Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the continuation of the National Water Commission on an ongoing basis beyond the current expiry date of the National Water Commission Act 2004 on 30 June 2012. It provides for the robust and transparent oversight of all governments' national water reform commitments, and in particular the National Water Initiative (NWI).

This bill makes changes to the functions and operation of the commission. These changes focus the National Water Commission on its primary purpose of providing independent assurance of governments' progress on water reform. The changes continue the commission as an independent statutory body with the functions of monitoring, audit and assessment. These functions have been drafted generally so as to grant the commission discretion to focus on the issues most pertinent to the successful implementation of the National Water Initiative.

The initiative continues to be regarded by governments as a sound policy platform for addressing water reform. However, implementation of the initiative is occurring within a highly complex and evolving policy environment. For example, since the initiative was agreed in 2004 there have been significant new reforms in the Murray-Darling Basin. The most appropriate institution to conduct oversight of national water reform continues to be the National Water Commission. This was the view of the independent review commissioned by the Australian government on behalf of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

The review observed that the role of the commission will become more important into the future as increasingly difficult water reform issues are addressed. The commission has a crucial community transparency role as the auditor of outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin.

I note that this bill has the support of all governments. At its meeting on 13 April 2012, the COAG agreed to retain the commission, focusing it on the functions of audit, monitoring and assessment of water reform.

As proposed under the National Water Initiative, the commission will continue to assess the progress of implementation of the initiative. The function is critical to ensuring strong evidence based transparent reporting and guidance on progress and challenges in implementing national water reform. The bill specifically provides for the commission to continue to undertake every three years major assessments of the progress of parties to the National Water Initiative in implementing their commitments. This bill also provides for the commission to undertake additional assessment activities on a discretionary basis.

The commission will continue to audit progress of all governments against agreed national water reform commitments. In particular, it will audit the effectiveness of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin plan as required under the Commonwealth Water Act 2007.

Under this bill, the commission will continue to conduct monitoring of trends and actions by all stakeholders in implementing the initiative. Through monitoring the commission will continue to ensure a flow of information and comprehensive knowledge of the state of reform implementation to both governments and stakeholders. The responsiveness of the commission will be given greater emphasis through engagement with all jurisdictions. It is envisaged that the commission will formally engage closely with state and territory governments through the COAG water subcommittees such as the Standing Council on Environment and Water, including reporting on its work plan on at least an annual basis. A closer understanding of the activities of the jurisdictions and the circumstances in which their priorities are decided will assist in increasing its effectiveness in supporting the implementation of NWI reforms.

Commission reports and significant information will remain publicly available.

Given the refined functions for the commission this bill reduces the number of commissioners to five, including the chair.

With the scheduled closure of all programs funded from the Australian Water Fund, the bill closes the Australian Water Fund Account but will enable the NWC to administer Australian government funding programs that may be allocated to it in the future.

These amendments to the functions and operation of the National Water Commission will ensure high-quality advice to COAG as water reforms continue to be even more complex. The commission's transparent oversight of national water reforms is crucial to Australia's work towards effective and efficient water management and use. The importance of water in securing Australia's economic and environmental future demands no less.

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

The coalition will not oppose the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012, as we have been a long-term supporter of water reform. In fact, the coalition kick-started the water reform process with the establishment of the National Water Initiative in 2004. This bill will continue the National Water Commission as an independent statutory body beyond the sunset date of 30 June 2012. The coalition sees that as a good thing. The NWC was established by the previous coalition government as part of the National Water Initiative agreement in 2004. There are a number of outstanding reforms under the NWI, including urban water, access of mining to water, water quality, and environment and river health. The review of the NWC by Dr David Rosalky recommended that the NWC continue in its role so that it can carry out these functions, because water reform is occurring within a highly complex and evolving environment and requires an independent and specialist institution. The coalition would certainly agree with that, and water reform will continue. The government has accepted the review's recommendations.

Under this bill, the NWC will have the responsibility of assessing progress against the NWI every three years. In addition, under the Water Act 2007 the NWC may review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan every five years. The NWC also advises on whether plantations can apply for carbon farming credits, which they can only do if the state or territory government manages water interceptions in a way which is consistent with the National Water Initiative. Since its inception, the main work of the NWC has been to review state and federal government progress against the NWI.

The bill makes other less substantial changes. As the minister just mentioned, it closes the Australian Water Fund and reduces the number of commissioners from seven to five, including the chair, due to the NWC's reduced functions. Other tasks have included administering the Australian Water Fund, which has three main components: Water Smart Australia, Raising National Water Standards and the Community Water Grants program. As well as that, it will be involved in promoting national water standards across the industry and developing a national water sector training strategy, and general research into water policy issues such as the trading of water rights, groundwater and coal seam gas issues. The NWC will have a staff of 44 next financial year, which is a reduction from 63 in 2011-12.

Whilst we support this amendment, the coalition have some concerns about the fact the NWC has been stripped of responsibilities by this government to such an extent that it questions whether there is value in maintaining an ongoing body with the overhead costs that this entails. The National Water Commission has been left with just two legislative roles as a result of this government's actions—the assessment of progress under the NWI every three years and the review of the Water Act every five years. Notwithstanding its excellent record, these are reviews that could be performed by the COAG Reform Council or the Productivity Commission.

The government has also missed opportunities to give the NWC more responsibilities recently. For example, it has recently agreed to allocate $150 million to improving groundwater research as it relates to the mining sector, in particular the coal seam sector. That is a job that could have been done by the National Water Commission, but instead was given to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. That is one alternative; of course that job could have been done by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, who have exceptional expertise in that area, particularly in geoscience and know more about what goes on under Australia than anyone else. Either way, the coalition still support the initiative by the government to set up the expert panel to monitor development in the coal seam gas and the coal industry. I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, would agree that the confidence that that is adding to the process between stakeholders in the coal seam industry in particular has been valuable, and we look forward to the continuation of that process. That said, the National Water Commission has done some excellent work on water reform, but if it is to continue it needs to have a job that is justification of its funding. The coalition will continue to monitor and ensure that the money that is appropriated to the NWC helps to encourage water reform.

In conclusion, having started this process the coalition are supportive of the issue of water reform. There are a huge number of issues out there to be fully explored and managed. There are difficulties. Communities are having difficulty in accepting some of the changes that are being put in place. We know, of course, of the controversy over the buy-back schemes and the new allocations. We have seen this government pay an extraordinary amount of money in a number of instances for water, only to see the sellers of that water then buy back allocations at a much cheaper price. I think there have been some flaws in the way that this government has administered this process, but that said, we commend the amendment to the House.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased today to support the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012 that seeks to provide the continuation of the National Water Commission beyond its expiry date of the current National Water Commission Act 2004. It is interesting to hear the member for Groom talk about the ongoing functions. The coalition government had planned to close this commission down. It has taken this Labor government—

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—

Well, there was a sunset clause in the previous legislation that had the Water Commission closing down. This government have taken water reform incredibly seriously. That is why we are pushing ahead to get a good Basin Plan. It is interesting that the member for Groom said that he is in favour of water reform. I think he needs to go and speak to the Leader of the Opposition because he has not been so forthcoming—when he is in Griffith he tells the constituents there that he would not like to see any water reform, that no-one should take their water. Of course when he is in Adelaide it is a completely different message. This government are very committed to water reform and continuing that process. We think having a transparent oversight of all the Australian government's national water reform commitments is particularly important—especially looking at the National Water Initiative, its core functions of audit and assessment, and monitoring of water reforms, including the Murray-Darling Basin. That is what the National Water Commission will continue to do.

