonsense that is destroying people, communities and farming. We must get the bad players out of the basin so that those 99 per cent of honest and decent farmers, irrigators, administrators and water authority staff can get on with fixing this mess. So I welcome the government's legislation, which my amendment makes better and gives the inspector-general data and teeth.

I've talked in the past about the seven steps that we'll be taking to fix the Murray-Darling Basin. But we're giving notice that in the next couple of months, we'll be introducing a comprehensive water policy based upon weeks of flying over the Murray-Darling Basin followed by trips on the ground to listen to people at mass community gatherings. The water register is needed. We need to give the inspector-general and people across the basin data. A key step to restoring sovereignty and good governance in this country is this water register. So we will be supporting this bill and then moving the amendment.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 is about implementing the Basin Plan. There's been a lot of talk about what is and isn't the Basin Plan and what is or isn't included in a very important document for our country. It's an issue that has been of interest to Australia for as long as Australia has been around. There's section 100 of our Constitution, which is basically there because of debates at the constitutional conventions around the Murray-Darling. That particular section of our Constitution gives the states the rights to manage their own water resources. They really did manage their own water resources in an independent and uncoordinated way until this process was kicked off by the Howard government in 2007. It took many years to finalise a plan for the basin. There's a lot of talk about what that is and how that came about. But I was somewhat involved at the time the plan went through. At that time, I was working as the chief of staff to the then Senator Barnaby Joyce, who was the shadow water minister. For all the talk over these last couple of days about former Senator Joyce and now Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, he voted for the Basin Plan. The Liberal-Nationals government largely voted for it. The member for Riverina, Michael McCormack, did vote against it. But it was voted for and supported because of some key promises that were given at the time the plan was created. There was a lot of controversy at that time, especially when a draft of the Basin Plan proposed to take away more than 6,000 gigalitres of water from our nation's farmers.

Senator Patrick interjecting—

Yes, it was, Senator Patrick. I will take that interjection. Senator Patrick said it was science. Yes, apparently it was. I'm not a scientist myself but that brings up a really important point here. Science is an input into the Basin Plan. It's important that the plan is based on good science, but it can't make the whole decision here, because this plan is about people too. This plan is about how we produce food as a nation. This plan is about how communities grow and thrive with their own economic prosperity not just at one end of the basin, not just in the north, not just in the south but right through our country. All of those things must be balanced, so the science is a very important input.

But what happened with that draft plan—Senator Patrick is right—was it was science on steroids and science unconstrained from any concept of what its impact would be on our nation's people and on our nation's ability to grow food. What I have said just then is not a distortion; it is what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority said to Senate estimates. They said they had to develop a plan that just prioritised the environment, that put the environment first and that didn't worry about the economic or social conditions of people. It didn't worry about the almond growers in South Australia's Riverland. It didn't worry about the fruit growers in Berri and Renmark; the plan ignored them. It didn't worry about the dairy farmers around the Lower Lakes; it ignored them.

Senator Patrick interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Canavan, resume your seat. Senator Patrick, when you speak in this place you are generally given the courtesy of not being interrupted. I would ask you to extend the same courtesy to Senator Canavan. You may disagree with him but you will have an opportunity to put your point of view.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, don't silence him on my behalf; he is only inspiring me further. There are people in Senator Patrick's state of South Australia who rely on the use of water for their livelihoods, for their jobs. The town of Berri would not be there but for the irrigation that comes from the Murray-Darling. I know Senator Ruston, from Renmark, is one of the few senators in this place who lives in and has an office in a very remote and rural part of this country. She knows how important irrigation, that use of water, is. And we can't have a plan that is only based on what's important for the environment alone, because people surely have to be part of our considerations.

So after that misstep, after that draft plan was distributed, it became pretty clear quickly that it was not going to be accepted by the Australian people. The Labor Party had to bring Simon Crean in to fix up the mess that, I think, Mr Tony Burke at the time presided over. Mr Crean came in and he promised everybody that there would be a triple bottom line. At the time Mr Crean promised that the economy, the society and the environment would all be considered as part of this triple bottom line, that we would balance all of these factors. That was the promise that was made to the Australian people. That was what the then Liberal and National government, the Labor Party and others voted for. The Greens weren't happy. I think they might have voted against it. They wanted the 6,700, but sensible people in this place realised that we had to have a balance and that's why we came up with the plan. There is a controversy about what exactly that meant.

