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

I indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments (1), (9) and (12) be agreed to, that amendments (2) to (8), (10), (11), and (13) to (15) be disagreed to and that amendment (16) be agreed to with an amendment. Therefore, it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendments (1), (9) and (12) and then amendments (2) to (8), (10), (11), and (13) to (15) and then, when those amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendment (16). I move:

That Senate amendments (1), (9) and (12) be agreed to.

Last week the Senate debated the Water Amendment Bill 2008 over several days and during that debate they made the 16 amendments that are before us today. Of the 16 Senate amendments the government’s view is that (12) should be rejected on the basis that they would not be supported by the referral of power from the states, are against the policy position of the government or do not achieve anything that the current Water Act 2007 and Water Amendment Bill 2008 do not already achieve. The government support the four other amendments before us now, although we do have an amendment to one of those that I will refer to at the appropriate time.

The government’s view is that the substantive content of amendments (1) and (16), which relate to Indigenous representation on the Basin Community Committee, was supported by the government in the other place. The government proposed to further amend amendment (16), which as I just said we will discuss later. Amendment (9) requires the Commonwealth minister to give directions in accordance with the objects of the act and was not opposed in the other place. Amendment (12) requires an independent study to be undertaken to determine the impacts of proposed mining operations on groundwater systems within the Murray-Darling Basin. I recognise that this amendment is of particular interest to the member for New England.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are pleased to agree with the government on this occasion. In particular, in relation to amendments (1) and (16), they have moved to clarify what appeared, initially, to be a new class of water right. It was not a right which had previously been given airing or been agreed to, and the change in the government’s approach here through the amendment to amendment (16) enables us to support both amendments (1) and (16). We are very happy to support Indigenous representation as part of the basin consultation process.

Most importantly, I am pleased that the work of the member for Parkes in protection of groundwater is being recognised by what has been agreed to by the government here. This work in protection of groundwater—and I also acknowledge Mr Windsor—is critical. The member for Parkes has staked his career on ensuring that, where there is to be mining, there is to be real protection for groundwater. That the government has agreed to this motion in the form in which we amended it in the Senate is a step forward. I thank and congratulate them for that, and I am delighted that they have joined with us in supporting the work of the member for Parkes and others in this place. He has been a tireless campaigner for the protection of groundwater.

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

I particularly would like to address my comments to amendment (12), which the shadow minister has just referred to, in terms of the mitigation of unintended diversions. For the benefit of the House, I will be opposing that particular amendment. I would like to explain a little bit of the history in relation to this particular issue. I understand that the shadow minister is trying to save the scalp of one of his people, and that is okay in this place but it is not okay out there; people know exactly what is going on here.

I would like to go back a year, if I could, and reflect on a study that was put to the previous Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, where he publicly agreed to fund a study that looked at these very issues: the potential impact of mining on groundwater resources and the lack of scientific knowledge about the interconnectivity of those groundwater systems and their relationship to river water. Here we have a piece of legislation that is about a basin plan for the Murray-Darling and we have all these unknowns in terms of these interconnectivity issues.

Over and above that, we have the potential for mining in some of those areas and the interface of this plan, which is a Commonwealth initiated process through COAG, and a state based planning process which determines the granting of exploration licences and, eventually, mining licenses. The difficulty there is that the planning process at the state level is flawed in that it allows for the normal environmental impact statement process but does not allow for the downstream impacts that this particular activity could have if, in fact, some of those potential dangers were put in place.

So we fast-forward to 15 October 2008, when I moved an amendment in here which mentioned the word ‘exploration’. The coalition supported it. I do not think the member for Parkes even spoke on it but others did and supported it. It went to the Senate, where Senator Bob Brown moved a similar amendment; the coalition supported it and lauded themselves—particularly in the National Party—for how great they were for saving the Liverpool Plains. All they had done in fact was recreate the problem. The problem has always been that the state based planning process for the granting of exploration licences is flawed in that it only looks at localised impact and not downstream impact. It does not have to look at downstream impact.

What the National Party has done—and rather than them laud the member of Parkes, he should be ashamed of himself for actually supporting this particular removal of the word ‘exploration’—is recreate the problem, that problem being a flawed state based planning process. There is an issue here, and I will be reintroducing that amendment. Many of the National Party members have said, ‘Oh, we did not understand it.’ Even the member for Calare rang me after Mitch Hooke and the Minerals Council of Australia—through the member for Groom—had got to some of these vagrants in the National Party

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a barefaced lie.

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

You can explain yourself later on if you want to, and I think you should. The member for Calare rang me and said: ‘We made a terrible mistake; this is dreadful. It means no mining will ever take place in Australia ever again.’ What an absolute nonsense! The amendment that both the government and the opposition are going to accept now butchers that attempt to put in a clear amendment that, before an exploration licence is granted, proper scientific work be done into the groundwater systems so that we have an appreciation of what potential impacts mining activity could have on those sorts of things. I think the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts really should have a good look at what he is doing in terms of this and the stance that he is taking. This is no different, Minister, to national parks being exempt from mining. What could occur out of the original amendment and the one that I will reintroduce today is that certain areas are exempt from exploration. (Time expired)

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to correct a gross falsehood that has been put forward by the member for New England. I am happy to say in this parliament at this dispatch box that at no stage last week did I speak to any representative of the Minerals Council. If the member were a decent man, he would withdraw that allegation. The change was put in the amendment because it just did not make sense when it was brought to my attention. It is no secret, it was the Labor Party who brought it to my attention and said, ‘Do you want to support an amendment that is going to cripple the mining industry in Australia in the future?’ I said, ‘Of course not.’