The National Water Commission was created by the Commonwealth following COAG agreement under the National Water Commission Act 2004 to provide advice on national water issues and in particular to assist the effective implementation of the National Water Initiative. For too long—for almost a century now—states have assumed that water stopped at the borders, whether it be groundwater, whether it be the Murray-Darling system. But of course water does not stop at state borders. It does not respect state borders. It is incredibly important that we do take a national approach to these issues. Under the National Water Initiative, COAG did agree that the Commonwealth would establish the National Water Commission as an independent statutory body. Its role was to advise the minister, COAG and the Commonwealth on matters relating to water, to assist with the implementation of that National Water Initiative for the purposes of assessing progress in implementing the National Water Initiative and to advise on actions required to better realise the objectives of the National Water Initiative. The role of the National Water Commission also included monitoring and advising on the transition from the existing policy framework, shaping water reform—namely, the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework.

Underpinning the establishment of the National Water Commission in the National Water Commission Act was a sunset clause, whereby the organisation would cease to continue from 30 June 2012. Before the cessation of the National Water Commission an independent review was prescribed to be conducted at the end of 2011 into the ongoing role and functions of the National Water Commission in the management and regulations of Australia's water resources. In accordance with those requirements on behalf of COAG, on 11 July 2011 the federal government commissioned an independent review with the terms of reference agreed to by COAG, and the final report was presented to the government on 6 December 2011.

The review did recommend that the National Water Commission continue for the life of the National Water Initiative. It was deemed that while significant achievements had been made through this initiative further complementary work was still needed to be carried out as part of the National Water Initiative and extend beyond this prescriptive time frame. The report deemed that the completion of some of the initiative's key objectives had been delayed due to the complexity, both technically and politically, of some of the reforms. Due to some of intrinsic elements yet to be implemented, the report deemed that a specialist independent body like the National Water Commission is likely to be even more important in the future, especially as we go down the path of implementing a Basin Plan. The independent review identified a number of core functions which it considered necessary for progressing future water reform. It has considered that the National Water Commission provide key services into the future such as monitoring and audit of reform activity, assessment of reform activity and acknowledge leadership. It acknowledges the valuable role that the National Water Commission plays as a credible specialist and independent agency supporting national water reforms.

We have seen a lot of tick-tacking between the states on the issues of water. It is a highly emotive issue and states do like to stake out their territory when it comes to water. As a South Australian, I think we have been dudded a little in the past. So that is why we are looking at an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority and that is why independent agencies supporting national reforms are really, really important. Following the release of the independent review in March 2012, the Gillard government announced its intention to accept the recommendations of the review and to continue with the National Water Commission to oversee the COAG national water reform agenda in keeping with the recommendations provided by the review. The bill was then referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The committee released its report in May 2012. The committee recommended unanimously that the bill be passed before 30 June 2012. In making this recommendation, the committee took note of the seven submissions received from a number of different agencies. There was a fixed time frame but, in accordance with the review, it is important that we extend the National Water Commission, and I am very pleased that we are doing that today.

The legislation before the House removes the sunset clause allowing for the National Water Commission to continue on an ongoing basis for the life of the National Water Initiative, with future five-yearly reviews and the evaluation of its role. The legislation enables the National Water Commission to carry out its core functions of auditing, assessing and monitoring water reforms into the future. It will continue to undertake assessments of the progress of jurisdictions in implementing the National Water Initiative but on a triennial basis rather than a biennial basis.

The legislation also reduces the number of commissioners from seven to five due to the National Water Commission's refocused functions and operations. In undertaking its functions, the National Water Commission will discuss its work plan annually with the relevant Commonwealth, state and territory ministers and agencies through the Standing Council on Environment and Water and relevant official bodies. Reporting and consulting will be handled through the normal COAG processes.

This is one of the important planks in water reform. It is one of the many important things that we need to ensure that water reform continues to move forward. For many years now we have continued to ignore these important areas of water reform. There has been a sense that water will always come. Coming from South Australia, I know that that is not the case. Water does not just appear. It is a very precious resource that we need to make sure we use in the most efficient and effective way.

I have regularly said that I believe we need a strong Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I hope that it will be supported, because, as I said previously, while the states can argue about this, rivers and water do not stop at borders. We need to have a national plan that ensures that our river systems and water systems do actually exist in years to come and that we are not leaving a dead river system and water system to our children.

In this debate there is often discussion about farmers versus the environment. Well, if you come down to South Australia you will see that farmers have lost their livelihood due to a dead river system. That salinity will only continue up the Murray-Darling system and ensure that farmers are not able to operate. As that destruction starts at the bottom and moves up the system, the death of the Murray-Darling system will be a death not just for the environment but also for the farmers. They will not be able to pass their farms on to future generations if there is a dead river system.

I feel very strongly that we need to push ahead with water reform. I believe the National Water Commission is an important step in that. I am pleased to hear that the coalition will be supporting this bill, although they seem to be umming and ahing about whether there is a role for it. I believe there is a role for it—a very important role—along with the many other changes we are putting in place to ensure that our water is considered to be a precious resource and is used effectively and efficiently throughout this country.

I commend the parliamentary secretary for getting the bill through the Senate. We in the House of Representatives now have a duty to pass it. I commend the bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the previous speaker, one of the things I would like to say to her before she leaves the Federation Chamber is that I think we have got to look at the Murray-Darling system as two totally different ecological systems. The Murray system is quite a different system from the Darling system. I have nearly all the Darling system water that comes into the Darling in Queensland in my constituency. It has tropical rainfall—an irregular rainfall pattern—as opposed to the southern states, where there is a Mediterranean-type system, and much of the water in the Murray system comes from melting snow on a regular basis. So I think we have two totally different ecological systems and we should deal with them separately rather than confuse two systems and consider them as one. That has been a mistake. For many years we have talked about the Murray-Darling Basin and people in the urban environment have said, 'We understand the Murray-Darling Basin; we have heard about it; we know about it.' Many would not have been there. We know something should happen, but I still say—and that was my submission to the National Water Commission—that we should separate the two systems when we start to address reform and how we deal with that.

The coalition will not be opposing this bill, because the coalition that has been a long-term supporter of water reform. In fact, it was set in motion by the coalition under the prime ministership of John Howard and the deputy prime ministership of John Anderson, who I want to acknowledge brought great knowledge and practical experience to the start of the reform of water in the Murray and the Darling system. We kick-started this water reform process with the National Water Initiative back in 2004. I hear members on the other side of the House say we are not committed. The coalition was the committed party that kick-started this.

One of the issues I am concerned about is the slow pace of the government and the approach they have taken to the national water reform of the Murray and the Darling system. The original draft plan was condemned by almost everyone out there who live in the Murray-Darling Basin and make their livelihood out of it, which is proof positive that the way the government have handled the reform of the water entitlements has been wrong, and we are now starting to see that next phase of that.

Wherever I travel and I talk to irrigators, landholders and communities, they say: 'This has got to be a partnership, not one or the other. We all live here and want to continue to live here.' The money that is spent into the future should be spent not just on buying water and saying that it is 2,800 gigalitres of water and that has fixed the whole issue. We can deal with this in terms of water efficiency and we have got to look at how water is used more efficiently in the system. That will give a dividend in water saved which could be part of the environmental flows into the future. How it is dealt with is terribly important.