Since that time, a lot of water has been recovered and that's come at a great cost to many communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to recognise that cost. We have to recognise that there are towns and communities in our country that have suffered greatly from the taking back of water from their towns and communities. Over 10,000 agricultural jobs have been lost as a result of the implementation of the plan—over 5,000 have been lost in Victoria, over 3,000 lost in New South Wales and a little over 2,000 in South Australia alone.

It's good that the government buys back the water. There have been other processes where governments sometimes just take rights back from people. We know that; Senator McDonald knows that. We had property rights just taken off people through government regulation. But at least, to give government its due, it has paid for the water it has taken back from farmers.

The problem, though, is that the farmer who sells his water gets paid a commercial rate. Some do very well out of the sales, but once they take out the agricultural production, once they're no longer growing the fruit in Berry or the cotton in Dirranbandi or the rice in Coleambally, suddenly there are no jobs for tractor drivers anymore. Suddenly the local feed supplier and seed shop don't have the business they had before. Suddenly the tyre shop doesn't have the business anymore. Suddenly the cafes and restaurants and hotels don't have the business they had before. That's when you lose all of these jobs in communities and you have that real human impact—sometimes people in this place gloss over or don't want to confront that—and they're the people I know we have to put front and centre when we consider balancing all of these interests. We have to make sure that we don't lose, unnecessarily, more jobs for the sake of meeting some mythical plan that never existed.

I want to pay tribute to my colleagues. While I have some history in the Basin Plan I now live in Central Queensland, a fair way from the Murray-Darling, and have not been as involved in recent years. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues who live and work this issue every day of the week. In the other place, Mr Damian Drum and Dr Anne Webster have been working very hard on behalf of their communities in northern Victoria to develop a better plan, to make sure we stay true to those triple-bottom-line economic, social and environmental principles that were established as part of the plan. Along with colleagues here in this place, including Senator McKenzie and Senator Davey, they have developed sensible ideas to amend the Water Act to give effect to that initial promise to the Australian people and, especially, to the people of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Centred around the controversy here in the current implementation of the Basin Plan is a so-called 450 gigalitres. Let's be very clear, here, that this 450-gigalitre figure was not science. There was certainly no science behind it, as Senator Patrick liked to say before. There was absolutely none. What happened after the Murray-Darling Basin Authority first picked 6,750—it was around that figure—was that, the reaction was clear, it wasn't going to fly. It was going to destroy our ability to grow food and destroy jobs and families and farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. Senator Patrick is indicating he wants to still go to the 6,000 gigalitres figure, just for the record.

That wasn't going to work, so the Murray-Darling Basin Authority came back with a figure that was their estimate, their science—their estimate of a scientific balance of economic, social and environmental figures—of 2,750. That was the amount to be recovered. That was the one accepted by the then federal Labor government and the one they took to the ministerial council to seek agreement on. Where did this 450 come from, then? It didn't come from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It didn't come from the scientists, Senator Patrick. There was no science behind it. Where did the 450 come from? Well, when they took the 2,750 gigalitres to the ministerial council the South Australian government would not support it. They had to do a deal, and we ended up with this figure of 450 gigalitres. There was some science involved in that, Senator Patrick. It is called political science. That's what led to this figure here. It was a politically scientific figure, that was come to, to get the agreement and acceptance of the South Australian government.

In fairness to the then Labor government, the extra amount of water that was flagged to be taken back from farmers, taken out of food production, was always predicated on the idea that there would be no economic or social detriment to Murray-Darling Basin communities. So it was incumbent on—effectively, South Australia—those implementing the plan to show and prove that if this 450 gigalitres extra was to be acquired it had to have no social or economic impacts on basin communities. Clearly, they haven't been able to do that. As I said before, the work of agencies in this area has shown that 10,000 agricultural jobs, not just all jobs, have been lost as part of the plan, as part of getting back not all but most of the water to get to the 2,750. So the test has not been met.

