Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) 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.

Since the Australian government and all state and territory governments agreed to the National Water Initiative in 2004, there has been considerable progress in national water reform, through enhancing the security of irrigation water entitlements, enabling water markets and trade, strengthening Australia's water resource information base and improving urban water security.

These achievements by all jurisdictions represents real progress in the management and sustainability of our water resources.

The Abbott government is committed to continuing to progress national water reform and to supporting and promoting the principles of the National Water Initiative.

However, it is important to review ongoing arrangements and our government is also aware of the need to find appropriate savings measures and of returning the budget to surplus, and as such have determined it is no longer necessary to retain a separate body to undertake the auditing and monitoring functions of the National Water Commission.

In line with the government's ongoing commitment to the National Water Initiative principles, key National Water Commission functions will be retained and transferred to existing Commonwealth agencies.

The abolition of the National Water Commission is expected to result in a saving of approximately $20 million over the forward estimates.

The findings of the Commission of Audit were taken into account in making this decision, which recommended abolishing the National Water Commission as a stand-alone agency.

The National Water Commission has played an important role in encouraging water resource policy and management nationally, following the development and agreement of the National Water Initiative a decade ago.

The National Water Commission has worked closely with the states and territories, to monitor the implementation of these water reform commitments on a wide range of fronts.

I would like to convey to the commissioners and the staff of the National Water Commission, both past and present, the government's appreciation for their work, which has served Australia well and has played a part in helping to place our nation at the forefront of water reform.

The key task going forward is to ensure that the principles of the National Water Initiative continue to be upheld across the water sector, for example:

The government will ensure that the important audit and review functions required under the National Water Initiative and Water Act 2007 are continued.

To give effect to this, the Productivity Commission will have responsibility for:

The government is confident in the ability of the Productivity Commission and its expertise in water policy.

By allocating the assessment and audit functions to the Productivity Commission, state and territory governments and stakeholders will benefit from the Productivity Commission's reputation for independence, the confidence in which it is held by the Australian public and governments, and its performance and benchmarking expertise.

The Department of the Environment will be responsible for:

I will now turn to the details of the bill.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the National Water Commission Act 2004 in order to abolish the National Water Commission with effect from royal assent, while also providing that key assessment and audit functions of the National Water Commission that are considered essential in the future, will continue, but be undertaken by different agencies.

The bill amends the Water Act 2007 to provide that the triennial assessments of National Water Initiative implementation by state and territory governments and the independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan implementation will be undertaken as statutory functions by the Productivity Commission.

The bill makes consequential changes to the Water Act 2007 to reflect the fact that the National Water Commission will cease to exist. To this end, references to the National Water Commission in the Water Act 2007 will be removed, including references which allow for the sharing of information with the National Water Commission or concerning its administration.

Lastly, the bill provides for transitional arrangements for the winding up of the National Water Commission’s activities.

The government also made amendments to the bill whilst it was in the Senate following further discussions with key stakeholders that will ensure greater confidence in the Productivity Commission in undertaking these functions and for increased stakeholder engagement. Specifically, a stakeholder working group is to be established for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry and, for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission, an associate commissioner must be appointed who is required to have extensive skills and experience in water resource management.

The government is confident that these arrangements will ensure the successful continuation of the key National Water Commission functions.

I would like to thank those responsible in the Department of Environment for their work in bringing this bill forward and for their diligent work over the past 12 months—Ms Catherine Kelly, Mr Tim Fisher and Ms Fleur Downard. I would also like to thank Mr Richard McLoughlin for his work as the acting CEO of the commission over the past six months.

I commend the bill to the House.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this bill as we did in the Senate. We oppose the abolition of an independent expert body that has been at the centre of the National Water Initiative for a considerable period of time—the parliamentary secretary will remember that this was an initiative of the Howard government, not of Labor—and that, up until very recently, has been supported on a bipartisan basis. This bill continues the obsession that the Abbott government seems to have with abolishing all independent expert voices, particularly in these portfolios, established by this parliament to provide an arms-length independent voice on often very difficult, controversial and highly contested policy areas not just to the government but to this parliament and to the broader community. These are areas that are often the subject of significant contest in the community. The idea that the parliament will provide the community with a voice that the people could have faith was not affected by the politics of this chamber is something that this government seems utterly committed to tearing down.

The parliamentary secretary spoke a little bit about the water reform process that this country has been engaged in now for more than 20 years. This has often been after painful debate and, as far as possible, it has been a matter of bipartisan consensus between the two major parties. Although from time to time we differ on the detail of the water reform process, both major parties of government recognise that this is a central question for the future productivity of the nation and the health of some of our most important environmental assets—in particular, the Murray-Darling Basin. It is more than 20 years since the real beginning of national water reform was started with the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework. Among other things, that framework separated water entitlements from land title, which set the foundation for the beginnings of the water market and also formalised the concept of environmental water.

Ten years later the Howard government, to their credit, put in place the National Water Initiative, which built on those very important reforms that flowed from the COAG agreement. The objectives of the National Water Initiative were to broaden and deepen the emerging water market; to provide much greater national consistency in entitlements to provide a spur to interstate training; to provide more detailed provision for environmental water; and to provide provision for dealing with over extraction. Those last two points are very important as the initiative came in the shadow of the millennium drought. The National Water Initiative also provided policy settings for urban water reform.

The establishment of the National Water Commission—which this bill proposes to abolish—was the first agreed action under the National Water Initiative. It was then funded by the Commonwealth, which would provide four members, with three members being nominated by state and territory parties to the initiative. These were to be specialist members—to take up the parliamentary secretary's point about the Productivity Commission, a body for which I have a very high regard—with particular qualifications and experience in general issues like auditing and evaluation and governance but in particular with respect to ecology and hydrology, among other things. The functions of the National Water Commission were to provide independent expert advice and guidance on the process of water reform. This would come in particular in the form of a two-yearly national assessment of the National Water Initiative, which the community and the parliament could have confidence would be conducted at arm's length from government and in an independent and objective expert way. From 2012 that biennial assessment of the National Water Initiative was shifted to be a three-yearly, or triennial, review but still with that same underpinning of objectivity, independence and expertise. Following the finalisation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan the commission added to its functions a five-yearly audit of the Basin Plan and, as I think the parliamentary secretary said, the associated water plans as well.