The coalition has concerns that the National Water Commission has been stripped of responsibilities by the government to such an extent that we question whether there is value in maintaining an ongoing body. What will be their oversight role in the future? What the National Water Commission will be left with is two legislative roles. One is an assessment of progress under the National Water Initiative every three years and review of the Water Act every five years. Notwithstanding its excellent record, these are reviews that could be performed by the COAG reform process or could be performed by the Productivity Commission.

The government missed an opportunity to give the National Water Commission more responsibilities. I have great interest in this because of the development of coal seam methane gas and the mining operations that are occurring in my electorate of Maranoa. For example, the government has recently agreed to allocate some $150 million for improving groundwater research as it relates to the mining sector and in particular the coal seam methane gas sector. That job could well have been done by the National Water Commission, but instead it has been given to another department that will probably bring expertise into it or establish expertise that does exist in the National Water Commission. The government has given it to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. The National Water Commission has done some excellent work on water reform, but if it is to continue it needs to have a job to be able to justify the funding. The coalition will continue to monitor and ensure that the money that is appropriated to the National Water Commission really helps to encourage ongoing water reform. I will just mention the mining sector and the coal seam methane gas sector; the explanatory memorandum to the bill refers to those. In Queensland we have a massive expansion of the coal seam methane gas industry, nearly all of it in the electorate of Maranoa. It has caused enormous angst, because it has hit us like a tsunami across the community in terms of population growth, the additional trucks on roads, the additional pressure on local government resources and also pressure on water that local authorities provide to their now expanding community. Some in my constituency believe that the water being extracted from the coal seam via the coal seam methane gas process should be considered water available within the Murray-Darling Basin. There is a debate about that. I put it on the table here as a debate that is still out there. With a change of government in Queensland, I guess it will be looked at as this industry expands and grows across Queensland.

Last week I was up in Longreach—in the Galilee Basin, quite outside the Surat Basin—where a number of very significant mining exploration permits have been issued. For instance, AGL is one company now operating quite significant bores up there, drilling into the formations to identify whether there are sufficient reserves to establish a coal seam methane gas industry up in that part of my electorate. Once again, if this occurs, water will be extracted in the western Queensland plains area, where the only water for the towns themselves is from the deep aquifers within the Great Artesian Basin—and, of course, not only the towns but also the landholders and livestock producers up there.

It is ironic that one of the wells being tested at the moment is very close to a free-flowing bore that flowed for more than 100 years. More than a million dollars is being spent under the GABSI program, which is about capping free-flowing bores and using the water by piping it out for livestock, homestead and other purposes on a pastoral property, whereas in the past probably 98 per cent of the water that came up from that aquifer was lost and only two per cent was used. It is quite ironic that the gas industry is now looking at how they are going to extract water. What they do with that water will be critically important, because under the Queensland laws—through pressure on the previous government and, as I know that this government understands, under the leadership of the Deputy Premier in Queensland—these resource companies have to make good with that water. But when this industry commenced, 15 years ago in the Surat Basin, they just ran the water down the creeks. Some of them just evaporated the water into the air.

So there is a significant water resource issue still to be addressed—it is in the Murray-Darling Basin footprint and, in my case, the Darling footprint—that we ought to consider. Water is a valuable resource, wherever it is and wherever in western Queensland it comes from—whether from overland flows and rivers or from the Artesian Basin aquifers, depending on which formation people are drawing their water from. It is the lifeblood of our communities.

I mentioned that some people have said that this water should be considered as water available within the MDB—the Murray-Darling Basin. For instance, as the CSG mining operations continue to expand, the mining companies will need water for their operations. The coal seam methane gas water that they extract they are converting for good use. For instance, near Chinchilla they are providing additional water to the local authority there for the community as it expands. That community would continue to draw water from the Darling River system, which is the Condamine in that part of Queensland, if they did not utilise the water coming up from a formation in the Great Artesian Basin. These local authorities will continue to need more water if they are to provide water on a sustainable basis for their estimated population growth that they will witness in the next 20 to 30 years. So we should start to consider how this water is used and whether it forms part of the water available in the Murray-Darling Basin and, in my case—as I keep saying—the Darling River system. The expansion of the population in the Darling river system within my electorate over the next 30 years is considered to be something like 95,000 people. Ninety-five thousand people will move into the Surat Basin. They will all require water for their homes and gardens, and the local authorities are going to have to find where that water can come from. Traditionally, it has come from overland flows—dams—for Toowoomba, and water extracted out of the Condamine River for the towns of Dalby and Chinchilla and others downstream. But with this water coming available, it can supplement the water that local authorities have traditionally sourced from the river systems, and that is why I think it could also take pressure off overland flow water within this Darling river system, the MDB.

I just want to place on the record some numbers for the water that is in the Great Artesian Basin. We talk a lot about this. Commentators in the media talk about the Great Artesian Basin—with little knowledge, I sometimes think, of the formations. There is not one great basin of water down there; there are formations dating right back to the Jurassic age. In the Jurassic age they formed and contained water, but they are separated by very hard rock from aquifers further up. The Great Artesian Basin, it is estimated, has a recharge of about 880 gigalitres—that was last year. The estimated total use of water in the Great Artesian Basin now is some 650 gigalitres a year. So recharge is 880 gigalitres a year, and use—for towns, stock, domestic needs, irrigation, feedlots and so on—is 650 gigalitres a year.

Let us put this in perspective in relation to coal seam methane gas. The total industry water production in 2011 from the coal seam methane gas industry was just 16 gigalitres a year. And the vast bulk of that water was given to a rural community to use, which I have been talking about. Also, in the case of Chinchilla and around there, the water is managed by SunWater; it supplements the town water supply of Chinchilla and also some irrigation water for melon growers. There are some 600 wells that are currently being monitored by companies in the Surat Basin, just to see what is happening to pressures underground.

But let us put that 16 gigalitres in perspective. Cotton Australia have said on their website that 16 gigalitres of water is about what is required to irrigate about 3,000 hectares of cotton per year. So let us run through those figures: 880 gigalitres a year was the recharge, last year—in a very good year with heavy rainfalls. And it does not immediately becomes available; it might be a thousand years before that water actually becomes available, because it just re-pressurises these great formations. The estimated total use, other than for the mining sector, was 650 gigalitres a year. And the coal seam methane gas industry extracted 16 gigalitres. That is the equivalent, according to Cotton Australia, of the amount of water that is used to irrigate some 3,000 hectares of cotton.

So it is important to start to get some intellect into the debate about all this. I have been part of the protest concerned with ensuring that these companies are regulated to the point that they are not going to put at risk any of these aquifers, and concerned about contamination issues possibly associated with the operations around coal seam methane gas. I wanted to put that on the public record because I think it is important. We have got to get it right. I think the new GasFields Commission in Queensland, under the leadership of the Deputy Premier, Jeff Seeney, will make sure that the issues that are still concerning people will be addressed, but I say this bill— (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of this National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012 and I do so because I believe it is good legislation, and it is appropriate legislation for the time. The National Water Commission was established under the National Water Act 2004 in the midst of the decade of drought that ended a couple of years ago. All of us in this room can well remember the drought and the effects of it. In fact I will come back to that in moment because, as a result of the establishment of the Water Commission, I had some personal dealings with the commission at the time. When the National Water Commission was established there was a sunset clause whereby the term of the commission would end at 30 June. The effect of this legislation is to extend the term of the commission. I think that that is quite appropriate given the work of the commission as it was seen at the time has simply not ended.