The Basin Plan said, if you want the extra 450 gigs, you have to show you can do it in a way where there is no social and economic impact. Well, there has been a social and an economic impact. There will be more of an impact if we go for this 450 gigalitres. So we should not proceed with the 450 gigalitres. Anyone who is seeking to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full should not be seeking this extra 450 gigalitres, because it fails the very tests and conditions that were imposed on the establishment of the Basin Plan itself.

The Basin Plan is incredibly complex, of course, but there are other things that were in the plan that are still to be done and require some extra work. Alongside the 450 gigalitres—excuse all of the figures here—there was the view that, instead of getting to the 2,750 figure with more buybacks and/or even more infrastructure projects, which cost a lot of money, what we would seek to do is, through improvements, get 650 of the 2,750 gigalitres from greater efficiencies—from so-called works and measures. At the time, there were about 2,100 gigalitres that would be recovered when the Basin Plan went through. The idea was that, to get the extra 650, we'd become more efficient at environmental watering. That made a lot of sense, because, throughout the Basin Plan process, there's been a lot of criticism about farmers being inefficient and a lot of undue criticism about rice and cotton being an inefficient use of water. I don't have time to rebut that particularly ridiculous claim right here. There was always this idea that farmers had to be more efficient to give more water back to the environment. That's fair enough, but if farmers are expected to be efficient so should the irrigators of environmental assets. We shouldn't just be wasting water by sending it down the river to hit an appropriate environmental target. Just as you can water a cotton paddock or a rice field better, you can water the lakes, wetlands and rivers much more efficiently through modern technologies.

So the 650 gigalitres was to come through investments in better environmental watering. There have been 36 projects identified across the basin states, but they're not giving the water that we first thought they would.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's been total mismanagement!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick is right. There has no doubt been mismanagement of the environmental water. I don't know enough about the details, Senator Patrick, but I'm sure there's been some mismanagement in the bureaucracy as well. All my colleagues' amendments would do is give more time and flexibility for more projects and ideas to be brought forward. To those opposed to this amendment: why would you be afraid of more ideas? Why would you oppose more ideas to more efficiently improve environmental watering? What is the problem with trying to become more efficient at watering our environment? If farmers are expected to be efficient, so should the bureaucrats. Those who would oppose the Nationals amendments are effectively saying that the bureaucrats should be a protected species and should not have the same requirements imposed on them as our nation's farmers. I think we should defend our nation's farmers. We should defend our ability to grow food. That's why I fully support the sensible amendments brought by my Nationals colleagues.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on this bill, the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and these amendments. There is probably no other topic more important in Australia than water and water management. It doesn't matter whether it's in the Murray-Darling Basin or the north of Australia, water is the thing that we all have the most interest in. But water management is a very different thing when you're on the ground in those communities, compared to when you're sitting in an office in Canberra or possibly even trading water, where it becomes an economic asset that is a very highly valuable product. It can drive communities that rely on water assets to the very brink.

Senator Canavan has already touched on the removal of farmers and agricultural workers from the Murray-Darling following the buybacks of water. This is devastating to those communities. It was always a central tenet of the development of the Basin Plan that there would be a measurement of the socioeconomic impacts on Australians. There has to be a balance on these things. As we know, the best environmental outcomes are only achieved when communities are thriving and successful.

The buybacks, particularly in the kind of patchwork way that they have happened, the piecemeal way that they have happened, mean there are some farming communities that are no longer viable or are struggling to put together the infrastructure and support that is necessary to support industries—cotton gins, farming processing, the kinds of repairs and maintenance that are needed for tractors and heavy machinery as they operate in those systems. So the practical result of the discussion that we're having is enormous impacts on farmers. It is devastating to hear the impact on dairy farmers who have not been able—

Senator Patrick interjecting—

Senator Patrick, I will take that interjection, because you are not interested in farmers. You are only interested on focusing on certain parts of the community, so I'm here to talk about the people who have the least voice of all, who are the people in the agricultural industries and the farmers who grow the food and fibre, who keep our communities vibrant.