Legislation to establish the National Water Commission required that, under the COAG processes, a review of the commission's work be conducted by 2011. The legislation also provided that the commission would cease to exist in 2012 through the operation of a sunset provision. Pursuant to that legislation, the Labor government then in power initiated a review that was conducted by Dr David Rosalky which reported in 2011 consistent with the initiative, and that review recommended that the National Water Commission continue without a sunset for the duration of the National Water Initiative. Obviously, the National Water Initiative remains unconcluded.

The response of the Commonwealth at the time that that review was delivered was to accept the recommendations. We moved to remove the sunset clause to continue the operation of the Water Commission and, instead of a sunset clause, to provide for five-yearly reviews of the work of the commission, with some minor reframing of the role. The National Water Commission conducted its first audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2013, consistent with its legislative objectives. At that stage, the House will recall, the basin plan was still very new; it had only been finalised in November 2012, so it was a very new plan to be reviewed.

It is also important to note that, at the time of the delivery of the Rosalky review and the government's response to it, the major recommendations were very strongly supported by the then opposition, the coalition. The coalition voted for the amendments that flowed from the review's recommendations in the National Water Commission Amendment Act 2012. I can quote some supportive remarks that align much more with the Labor Party's position than the government's in relation to this bill. The then shadow parliamentary secretary in this area, Senator Birmingham, whom I know has been working in this policy area for many years, said at the time of the review being debated:

The NWC's role is integral to getting water reform right in this country at a much broader level.

…   …   …

… I very much value significant parts of the work of the National Water Commission. They have brought an academic rigour, as well as a practical assessment, to the operation and consideration of water policy in Australia.

…   …   …

The National Water Commission have a very valuable role to play.

…   …   …

As we go forward, their role in holding the states and the Commonwealth to account for actually delivering on water reform is critical. Their role in providing expert analysis and advice is absolutely critical.

…   …   …

… we need good, credible independent organisations such as the National Water Commission to call it as they see it, to call it based on the facts, to call it based on expert evidence and to hold governments to account for the key policy principles that they have set out.

With respect, I could not have said that better myself. This is utterly central to the community confidence, the confidence that stakeholders have in the national water reform process to have a body at the centre of it that can provide advice that everyone is confident is expert, independent and objective.

There was nothing from the coalition before 2013 to suggest that the views that Senator Birmingham as the parliamentary secretary in this area put to the Senate in 2012 had changed one iota. There was nothing whatsoever said before the election to suggest that the coalition had changed their views about the importance of the National Water Commission—remember, a creature of the Howard government's National Water Initiative, not a Labor body—one bit. The first that anyone—a member of the community, a stakeholder in the water reform process, anyone—heard that the government intended to abolish this highly reputable, independent expert body was, of course, after the delivery of the audit commission, a commission set up with a view to slashing an burning in the budget process rather than bringing a forensic expert eye to the very complex and highly contested area of water reform. The audit commission process is a familiar story in many different policy areas.

In addition to there being no warning about this sudden change of heart to jettison a creature of the Howard government's National Water Initiative and a body that was central to that water reform process, there was also no engagement with stakeholders. There was no engagement with the peak bodies in the water sector or the water reform process. There was no engagement with state and territory governments, particularly the other signatories to the basin plan. There was certainly no engagement with community and non-government organisations that have played such an active role in driving this parliament and governments at a state and Commonwealth level to pursue meaningful water reform. It was just dropped on everyone in the 2014 budget as so many different things were dropped on everyone with no warning.

Not only was it an ambush; but there was no detail as to what would happen to the various functions that either the Howard government had allocated to the National Water Commission during its creation or that had been added after the finalisation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They just made it up as they went along. That is just so consistent with so many of the approaches of this government in different policy areas to the work of independent expert bodies designed not only to provide government with important policy advice or auditing and monitoring advice but also to provide that to the parliament, members of parliament who are not members of the government and community members who take an interest in often very complex, highly contested areas of policy in environmental policy, in climate change policy, in the highly contested area of water reform. It is a consistent theme of this government first of all to ambush those organisations and secondly to do everything they can to shut down those independent, objective voices and ensure that all of the advice, all of the information going to the community about these policy areas is channelled through a ministerial office or the Prime Minister's office itself. We on this side of the parliament have been consistent in standing up for the importance of that independent, objective and in many cases highly expert voice in these challenging policy areas.

The government finally did provide some detail as to what would happen to the different statutory functions of the National Water Commission, but only bit by bit—only by accretion. The key monitoring and audit functions around particularly the National Water Initiative and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which really were the whole reason for being for this National Water Commission, would be provided to the Productivity Commission. So the key monitoring work around the process of water reform, particularly the process of water reform as it applies in the Murray-Darling Basin but more broadly than that, including in urban water, would be provided to the Productivity Commission.

As I said earlier, I have a terribly high regard for the work of the Productivity Commission. Over the years that I have been lucky enough to be in this place, I have worked with them on a number of policy areas. I think their work is highly detailed. Their capacity to engage with the community is well demonstrated. But, at the end of the day, the Productivity Commission is not an expert body on water reform. The National Water Commission is the body with key expertise around water reform.

I note that the National Irrigators' Council has indicated support for this bill and support for the abolition of the National Water Commission on the basis that it would reduce the number of government agencies that are involved in the process of water reform. I also have a very high regard for the work of the National Irrigators' Council and enjoy and get great value from my engagement with that council on the, as I said, often very complex and highly contested issues associated with water reform. But, with respect, there is no reduction in the number of bodies that are now associated with water reform resulting from this bill and the abolition of one central commission designed to oversee this whole process. There is simply a disaggregation of the functions, spreading them between a whole bunch of different regulatory bodies. In this area of auditing and monitoring, there is simply the substitution of the Productivity Commission for the National Water Commission. There is no net reduction in the number of agencies with which the National Irrigators' Council and other bodies will need to engage; there is just the substitution of one generalist body, the Productivity Commission, for an expert body with specific expertise particularly in issues of ecology and hydrology.

