Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

I move:

That Senate amendments (2) to (8), (10), (11) and (13) to (15) be disagreed to.

In my previous remarks I noted that last week the Senate debated the Water Amendment Bill over a number of days and that during that debate 16 amendments were debated and they are before us now. The government does not support 12 amendments—(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), (13), (14) and (15)—as listed in the schedule issued by the Senate that is before us today. Amendment (4) which proposes a new definition for ‘critical human needs’ is not supported as it cannot be supported by the referral of powers from Murray-Darling Basin states. As referred text, this aspect of the act cannot be changed without working through the various mechanisms of the referral, including reconsideration of the provision by the state parliaments. In addition, the government does not support the policy intent of the change.

A number of the Senate amendments are not consistent with the policy behind the Water Amendment Bill and the government does not support them. These amendments are amendment (2), which proposes a role for the Productivity Commission in the review of the operation of the Water Act 2007, which is not supported in particular because of the detailed review provisions that are already in place; and amendments (6), (7) and (13), which propose to limit new extractions of water from the Murray-Darling Basin and impact upon existing extractions from the basin. The government is not supportive of mechanisms that predetermine how water can be used so long as the extraction of that water is within the sustainable diversion limit established under the basin plan. Accordingly, the government does not support these amendments.

The government does not support amendment (8), which proposes that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority pursue the objects of the act and make recommendations to others to do the same. The purpose of the authority’s basin plan already is to promote the objectives of the act and we have concerns about the independence of other agencies if this parliament provides for the authority to make recommendations to other agencies. We do not support amendment (11), which proposes changes to the basis of engaging members of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and has the potential to alter the governance arrangements for this organisation in a way that is not supported by the government and is also inconsistent with the intergovernmental agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform signed by first ministers in July; and amendment (14), which proposes the development of a legislative instrument associated with entries into the water market by the Commonwealth. The Minister for Climate Change and Water intends to develop and publish guidelines on the Commonwealth’s water purchasing programs. Accordingly, this amendment is not supported, on the basis of the transparent approach the government is already taking in respect of its purchasing activities. Amendment (15), which proposes funding communities around the Lower Lakes and Coorong in South Australia, is not supported given the substantial and effectively targeted funding that is already flowing to support the needs of this important region under the Water for the Future program.

I refer now additionally to amendments that are not supported as they do not in fact achieve anything that the current Water Act 2007 and Water Amendment Bill 2008 do not already achieve, or are achieved through other means and are thus redundant. They are: amendment (3), which proposes auditing for the water recovery aspects of the Living Murray Initiative, which we believe is duplicative of existing thorough auditing arrangements which we fully support; amendment (5), which proposes a whole-of-basin approach be adopted by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which is already extensively provided for through the existing provisions; and amendment (10), which proposes to restate constraints on the directions of the minister to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which are already stated elsewhere in the Water Act 2007.

I will just comment on the remarks that have been made by the member for Windsor. It would be unreasonable for the government to require a detailed assessment of potential groundwater impacts associated with mining prior to even the issue of exploration licences and, whilst noting what the member has said, the government would and will oppose any amendment along the lines of the ones that are in front of us now. We do not believe that parliament should be imposing on the rights of state governments to issue mining licences, and the government has been consistent on that position from day one.

See this speech in context