Senator Patrick interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, could you please stop interjecting, thank you.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for that assistance. It is important that somebody speaks for those with the least voice. They are doing the job that is the most important, not just for Australians but for a good part of the world, which is growing food and fibre in the most sustainable way. I would ask you to reflect on what has happened in the cotton industry, in grains, in dairy, in the beef industry, where we are seeing the kind of innovation in the practical development of crops and animal production that uses less water and that is highly efficient and sustainable, and we should be proud of that. We should encourage that, rather than taking away the very resource that makes it possible for them to operate in this land. Talking to dairy farmers who have been pushed out by the increasing competition for water is just heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking to hear of those people who, over generations, have developed herds that have had to be sold off for replacement crops, mostly almonds, which make delicious nut juice. That is one of the products that has now come out of the competition for water.

During estimates, we had a whole day on water, particularly on the Murray-Darling Basin. There was a lot of talk about on-farm efficiency programs, and again I would ask people to reflect on the very practical result of being on-farm and what this means. There are not just measures about usage on-farm but better efficiencies of flows—making sure that streams are clear of weeds and obstacles, making sure that water be allowed to run efficiently to the next point—because these are the sort of very practical measures Australian farmers are able to deliver. It is enormously frustrating to hear people talk from offices a long way away about what is the best decision to make, when it is farmers who, with their hands in our Australian soil, make the decisions to grow the crops that we all rely on.

The government has made a series of buybacks over many years. I know that when Senator Wong talks about purchasing 1,000 gigalitres from farmers, this was water purchased during the millennium drought, when farmers and communities were at their lowest. Farmers who sold their water at that time , in sheer desperation, were told it was the worst decision that they had ever made. How tragic for those people and their families to have to look back at a decision, at a negotiation that they had with their own government, and consider that it was the worst decision that they had ever made—because it is practical efficiency, practical work for on-farm decisions that end up with the best environmental outcomes that we can have.

I reflect on the work that's happened in the reef catchments, where it is the government's signals and messages, the provision of practical programs, that have allowed Queensland farmers to improve the way water runs off their land, how they apply fertilisers and how they operate on their farms. In fact, that's been so efficient that it has resulted in a 25 per cent reduction in nitrogen run-off. It has resulted in the latest reef water quality report card of an A for improvement in water quality. I think that is extraordinary.

I have been disappointed that, for all the rhetoric and all the discussion about water use and water quality, there has not been one acknowledgement from those opposite of the work of farmers and the stress and heartache from making significant changes at significant cost to themselves. When those changes to land management have resulted in better outcomes, better water efficiency and cleaner water, there has not been any acknowledgement. It's no wonder at all that farmers are really wondering what the point is of them getting up and doing the work they do. They feel that Australians no longer care and no longer even want them to be farmers. I know as I travel around Queensland the number of times that farmers have ended up in tears because they believe that nobody believes in what they do any more. Who's going to provide the nut juice for coffees? Who's going to provide the plant matter for vegan food? Who is going to provide the excellent vegetables, fruits and meat that Australian farmers grow? Without the managed and balanced Basin Plan that we are trying provide in these amendments, who is going to do that? Farmers are certainly not. They are broken. They have been broken by the crazy costs of water and the crazy lack of understanding from some parts of our community.

These amendments will achieve environmental outcomes as if the 450 gigalitres was in place. But the outcomes will not be measured by the use of water. They will be measured by practical, on-farm, on-land management changes. We are now seeing this need for a holistic approach, a broader approach, to managing the environment. A great example is where you can have an environmental watering event that may see the growing of a rare native grass. That grass is required by rare native birds to lay their eggs. But unfortunately the eggs will all be eaten by wild pests and animals if we don't fence off the grass and provide a safe nesting habitat for the birds. So we are widening the scope to fund fencing required to protect the vital bird-breeding events.

I'm seeing this kind of fencing approach create incredible outcomes in Queensland, where wild dog exclusions have meant that there are koalas returning to parts of south-west Queensland. Previously the decrease in koalas was blamed on tree clearing, despite there being little or no tree clearing in those regions. It was blamed on tree clearing when the actual culprit was the incredible number of wild dogs that were out hunting off the land and eating native animals. These dogs exploded in numbers because of the number of watering points that graziers and farmers had introduced right across western Queensland. On what were previously arid and semi-arid lands there are now watering points to provide for small kangaroos. There is now such a number of roos, such a plague of roos, that anybody who has ever driven in the west after dark knows it's not safe to do so in a vehicle without a bull bar and some protection, because they are a threat to life and limb.