The only other body to indicate support for this bill and for the abolition of the National Water Commission, in the Senate process at least, was the National Farmers' Federation. Again, this is a body for whom I have a terribly high regard. It is a body that has been a very constructive and deeply engaged player in the whole process of water reform for very obvious reasons: it goes to the utter heart of the health of the agricultural sector. But I have to say that its support ultimately for this bill and the abolition of the National Water Commission is tepid at best. The federation's initial response to the abolition of the commission was to reject the idea that this body be abolished. It was presumably only brought around by very furious lobbying by members of the government after the remit of the Productivity Commission was changed and made more specific. I congratulate the work of the federation in at least getting the government to provide some more specific expertise within the Productivity Commission to do the work previously done by the National Water Commission. But again, with respect, I disagree with the conclusion that the National Farmers' Federation has reached about this. I am convinced, and Labor is convinced, that the better approach to continuing the work of the National Water Initiative and the important work of water reform would be to keep that body of expertise in the National Water Commission.

Beyond the National Irrigators' Council and the National Farmers' Federation—two incredibly important players, I acknowledge that, in the process of water reform—every other stakeholder, as far as I can tell, is opposed to this bill. The two other significant peak bodies—the Australian Water Association and the Water Services Association of Australia—indicated quite strongly their opposition to the abolition of the National Water Commission. The Water Services Association of Australia in its evidence to the Senate inquiry around this bill said of the abolition that it:

… removes national water leadership and the fearless advice and independent custodianship of the National Water Initiative that the commission—

the Water Commission, not the Productivity Commission—

has been able to provide.

The other functions beyond the auditing and monitoring functions of the National Water Commission, as I said, have been scattered to the four winds. Some have been allocated to the government's department, so removing that idea of arms-length work being conducted by the National Water Commission. Some functions have been allocated to ABARES. Some other functions will simply disappear either immediately or in the relatively near future. For example, the reporting that the Water Commission used to undertake on the performance of water utilities will in relation to rural water utilities disappear immediately and in relation to urban water utilities be conducted by the Bureau of Meteorology for 12 months and then also disappear.

This lack of regard for the importance of urban water policy, which was a part of the National Water Initiative, reflects this longstanding blind spot that the Liberal Party and the coalition generally has had on the Commonwealth's important role in urban water. Particularly Peter Costello, the Treasurer in the Howard government, rejected any idea that the Commonwealth would be a substantial, active player in the process of urban water, particularly through funding a range of different projects that contribute so much to the process of water reform in our cities. Labor's record in relation to urban water stands in stark contrast to the approach that the coalition has been taking in this area, back to and including the Howard government.

The abolition of the National Water Commission is also for Labor a disturbing signal around the government's commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The National Water Commission was a very, very important part of the architecture of the plan to ensure that all parties to it—state and territory governments in particular—were doing their part to ensure that we achieved its objectives. This is a plan that was ultimately only able to be brought together because, as I have said in this place before, of bipartisan support between the major parties in this parliament and the support of all of the basin states and territories. Only in that way do we have a plan that will be able to endure through the good times and the bad times—through some of the tough times that, unfortunately, we know will come again for the south-eastern part of Australia.

We know that there is still much work to do to achieve the objectives of the plan. I read in the paper that the Bureau of Meteorology only last week briefed the government that basin water storage, for example, is now down to 43 per cent from 55 per cent last year. We also know from bureau advice that, unfortunately, there is likely to be a significant El Nino event approaching in the very near future. So there is still much work to do. It is critically important that this government, the parliament, and the state and territory governments do not take their foot off the accelerator in terms of achieving the objectives that people, particularly the community stakeholders with skin in the game in this part of Australia, have worked so hard to pull together.

In summary, Labor continue to oppose this bill, as we did in the Senate. We opposed the abolition of the National Water Commission. As a review only a few years ago found—a review whose recommendations were supported by the coalition when in opposition—the commission has been very, very important body at the centre of national water reform. No case has been made out for abolishing yet another independent expert body. Yet another independent expert body bites the dust on the watch of this government. There was no indication from the government before the election that the commission was proposed to be abolished. There has been only limited support given to its abolition within the sector, and so Labor remains opposed to the government's plans.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. Some may wonder that the focus of this bill is on the Murray-Darling scheme when there are also other components of this bill that very much reflect on water policy more broadly around the country, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. Notwithstanding the contribution of the member opposite, that there are conspiracy theories around abolishing the Water Commission for roles that will become the function of a more than competent body in the Productivity Commission seems quite fanciful at best. The Labor Party are so good at the politics. They are much better at the politics on so many things than those of us on this side. It is very disingenuous to hear the comments made by those opposite in opposing this bill, because it is only an oversight bill. All of those functions will be able to incorporated within the capacity that exists in the Productivity Commission and also in the Department of the Environment.

There have been consultations with those interested bodies, not least of all the National Farmers Federation. Whilst the word 'lobby' was used, I would use a different term of phrase. I would say that the argument was made. The case was argued and the verdict was delivered, and there has been consensus on this being an efficiency measure that is not diminishing in any way, shape or form the principles, as I have mentioned, of the National Water Initiative. They are going to be adhered to. This ties into irrigation and water policy more broadly, which I want to touch on within my state of Tasmania, particularly around urban pricing principles.

We heard a little bit about Labor's record. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me tell you, in terms of the initiatives that were made out of those original bipartisan—acknowledged—National Water Initiative programs that were rolled out and the discussions that were held in that context, Labor's record in Tasmania was a disaster. We had a situation with councils in 29 municipalities within Tasmania where their capacity to manage water infrastructure had become untenable. It was something that was simply not possible with a relatively small rate base. It was agreed that responsibilities for urban water be taken over by a single body. At the time, as part of that arrangement, there was an amount of money, $500 million, to support the new organisation to start the program of reinvesting in urban water infrastructure around the state of Tasmania. I do not know where that money went to. Nobody knows where that money went to. It was Premier Bartlett and Treasurer Aird at the time. It is question that was asked in The Examiner even as recently as Monday this week: what happened to that money? It is a very good question. Indeed, environmental management of water around Australia is now a given. It is not an optional thing; it is absolutely a given.