That suggestion from the member for New England is completely, absolutely and totally false. As someone who has long experience working with the mining industry, long before I came into this place, and who is a farmer by trade, I take gross offence. If the member for New England would care to withdraw his suggestion, I would be appreciative of that.

The amendment moved by the coalition gives extra security to farmers and landholders before mining takes place. It is a commonsense, practical way to move forward and I congratulate the government for supporting it. It gives the opportunity to pick up where the states’ Labor governments—governments that the member for New England supported in his previous time in state government—amendments—

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

Oh rubbish! You want me to withdraw a comment and you say something like that. You’re an idiot.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the honourable member for New England made an unparliamentary remark about the member for Groom. He should withdraw it.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the member for Groom made one about him too earlier on.

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

To assist the House, I withdraw the last comment that I made but I think that anybody who takes the opportunity to read the Hansard will see what actually went on.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are going to withdraw, just withdraw.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I am not sure that was actually unparliamentary. I know the member has withdrawn.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member has withdrawn. I call the member for Groom.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for New England takes offence at the fact that he voted from time to time with the Labor government in New South Wales then that is his problem, but the facts will reflect that. The reality is that the amendment put forward by the coalition and supported by the Labor Party gives farmers not only in New South Wales but across Australia more protection. I congratulate the member for Parkes for his positive approach on this. He has made sure that the issues relating to his electorate were not only raised with me but raised in this parliament.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for New England raises a point about the impact of mining on the Liverpool Plains. On that point he receives no disagreement from me. The impact of mining on some of the most productive agricultural land in the world is something that has to be avoided at all costs. I might point out that I voted for his amendment when it came through the House the first time despite the fact that at no time did he contact me, ask me for support or indicate in anyway that he was doing that. On good faith, I supported his amendment.

Upon reflection and on looking further into it, I feel that I cannot support his amendment now because basically it will not help the people who are under pressure on the Liverpool Plains at the moment. The licence to explore has already been issued and at the moment the process is currently underway in that area. As I speak, a group of farmers are blockading the entrance to a property on the Liverpool Plains in protest at what BHP are doing.

I am concerned that the real issue, which is that the planning process for mining in New South Wales is under the control of the New South Wales government, is getting clouded here. What would clear this issue up once and for all would be for the New South Wales government to agree to, and for the federal government to co-fund, an independent hydrological study into the Liverpool Plains so that a full picture of the situation with the interconnecting aquifers underneath that plain can be thoroughly assessed. I fully support that point. I am terribly disappointed that it was indicated prior to the election that an agreement had been made and somewhere during the process of election last year that did not come off, because the people in the Liverpool Plains want assistance now. While I agree very much with the intention of the member, I do not believe that the change in the amendment will allow that to take place.

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

Mr Windsor interjecting

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The problem is that the member for New England somehow lifted the expectations of the people in the Caroona area, an area that is divided between his electorate and mine, and there was a great expectation that somehow his amendment was going to save the day when in actual fact his amendment was more about grandstanding. The people who are suffering are the good farmers on the Liverpool Plains. While it pains me considerably that these people are suffering as such, it is my duty as their representative in Canberra to actually support legislation that will benefit them. Unfortunately, the member for New England’s amendment does not do that. I will reiterate: what the people on the Liverpool Plains want in the Caroona area and now the Watermark area is a hydrological study. I believe that we should have a study of the entire Namoi Basin on the flood plain area to assess the situation before any further exploration or mining takes place.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, just in terms of amendment (12) again, the word ‘idiot’ was used and there is some debate about whether it is an acceptable word to use. I would ask the general public who are listening to this: if someone votes in the House of Representatives for an amendment that is five lines long—an amendment which the coalition voted for; the member for Parkes just said that he voted for it—and if the same group of people in another place laud that amendment as being one of the greatest processes of probity that the parliament has ever seen—

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is the member for New England speaking on a point of order?

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we are considering Senate amendments. The member for New England is speaking to the question that Senate amendments (1), (9) and (12) be agreed to.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he is not speaking to those amendments; he is speaking to a previous withdrawal that he has made. To assist the House and others who are interested in other substantive amendments to the bill, could he please wind up and not try to defend previous statements?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The member for New England is in order.

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

If that same group of people in the Senate who supported that amendment and lauded it—Senator Williams, Senator Barnaby Joyce and many of the others said it was a great amendment that Senator Brown was introducing into the Senate—then suddenly, on Wednesday night, find that it is not a great amendment, that they have made a mistake, then one would have to consider the word ‘idiot’ as being an apt description of their capacity to intellectually engage with five lines. In consultation with Mitch Hooke and others and the member for Groom, they have decided that there is a way out of this: ‘If we remove the term ‘mining’ and not have exploration licences, there is a way through this that can save the member for Parkes and others’ necks by confusing the issue.’ But, as I said earlier, all that has done is reinstate the very thing the member for Parkes just spoke against, the state based planning process, which is a problem, particularly when we have just initiated a basin planning process for the Murray-Darling system, we are going to do substantial water audits, both in quality and quantity, and we do not know the impacts of these interconnectivity issues.

