Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to respond to what the minister has just said, and he may be able to outline in some greater depth some of the relationships that he just established. He referred to the way in which the original Water Act, the act that we are amending, actually allows for an independent study of this nature to take place. But he would be well aware of section 22(7) of the act. It says that this can go as far—that this ‘may’ require. Right throughout the amendment bill that we are debating today and the act itself there are these constant references to ‘can’ and ‘may’.

The point I was making earlier is that that does not mean that they will in fact carry out a study. The fact is that you yourself, Minister, again said that the mining licence arrangements are a state issue. Minister, you spent quite some time in your speech talking about the blame game in terms of the Murray-Darling system and the history of what has happened. A lot of the tragedies in the Murray-Darling system have occurred because of exactly that principle—one state was doing something and another state was doing something else.

This whole amendment bill is about bringing a process together that has an impact across the four states. I do not have any argument with that, but how can you bring a process together when, as you have said in your own words, the state will determine where the licences are? The member for Kennedy was right; the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act does allow the Commonwealth minister to override the states in relation to some of these issues, but how can you override something if you have no knowledge of the potential impact of it? We have this absurd arrangement where the National Water Commission, I think it is, is carrying out a survey of the impacts of mining on groundwater systems essentially in reverse—waiting for an impact to occur and then saying, ‘If we do that again, we had better change the rules.’ That is a farcical way to look at this. These are highly valuable lands. What is the point of this legislation if it is not about preserving our environment?

Here we have an unknown risk—there is a lot of talk of risk assessment in the amendment bill—to the environment. How can you determine a cap on the system when you do not know how much is coming from the groundwater systems into the system? If someone knows what that amount of water is, they should say. We do not understand those systems. I chaired a committee in 2000 on this very valley, and the lack of knowledge was outstanding. Determining the interconnectivity between groundwater zones side by side was almost guesswork. We do not understand those systems. The Commonwealth does have a role. It makes a farce of this bill if, in fact, because of the relationship between the states and the Commonwealth, a state can actually go ahead and, because of its lack of knowledge, do whatever it likes in relation to mining, thus destroying the very initiatives that you, Minister Garrett, and Minister Wong are trying to put in place for the preservation of the environment.

You also refer, Minister, to the issuance of mining licences, which is a state issue. Irrigation licences are a state issue as well. I would like you to comment on this if you would. Are you saying that the state will have jurisdiction over the issuance of irrigation licences as well within the context of the four-state agreement? I do not think you are, but you cannot have it both ways and say that one is on one side of the fence and the other one is on the other side. We are going to castrate the irrigation industry through a process but allow big business to move across the food-producing areas. I ask you to answer those questions. I believe the coalition will be supporting this legislation and I thank them for that. I intend to take this further and talk to the crossbenchers in the Senate to see whether this amendment can be relayed in the Senate. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Windsor’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context