David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in consideration of this, particularly around schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, which are the most egregious, the most damaging and the most traumatic to regional communities up and down the basin. They go to buybacks. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 tears at the very heart of the bipartisan support that was given to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2012, designed by the Labor Party, designed and accepted by both sides of the House. As hard as it was for us in regional and rural Australia, we accepted that something needed to be done. And we have done something. We have recovered over 2,100 gigalitres of the 2,750 gigalitres that are required to complete the plan, but we were doing that with common sense and we were doing that with infrastructure, being able to return that to the environment.

The minister interjects and says we weren't doing that. Well, I don't know where she was for a couple of years when COVID was on—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Nationals will pause. This is not a general debate. I ask you to be specific, not stray into second reading amendment territory.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will clarify. I am talking about schedules 1 and 2, and I made that very clear when I sought the call. They go to buybacks and the reason why we don't need buybacks. I am, I believe, being relevant to what I am actually contesting here.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Nationals has the call.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. This is important. This goes to the very heart of what Labor has done. They have torn up the fact that we were going to get away from buybacks because they destroy the communities. The farmers might get the money, but it's the communities that are left behind. The irrigation shops, the machinery dealers and even the hairdressers are the ones that see that these communities are being ripped up. I've seen them in my electorate: the little towns like Dirranbandi and St George. This is nasty ideology that goes to the very heart of tearing up regional Australia.

You couldn't even wait for a Senate inquiry to complete going through the details, understanding the impacts of what this will do to these communities and why buybacks are so detrimental to these communities. You did not even give the respect of going out and talking to these very communities to understand the detrimental impacts this is having not just financially but emotionally. I have had people in my arms crying about losing their very businesses because of water buybacks, because of the destruction of their towns, but this reckless, nasty ideology that will just destroy regional communities is without any understanding and proper process even of wanting to understand and listen to these communities about. The buybacks that they will go towards in adding an additional 450 gigalitres on top of the plan will put sheer destruction through these communities, but there is not even the respect to understand that and go out and listen to these communities.

We were completing this plan with infrastructure and that has been delayed because of this little thing called COVID. There was no need to rush back into buybacks; we just needed to allow the states to build that infrastructure. I do acknowledge that government does want to extend that time for those infrastructure projects to be complete—and in a bipartisan way. It was me when I was minister, with the member for Watson, who was the shadow, that we got through the sustainable diversion limit legislation that allowed that to happen so that infrastructure could be used, not buybacks. Buybacks just don't make sense.

This has simply been about ideological views trying to tear up a bipartisan approach to what is not just important to the environment but important to our people. For those three million that live up and down the basin, their future has just been ripped away with the stroke of a pen by reckless ideology. Their peoples' future has been destroyed, and not even with a show of respect to turn up. This was a bipartisan plan. We were achieving it. We should be proud of what we have achieved. We should stick to the principles that we had when we all entered into this in 2012. They deviated from it for simple political gain, in one city alone, just for those that live in Adelaide. But, for the rest of this nation, you will also pay this bill, because your cost of living will go up. If you take away the tools that farmers need, then you will pay that consequence. This is reckless, nasty policy. This will be a dark day for every community up and down the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a day that we lost bipartisanship on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and that stands squarely at your feet.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 29), after item 20, insert:

21 After Division 4 of Part 2

Insert:

Division 4A — Annual progress reports relating to water recovery targets

85AB Secretary to prepare annual reports

(1) The Secretary must prepare an annual report on the activities undertaken for the purpose of making progress towards the following:

(a) increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres;

(b) the Commonwealth's water recovery target in relation to SDL resource units (as defined in the Basin Plan);

(c) projects that relate to adjustments of long-term average sustainable diversion limits under section 23A;

(d) any other matter specified by the Minister in writing.

(2) The Secretary must prepare a report under subsection (1) in relation to:

(a) the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023; and

(b) each subsequent financial year up to and including the financial year beginning on 1 July 2027.

(3) The Secretary must provide each report under subsection (1) in relation to a financial year to the Minister by 30 October in the following financial year.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of each report under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