The member for Groom took offence at a couple of things I said. Senator Barnaby Joyce is on the public record as saying they were leaned on by the Minerals Council—that is his statement. For the member for Groom to jump up and down and say this is a tragedy—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Briggs interjecting

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

If you have got something to say, you can take five minutes on your feet. I agree with the member for Parkes: we will be successful in getting a study of the Namoi. But what that means in the Murray-Darling context is that an opportunity is going to be missed because we have got people on Haystack Plain on the Darling Downs with a similar issue and there are a number of locations across the Murray-Darling system that are going to experience these very same issues. And if we have to go through this political nonsense every time one of those issues is raised, to beg and cajole to get some money for an independent study, then heaven help us. I am very disappointed in the member for Parkes. I get on well with him personally, but this is an absolute cop-out for the people he is representing—and not only for those people but for the people that I represent in the same valley system. It is an absolute cop-out and an abrogation of the responsibility that he has been given by his constituents.

The other issue that was raised in relation to this by Senator Williams, a National Party senator, is that the original amendment that the coalition and Senator Williams voted for in the Senate was going to ruin small exploration companies because they would have to incur enormous expense to allow them to explore. The amendment is about the granting of exploration licences. No-one, even under today’s flawed process, explores unless they are granted an exploration licence. (Time expired)

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

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As of this moment, the government, the Prime Minister, Senator Wong and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts own the north-south pipeline. By disallowing the amendments that the Senate has made to block the north-south pipeline, by overriding not just the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens, and Family First but also the Independents, and by overriding the will of the Senate, what they are saying to the people of Victoria, the people of the Goulburn and the people of the Murray is very simple: green light to Mr Brumby for the pipeline and red light to the Senate, which sought to block this pipeline. They will override the Senate. They will make the Senate’s work void. They will say to the people of Victoria: ‘There is no hope. We have ruled that this pipeline will go ahead.’ They have made the Senate meaningless by overriding the will of the Senate. And in addition they have done it by overriding a very simple amendment which calls for the Living Murray agreement to be honoured.

The Living Murray agreement was an agreement which was designed to introduce and to return water to the Murray. That water will now, through an accounting trick, be held back for two, three, maybe four years and sucked up the pipeline instead of going down the Murray and down the Goulburn as was intended. This is utterly outrageous.

Another thing they do in these amendments is knock on the head $50 million for the people of the Lower Lakes, people who have not had access to structural adjustment funding for small businesses—for the communities, the boat builders, the boat operators and the tourism operators. At the end of the day we will stand by our amendments from the House. They cover a range of matters but, most importantly, they stand to protect the people of the Goulburn and the Murray from having water taken away by the north-south pipeline. We will stand by the people of the Lower Lakes.

But let it be known that from this moment forward, Kevin Rudd owns the north-south pipeline. He has given it a green light. He has overridden the Senate. He had used bullyboy tactics and numbers in this House to override the will of the people in the Senate. It is a dark day for people who care about the future of the Murray and the future of the Goulburn and the future of the Lower Lakes.

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak specifically about Senate amendment (6) to the Water Amendment Bill 2008 which refers to the north-south pipeline or, put simply, the government giving the imprimatur to the Victorian government to act as a rogue trader, acting to extract a net amount of 75 billion litres of water out of the Murray-Darling system and to send it down a pipe to Melbourne, a pipe that will travel a distance of some 75 kilometres from the township of Yea in my electorate to the Sugarloaf Reservoir, also in my electorate.

It surely defies all reason. It does certainly for those of us on this side of the House and I am quite sure to anyone listening in to this debate. On the one hand, we have the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, spending in excess of $12 billion to put water back into the Murray-Darling Basin system and, on the other hand, we have the government, with the imprimatur of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts at the table, saying to the Victorian government: ‘It is okay for you to take this unaudited water that you claim to be saving from your food modernisation project. It is okay to take that water out of the system, send it down to Melbourne and construct a pipeline to the tune of over $1.5 billion to send this water.’ The minister at the table has given the Victorian government the authority to flagrantly breach all of the conditions which the other states could not breach as part of a national management strategy for a national management plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. It is just bad policy, no matter which way you look at it—stealing the water out of the system. The Victorian government did not consult with anyone. They did not consult with the Commonwealth, they certainly did not consult with local communities in my electorate and they are getting away with acting as rogue traders in this instance. It is simply a nonsense at that level, and it makes a nonsense of the government’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The minister for the environment, who is sitting at the table, surely could not be aware that along the length of the pipeline there would need to be five pumping stations—if ever they can find the water to send it down to Melbourne out of this heavily stressed region in drought—pumping emissions into the atmosphere. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have to ask yourself why the Victorian government would make this decision and overturn a previous commitment. Why does the Rudd government support the Victorian government in this very bad policy? The answer, of course, lies in votes in Melbourne. They do not care what this does to all the people in the farming communities. They do not give two hoots about the people in the Goulburn Valley. Their only concern is shoring up votes in Melbourne.

