Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity today to sum up debate on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. It has been a long journey since last year. I would like to thank the Senate for passing this bill, and all the senators and the members of parliament who have contributed to the debate. As I outlined in my speech earlier today, the purpose of this bill is to repeal the National Water Commission Act of 2004 in order to abolish the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission has played an important role in the monitoring and auditing of water reform policy implementation and management nationally since the National Water Initiative was agreed to a decade ago. This legislation abolishes the National Water Commission as a stand-alone agency, but—and this is a very significant point—the Abbott government will not be abolishing the key functions of the National Water Commission, which is something that seems to have escaped members opposite. We will not be abolishing the key functions carried out by the National Water Commission; our government will ensure they are enshrined with the appropriate body to ensure these auditing and monitoring functions are undertaken.

Firstly, I would like to point out that water reform in this country is directed by the Commonwealth and state governments—the governments responsible for managing water each and every day in this nation. Those in opposition would have the public believe the water reform that was implemented on the ground extensively across the country in both the urban and rural water space was only achieved because of the National Water Commission. That is absolutely false. I am appreciative of the work of the National Water Commission. They have done an outstanding job, a great job, in encouraging national water reform and in making sure, particularly in the early years, that the states and the Commonwealth worked to implement the National Water Initiative principles. That is the key point here; it was the implementation of the National Water Initiative principles—they drove it and made sure it was adhered to. It was the states, however, that improved our urban water management, the states that drove the development of our water markets and the states that are working with the Commonwealth to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

As I say, I thank the National Water Commission for the work they have undertaken since 2005, but I have to be honest and acknowledge the work undertaken by the responsible ministers and departments at state and Commonwealth levels to make Australia a world leader in water management. The National Water Initiative principles that continue to guide us today were developed and agreed to by all governments in 2004, and this important milestone helped to set our nation on a pathway of improving the management of our most important resource—water—with a national focus. Most significantly, this happened in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, which has been the most significant water management exercise in the world, perhaps only surpassed by the work that is currently happening in the Mekong.

From listening to the speakers on the other side of the House you could be mistaken for thinking that the National Water Commission is the primary body responsible for developing and implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The plan was developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and is being implemented by relevant departments of both Commonwealth and basin states. The Abbott government has committed to delivering the Basin Plan in full with triple bottom line focus that ensures the future for farmers, the community and the environment. The abolition of the National Water Commission will not impact upon this commitment. I want to restate that, because obviously members on the other side are not listening: the abolition of the National Water Commission will not restrict the ability of governments at a state or federal level to deliver plans in full with integrity on time.

We will meet the needs of every aspect of the environment through investing in water efficiency and infrastructure projects that will underpin the future productivity of our regional communities. In continuing with the understanding that it is the Commonwealth and state governments that continue to drive the nation's water reform agenda, our government will ensure that the oversight of the work being done to uphold and further the National Water Initiative principles continues. As many of the speakers have outlined today, the Productivity Commission will now be responsible for this work. This is a body of respected individuals who are well known for their independent advice to government, but I regret to say that, given the statements made by members on the other side of the chamber here today, they doubt the abilities or the integrity of the Productivity Commission. They doubt that they have the expertise to undertake key functions that are assigned to them; they doubt they can understand the complex nature of water issues. As colleagues of mine on this side have said, we are appalled to think that those opposite think so little of the Productivity Commission and their integrity and their ability.

Over many years the Productivity Commission has demonstrated an ability to handle wide-ranging and complex issues, including water. They are no strangers to water. The Productivity Commission has released no fewer than 40 separate reports on all areas of water, from urban water reform to declining water quality and diversity of farm irrigation. These reports include the 2006 research report Rural water use in the environment; the 2011 public inquiry into the Australian urban water sector; Towards urban water reform in 2008; Arrangements for setting drinking water standards in 2000 and so on—as I said, 40 separate reports covering all areas and aspects of water. This work achieved a complex, nuanced examination and was well received across industry, particularly by the urban water industry and their representatives—the Australian Water Association and the Water Services Association of Australia.