The focus of the commission will be on four key areas: audit, monitoring, assessment, knowledge and leadership. I also note that the bill closes the Australian Water Fund Account, thereby ending the National Water Commission's specific ability to administer Australian water funds but permits it to administer Australian government funding programs that may be allocated to it in the future. Effectively, it changes its role from managing a fund that was established by the government at the time to one of overseeing water reform throughout the country. I also note that the number of commissioners will be reduced from seven to five, which in turn reflects the changing nature of the role of the commission. These changes arise from an independent review commissioned by the Australian government on behalf of COAG and carried out by Dr David Rosalky, though I note that the change relating to the number of commissioners was not one of his recommendations.

The recommendations from Dr Rosalky's review have largely been adopted by this legislation. As part of his review, I also understand that he consulted very, very widely effectively with all of the stakeholders in Australia's water supplies around the company, including governments, non-government organisations, industry groups and the like. My understanding is that there was pretty much unanimous support for the changes that are now being implemented through this legislation. I also understand that because of the timing—that is the timing that puts the 30 June deadline on the current role of the commission—this matter has to be dealt with fairly quickly. In fact, my understanding is that the states have not signed off on this legislation, but I would expect that they will. My understanding also is, if they do not, or if they have some minor amendments that they wish to make, that that could be managed or taken care of at a later time. I well understand the need for us deal with this legislation given the 30 June deadline.

The objectives of the National Water Initiative are to achieve a nationally compatible market regulatory and planning based system of managing surface and groundwater resource for rural and urban use that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes. I make that point just to demonstrate the broad nature of the role of the commission and its responsibility. The National Water Commission, whilst primarily established by COAG to assess and advise on progress in the implementation of the National Water Initiative, the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework and the National Competition Policy has since that time broadened its role and its purpose. In particular, given that since the establishment of the commission we have also seen the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in 2007, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the COAG Reform Council, which in turn has committed to other responsibilities, I can now see that the role of the commission not only needs to be ongoing but has in fact somewhat changed to what its original functions were. I particularly note that one of the roles of the commission includes auditing and monitoring the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the associated water resource plans. The National Water Commission's oversight of the Murray-Darling plan will be particularly important given the sensitivities associated with the plan coming from so many different sectors. I have watched with interest all of the submissions that have been made to the authority in the course of the public consultation over the last couple of years. Whilst I might have missed some of the submissions made, I am broadly aware of the types of submissions coming from so many different quarters. and it is clear to me that almost everybody has a different perspective on what should or should not be done. It is interesting to note that when the authority finally put together its draft plan that there is almost universal disagreement about what is in the plan. In fact, I cannot ever recall any other public consultation process where so much disagreement exists. We have seen that disagreement coming from the states, environmental groups, irrigators and from urban communities right throughout the basin. Even with the states, whilst there is disagreement to the plan, the disagreement is not for the same reasons—they are all disagreeing for their own particular reasons. Having the National Water Commission overseeing the rollout of the plan should provide a degree of comfort to all parties concerned, knowing that the commission to date not only has established a fair degree of credibility but would be seen as a relatively independent group—independent of any political influences and independent of the influence of any of the states—and can comment on how the plan is being rolled out. I think that that is going to be an incredibly important function of the commission in the future.

One of the things that I also noted was that the South Australian government referred to its concerns about the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and how that water was going to be used. Given that one of the strategies to return water to the system has been to purchase water from willing sellers that water then remains in the hands of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder; therefore, how that water is then used is understandably a matter that would be of concern particularly to South Australia being at the end of the system. It is a matter that was raised by some of the people making representations in the course of this inquiry as well, because ultimately the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder will be holding substantial amounts of water, and whoever holds that water obviously will have a responsibility to ensure that that water is also used responsibly. Whilst I understand the concerns being raised by the South Australian government with respect to the specifics of how that water is going to be managed and who is going to oversee how it is managed, I can also understand that this is a role for the National Water Commission in making its comments about how that water is used.

We have also seen in recent times concerns being raised, and the member for Maranoa raised them just a moment ago, with respect to the use of underground water throughout the country. Those are emerging concerns and I know that they are concerns not only on the east coast but on the west coast in Western Australia as well. They are genuine concerns arising from water becoming a very precious resource in whatever part of Australia that you live. Again, the role that the commission has in managing all of Australia's water resources or in overseeing how those water resources are used with respect to carrying out roles that COAG in turn would have the commission carry out is going to continue to be even more important.

The third aspect I want to talk about are the recent comments about turning the northern parts of Australia into a major agricultural area. Again, we will see, as we have seen in the Murray-Darling Basin, if that was ever to arise that the issue of water will become a very sensitive one and there will be a role for an authority on some sort to oversee how that water is used as well. I want to respond to something the member for Maranoa said in his remarks. He made the point—and I believe he is quite right—that the Darling and Murray systems are somewhat separate, and I think there is some truth in that. However, for South Australians the Darling and Murray systems converge at Wentworth and form one system. As far as South Australians are concerned, we are at the end of one system. South Australians for decades have relied on water from the Murray not only for drinking water but also for irrigators in the Riverland area and towards the Lower Lakes and Coorong area.

We have seen the impacts of reduced water flow into South Australia, particularly in the last decade. For us in South Australia, whether they are separate systems in New South Wales and Victoria makes little difference, because it is one system when it reaches the South Australians border. I point out that Menindee Lakes in New South Wales are vital to the security of water in South Australia, although they are in New South Wales. These lakes are reliant on the Darling River system. Only a few weeks ago I was visiting the Lower Lakes in South Australia with the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. We had a look the Coorong and Lower Lakes areas and found that after two years of what would be called abundant water flows through the system, salinity levels in parts of those lakes are still too high. I raise that because if after two years of flood waters salinity levels are still not down to the levels they should be, imagine what the lakes would be like if there had been normal flows. I went to the Lower Lakes at the height of the drought and recall what they looked like then. I can draw a comparison having visited them then and again just a few weeks ago.

Our water resources, particularly the Murray-Darling system, have to be very well managed if we are going to ensure that we never again go through what we went through during the last decade of drought. At the height of that drought the Lower Lakes were in crisis. Only recently we heard from people who had been monitoring the situation throughout the drought that we almost reached a tipping point. It is all right for members to say nature looks after itself when they look at the Lower Lakes and see everything looking well, but we almost reached a tipping point. Had we reached that tipping point, the Lower Lakes would not today be looking good. It is important to have that overview and have a process in place to ensure our water resources are properly managed and used.

As I said at the outset, I support this legislation for good reason. I believe that not only will the commission continue to do the good work it has done to date but its role will be just as important in the future as in the past. I have had some personal experience with the commission. In 2005 in the midst of the drought, the commission came to the northern parts of Adelaide to assess a project that we had submitted to the federal government for funding to try to extend the water-harvesting work being done in the region. We met with the commissioners of the day and they ultimately endorsed and supported our application. It is projects like that that gave me the faith in the commissioners because they looked carefully at what we were doing and ultimately endorsed the project for funding. I commend the legislation to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012. This amendment seeks to continue the National Water Commission as an independent body which by legislation was to sunset on 30 June 2012. The National Water Commission was established by the Australian government under the National Water Commission Act 2004, known as the national water act. The National Water Commission Act came into force on 17 December 2004 and provides the statutory basis for the National Water Commission to carry out a range of functions to assist with the implementation of the national water initiative. The independent review of the National Water Council was commissioned by the Commonwealth government on behalf of the Council of Australian Governments, in accordance with the National Water Review and section 38 of the National Water Commission Act. The review concluded that the National Water Commission should continue without sunset for the duration of the National Water Initiative. I am not too sure what the coalition's position is on that, but I do not support that. I do not necessarily agree that an organisation that was necessarily set up with a sunset clause should then have a perpetual ongoingness without that sunset clause.