People listening to this debate must also understand that the Rudd government is giving its imprimatur to the types of activities that the Victorian government has endorsed. As a local policeman said to me about their water legislation just recently, these Melbourne Water officials have more power than the police in Victoria. They have the authority to enter people’s land. More than 10 of my constituents have been arrested for trying to protect their own property. I have witnessed Melbourne Water officials cutting padlocks and entering properties. I have also seen them taking heavy equipment and dragging it through paddocks that have been locked up to make hay. I have witnessed the damage on people’s individual properties and also through the Kinglake National Park and the Toolangi National Park, yet the minister for the environment is the person who has given his imprimatur to this project and is allowing the Victorian government to act in such a rogue manner in stealing water out of the basin and to act so irresponsibly. (Time expired)

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason the amendments that we support to the Water Amendment Bill 2008 are being disagreed to by the government is quite obviously the fact that they have absolutely nothing to lose politically. They have not one seat in the basin that is affected by all their decisions. There are something like 17 seats in the basin and the government touches just fractionally on three of them. The coalition and one Independent are in the rest of them. On one day the government bought Toorale Station and about 13,000 megalitres of water. This took about 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the shire of Bourke. The next day they gave permission for a pipeline capable of carrying 110 gigalitres of water. Yes, it might only be 75 gigalitres at the moment, but that pipeline has the capacity for 110 gigalitres of water. If they are serious about desalination or reusing waste water in Melbourne, why do they need this? What Brumby wants, and what the Prime Minister is agreeing to, is to take away the necessity for the Victorian government to spend money on desalination. They are going to steal water out of the Murray-Darling Basin instead.

It is very plain that this is a political decision. It is meant to make Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide happy—although I am not quite sure it is going to make Adelaide very happy at all. It is certainly intended to make Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane think that they are dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin. They are dealing with it, but they are just buying everything out of it and heaven help the two million people who live in it. They will have to suffer simply because there is no political backlash as the government do not hold any seats there. Why are they buying water from people at the most vulnerable stage of their careers? They are drought ridden, such as those on the Lachlan River, which has had no general allocation in six years. Of course they are in trouble. They are looking to sell water because banks are on their backs and all those things we know about.

If that is the case, and if the government want to be fair dinkum about this, why did they not agree to the amendment on transparency, which would have ensured that those buying knew what their water, in a particular part of the river system, was worth so that they would be not be cheated? This government are trying, at this time, to buy the most airspace rather than water, because the water is quite obviously not in the dams. They are trying buy water as cheaply as possible under secret tender. They might become transparent about it after the event, but they are not going to let people know what the going market price is while they are doing it. They have allocated $3.6 billion so far towards buying water, and when they do buy it, nobody else will be able to compete against them, nor will they try. This is probably the most heartless thing we have ever seen. They have got rid of absolutely all of the restructuring money. They are totally unconcerned.

Do not laugh and shake your head, the member for Maribyrnong; your own minister quite bluntly said that there would be no restructuring money. It is not just my electorate that is going to suffer here. It will be everyone in the Murray-Darling Basin. It will not just be the people who use water to irrigate who will suffer from this. There are many towns, communities and workers that will suffer. When the government knocked off the station of Toorale, gave it to the New South Wales government and made that a burden on the Bourke community—rather than the bonus it had been, as the best station west of the Darling River—they turned their back on that community. And I have heard them, including the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, who is opposite, stand up in this House and skite about that.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to argue very strongly that all of the amendments to the Water Amendment Bill 2008 be supported. In particular I am understandably concerned about amendment (6), which talks about making sure that we do not allow further extractions from the Murray-Darling Basin for non-basin use. In particular, this amendment focuses on something like the north-south pipeline, a project which would take some 75 gigalitres minimum, but up to 100 gigalitres, to deliver water out of the Murray-Darling Basin—out of the most degraded tributary to the Murray, the Goulburn River.

That water would be delivered to Melbourne, which has options. Those options include recycling—not necessarily for potable use, but for all of its industrial and outdoors use. Also in Melbourne they could do a lot more with their Eastern Treatment Plant. They could look at their stormwater harvesting—or rather the lack of it—and desalinisation plants. We know that Melbourne has alternatives which could drought proof it. It is not a sensible or happy alternative to have it hooked into a drought-stressed part of the basin which, as I said, has already been officially designated the most degraded in the system.

Let me also say that I am stunned at the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, who is sitting at the table, denying these amendments. He, himself, recognised the environmental impacts of this pipeline when he designated it as a controlled action under the EPBC Act.

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

Mr Garrett interjecting

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He denies it; that is interesting. The minister says that he did not designate it as a controlled action under the EPBC Act. The government did—is that what you mean, Minister? You are denying it and washing your hands of it. That is very interesting; let me take note.

Someone in the government designated the pipeline as a controlled action under the EPBC Act. The minister, under his hand—he is denying it so someone forged his signature—said that there was a series of conditions applying to that pipeline. Those conditions included such things as not using the environmental reserve out of the Eildon Dam—there are 30 gigalitres there—and making sure there were environmental plans for the numbers of vulnerable species. The third major area of conditions was that water already saved through the investment of the Living Murray or Water for Rivers programs could not be not sent to Melbourne.

Those conditions in themselves recognised the problem of the pipeline and its pure absurdity in robbing Peter to pay Paul in taking water out of a drought-stressed, climate-change-affected part of the catchment over the range to Melbourne. Sadly, the minister—and we now begin to understand why—has let the ball drop on those conditions. We already have Premier Brumby quite happily having water from the environment reserve in Eildon, some 10 gigalitres, go to another city—that is, the city of Bendigo. So we have no real trust in the minister for the environment upholding that condition. We have already seen wriggle room given to Premier Brumby about water already paid for and saved under the Living Murray and Water for Rivers programs.