There are many other stakeholders who have supported the Productivity Commission's work, including the National Farmers' Federation—I want members opposite to hear this: including the National Farmers' Federation—who have been referred to extensively by opposition speakers in absolute ignorance, or arrogance. Yes, the NFF has some concerns with the transfer of functions to the Productivity Commission. But we actually listened to these. We addressed them. And in the government amendments that were moved in the Senate—which if members had actually looked at they would have understood—they bolster the stakeholder consultation and ensure the appointment of an associate commissioner with expertise in water resource management for each and every inquiry referred to the Productivity Commission. This is something that the Labor Party would have known if they had actually bothered to talk to the NFF. You see, the NFF put out a media release on 14 May which welcomed the passing of the abolition bill through the Senate and which commended the government for ensuring 'continued independent oversight of water reform'. I thank the NFF for working collaboratively with this government to ensure a positive outcome to this legislation. What it shows yet again is that the Labor Party is devoid of any ability to contribute to sensible, responsible policy development and legislation in this nation.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved and reiterate the functions that will be continuing under the government's legislation. As I said, the Productivity Commission will be responsible for the triennial assessment of progress towards achieving the National Water Initiative objectives, as well as the biennial National Water Planning Report Card, which is produced under the triennial assessment. The Productivity Commission will also have responsibility for the independent audit of implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated water resource plans. The Department of the Environment will be responsible for assessing milestone payments to the Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the National Partnership Agreement on implementing Murray-Darling Basin reform. The Department of the Environment will also provide advice on the status of implementation of the National Water Initiative to the Clean Energy Regulator as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011.

ABARES will take on responsibility for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report. The Bureau of Meteorology is working with state and territory governments and the water industry to continue the national performance reports for the urban water sector, which will provide an important annual snapshot of this section of the industry. The 2013-14 National Performance Report was released on 7 May 2015 by the bureau, and the states have committed to supporting an additional two years of the report at this time. I would like to reiterate that final point for the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, who is at the bench here: the Bureau of Meteorology has continued the production of the National Performance Report for the urban water industry, which provides an annual snapshot of the industry each year, and just this month they released the most recent, the 2013-14, report, and each state has committed to continuing to support this into the future. Contrary to the statements made by the member for Port Adelaide, we have not axed this important report, as he claimed here today. Whether it was ignorance, arrogance or a failure to do his job as the shadow minister and actually be on top of his own brief with the reports that are being put out, I find it abhorrent.

I am confident that our approach will deliver a win-win for water reform. We will continue the key functions of monitoring the work on implementing the National Water Initiative, the work of undertaking the five-yearly assessments of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Productivity Commission and the Department of the Environment embody significant and respected expertise in the water reform area. I am confident that our nation will be in good hands with the Productivity Commission monitoring the progress of implementation of the National Water Initiative principles. Our farming communities, environmental communities, tourism communities and the community as a whole, as I have travelled the basin, have demanded certainty and integrity in the process. Despite reaching out to members opposite, we have had no cooperation. Yet when I talk to their state colleagues we receive good cooperation. When I have raised this with the various states there has not been any great reason for concern, because they understand the independence and the integrity of people like ABARES and the Productivity Commission in their ability to do their job.

What we are seeing is opposition for opposition's sake. Even in the Senate, their senators on the crossbench understood the importance of doing this to save money, to make sure that the integrity was there in the reporting process. So, they understood, and with that support the bill passed the Senate. Tonight, here in this chamber, if Labor oppose this bill it shows again their total ignorance and arrogance towards members of regional farming communities who rely on water, the lifeblood of their community. As I said, the integrity lies with the referral of reporting to the Productivity Commission, to ABARES and to the department and of course the report from the Bureau of Meteorology. So, I propose that the question be put that this bill be now read a second time.

See this speech in context