The review found that the implementation of the National Water Initiative is occurring within highly complex and evolving environments. These complex environments require an independent and specialist institution to credibly engage with and report on the progress of water reform. Water reform is such an important thing to the nation at the moment. I cannot stress how intense some of those negotiations may be as we move into the future. It has the capacity to divide communities and in some cases has the capacity to create rifts within families, especially if one family is on one side of a river and one is one the other in the agricultural sector. The bill will amend the functions of the National Water Commission by refocusing its operations to deliver three core ongoing functions: monitoring, auditing and assessments. The National Water Commission will also assist with the implementation of the National Water Initiative by providing advice, information and guidance on these three core functions, as well as performing activities to promote the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative.

These functions are designed to enable the National Water Commission to meet its principal purpose: to assist and pursue through strategic guidance and information implementation of water reforms by all jurisdictions, leading to the effective and timely achievement of the National Water Initiative objective. That is a mouthful. With that being said, the coalition does have some concerns about the National Water Commission, which has been stripped of its responsibilities by the government and as such, the question is whether that there is now value in maintaining to ongoing body. Within the overhead costs that we have seen in the forward estimates, we are looking at about $34.3 million. The National Water Commission plans to have 44 staff over the next financial year, admittedly a reduction from 63 from 2011-12. The National Water Commission's budget allocation is again $34.3 million over the forward estimates.

The National Water Commission is left with just two legislative roles: the assessment of progress under the National Water Initiative every three years and a review of the Water Act every five years. However, these reviews perhaps could have directed to the Productivity Commission on the premise of cost savings, if that was ever a thought by the government.

The government has also missed the opportunity to give the National Water Commission more responsibility recently. The government recently agreed to allocate $150 million to improving underground water research related to the mining sector, in particular the coal seam gas sector. This is a responsibility that could have gone to the National Water Commission, giving perceived levels of independent assessment to all stakeholders. I do support the extra $150 million that has gone towards underground research. It is a responsibility at a state level that has been predominantly the responsibility of the mining companies as part of their charter and assessment. I think shifting that to an independent body gives some type of certainty.

The other important thing with underground water research is that it gives the farmers or the graziers a bit of an idea of what is under the ground before the mining companies get there. They will go through and, hopefully, do some modelling. Of course, there are concerns that, because we have had additional rainfalls over and above normal or short-term averages in recent times, the water tables will be at an upper end of their catchment and then as we go back into El Nino cycles, those water levels will recede, with mining activity happening at the same time. It is imperative that we do have research that monitors that so we are not unjustly accusing one party or another of having an impact on those watertables.

Before I move on, I also want to make a point with reference to the $150 million for underground water. In Queensland there are some ads on television in which gas companies are saying how unintrusive their work is in the agricultural sector. To a degree that is true. There are very unintrusive relationships that have existed between Australian well-founded companies and the agricultural sector for over 20 years. But there are two types of extraction. There is the extraction that you see on television where it takes up less than half of a netball court with a couple of panels around the head of the well. There is the other process to do with fracking and discharge water with high salinity. Even though that water might not have any agricultural reference or value as to it, the effect of pulling that water out of the aquifers might have an imbalance somewhere that does affect better quality water. So I would encourage anyone researching that underground water component to be diligent in their findings.

Instead the task was given to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. One of the issues that I believe they should look at is streamlining the process for the allocation of water licences. Currently farmers and agriculturalists apply to departments different from ones for mining leases in seeking water licences. I believe the water resource should be an asset for use under the same conditions.

The National Water Commission has support from most of the water industry to continue and is generally viewed as a body that has produced excellent research in its charter. The Australian Water Association has pointedly indicated that the National Water Commission helped balance the barometer as to federal and state governments to maintain a commitment to water reforms under the National Water Initiative, and I dare say that those challenges will still lie with the commission as they continue the deliberations in regional parts of Australia. The Water Services Association of Australia believes that funding for water research should continue, otherwise more of the costs of producing it will be imposed on the water industry. The CSIRO also believes that the National Water Commission should continue because an important body such as this can provide leadership and research to the water sector. The coalition will not oppose this bill as the coalition has been a long-term supporter of water reform. The coalition kicked off the water reform process with the establishment of the National Water Initiative back in 2004.

I would like to take this opportunity to reflect now on how successful the National Water Initiative was and how it remains a model for water reform today. Under the National Water Initiative it was implicitly recognised that there is a trade-off between economic, social and environmental factors. Some recent deliberations have omitted the social impact on those communities and have had a stronger focus on the environmental impacts of water flows and courses. I encourage those communities to make sure that the utmost consideration is given to those social impacts, because, as we all know, in regional Australia water is such a valuable commodity and without water there is no life. We can never achieve all of these goals at the same time. We must weigh up one against the other and come to a balanced outcome. This bill goes forward as a non-controversial bill, but I think it only right that the coalition watch the work of the National Water Commission closely with their expectations that absolute diligence will be shown in the expenditure of the Australian taxpayers' money in the pursuit of water reforms.

In conclusion I will finish where I started. I personally will be monitoring the progress of this body. I would have thought that the Productivity Commission could have more diligently handled the process for the next couple of years but at a much reduced rate at a time where money is scarce and waste is a challenge for the government. However, in saying that, I understand the good work that is being done by the body. I understand that they have pared back some staff. I understand that there is a position of goodwill from partners that trade with the commission or have contact with it. On this occasion, the coalition's position is to support it; I would not like to see it back in this House again. Thank you.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of all the important debates which take place in this parliament, none will have a more profound impact on the future of our nation than those involving water. Water is life. Life is water. The American forester and founding member of the Wilderness Society, Bernard Frank, said:

You could write the story of man's growth in terms of his epic concerns with water

He was right. American author, Samuel Langhorne Clemens—better known as Mark Twain—is credited with saying:

Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.

He is right too. Irish-born pastoralist, New South Wales politician, and pioneering Riverina irrigator Sir Samuel McCaughey was also correct when he said, in 1909: 'Water was more precious than gold.' Water and health are the biggest issues in the Riverina. In the western end of the electorate, it could be said that the two go hand in hand.

Addressing the Murray-Darling Basin Authority public meeting in Yoogali on the 15th December last year, Elizabeth Watson, now Stott, and the wife of Dallas, a third-generation irrigation farmer, whose family farm is near Whitton, had this to say:

We have to account for every drop of water used, and need to continually justify why we need it. The Commonwealth Government is about to become the largest irrigator in Australia and spend billions in tax payers' dollars in the process. Until the MDBA can obtain some more scientific certainty and until there is an environmental watering plan which outlines why the water is needed, how much is required and what the ecological outcome will be, I don't see any accountability nor any justification for the water reductions proposed in the draft basin plan.

Of course, she is right as well.