The other aspect of this bill is the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is interesting to look at the context of what has happened in more recent times with water policy, particularly in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin scheme. In recent years, governments have been actively participating in water trading, buying back entitlements that had been lifelines for many farmers, that had been their capacity to make a living in this land of drought. The perverse irony of governments buying back water at times at prices as high as $800 a megalitre from those people who aimed to make a living was not lost. At the same time in my state of Tasmania, we were having schemes designed whereby entitlements to water were being traded, depending on the location around the state, for around $1,100 a megalitre.

The irony was not lost on those of us who have taken more than a passing interest over the years in markets and how markets work. It was quite countercyclical to what was happening in the Murray-Darling Basin, where water was being bought back by government. At the same time in Tasmania, albeit with bipartisan support, we had irrigation schemes in public and private partnerships with substantial contributions from the irrigators and the farmers involved—95 per cent secure water was being sold around my state at that time. It was a very stark contrast. There is an absolute revolution going on in the island state, and it is going to enhance and set in stone my state's reputation for producing high quality food and fibre. More than $1 billion at the completion of the second tranche of schemes will have been invested with state, federal and private partnerships to deliver 95 per cent secure water on the island state.

Tasmania only has two per cent of the nation's land mass, but we are truly blessed with a unique maritime climate where 13 per cent or thereabouts of our nation's runoff occurs in Tasmania. That is twice as much as the Murray-Darling Basin, and this is the significant thing. Often, of course, it falls in the wrong places, and whether it be in the hydro-electricity schemes around the state or whether it be more recently within the irrigation schemes around the state, this has been the challenge—to capture rain in the places it falls and to distribute it to the places that are very dry. Certainly parts of the east coast and parts of the Midlands of Tasmania are some of the driest areas in Australia; for example, there is 17-inch rainfall in parts of the Derwent Valley; around Ross and Tunbridge 17- to 18-inch rainfalls are the long-term averages. As one Tasmanian irrigator rather poetically described it:

The rain-bearing westerlies that unburden themselves after passing over the mountains of the Tasmanian west coast are on a constant circumnavigation in the latitudes called the Roaring Forties. The westerlies flow around the world, their path impeded only by South America. They arrive back in Tasmania, their clouds pregnant with water after visiting the Amazon.

It is a beautiful picture that is painted there. As I mentioned, though, a lot of that water falls in the wrong place. The key for farmers is to capture that water, to harness that rainfall run-off, for future use before it runs out to sea. Frankly, the infrastructure involved is beyond the scope of any individual farmer, but the cost has been demonstrated to be willingly shared by those farmers, and in some cases also urban communities, that will benefit largely from this investment. There has been a willingness by farmers to take very much a long-term view about what it is they are doing by investing in these water entitlements, which of course are tradeable instruments as well.

We already have examples of successful large-scale multiuse irrigation schemes in Tasmania developed under this public-private partnership model which have proved to be a very efficient use of capital—more so than the sum total of individual storage schemes on individual farms. For example, the Craigbourne Dam was a truly groundbreaking initiative in the Coal River Valley in my electorate. The Meander Dam was the first large-scale dam built in Australia for nearly 30 years, and despite the protestations of the usual suspects—particularly the Greens—this project has been an absolute success. It has been an absolute success from an environmental point of view, it has been an absolute success from a recreational point of view, it has been an absolute success in mitigating damaging floods that have occurred in the Meander River and the South Esk River over subsequent years, and it has provided that reliable supply of water that has enabled farmers to invest with confidence and to digress into other areas that they would not have considered possible.

The Cressy Longford Irrigation Scheme, again in my electorate, is a significant scheme based off the back of the water that flows out of the Great Lake down through the Poatina power station, generating hydro-electricity in Tasmania. Of course, more recently the Midlands Water Scheme—the largest in the state—is irrigating 20,000-odd hectares of land. With good soils and now with reliable water, the opportunities are really endless. The South East Irrigation Scheme has rather expensive water—$2,400 is the entitlement there, because they are taking that out of the Derwent and bringing it over along through Brighton and Tea Tree into the south east, which is a very, very dry part of the state—but it will support horticultural enterprises. As an example, I think of Houston's lettuces, a family business that has grown off the back of producing lettuces that now go into pretty well every supermarket, certainly on the east coast of Australia. They are grown in my electorate in the south-east of Tasmania. There are also the Lower South Esk and the Whitemore irrigation schemes.

There are wonderful stories of the differences that irrigation water has made not only to the lives of the producers involved but also to the communities involved. At the end of it all this is about jobs, this is about wealth creation, this is about opportunity and diversification. I mentioned the story of the Houston family. In 1957 Maitland and Bunty Houston migrated to Tasmania from Ireland with six children; they were chicken farmers. When Maitland could not sell chickens he was growing a few lettuces on the side, and the only thing that Woolworths wanted to buy from him were the lettuces, not the eggs. He was smart enough to realise that that was where the future lay and he is now, as I say, one of the biggest suppliers to the major supermarkets around the country. I think, for example, of Rob and Jo Bradley, with access to water on their 1,200 hectares—two properties at Woollen Park and Rosemount in the Longford-Cressy area—which they have really transformed. Rob won a Nuffield Scholarship and took a trip to the United States and the UK to investigate how to integrate livestock and pasture into an irrigated cropping system, improving soil quality and delivering a profitable and sustainable farming enterprise.

The opportunities for even the most traditional of farmers are starting to be realised. This is truly the exciting thing about this, where you are seeing breeders of beef or store sheep that now have the option of being able to finish that livestock—and back that up with the free trade agreements that as a government we are delivering; there is a world of opportunity for these people to take advantage of bringing good soils together with reliable water.

I am thinking of the Swan scheme, on the east coast of Tasmania—again, in my electorate. Brown Brothers owns the vineyard just south of Bicheno, between Bicheno and Swansea. Off the back of the scheme that has just been announced—the $60 million that has been contributed by the Commonwealth government, along with $30 million by the state government and nearly $50 million of private investment—they will be expanding their footprint in vineyards by 150 hectares. That means jobs, and it means opportunity on the east coast of Tasmania in those communities that really struggle.