The sort of projects we're seeing are practical ones that allow for native animals to rebound. One farmer in western Queensland told me that the previous year he had only had 300 lambs survive. He would go out night after night and see lambs torn apart by dogs hunting not for food and not for survival but for the sheer pleasure of it. After the introduction of the exclusion fencing and the removal of wild dogs hunting purely for pleasure in packs, he was able to mark 4½ thousand lambs. What an extraordinary change. This is the same farmer who tells me that he now sees koalas. He hasn't seen koalas there in his generation.

There are many ways to achieve environmental and other outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin than just buying back water from farmers. There is efficiency of water flows. There are on-farm practices and there are other ways to achieve the kind of environmental outcomes that everybody wants to see. The disappointing part about this debate is that some would like to see the world in black and white. They would like to see farmers and agriculturalists as bad. Farmers and agriculturalists couldn't possibly want to see good environmental outcomes! They couldn't possibly want to see better outcomes in the place that they live, the place where they raise their own children, the place where they may have lived for generations! That couldn't be possible, could it? Instead you would rather paint those people as terrible, terrible people. That lack of understanding is shocking and distressing.

I say to Senator Patrick and others here that I do speak for farmers. I do speak for people in the regions who don't have enough voices in this place. That kind of balance is what we are trying to achieve through this debate. If we truly believe in democracy and truly believe in good outcomes, we know that good outcomes are achieved when there are a lot of voices and there are a lot of different points of view so we can provide balance to the sort of science that some people refer to, because saying science over and over again does not actually make it real—

Honourable senators interjecting—

They're saying science over and over again. I can hear the Greens and Senator Patrick talking about science. They rarely refer to it back to a point. They refer to some mythical number. A mythical kind of magical cloud of science that's going to support their particular potentially uneducated and useful view. So I do stand to speak on this.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I barely feel like I need to go on with the discussion that is going on in the chamber, but how healthy to see this kind of debate happening at a grassroots level. I never interrupt Senator Patrick when he speaks, but somehow my voice is less important than his. It is very discourteous. I ask you not to do that.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McDonald, one moment. I think you make a good point. Senator Patrick, could you please stop interjecting. It's not that hard. Thank you.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just finish on this note. It is the exchange of good ideas, the exchange of different points of view, that gives us the best outcomes for Australians right across this country. It gives us the best results not just for the environment, but also for the very important people, Australians, who live in regional places.

Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Today has been a big day for water but an even bigger day for the basin communities. Water is a shared responsibility and water in the Murray-Darling Basin is a finite resource. It's not only a finite resource but a fluctuating resource. We understand that well. We, on this side of the chamber, in the National Party and the Country Liberal Party that I represent, understand water as a resource extremely well.

Water is essential for the health and general wellbeing of the basin's 2.2 million regional and rural people. That is a lot of people who rely on this part of the world for their lives, their livelihoods, their lifestyles and the water that enables them to carry on their activities. But it's not just the people who live there who are reliant on the water; water is essential to support our national economy. The basin contributes $24 billion in agricultural earnings and around $8 billion in tourism in a normal year. That is absolutely huge. It supports so many jobs, so many people. The people who live there and rely on water for their existence also understand the ecology of the basin. They want the basin to remain healthy, because, when it is healthy, their lifestyles, their livelihoods and their production are enhanced and they are able to continue. The people who live there and rely on the water do not want this compromised.

We know that the water is essential for the natural environment in the basin, including for the 16 internationally significant wetlands and the endangered species that inhabit this area. We know this in the National Party. That is why we are fighting for a fair plan that will protect the environment and also protect the livelihoods of the people who live there and the production, the jobs and the economy. To ensure a healthy working basin, water management is, as I've said, a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and the basin states. We all have a part to play in the management of the water in the basin. That's why we have a Basin Plan, which is an agreement between all basin jurisdictions that we will manage this finite resource in a sustainable way so that it will last well into the future and we can protect this very valuable resource.