As a parliament, we have to get anything related to water right. We must address the needs of feeding the nation and other countries, whilst maintaining a healthy, sustainable river system into the future—Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, as a South Australian, I am sure you would appreciate that. It is called, having a triple bottom line—taking into consideration all of the necessary economic, social and environmental implications.

The National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012 will continue the National Water Commissioner as an independent statutory body beyond its current wind-up date of 30 June this year. Prior to forming the National Water Commission in 2005, in 2004 there was an intergovernmental agreement on a national water initiative. This represented a unified position on water reform issues with the objectives of the agreement seeking to achieve 'a nationally compatible market, regulatory and planning based system of managing surface and groundwater for rural and urban use that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes'.

The National Water Commission was established by the Howard-Anderson government in 2005 under the National Water Commission Act to assess progress in implementing the National Water Initiative. At this time eastern Australia was at the height of the drought and the National Water Commission was established in recognition of the need for substantial reforms to all aspects of water policy in both rural and urban areas with a particular focus on reform of the 1994 Council of Australian Government's water reform framework, and the national competition policy.

Schedule C of the National Water Initiative established the composition of the National Water Commission to have seven members with four, including the chair, to be appointed by the Commonwealth and three by the state and territory governments.

The commission has brought through significant institutional reforms which have in turn been approved by COAG and the federal government, including, in 2007, the establishment of the MDBA and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder as new statutory bodies; and in 2008 the establishment of the COAG Reform Council and the delegation by the council of certain water assessment functions to the National Water Commission.

As one of its functions, the commission analyses, monitors and reports on the performance by agencies of the Commonwealth, states and territories. At times, this has involved criticism of these agencies which has not been welcomed. An example of this was the slowness of the development of interstate trade in water entitlements in the southern Murray-Darling Basin which led the commission to recommend the Commonwealth to withhold national competition payments to Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. This soon had the desired effect of focusing minds, and the reform required took place, allowing in turn the national competition payments to be released. However, some resentment from state water officials towards the commission lingered.

In its early work, the commission was able to recommend the spending of infrastructure funded under the Water Smart Australia program, but to apply conditions that would force progress in implementing the National Water Initiative. This was a valuable form of leverage for the commission. But when the Labor government came to power in 2007, the responsibility for the program was transferred to the department. This was a disappointing decision. The other main spending program the commission had responsibility for was the Raising National Water Standards program, which was small in moneys and involved a more specified allocation of funds. It meant open requests for proposals and the commission itself identifying projects which were then tendered. Careful thought was put into determining priorities and as a result of this research it often came in the form of Waterlines publications accompanying the commission's position or policy statement, which highlighted the findings relative to the National Water Initiative. This program will conclude on 30 June with all funds having been allocated.

When the commission began, it had a relatively small staff. It had systems and processes which were recognised in reviews by the Australian National Audit Office. The commission forged relations with state agencies and ministers, as well as industry and environmental stakeholders. The commission with Ken Matthews in charge rotated its meetings between head office and on the ground, with on-the-ground meetings facilitating interaction with relevant staff and enabling the commission to observe what was occurring and what needed to be done. The commission tried to be as open and communicative as possible. These themes continued under the second commission, 2008 to date, and current chief executive officer James Cameron. Unfortunately, the relationship between the commission and the department has often been strained. The other unfortunate change in recent times has been the drawn-out battle over water at both Commonwealth and state levels since the drought broke and water catchments replenished. Despite the fact that the government's chief climate commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery, declared in 2007 that our climate had changed irreversibly and that rain would not fall, rivers would not run and dams would not fill, Labor, beholden to the Greens, based much of its pollution pricing claptrap and other measures on what Professor Flannery spouted. These policies will make Australian business and farmers, that f-word the Acting Prime Minister refuses to use, less competitive.

The National Water Commission has done some excellent work on water reform, but if it is to continue it needs to have a job and to justify its funding. The coalition will continue to monitor and ensure that the money appropriated to the National Water Commission helps to encourage water reform—good water reform. The National Water Commission was set up to oversee implementation of national water initiatives, objectives of which were equal consideration of social, economic and environmental outcomes. I see the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities opposite, and I am sure he would agree with that too.

The 2 May 2011 report Of droughts and flooding rains: inquiry into the impact of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia had as its 21st and final recommendation:

...Commonwealth Government charge the National Water Commission with responsibility for auditing and reporting on:

the volume of water recovered for the environment;

use of the proposed national water fund, including investment in irrigation efficiency and environmental works and measures;

the use of environmental water including volume, location, timing and outcomes achieved; and

entitlements and allocations strategically purchased or sold, including location, timing, products (security and reliability), average long term volume and average value per megalitre.

There are other things as well contained in this recommendation, yet, essentially, whilst a worthwhile proposal, as were the other 20 recommendations, it is difficult to equate this with the fact that the last federal budget—delivered little more than six weeks ago—resulted in money for buyback staying in and funding for valuable water savings measures through works and measures, nearly $1 billion worth, being deferred until 2015-16. Those who often comment about water issues should accept that when water was not available, allocation to irrigators were not processed and so areas planted to annual crops, particularly cotton and rice, were scaled back or no farming occurred at all by many of the fibre and food producers of the Coleambally, Murrumbidgee and Murray regions. I see that the member for Murray has joined me in the chamber—in her area as well. The controversy of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's guide and then draft also reflects the failure to grasp the difference between entitlement levels and allocations given the amount of water actually available. Prior to the end of 2011, under section 38 of the National Water Commission Act, a review was required to be conducted of the ongoing role and functions of the National Water Commission in management and regulation of Australia's water resources.

On 11 July 2011 the federal government, on behalf of the Council of Australian Governments, commissioned an independent review by Dr David Rosalky. Dr Rosalky presented his final report to the government on 6 December 2011 and it was tabled in parliament on 14 March this year. Dr Rosalky's report was balanced. It was insightful and recommended the commission's continuation. The review identified a number of core functions it considered necessary to progress in future water reform and for which it believed the National Water Commission has provided key services, including monitoring and audit of reform activity, assessments of reform activity and knowledge leadership. The review went on to conclude that the National Water Commission should continue without sunset for the duration of the National Water Initiative agenda and within essentially the same governance arrangement that it has now with its legislation strengthening its independence as a COAG body. It was recommended there should be a comprehensive external review every five years of the commission.

I agree that the commission should be continued. It has mandated legislative roles which could not adequately be performed by other Commonwealth agencies, such as the Productivity Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian National Audit Office or the department. The independence the commission has is vital to the continuity of water expertise and the ability to criticise without fear or favour against the objectives of the National Water Initiative. It is also worth noting that it would be difficult for a Commonwealth agency to meet the state focused component of the commission's mandate.

The commission plans to have 44 staff next financial year, down from 63 in 2011-12. The NWC's budget allocation is $34.3 million over the forward estimates. Its budget of $10.252 million for the 2012-13 financial year—a relatively small budget in the scheme of things—reflects its evolving role and the conclusion of the Raising National Water Standards Program.

This bill will continue the National Water Commission as an independent body beyond its current sunset date of 30 June. It also refocuses the commission's role to oversee and assess national water reforms, primarily the National Water Initiative and Murray-Darling Basin reforms. The bill will amend the functions of the commission to the three core ongoing functions of monitoring, auditing and assessment. These functions capture the formal commitment in the National Water Initiative and other agreements. The commission will also assist with the implementation of the National Water Initiative by providing advice, information and guidance on these three core functions as well as promoting the objectives and outcomes of the initiative.