So, this is the story of water in my state. It is the story of a collaborative, bipartisan approach, from a political point of view, to the private sector working very closely with government and led ably by Chris Oldfield. And I must acknowledge the work that has been done by Chris Oldfield and his team in developing these schemes and delivering the opportunity to so many Tasmanians and so many Tasmanian communities. I also acknowledge, in the Southern Highlands scheme, Richard Hallett, who has been an absolute champion for a scheme in and around the Bothwell area, which is one of the driest parts of my state. That was one of the schemes and probably will be the first scheme that will be completed under the tranche 2 schemes that were recently announced by the Prime Minister at Evandale when we announced the $60 million for the tranche 2 schemes. And I want to acknowledge Tim Lyne at Swansea—again, a vineyard owner and somebody who has championed the delivery of reliable water into that area—and Marcus McShane, who has been instrumental in supporting the North Esk scheme at Evandale, which will be an opportunity for farmers in that area to diversify enormously.

This is an exciting story, and, as I said, it contrasts very much with the situation we see in other parts of the country. I urge those who are interested in water infrastructure to look at the models we are using there—the collaborative models that are being used around the country.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to join with my Labor colleagues in opposing the National Water Commission Abolition Bill that is before the House today. This bill abolishes what has been an independent, expert agency with important functions for both urban water services and indeed the Murray-Darling Basin. The bill continues this government's seemingly endless attack on independent, well-functioning bodies. It is a worrying trend of destruction of agencies and centralisation of assessment and power. Whether it be in the environment portfolio, the arts, infrastructure, health or others, this government seems determined to break down important specialised advice and assessment structures and, in their place, shift functions to underequipped bodies or simply claim ownership of the functions themselves. Labor did not support the abolition of the National Water Commission in the other place, where this bill originated, and we will not support it in this chamber either. We believe that the commission in fact has important roles left to play.

The National Water Commission was created back in 2004 under the National Water Commission Act—indeed, under the Howard government. The intention was for the commission to perform important functions in relation to the National Water Initiative intergovernmental agreement. Some of those functions included, importantly, providing independent assessment of the progress of governments on water reform and to promote the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative; auditing the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, or the Basin Plan, as it is commonly known; assessing the performance of the basin states in implementing agreed milestones under the National Partnership on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin; playing a role in the assessment of Carbon Farming Initiative proposals; and publishing water market reports and national performance reports for metropolitan, regional and rural water agencies.

Two of these functions are indeed fundamental to the management of water resources in this country and which under this bill would be handed to the Productivity Commission. The first is around the triennial assessment of progress and implementation of the National Water Initiative, and the second is the five-yearly audits of implementation of the Basin Plan and associated water resource plans. Handing these functions to the Productivity Commission ignores the expertise and experience of the National Water Commission. As the shadow minister made very clear previously, the Productivity Commission has a really important role in Australia. Indeed, it functions especially well around its area of core business, which is to conduct assessments of the economic and social impacts of economic reforms. Unfortunately, that does not guarantee a depth of experience or knowledge around a very niche area of expertise around water management, and that is one of the problems Labor has with this bill.

The Australian Conservation Foundation's assessment of the bill, which suggested giving responsibility for water management to the Productivity Commission, was indeed short-sighted and a backward step in the absence of substantial changes to the mandate and operation of the commission. The Productivity Commission is just not equipped to undertake the audit and assessment functions that the National Water Commission currently undertakes, in part because the Productivity Commission simply is not an auditing agency. There are other agencies that currently exist that are better equipped to undertake that kind of function—for example, the National Water Commission, which, regrettably, is the one this government is choosing to abolish. It is telling that neither of the key water services peak bodies—the Water Services Association of Australia, which includes my local water service provider, Hunter Water, from my area in Newcastle, or the Australian Water Association—support the abolition of the National Water Commission. In fact, during the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, there was very little support for the abolition of the commission from any of the stakeholders providing evidence. The urban water industry wants the commission retained, environmental scientists want the commission retained, and traditional land owners want the commission retained.

I do acknowledge that there was some broad support for the abolition of the commission during the inquiry; however, the support was far from unconditional. I bring the House's attention to the National Farmers Federation. The shadow minister spoke of them earlier. Whilst giving some broad support to the abolition, the National Farmers Federation expressed serious concerns regarding water expertise within the Productivity Commission and its ability and willingness to engage stakeholders in a meaningful and ongoing basis. At least some of those concerns have been addressed in part by the government amendments which we see being incorporated into the bill before us today. Yet, despite the amendments that have been passed in the Senate, the expertise, experience and goodwill that the National Water Commission has built up over many years within the water industry and beyond will be lost if this bill is passed. We should make no mistake about that. That is what is at risk. It is very clear across the board that key organisations in the urban water industry and their members see very high value attached to the National Water Commission and agree that their industry needs the kind of assessment and reporting functions that the National Water Commission currently provides.

It is not just the water services industry that will be the poorer if this bill is passed. Indeed, the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan that is giving life back to this vital environmental and agricultural jewel in Australia will also suffer. Handing the Basin Plan audit functions to the Productivity Commission will not only see the loss of important expertise but will also see a statutory body that is not known for its environmental credentials undertaking five-yearly audits of what is fundamentally a plan to enhance the environmental health of the basin. There should be no mistaking this move by the government. It is another attack on the environment and further erosion of Labor's plan to bring the Murray-Darling Basin back to good health. A recent report from the Australian Conservation Foundation on the Murray-Darling Basin shows that it is still not safe and that much more work has to be done.

The 2014 report, Restoring our lifeblood: progress on returning water to the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin, shows that just two of 20 indicators are tracking well and, worryingly, seven indicators were given a red light, which represents imminent or serious risks that have the potential to erode the delivery of positive environmental outcomes within the basin. The red light was given to the following indicators, and these should flag a very serious warning to the government. The first red light was around subsidising water saving projects. The second was the 450 gigalitres of water for the Environment Trust Fund. Next were groundwater SDLs; the cost barriers to environmental water delivery; and connecting important areas, and this red light was directly attributed to the Abbott government's funding cuts to Landcare and to the National Reserve System and the abolition of the Biodiversity Fund. Next were the Indigenous water rights. Despite significant discussion and research, there has been very limited progress towards establishing important cultural water entitlements within the Murray-Darling Basin. Another red light directly attributed to this government is the removal and erosion of institutions and responsibilities that drive water reform in Australia. The foundation said that this will have lasting negative impacts on the effective management of our water resources, particularly those in the Murray-Darling Basin.