In developing this bill, the Australian government has worked closely with basin states to ensure that the bill will have their support before it commences. A really important factor is that we have worked and consulted widely with the states that this will involve. It was in September 2020 that the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, the Hon. Keith Pitt, announced the government's intention to create the role of Inspector-General of Water Compliance. This bill will implement the government's commitment to strengthen the compliance and enforcement powers in the Murray-Darling Basin. There is absolutely no point in having a plan and having water allocations and water rights if this is not complied with and if there is no mechanism to actually enforce the details of the plan. This is a fundamental reason that we have police in Australia. There is no point in making laws if you can't enforce them. If you set a speed limit but there is no mechanism for ensuring compliance and enforcement, then there is absolutely no point in setting the speed limit in the first place. You might as well say, 'Go out and do whatever you want to do.' That is why we have committed to strengthen compliance and enforcement powers. This will give communities the assurance they deserve, regarding water management, in exactly the same way that road users are assured of the acts of other—

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McMahon, just one moment. Senator Thorpe, you can be quiet as well, thank you. Do not interject.

Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. From announcement to parliament, the government has delivered this bill in just eight months. We've listened to what the states, the users and the communities have said and we have come up with a bill in just eight months. This is testimony to constructive engagement with the states and opposition to deliver the accountability and integrity that communities expect from their governments.

This bill responds to recommendations in recent reports and reviews concerning water management in the basin, through both the Productivity Commission's 2018 Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment inquiry report and the 2017 Murray-Darling Basin water compliance review conducted by the MDBA and an independent panel on this review. Compliance is at the heart of a fair water-sharing system. There is absolutely no point in having a system in place if we don't ensure that those that take part in it comply with it. This bill will establish a strong independent regulator at the basin scale and strengthen the compliance system.

This bill creates a real deterrence around water theft and illegal water-trading offences by establishing criminal and civil offences and strong penalties. Water theft, much like stock theft, is not a small crime. It is a large crime and it deeply affects those who suffer at the hands of this crime. I know, for example, that in the Northern Territory people often refer to stock theft as poddy-dodging, as though it's some kind of sport. But it is not a sport. It is theft—and theft is theft, no matter what you are stealing. If someone steals your car, you suffer. If someone steals your livestock, you suffer. If someone steals your water, you suffer. This is why there need to be penalties in place that will not only deter people from committing this crime but also penalise those who do.

Importantly, this bill recognises that the states are the primary and frontline managers for water compliance, but they are sometimes unable or unwilling to act. The Commonwealth will now have appropriate powers to step in and take enforcement action on water theft. The inspector-general will be able to work across the whole basin to strengthen compliance, increase transparency and improve trust. Trust is a very important thing that people need to have in this plan and in the regulators and the compliance and enforcement process.

A key priority for the inspector-general will be to encourage greater consistency in the guidelines and standards across the basin, so that all water users are held to the same high bar. This role will combine compliance and enforcement powers currently held by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the assurance role of the current interim inspector-general. In this role, the inspector-general will listen to the concerns of basin communities to ensure that their voices are heard when it comes to water compliance. The inspector-general will also undertake audits, inquiries and reports in a transparent manner. This gives communities and users confidence in the system.

The inspector-general will also work with other basin states to develop more consistent standards and guidelines. As I said, compliance is at the heart of a fair water-sharing system. All participants need to know that they are being held to the same standards and that they are playing by the same rules. Consistent standards and guidelines will provide the inspector-general with a framework to evaluate the performance of basin jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, in delivering the Basin Plan.

This bill builds on many years of engagement with Murray-Darling Basin communities and stakeholders. The basin's 2.2 million rural and regional water users will now have the assurance they deserve through stronger compliance, greater accountability and strengthened integrity around basin water management.

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

I endorse the bill to the chamber.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McAllister, on sheet 1340, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move the Greens amendment on sheet 1339:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls for the 450 gigalitres promised in the Murray Darling Basin Plan for South Australia to be delivered on time and in full".

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

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

Mr President, I'll withdraw the division.

Question negatived.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will note the Australian Greens voted for that amendment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I'd like to be recorded as voting for that amendment.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Similarly, I would like to have the Labor Party's support for Senator Hanson-Young's amendment recorded.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.