Let me tell you what we sacrifice when we send a pipeline with the precious water out of the basin over the Great Divide to Melbourne. We have rural communities there who are food producers. They produce many billions of dollars worth of food annually which has produced export earnings for the state, including the biggest exports of milk powder commodities out of Geelong, and has also supplied Australia with cheap, clean, green dairy products, fruit products, meats and a whole range of wines and vine fruit. All of that is now in jeopardy because this government says that the pipeline will go ahead. We do not have any cost-benefit analysis. We do not have any environmental analysis. There is no social impact assessment. Again, in his words just a few minutes ago, the minister has knocked that amendment out.

This pipeline is going to go ahead because basically people who live to the north of the Great Divide do not vote Labor, and therefore there is not a vote to be lost, the state governments thinks, by taking the water from the basin to Melbourne—which has options. I say to you, Minister: have some principles, start to think about the environmental impacts, the social and human impacts and the food security losses to Australia. I call on the minister to uphold his EPBC conditions. He has already denied they are his. I beg that he goes back and looks at his own documentation, because he will live to rue the day that he let this pipeline go ahead on his watch. And the people of Melbourne themselves, when they come to understand the travesty of justice that has occurred, will be asking Premier Brumby why he let it happen. Certainly the people in my electorate know why it is happening: it is about politics, and they are deeply traumatised and distressed by the fact that they cannot go on being food producers, their children do not have a future, the environment will be severely degraded and food will not be provided. (Time expired)

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

There are couple of issues that I would like to speak about briefly. I support the member for Murray in terms of amendment (6) to the Water Amendment Bill 2008. It seems to me that not supporting it makes a nonsense of what we are trying to achieve in relation to the totality of the Murray-Darling system, particularly when there are other options available. Most of our capital cities are surrounded by water, but there are problems with that water in that it has salt in it. Some cities are taking the salt out of the water and using the water, and we are told that, if climate change does persist—I think it probably will, and I support the government on its initiatives; in fact, I encourage it to do more than what it seems it is going to do—and polar meltdowns occur, we are going to have more water around our cities. So to be taking a highly valuable resource and transferring it back to a city from an inland river system seems to me to be the height of absurdity when all those other options are available. I sat on a committee that looked at some of the options for Melbourne a few years back, and I do not think any of those recommendations have been taken into account.

The other issue I want to speak briefly about is the disaster that has occurred in the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. Here again, I have real difficulty in reconciling the logic. I remember Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong travelling to the Murray mouth—and I have been to the Murray mouth on a number of occasions to look at what is happening down there. They were making the point, in terms of the Murray mouth and this legislation, that we had to do something for the totality of the system rather than four states governing the river systems—we had to do something because what we had done in the past was a massive mistake. There are certain issues that we can all argue about: barrages, for instance. What are they doing there? Who put them there? Why are they there?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because we regulate it.

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

I know what the answer is but, if we are trying to gain a more natural system, should they be there in the first place? Lake Alexandrina and the smaller lakes have destroyed the surrounding environment. But the point I make in terms of that issue is that, if we agree with the logic that the Prime Minister and Minister Wong were using, that we have made mistakes in the past, then we really should do something to make sure that it does not happen again. To do that, we need a process, a basin plan that this legislation goes towards putting in place. Why would we not get the science right in terms of the water within the system? Why, suddenly, is the mining industry exempt when the irrigation industry is not? Why are we condemning past procedures—in terms of allocation, land clearing and some of those issues—and then sitting back in this place and allowing an activity like mining?

I am not against coalmines; I have a coalmine next door to me and I work well with it, but surely, Minister Garrett, we need to examine the science of these systems and work out how they work to start with—because we do not understand that—and then overlay a three-dimensional map, in a sense, of what would happen if we allow an activity such as mining to take place in the various groundwater systems. The logic, Minister, does not fit. I agree—and I have argued for quite some years—that we should be doing something about the Murray-Darling system, and I am pleased to see something is being done. But to exempt big business in an area where there is a highly productive food-producing capacity makes a nonsense of the logic.

The previous government spent $8 million on water reform and not one megalitre of water was added back into the system. I would hate to see this legislation wend its way through history and another $10 million spent with very little— (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on these amendments to the Water Amendment Bill 2008. Firstly, I want to speak about the comments the member for New England has just made about the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, about Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert. In relation to the barrages, they are there because the rest of the system is overextracted and overregulated. You cannot argue that historically the barrages were not there, so we should return to that situation. To do so you would have to remove all the weirs and locks along the way to give the flow back to the system. It simply does not make sense to argue that we should take the barrages out and flood the Lower Lakes with salt water and that that is how it used to be, because the rest of the system was not regulated as it is today. It just does not make sense, and I will make some comments about that later in this contribution.

I wish to speak in support of two amendments in particular: amendment (6) in relation to the pipeline and the extraction of water for the pipeline, and amendment (15) in relation to the assistance package for the people of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. I will speak to the assistance package amendment first. The disaster at the Lower Lakes is very hard to understand from this place. The livelihoods of the people down there are suffering enormously. They rely very much on the tourism industry in many respects. The irrigators along the Lower Lakes can no longer access water and have not been able to for some time. We need to help these people in their hour of need. It is not good enough for the minister to throw up his hands and say, ‘We are doing all these different things to reform the system.’ I understand that long-term structural issues are being dealt with. They were laid out in a plan by the Leader of the Opposition and the former Prime Minister in January 2007, and if the Premier of Victoria had not stood in the way—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He didn’t take it to cabinet, though, did he?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the member for Maribyrnong, the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, is desperate to jump over the minister and take the minister’s portfolio but he should let the minister interject if he wishes. The plan was laid out in January 2007, and that deals with the long-term structural issues. But, in the short term, these people need some help to get through what is an absolute crisis in the system. Their livelihoods are being destroyed. Community groups and community facilities, like the golf course and the footy grounds and so forth, which are so important to the Australian culture, are dying because water cannot be accessed or cannot be accessed at a reasonable price. What I am asking for, and what the people of my electorate are asking for, is a bit of help to get through the situation.