I would also like to draw the House's attention to some incredible work that the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have undertaken in Australia. I flag with the House some of the concerns that they have raised with regard to the future of Australia's water reform. Certainly, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists noted that the National Water Initiative is 10 years old in Australia, but there are a lot of signs right now that indicate we are departing very quickly from the strong leadership of the last decade around this initiative. This is leadership that has, until now, been on a bipartisan basis. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists looked at the abolition of the National Water Commission in particular and lamented any attempts to abolish it. It highlighted that the commission was indeed central to guiding the reforms over the last decade. It had the core tasks, as I mentioned earlier, of auditing progress on the national reform agenda, auditing the outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and, importantly, advising the Council of Australian Governments on further opportunities for improvement. The National Water Commission also funded new knowledge on water management and assisted state governments to implement reforms. I would suggest to the House that these have to be very difficult tasks for the Productivity Commission, which lacks expertise in this area and does not have a body of scientists working with it in this area to be able to give sage advice to state governments and also the Council of Australian Governments. We are going to run into some serious problems there.

I would also like to look at some insight provided by Environs Kimberley with regard to their experience of the Water Commission. I note that in their submission they wanted to highlight the importance of the commission's role in providing that independent, expert advice on matters of national water reform and, indeed, in monitoring and assessing the value of the National Water Initiative. Given the location of the Kimberley in the top north-west part of Australia, they have a very particular interest in Indigenous rights and interests in water. From the outset, Environs Kimberley noted that the National Water Commission has been a very strong supporter and promoter of Indigenous rights and interests in water and, indeed, Indigenous participation in water planning and management. Across northern Australia, Indigenous people manage over 40 per cent of the land and waters and have an interest in well over 80 per cent. The National Water Commission has supported the establishment of bodies such as the Indigenous Water Policy Group and the Indigenous Community Water Facilitator Network, which have been utterly indispensable in engaging local people and their representative organisations in water reform processes.

Again, I would suggest the Productivity Commission is going to have great difficulty in being a leader in this area of Indigenous rights and interests, for no reason other than that it lacks the expertise and skills to do so. The National Water Commission has played a vital leadership role in national water reform by engaging important stakeholder groups like the Indigenous people in northern Australia who have some land and/or water ownership rights or who, through their traditional customs, have a clear interest in more than 80 per cent of those waters and lands. So abolishing the National Water Commission demonstrates the short-sighted nature of the government's thinking.

In conclusion, I put on record that the National Water Commission does vital work and adds significant value to water management and reform in Australia. We can ill afford to lose this body of knowledge and expertise.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin my contribution on this legislation, I just make the point that it is incredibly difficult to stand in this place and listen to members opposite belittle the professionalism and capability of the Productivity Commission and the Department of the Environment. But I will move on.

I rise to speak in support of the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. As a proud South Australian representative for virtually all of my state's basin communities, few others appreciate the value of Australia's natural water resources more than I.    But, as the federal representative for practically all of the communities in South Australia who live on and depend on the River Murray for their livelihoods, I also know firsthand the crucial importance of ensuring that these natural resources are managed properly for all Australians, not just the states who get first dibs on the water upstream or who have the largest voting blocs in this place or who are acting in a narrow, parochial manner. This is a national asset and it must be managed in the national interest. This country, particularly my electorate, is highly dependent on the fair, efficient and productive allocation of water to ensure our ongoing national prosperity and the living standards of not just those in the agricultural sectors, although those sectors are crucially important, but also those in the tourism sectors, which also depend upon the health of the river to be able to attract visitors.

Since the Australian government and all state and territory governments agreed to the National Water Initiative in 2004, there has been considerable progress in national water reform, through enhancing the security of irrigation water entitlements, enabling water markets and trade, strengthening Australia's water resource information base and improving urban water security. The Abbott government is committed to continuing to progress national water reform and to supporting and promoting the implementation of the National Water Initiative. However, it is our firm belief that this should be done as efficiently as possible. As such, the government has determined that it is no longer necessary to retain a separate body to undertake the functions of the National Water Commission. Instead, and in line with the government's ongoing commitment to the National Water Initiative principles, key National Water Commission functions will be retained and transferred to existing Commonwealth agencies.

I pause my remarks to make the point that I listened briefly to the shadow environment minister—it was all I could bear, with respect. As I heard him speak, I identified an immediate error. He spoke of the effective cessation of national performance reporting for urban water. That is in fact an error. The reality is that the national performance reporting for urban water will continue to be undertaken. Indeed, it was undertaken in the 2013-14 year by the Bureau of Meteorology and funded by the states. It is my understanding that the states have agreed to continue that funding for two more years and into the future. One wonders whether, if this was an issue of such importance to the shadow environment minister that he raised it in this place, he might have inquired with the government as to what is occurring with the national performance reporting for urban water, and he perhaps would have been set straight.

I note that, in the original legislation that created the National Water Commission, it was always intended that the commission cease operations by 2012.    Whilst this was extended, I think it worth noting that clearly this legislative infrastructure was designed to achieve certain specific time-limited, performance-oriented objectives that, once completed, would remove need for that infrastructure to continue. So, in effect, by legislating for the commission's abolition, we are merely enacting the original intent of the legislation from 2004 and intuitively acknowledging that it has completed the purpose for which it was designed, with future challenges met with an equally appropriate and considered policy response.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the National Water Commission Act 2004 in order to abolish the National Water Commission with effect from 1 January 2015. The bill delivers on the Commonwealth's commitment announced in the 2014-15 budget to cease the operations of the NWC by the end of 2014, while transferring key functions to existing Commonwealth agencies. The abolition of the NWC is expected to result in a saving of close to $21 million over the forward estimates, thus further improving the budget bottom line. The findings of the Commission of Audit were taken into account in making this decision, which recommended the abolition of the NWC as a stand-alone agency.

The National Water Commission's roles are of a monitoring and reporting nature; it does not deliver programs or have any approval or regulatory functions. The National Water Commission has reported to the Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictions on the national benefits that resulted from the implementation by governments of the National Water Initiative, such as the creation of water entitlements as a tradeable asset, the development of water markets, improved environmental protection for our rivers and wetlands and improved urban water security for our towns and cities.