As all programs funded from the Australian Water Fund have ended, the bill will also close the Australian Water Fund account and the commission's specific ability to administer any of these funds but will enable the commission to administer Australian government funding programs that may be allocated to it in the future. Furthermore, the bill will reduce the number of national water commissioners, including the chair, from seven to five due to the refocus functions. It also adopts the independent review recommendation of a statutory review to be undertaken every five years.

The coalition is happy to support this bill to ensure that the work being undertaken by the National Water Commission continues, to ensure that they are able to continue their principal purpose of assisting and pursuing, through strategic guidance and information, implementation of water reforms by all jurisdictions, leading to the effective and timely achievement of the National Water Initiative objectives.

Finally, the commission ought to continue, but it must play its role. To paraphrase shadow water minister Senator Barnaby Joyce in his speech on his Senate initiated bill on Monday, we have had discussions on the National Water Commission and we will concur on their role continuing, but they must be on their game, because every dollar we spend on the commission is a dollar we cannot spend on health, pensioners, dental care, children or AIDS research or in so many other places. We cannot spend the money twice. I hope those within the National Water Commission understand the tenuous nature of the financial predicament that this nation has been put in and how we have to do everything within our power to try to make every dollar count.

Next Wednesday 27 June—and I am glad the minister is here—there is an important meeting taking place in Banna Avenue in Griffith, which will once again come to a standstill from 11.30 am, when the community will again rally. The state water minister from New South Wales, Katrina Hodgkinson, will be there to discuss the ongoing dilemma and concern about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I know the minister has stated this week that he is intending, if the states do not agree, to bulldoze the plan through anyway. It will be interesting to see the numbers of people attending this meeting. In the past we have had thousands of people rallying at Griffith. The minister has been there; he has seen the fear and the uncertainty in those people's eyes. He knows all too well that a bad basin plan will absolutely destroy—not decimate but destroy—the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, which is one of the great food bowls of this nation, if not the greatest. I hope he takes that onboard when he does decide his basin plan, and I hope he gets onboard with what the states say. We are not always going to get agreement on everything but certainly on water we need good policy. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members who are here in the chamber for allowing me to say a few words on the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012, even though I was not on the list. It is an extremely important bill. The National Water Commission has oversight of our river system, and it plays a very important role. We see very different state variants around the country when we discuss water and our river systems. We know that the National Water Commission plays a role in bringing everyone together and ensuring that we progress water reform here in this country. For South Australia this is a very important issue. It is extremely important as we are at the bottom of the river system and the basins. During the drought a few years ago we saw the enormous pressure that our river system was put under. We heard the member for Makin talk about that tipping point. So this is important stuff that we are talking about here, especially for South Australia.

We recently saw the Murray Darling draft report that was released by the minister. I must congratulate him for overseeing that particular report. It is a very important report and something that needs to be moved forward to ensure that we come up with a system that looks after the future of the river and ensures the longevity of the river for many years. I cannot stress too much how important it is. We do not want to go through what we saw a few years ago ever again. For many years, for whatever reason, we have not looked after our river systems and we need to put a plan in place that will be the stepping stone towards the future of environmentally sustainable flows throughout our river system. This will be a once-off opportunity to ensure that we get this right, and that we put in place the procedures that are required. As I said, it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get it right.

We know that there has been great emphasis on the National Water Commission in bringing all the parties together, ensuring that we get that water reform right. We have already seen work that it has done over the years. This bill is very important because it will ensure that we continue with that good work. As we saw, the bill will provide for the continuation of the National Water Commission on an ongoing basis beyond the current expiry date. The bill will make changes to the functions and operations of the commission, and these changes refocus the National Water Commission on its primary purpose of providing independent assurance of governance and progress of water reform, which is so important to my home state of South Australia.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would not be surprised, given that I am the member for Murray in northern Victoria, that I would be most concerned about the future of water planning, assessment of programs, monitoring and auditing. With the coalition, I strongly support the continuation of this body, the National Water Commission, with, of course, the expectation that it will be properly resourced and funded, and that it will be given the tasks that it should be given. We have had recent examples where funds allocated by this government, for example, to look into mining and water related issues, particularly coal seam gas, were not given to the commission but to the federal department. That is a concern. So we support this bill but we will also, when we are in government, make sure that it is a very soundly functioning commission. The commission was initiated in 2004 under the Howard government regime. The coalition, under John Howard, understood that water is a critical concern in this nation. We do not have problems and conflicts with other countries sharing borders and river systems, where catchments and valleys are shared one nation with another. Australia is a nation with a highly variable rainfall of bust, boom, drought and flooding rains in cycles. Recently we had one of the worst droughts on record in eastern Australia, but we are told the Federation drought was fairly similar, of some eight to 10 years duration. In between those very extraordinary dry years we have had floods. Eighteen months ago in my electorate, floods destroyed agribusinesses in the western half of the electorate. Then this year, some four months ago, floods destroyed agribusinesses and a number of small towns in the eastern half of the electorate. In Australia we face droughts and flooding rains. It is complicated not by international neighbours who share water resources but by different states and the ACT which have since before Federation had their own water law, in particular their own responses to who owns the water and whether or not it is vested in the Crown. We are still battling the problem of jurisdictions wishing to hold on to their independence when it comes to water catchment, distribution, water pricing and indeed water law.

It is a complex business in Australia; hence the coalition created the National Water Commission in 2004. We gave it a sunset clause and that sunset has just arrived. This bill removes that sunset clause to give a future to the commission, and we support that. The commission has into the future a role in the assessment of progress under the National Water Initiative. Every three years it is to examine progress. It will also review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan every five years. It will also be expected to look at specific programs, as it has in the past. In the past it has looked at the Water Smart Australia Program, Raising the National Water Standards program and the Community Water Grants program. It has promoted national water standards across industries, it has developed a National Water Sector Training Strategy and undertaken general research into water policy issues such as trading of water rights, coal seam gas and groundwater. It has performed an important function in its first life cycle. We expect it to be even more rigorous and well-resourced into the future, albeit not perhaps in the near future because of the financial problems of this government. It will have a smaller staff, we are told. The review of Dr David Rosalky was comprehensive. He recommended the continuation of the commission, and we respect his recommendations. We note that the government has obviously taken those on board; hence we have this bill before us today, which will continue the life of the commission.

As I said before, we do have a real challenge in Australia bringing together a national response to water allocation and who owns the water. We have a great deal of research still to do to properly assess our groundwater assets and what is an appropriate groundwater extraction regime. That is not necessarily known right across Australia at this point, yet we have been extracting water from, for example, the Great Artesian Basin at a rate which we now realise is not sustainable.

Under the Howard government we had a major capping program where a number of those Great Artesian Basin bores flowed free. We now have many capped. So we have some hope in some parts of the Great Artesian Basin by allowing time for the watertable to replenish. We know it is essential that all of those free-flowing bores are capped as soon as possible and where bore water is used that it is properly metered and monitored and that a proper price is attached to the consumption of that water because, where you do have proper pricing of water, you can hope to have it managed effectively and used in the way that delivers highest productivity.