I was disappointed on Thursday that the Minister for Climate Change and Water—and I know she is under extraordinary pressure at the moment—claimed that this was a political stunt. I can tell you it is not. The member for Murray said earlier that ministers do not respond on these issues because there are no Labor voters north of the divide. I am happy to say that in my by-election there were no Labor voters, because Labor would not run. They would not run because they are embarrassed about what has happened in the Lower Lakes and their response to it. I urge the minister at the table, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, and the minister for climate change to reconsider their decision on these amendments. It would assist the people in the area. I urge the parliamentary secretary to come and visit me in Mayo and I will take him to the Lower Lakes, and I urge the minister to do the same. It is a disaster and it would be of great assistance to the people of the region if we could get a package of help.

Secondly, I wish to deal with the pipeline—one of the most absurd policy decisions ever made. We have, as the member for New England said, a situation where the system is overextracted already and a government says, ‘I know what we’ll do—we’ll extract more.’ That is simply what they have done. They have said, ‘We’ll extract more.’ It just does not make sense. Explain that to the people of the Lower Lakes, who I notice today are now threatened by the state government with flooding with salt water. The minister is probably not aware, but I am sure his staff are, that the state Labor government has applied today for approval to let seawater go into the Lower Lakes. The government are allowing 75 gigs to come out of the Goulburn River but will not let that prevent the Lower Lakes from being flooded. It is a disgrace. I urge the minister to not approve this application. This is a white flag for the Lower Lakes and a green flag for the pipeline. It is a disgrace and the minister has the power to stop it. (Time expired)

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak as a representative of an electorate that is going to be directly impacted by Labor’s north-south pipeline. I am particularly proud that on this side of the House we are taking a strong stand against this pipeline—a single decision made by the state Labor government in Victoria that will have the greatest negative impact on country Victoria, particularly in north and north-east Victoria. The premise upon which the opposition oppose the pipeline is simple: we believe that it is unacceptable for water to be diverted from a stressed river catchment so that it can be piped to a capital city. We find it unacceptable that, as local farmers in my electorate struggle with the harsh and prolonged drought, the government wishes to steal water from these drought ravaged catchments.

This is Labor’s pipeline. Steve Bracks created it and now John Brumby has to implement it. It was state Labor’s creation because they failed to invest in adequate water infrastructure, and now they want to punish our agricultural industries and steal our water. This is state Labor’s invention but it is about to become federal Labor’s political death knell for the Murray-Darling. In other words: John Brumby’s policy plaything will highlight Kevin Rudd’s imprimatur for the self-destruction of the Murray-Darling. The Prime Minister has to take, and will take, personal responsibility for this pipeline—after all, the buck stops with him, we keep getting told—if these amendments are not passed. If Labor buckle and pass the bill in its current form, as they probably will, and side with the Victorian Labor Party and their mates, Labor members opposite will have shown that they stand for the destruction of the Murray-Goulburn system and authorise a project to take between 75 and 100 billion litres of water from this already stressed system.

The minister ignored detailed analysis of the submissions regarding referral to the EPBC Act. He gave it the green light. He and his Labor colleagues opposite can now stand up and be counted. They can go along with the Victorian government’s line or they can take a stand for the Murray-Darling Basin, which is highly unlikely. They need to decide whether to use their numbers to stand up for farmers and water users in our region and the environment or simply endorse state Labor’s flawed agenda, which will devastate farmers, residents and families right across my and other electorates. But, as we have seen from this federal Labor government, bailing out their state mates from the poor decisions they have made is a pattern that they will probably follow.

You can see the embarrassment on federal Labor politicians’ faces when they are called on to defend the pipeline proposal. When the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, was on the ABC’s Q&A program, he said that Labor’s pipeline was necessary because it was for drinking water for humans in Melbourne. This is blatantly untrue, because the pipeline will only redirect water from our food-growing region to be flushed down toilets and to go over cars, down gutters and onto lawns in Melbourne. It is also worth noting that the Labor Party made an election promise in Victoria to not take water from our farmers north of the divide, from the Goulburn and the Murray. These rivers are under pressure and they know it. Farmers are crying out for assistance and all that state and federal Labor can offer them is a ridiculous plan to steal their water. Have members opposite not read the recent CSIRO report or the recent Murray-Darling sustainable yield report? This information highlights the severe stress that these systems currently face, yet the Labor Party think it is appropriate to drain water away from this system. Labor’s pipeline to Melbourne is a disaster in waiting. Even Victoria’s Auditor-General has expressed concern at the handling of the project and its intent. The message for Labor is clear: the drought is not yet over and our water storages are still low. There is very little chance of there being any significant water savings over the next three years, meaning that this pipeline project could well go down in history as nothing more than an expensive white elephant.