The National Water Commission has made a significant contribution to water reform over the last decade. Its role in reporting on the rate of reform has been also significant and all its staff should be extremely proud of their work. Given both the substantial progress already made in water reform and the current fiscal environment, there is no longer adequate justification for a stand-alone agency to monitor Australia's progress on water reform. In line with reform priorities to improve efficiencies across the Australian government and to improve the budgetary outlook, the NWC will cease its functions following the release of its assessment of national water reform in October this year. The budget does not provide funding beyond December, and the winding up of the NWC is well advanced.

The government reaffirms its commitment to the National Water Initiative and will ensure that the key audit and review functions required under the initiative and the Water Act 2007 are continued in a rigorous manner and with appropriate independent oversight. The triennial assessments of progress toward achieving the National Water Initiative objectives and outcomes by state and territory governments and the independent audit of implementation of the Basin Plan, and associated water-resource plans, will continue as statutory functions, but will now be undertaken by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission will also be responsible for the biennial National Water Planning Report Card, which is produced under the triennial assessment. The Productivity Commission will also undertake independent audits on implementation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan, as required by the Water Act. Retention of this function is necessary to ensure continuing public confidence in the implementation of the Basin Plan.

As the Productivity Commission collates performance data for other national agreements and national partnership agreements, it is well placed to take on the audit of progress in implementing the Basin Plan from 2018. The triennial assessments of the National Water Initiative implementation and producing a biennial National Water Planning Report Card. By allocating the assessment and audit functions to the Productivity Commission, stakeholders will benefit from the Productivity Commission's reputation for independence, the confidence in which it is held by the Australian public and governments, as well as its performance and benchmarking expertise. The government is confident that the Productivity Commission will strengthen and improve the reporting and analysis of the progress of water reform across Australia.

In addition to the statutory functions that will be transferred to the Productivity Commission, the Department of the Environment will take on responsibility for assessing milestone payments to Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Murray Darling Basin Reform and for providing ongoing advice on the status of relevant state and territory water resource plans to the Clean Energy Regulator, as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011. The department will also be responsible for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report, which will be undertaken for the department by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. The retention of these key functions by existing agencies was flagged in the 2014-15 budget papers, including the transfer of appropriate funding to support these functions, and will ensure the commitment by all governments to deliver on agreed reforms is realised.

I will now turn to the details of the bill. The bill provides that certain key assessment and audit functions of the National Water Commission, which are considered essential in the future, will continue but be undertaken by different agencies. The bill amends the Water Act 2007 to provide that the triennial assessments of the National Water Initiative implementation by state and territory governments and the independent audit of the Murray Darling Basin Plan Implementation will be undertaken as statutory functions by the Productivity Commission. The bill makes consequential changes to the Water Act to reflect the fact that the National Water Commission will cease to exist. To this end, references to the National Water Commission in the Water Act will be removed, including references which allow for the sharing of information with the National Water Commission or concerning its administration. Lastly, the bill provides for transitional arrangements for the closure of the National Water Commission's activities. The bill and other measures put in place by the government will ensure continuation of all important functions of the commission in a more efficient and effective manner.

I would like to conclude my remarks by highlighting some of the commentary around this legislation. I appreciate the support outlined by the National Irrigators Council, who state that the transfer of National Water Commission's functions to other agencies would 'rationalise arrangements which are currently sub-optimal'. The council goes on to note that 'the Productivity Commission has a proven track record in providing sound, independent advice to government on all aspects in the economy, including environmental issues'. I think this last comment is particularly important because, predictably, the Greens are opposed to the government's changes—as is Labor—specifically on the grounds that, in the Greens' opinion, these changes will undermine the integrity of the advice that is provided from the public service.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seem to be ending where I started. It is ultimately a matter for those opposite, the Labor-Greens alliance and others, to belittle the hard work of public servants at the Productivity Commission and to question their ability to act professionally and in accordance with their responsibilities. It is not a view I share; in fact I believe that if we are seriously trying to evaluate what is the most rational, productive, forward-looking approach to the allocation of a scarce and valuable resource, as water is, then surely it is the body of experts, which has been designed with precisely those principles in mind and which has a proven record in providing high-quality, independent advice to government without fear or favour, we should turn to. I commend this bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In beginning my remarks today on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015, I want to reflect on the contribution made by the previous speaker. I disagree that the job is done and there is little work left for the National Water Commission to do. Spend five minutes in Murray country and you learn very quickly that there is still a great body of work that needs to be done when it comes to managing water.

There is a need to make sure that we take on board all views in regard to the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is vital that there be an independent assessment, critique and engagement of these ideas and plans. This bill seeks to abolish the independent expert agency that has the important functions not just of urban water services but also of the Murray-Darling Basin. As we have heard, people on this side of the House will not support the abolition of the National Water Commission, and we did not support it in the other place. That is because we believe that the commission still has an important role left to play and that the work has not been finished in terms of water reform.

The National Water Commission was created in 2004 under the National Water Commission Act and has since then been working to implement needed water reform. The functions that are performed include providing independent assessment on the progress of government on water reforms and promoting the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative. Again, we have not yet finished the job, so we still need the relevant agency to provide the independent assessment on how we are going with implementing the plan. I do not think that it is any surprise to many in this House that water will always be a very tough issue to find middle ground on. We do have competing interests. We need to ensure that we have independent expert advice that helps us to navigate our way through this complex policy area.

One of the other functions of the National Water Commission is the auditing and implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It also has the important role of assessing the performance of the basin states in implementing the agreed milestones under the National Partnership agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. These are the areas that I wish to highlight in my contribution today.

I did have the opportunity recently of heading up to the Murray area, where I got the chance to meet with farmers, producers and local environmentalists to talk through some of the concerns that they have about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It reminded me how much work we still have to do to ensure that we get the balance right and that we are balancing the environmental, social and economic issues associated with water in the region. This bill seeks to hand to the Productivity Commission two of the functions that are fundamental in managing water resources in this country. I am very concerned about what impact that will have on the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the state of Victoria. The Productivity Commission is not equipped to undertake the audits and assessment functions of the National Water Commission. Further, it does not have the expertise, knowledge or relationships that have been built up over time within the National Water Commission.