Australia is very well known internationally as being the world's best in terms of arid zone cereal production. It is less well known—but it is a fact—that we are also the world's most productive rice growers. In the case of arid zone cereal growing, clearly we do not tend to store water and use it on those crops, but with rice growing it depends on water being available through storage of that water and then allocation through irrigation systems. Often those storages are on farm. We in Victoria have had publicly owned irrigation systems since 1886. In fact, irrigation in my electorate began with my ancestors very close to where they had selected; they had already been there since the 1860s and they enjoyed the first irrigation boom times 20 years after they had settled in the 1880s.

The tragedy for us in Victoria is that, because of that work of the pioneers and the 100-plus years of irrigation system development, we are now being targeted for water to be taken because it is high-security water to be put into the Environmental Water Holder's bucket. This is part of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's latest plan proposal. Everybody knows—except, it seems, the minister and the Greens—that the best way to manage a sustainable environment for the Murray-Darling Basin is to have a viable agribusiness sector. If you have a beggared, bankrupted irrigation community, they cannot invest on their properties or manage their water as effectively as they know they must, because they simply do not have the financial resources to, for example, do more laser grading or invest in more innovative water technologies like subsurface irrigation. We have already lost over 600 gigalitres of water from the northern irrigation system. We are now teetering on the brink of having a non-viable system because of the loss of numbers of irrigators and the price impost that is left to those who continue to irrigate. The prices for our irrigation water are now just at the point where many cannot pay and, if you are a dairy farmer or fruit grower, you have to work out if the cost of the water to you in fact can produce sufficiently to make it a worthwhile business.

We have the $1 billion granted by the federal government to the so-called Food Bowl Modernisation Project stage 2. Unfortunately that stage 2 entails halving the footprint of the irrigation system in northern Victoria. By halving that irrigation footprint, you then have to ask if the 23 food factories have a future. You have a halving of the irrigation footprint so that the state-owned irrigation authority, Goulburn-Murray Water, can reduce its costs. This is, unfortunately, totally different to the objectives of the irrigators. If you combine Goulburn-Murray Water's objectives with the objectives of the federal government which is buying back water from those irrigators under a so-called 'willing seller' regime, you have a perfect storm. You have farmers who are debt stressed as a consequence of the drought and who are still under the pressure of the banks to sell their water so that they can retire debt. When they receive a successful outcome with one of the federal parliament water tenders and the funds flow to them, the funds for the water do not go to adjustment on their properties, to buy another tractor or to put more fertiliser on their property; the funds go straight to the banks. Any number of accountants will recite that situation to the minister, and I am sure he has heard it very many times.

The recommendation of the Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs, chaired by Tony Windsor, was that no more water be purchased through the federal government initiatives related to the Murray-Darling Basin environmental water. We stressed that some strategic buyback might be possible when it had no other impacts on the Basin. Unfortunately, we have seen from the government another tender rolled out with $40 million brought forward into this financial year specifically to buy more water out of the high-security southern part of the basin. I am most concerned that just yesterday it was announced where that water was to be taken from: it is all from northern Victoria and the northern Riverina part of Victoria. It is to go from productive use, particularly in what has been the almond-growing sector. None of us has a problem with buying or selling water in Victoria or the rest of the Murray-Darling Basin. In fact, when I worked for the Rural Water Corporation in the 1980s in Victoria, my task was to bring about transferrable water entitlement legislation and to sell it to the community. I have been instrumental in establishing water markets in Australia and I am proud about that. The problem is when the water is sold out of productive use to the environment, where it disappears for all time—although we are now told that maybe we will have a trading regime in the future, but that trading has a great capacity simply to distort the farmers' markets.

We have to see that there is an alternative to the way this government is progressing and to the way the Murray-Darling plan proposal is currently heading. There is a win-win-win scenario. You do not need to take any more water out of production from the basin. You invest in works, environmental works and measures and you better account for the water already in the system for the environment. We have the Barmah Forest, that has had an environmental flow going right back to the 1970s. We know that that flow has not been properly managed at all times. We know that the environmental water goes into the Barmah Forest and then on to Gunbower and out the other end, and so on down to Koondrook. This water is not at the current time properly accounted for as water that is reused and reused for environmental purposes down river.

We also have a problem with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan proposal right now, where even if we do have states or the Commonwealth invest in savings through improved environmental works and measures—for example, Lindsay Island is often cited—that saving is not then seen as part of the contribution to the sustainable delivery limits bucket of water held by the environmental water holder.

We have an extraordinary problem in Australia. We started out in 2004 to make it better. We have not got to a situation yet in Australia where all of the states are singing from the same hymn sheet about how their water law relates to both groundwater and surface water extractions. There are still differences in Queensland compared to, say, the southern Murray-Darling Basin in terms of who owns the water, where the water is vested—whether it is with the Crown—and that has to be sorted out. We still have problems of water in the markets, where the loss of water—literally the transfer costs of the water—is not accounted for in the market place. If you buy the water 10 kilometres from Eildon dam, that megalitre of water is what you take delivery of down in Adelaide and the losses along the way on the river are not taken into account. We do not have the Commonwealth paying the costs of storage for the environmental water that is sitting in dams like Eildon and taking the place of irrigators' water, to the point where there is a real worry now about whose water is going to be able to be stored into the future.

There is a range of issues that need to be addressed if we are going to meet both the national and international food demands of the future. We already import some 37 per cent of all our manufactured food to Australia. People are blitzed by the statistics that we have this massive export of food out of Australia, but most of that food is unprocessed wheat and dairy powder. In fact, we are already a net importer of a lot of our manufactured foods, particularly fruit and vegetable frozen product and concentrated product. We cannot smile our way out of this and say, 'All will be well'. We are a nation that has to be clever about our water law and about how we monitor, audit and assess our water consumption, about who is managing the water across state and territory borders. There is a role for—obviously—the National Water Commission into the future. It has to be better than it has been. We acknowledge that, but simply to have allowed it to have died or faded into the sunset was not a good option. As a coalition we support this bill, but as the member for Murray let me say that water policy is the issue which is at the moment causing suicides in my electorate and making us wonder if we have any future at all. Thank you.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank all the contributors to the debate on the National Water Commission Amendment Bill 2012. The bill continues the National Water Commission as an independent statutory body for the life of the National Water Initiative. It will provide transparent assurance on the progress of all governments in meeting their commitments under the National Water Initiative and other important water reforms.

I note that on 13 April this year the Council of Australian Governments agreed to retain the commission, focusing it on the functions of audit, monitoring and assessment of water reform. I remind the House that the National Water Commission and the National Water Initiative are the commitments of all governments and an example of the benefits we can achieve by working together. I have found it odd in some of the contributions to the debate where people in one breath have supported the National Water Initiative and then have opposed almost all of the elements of it. It is an important part of the National Water Initiative that water entitlements became tradeable entitlements and yet we have had a number of contributions where people support having a tradeable entitlement on condition that it can traded but it cannot be sold. I am not sure how the logic of a tradeable entitlement that you are not allowed to sell is meant to work, but such were some of the comments that we have had during the course of that debate. When enacted, the bill will have positioned the commission to focus on the most valuable elements of its role, give it continuity, and meet all commitments for reporting on water reform progress.

The Australia government remains firmly committed to national water reform, including the delivery and implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The government also remains firmly committed to the full and effective implementation of the National Water Initiative. I welcome the National Water Commission continuing as an expert and independent agency which brings a body of knowledge and experience to bear on addressing key challenges in the ongoing implementation of the COAG water reform agenda.

I again thank the members for their contribution and appreciate the bipartisan nature of the view of the legislation and commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.