To make matters worse, the Victorian government are trying to portray as criminals the country residents against the pipeline. The north-south pipeline is the single most disastrous policy put forward by the Victorian Labor government, and let me tell you: there is some competition for that label. It has been condemned by farmers and residents across the north-east and has even been vehemently opposed by the 2007 Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, and Australian Greens leader Bob Brown, on environmental grounds. Yet the Labor government continue to arrogantly push ahead with it, demonstrating how truly out of touch they are. I call on members opposite to take a stand against the north-south pipeline, put the welfare of rural and regional Australia ahead of toeing the party line and stop defending the government in Victoria. Winning an election does not mean that they have carte blanche to destroy the natural resources and the local communities in country Victoria. Show some courage and support the opposition’s amendments. (Time expired)

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

Can I make a few points in reply to the comments that have been made by opposition members and point out to them something which has so far escaped their comprehension in the debate on this bill—that is, prior to the passage of the Water Act 2007, the opposition leader’s legislation, the government knew full well about Premier Bracks’s decision to construct this pipeline. They knew full well about it, but they chose to do nothing about it.

We have had opposition members in here lecturing us about the morality of dealing with water. Can I point out to members opposite that they did nothing substantial about water for a decade and more. What has changed since then is that they are now in opposition and they are basically going through an exercise of pulling stunts, scoring cheap political points, bringing commentary into the House which is either inaccurate or untrue. The fact is that the agreement that was secured earlier this year—the historic agreement through the Council of Australian Governments—to undertake the reform of the Murray-Darling Basin was, at this point, the kind of reform that both the states and the Commonwealth needed, but that the previous government, the Liberal-National Party coalition, was simply incapable of doing. That is the point that those opposite do not seem to understand.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’ve still got a right to veto. How is that historic?

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

That agreement enabled the referral of powers to the Commonwealth so that the new authority could manage the basin as a whole, for a whole-of-basin plan. The problem is that some members opposite—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you’re not managing it for the whole. That is a complete fib!

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

The member for Mayo has had every opportunity to put his views. I think this is an opportunity for him to listen as the government puts its views back to the opposition. The fact of the matter is that those opposite have got conflicted positions on this particular issue.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Oh yes, they have conflicted issues on water buyback. The member for Calare has gone now, but he is completely in opposition to the shadow minister on this issue. With respect to the shadow minister, let us just be clear: he said, ‘We will not stand in the way of the Water Act.’ I am looking at the Australian of 14 November and he said:

Mr Hunt said he would not delay the passage of the federal bill, despite his planned amendments.

So are the members opposite going to block real reform or are they going to continue to play politics in the Senate with it? Is the opposition going to recognise that, at this stage, in order to properly engage in the process of water reform—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to stop the pipeline?

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want to own the pipeline? If you don’t overturn this, you will own the pipeline!

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

Thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will refrain from speaking across the chamber to these continuing, rude interjections.

I will now refer to some of the substance of the amendments. The opposition want to narrow the definition of ‘critical human water needs’. This means that the security of crucial industrial water supply for key employers such as OneSteel in Whyalla is now in jeopardy. South Australian jobs will be at risk under the amendments they are proposing. The opposition want to reduce water supplies. They have moved an amendment to enforce a reduction over time in the amount of water taken from the basin to meet the needs of population centres outside the Murray-Darling Basin. This means that if you live in Adelaide, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Keith or Ballarat and Ararat in Victoria then your water supplies will be progressively cut over time. The question then for the opposition is: how much do the opposition want to cut from the water supplies of these communities?

They want to block the Sugarloaf Pipeline. Members will recall that the Sugarloaf Pipeline was announced while Mr Turnbull, the now opposition leader, had responsibility in the previous government for water policy, but he did nothing to try to stop them. He did absolutely nothing to try to stop them. Now the opposition are conveniently ignoring—

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

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

The member for Murray comes in here and hectors me about principles. Given the question she put in question time today, I would have thought she was the last person in the world to give me a lecture on principles. But let me just remind the member opposite that as environment minister I have made it clear that under my approval under the EPBC Act no water can be taken from savings allocated to the Living Murray initiative, from Water for Rivers entitlements, which includes the Snowy, or from environmental reserves, and all water savings projects supplying the pipeline are independently audited and compliant with the EPBC Act. At this particular point in time, I propose that the question now be put.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you’re not going to let the member who represents all of the Murray in South Australia speak on this? Is that what you’re saying?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Barker, the motion is that the question be now put.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you don’t want to hear from the person who represents all of the Murray in South Australia?

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

Madame Deputy Speaker, I am perfectly willing to let the member for Barker make a contribution to this debate.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do have the pleasure and the honour and the duty to represent all of the Murray River in South Australia. I also represent the Lower Lakes. I represent the Coorong and Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina—they are not the ‘Coorong lakes’, as the Prime Minister wrongly called them earlier in the year in this parliament—and I am very concerned that the South Australian water minister is now seeking permission to flood the Lower Lakes with sea water. That will be irreversible. If that ever happens, it can never return to what it was. It will kill the lakes. I truly hope that the minister will reject that proposal. It is not necessary; it is not for the health of the Lower Lakes. It concerns me that here we are on the same day waving a white flag to inundating the Lower Lakes with sea water and at the same time giving the green light to stealing water from the Murray.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in his contribution to this debate, continually said that the Howard government did nothing about the Murray-Darling system. It is only the fact that there were 94 gigalitres saved from the Murray-Goulburn system that this water is now available to the Victorian government. It is not for some future proposal, where they could argue the toss that if they saved 300 gigalitres, for example, through efficiencies and better infrastructure they could use one-quarter of that. The Victorian government is proposing to use all of those 94 gigalitres of water and pipe it to Melbourne. That will be a repeat of the mistake that we made in South Australia with the Loxton rehabilitation scheme. We piped everything under pressure and saved about 45 gigalitres. What did state Labor do? Instead of returning to the river the water saved through the Living Murray initiative, it sold it to the Barossa and Clare areas. I am sure they were very happy about that, but the fact is that it was the wrong decision and we should learn from that wrong decision and not repeat it in Victoria.