During the time that I spent visiting and meeting with farmers in the Murray, I met with rice farmers. I know that rice farmers can sometimes get a bit of a bad rap, but when you meet with rice farmers they know all too well the importance of having water and having a water plan that supports their crop. When I was there, they said that they have had a good crop this year. That means that the future cropping that they can have on their land is secure.

In my visit, I also caught up with Kagome Australia. For those who do not know Kagome Australia, they are the largest single grower of processing tomatoes and Australia's largest tomato processing company. In fact, they supply almost 45 per cent of Australia's domestic consumption of processing tomatoes and assist many of our large Australian manufacturers with the supply of tomatoes. You just pop in there, and they have shelves and shelves and shelves of Masterfoods and other tomato based products where they provide some of the local content. They have an annual revenue of A$50 million, and they are increasing the proportion generated in exports to Asia—and in particular to Japan, Thailand and Indonesia. So they are one of those regional success stories that we want to see grow.

They have been proactive in engaging the Commonwealth and in engaging the state. As part of their top five recommendations in their submission to the agricultural competitiveness white paper of this government, they listed water and the management of water resources as their No. 1 issue. They state in their submission the need for there to be transparency and the need for there to be better communication, particularly in relation to decisions that the government makes to trade in temporary water. They talk about the impact that temporary water trading prices has not just on their particular enterprise but on the entire region when it comes to growing. The Kagome example highlights the need for more work to be done in terms of managing our water. The Kagome example highlights the issues that that they have raised and the need for there to be an ongoing independent body to monitor of the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Murray Darling Association has many more examples. In the association's briefing notes that they provided to parliamentarians as recently as last sitting fortnight, they referred several times to the need for impacts to be transparent and measured via agreed monitoring, evaluation and reporting when it comes to the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Some of the issues that the association raised conflict with other issues that have been raised by other organisations, and that is why we still need the independence of this organisation to remain. Some of the concerns that they have raised, and these are the concerns that they have raised with parliamentarians, include the current price of temporary water and the effect that it has on agriculture in the region. They talk about the commodification of water and the impact water prices are having on farming, particularly in the Murray region. They talk about the need for water to be valued and managed in the basin as a national resource and not as a commodity.

The Murray Darling Association talks about the need, with regard to the Water Act of 2007, for independent, evidence based monitoring, evaluation and review which is required to assess the effectiveness of achieving social, economic and environmental objectives of the Basin Plan. What better way to do that independent monitoring, to ensure that it is evidence based, to work with the local partners we have in these regions and to consult broadly than through what we currently have—which this bill seeks to abolish—and that is the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission, as I have outlined, is the appropriate body to provide that independent assessment of how our states are going with regard to water reform. It is not that long ago that we had the big campaigns in Victoria, where we saw the National Water Plan—one of the versions—being torn up and burnt. It is not that long ago that we had the Plug the Pipe campaign. But what we saw in the last government, and what we saw through national partnerships and through the states coming together, was the implementation of a plan that was agreed. We need to ensure that that plan is bedded down and has every chance of succeeding, that it consults broadly and not just with the environmental groups, and not just with the Murray Darling Association or the farmers, and that it brings people together and provides the independent assessment of how we are going as a country, as states and as a Commonwealth, in implementing important national water reform.

The National Water Commission does important work and it adds significant value to water management in this country. Since the very first implementation of the National Water Commission, it has really sought to bring together all of the key stakeholders. The transferring of these functions to the Productivity Commission ignores the expertise and the experience of the National Water Commission. The Productivity Commission, as I said, is not equipped to undertake the audits and the functions of the National Water Commission. Nobody, for a moment, is criticising the public servants that work for the Productivity Commission. They do good work and they are doing a lot of work for this government. We are saying that we need to continue to have an independent body that has the experience and the expertise in water. This particular National Water Commission have built the relationships. They are working hard and their job of bedding down water reform is not yet done. Environmental scientists agree and want the National Water Commission to be retained. Traditional owners agree and want the National Water Commission to be retained. The urban water industry agrees and wants the National Water Commission to be retained. Even groups such as the Farmers' Federation have expressed concerns with regard to water expertise within the Productivity Commission and its ability and willingness to engage stakeholders on an ongoing basis. All these groups involved in water want to ensure that they continue to be engaged in national water reform. Yes, the government has addressed some of these issues and they have incorporated some of these amendments. However, they do not go far enough. We still need to have the independence of the National Water Commission to ensure that the job actually gets finished. Handing the Basin Plan audits function to the Productivity Commission will not only see the loss of important expertise; it will also see a statutory body that is not known for its environmental credentials undertake five-year audits of what is fundamentally a plan to enhance the environmental health of the basin. It is another attack on our environment, and a further erosion of the plan to bring the Murray-Darling Basin back to health.

For as long as I can remember being involved in politics, Labor has been committed to seeing health restored to the Murray—whether it be Peter Beattie in the early years talking about Cubbie Station or whether it be Simon Crean in his budget reply speech back in 2003, Labor has been talking about the need for water reform and the need for us to work with the states to ensure the health of the Murray. In my time up in Murray country, I really learnt a lot by being out on the ground and talking directly with farmers and environmentalists. I learnt one thing: without water we do not have strong, resilient communities in these parts of Victoria. We need to have a strong, robust water reform and we need to ensure that we continue to consult with the agencies, the organisations, the people and the communities that rely on water. We can reach a good balance, and we saw that in the reforms that had been adopted and agreed to at the national level. But we need to continue to work with these communities to ensure that we have good outcomes, and to ensure the continued importance of the original objectives to (1) restore health to the Murray, (2) ensure that we have good environmental outcomes, and (3) balance that against our agricultural plans.

I call on this government to consider the contributions that have made on this issue, and I ask that they not proceed with abolishing the National Water Commission, because, as I have outlined, we still need to do a lot of work to ensure that the national approach and reforms to water do proceed, we need to continue to have independent assessment and advice on the progress of governments on water reform, and we need the commission to continue to promote the objectives and the outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Debate interrupted.