The Howard government did a lot about saving water through better infrastructure. The Howard government proposed the $10 billion plan which I was very confident would save the Murray in time. Now we have a government that are prepared to allow the Victorian government to use that water for their own supply, when the Victorian government could not get their act into gear to build reservoirs or desalination plants or to recycle water or recycle stormwater. The state government is being protected by the federal government through this scheme, and they are quite prepared to let it go on. Let the Victorian government, if they want to in the future, put in a proper scheme like we did in Loxton and argue the toss about getting a share of the savings. But do not let it take any of the 94 gigalitres saved under the Howard government’s infrastructure upgrades. I repeat: the only reason that there are water savings to use in the north-south pipeline is the Howard government. One day I hope the minister will recognise that the Howard government did quite a bit and was prepared to make an even further commitment with the $10 billion plan.

Unfortunately, we are now in the position where not one dollar of the $6 billion set aside for infrastructure upgrades has been spent. In 12 months, not one dollar has been spent by the Rudd Labor government on improving infrastructure. That is the only way you can have a balanced approach to ensuring that we in this country have food security and better use our water—that is, produce more crop per drop. We have a government that has failed miserably. (Time expired)

Question put:

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

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

I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That Senate amendment (16) be agreed to, with the Government amendment:

(1)

Senate amendment (16) (heading to proposed new Schedule 4 to the Water Act 2007):Omit “the recognition of Indigenous water rights”, substitute “Indigenous representation on the Basin Community Committee”.

This amendment recognises that the Senate passed an amendment to the bill on 27 November to insert a new schedule in the Water Amendment Bill: schedule 4—amendments related to the recognition of Indigenous water rights. As a consequence, the title of schedule 4 does not reflect its substantive content, so an amendment is proposed to rename it ‘schedule 4—amendments relating to Indigenous representation on the basin community committee’.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move:

That Senate amendment (12) be amended as follows:

(1)    After ‘Prior to’ insert ‘exploration’.

(2)    At the end of the amendment add:

        (2)    Where a substantial risk is identified exploration licences must not be granted.

This amendment should not need any further explanation because it has been supported on two occasions. The coalition supported it in this chamber on 15 October. The coalition again supported it in the Senate on 26 November and then, on the next day, reneged on its support. If the coalition had maintained its support for this proposed amendment in the Senate, we may well be looking at very different legislation in this chamber. I raised this issue at an earlier time, so I will not take too much of the parliament’s time.

The intent of this amendment is that, prior to an exploration licence for a mining operation being granted, a proper scientific study of the interconnected groundwater valleys of the Murray-Darling system be carried out. The reason I suggest this is that in New South Wales at the moment we have a government which is very keen to get money from mining companies and is releasing mining licences for areas that contain alluvial flood plain land with massive groundwater systems underneath. We think, although we do not properly understand the science, that those systems are interconnected and have a relationship with the river systems. This legislation is about putting in place the structures for a Murray-Darling Basin plan, with each valley having a cap. What I am suggesting is that you cannot put in place a proper basin plan without fully understanding the science of the groundwater.

The amendment would in effect mean that an exploration licence could not be granted until an appropriate study is done. I would suggest, as others have, that we do a three-dimensional study where we actually map the groundwater and then assess the risks of mining activity to those particular areas. That does not mean and does not say that you cannot mine there, and it does not mean that it is the end of the mining industry as we know it. What it means—and this legislation is all about trying not to make the mistakes that we have made in the past—is that, before we make a decision to mine certain areas of land, we do a risk assessment of the potential impacts of that activity on those groundwater systems. The current state based approval process is essentially a localised environmental impact statement process. The great fear that I have in relation to that process is there is no regard for downstream impacts. The impacts on water quality and quantity could occur many hundreds of kilometres away from a mine site. Until we understand those interconnectivity issues we should not be allowing exploration.

The coalition and the Labor Party butchered this amendment in the Senate by coming together—obviously to support the mining industry—and removing the word ‘exploration’. That does a number of things, including allow mining companies to leave a blight on landholders’ land while they explore groundwater systems, and they will never be able to mine because of the quantities of water there. What I am suggesting is that, rather than have mining companies wasting that money, we do a proper scientific study and find out which areas are at high risk environmentally. Then we would not allow exploration licences for those areas to be granted. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts would be well aware that we do not grant exploration licences for national parks or wilderness areas. I would suggest that we apply a similar logic to these very sensitive areas, particularly when we are in here debating very important legislation which encapsulates the inflows into the Murray-Darling system. I would urge all of you to reconsider your positions on this and support the amendment. (Time expired)

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for New England’s amendment be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are fewer than five members on the side of the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Katter and Mr Windsor voting aye.