The reason for this amendment is really around transparency and accountability. This amendment will require the minister to come into the parliament each financial year and explain to the parliament and to the nation exactly where we are with respect to the 450 gigalitres and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in general. I respect every member's position in this place. I also have the very end of the river—I have the most vulnerable part of the river—and we need to ensure that this river is healthy for future generations. So, to all members who are interested in accountability and who are interested in transparency, I would appreciate if you would support this amendment. Thank you.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Consideration in detail, schedules 1 and 2—this is bad policy.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina, you are entitled to speak on this regarding Ms Sharkie's amendment.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll speak to the amendments, and the amendments include buybacks. The amendments include—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The amendment that we're dealing with before the House is schedule 1, page 10, line 29, after item 20, regarding annual progress reports. It is not about buybacks; this is a detailed amendment about what has been moved before the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Annual progress reports also affect buybacks. They do. They go to the point where the buybacks that are going to be put into place, which are unnecessary, will be part of what the member for Mayo's amendment includes. Yes, we all want progress as to where we are, and we would all like to see annual updates. But those annual updates should not include amounts of water taken unfairly out of the river communities, out of the productive communities, out of those communities which grow food. As the Nationals leader has just clearly enunciated, this is nasty policy, this is lazy policy and this is typical Labor policy. We were in process—we were in progress, and you can—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina will resume his seat. The contents of this debate are specifically, under the standing orders, regarding the specific amendments about financial reports. I know where he is going with this, and I'm trying to be reasonable, but, under the standing orders, he can't talk about history or other topics. This is specifically about what is before the House in this amendment, which is quite narrow. The member for Riverina has the call.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect to you, they are annual progress reports on buybacks. The annual progress reports will include an annual update on water taken out of the productive system, which is code for 'buybacks'—which is buybacks.

Well, it's projects. Thank you, water minister. It is projects which were in place. It's progress and projects which were in place with the neutrality test and which were in place with the clear say-so of states which the former government was working with very closely—Labor states included, noting very carefully and in a very considered way that Victoria is not part of the plans that are in place to change the entire Murray-Darling Basin Plan. A Labor state!

Yes, we want progress. We do want progress reports. We do want updates, but we don't want to see updates on water buybacks because we don't want to see buybacks. That's because buybacks are going to take more productive water. When we have a cost-of-living crisis, we do not want to see everyday, ordinary Australians and families paying more at the checkout for their fresh food and groceries. That's what will happen. The member for Lyons can shake his head all he likes, but that is what will happen. When you take more productive water out of the system, the price of food will go up. And the buybacks will see, yes, farmers selling their water.

Once the Commonwealth enters the water market, it distorts the price of water. The price of water goes up and everybody suffers. They sincerely do. Farmers take the money and run, and they leave communities like Jerilderie, Cobram, Griffith, Narrandera, Leeton, Coleambally and Whitton, where the Indigenous affairs minister is from. She would well know how important this is to a community such as Whitton, in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. We don't want to see those effects on communities which are already crippled by hardships and which are still getting over the last drought. Let me tell you: this will cause another drought—a man-made drought. A drought will be brought on by none other than the member for Sydney, the water minister. This is so unnecessary. Yes, progress reports are important, but buybacks should not be part of the current or future Basin Plan.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While there are some amendments that we do support in principle, the Greens will be abstaining on amendments to the restoring our rivers bill in the House as a Senate inquiry into this bill is ongoing. We'll be reserving our position for the Senate.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are the progress reports going to talk about the progress—or otherwise—of regional towns? Are the progress reports going to give reference to the fact that, especially for Indigenous people in towns that the member for Maranoa knows very well, such as Dirranbandi and St George, the greatest mechanism for social advancement surrounds the irrigation industry? I remember that in Dirranbandi I saw progress. I sold my house to an Aboriginal family. The pub next door—the best pub—was owned by an Aboriginal family. This was the progress—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Member for New England, this is clearly entering into a policy debate. I want to state to all members: this is a technical debate. This is not a general debate. We've had that. Under the standing orders, if the member continues and doesn't refer to the actual amendment and the clauses within the specific amendment regarding annual reports, regarding the secretary of the department, regarding subsection (1), regarding the financial years and subsequent financial years—you can't simply continue to talk about general issues.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Speaker. I want to talk about the annual report, and maybe the minister can enlighten us. Will the annual report go to how this is affecting regional towns? Will the annual report—noted in 85AB(1)—actually go to the socioeconomic detriment to the places where these buybacks happen? Will the annual report, as noted in proposed section 85AB(1), go to the effect on closing the gap for Indigenous people, who live in greater proportions in the western areas? Will the annual report talk to the economic advancement of major towns, such as Tamworth in my electorate, where if they can't get access to water then those jobs that the annual report should talk about won't be there. I will give you an example: Camilleri's Baiada. Some 1,100 jobs and over $600 million for the next stage of investment have now been held up because they can't get access to secure water. It's not going to help. It's going to hurt. Who are the people who are going to be covered in that annual report? It has to be an all-encompassing annual report.

In relation to matters specified by the minister in writing, we should make sure the minister provides in writing to this parliament exactly what the wider ramifications of this policy will be. The annual report should also talk about what happened in the past, when we had both the member for Maranoa and the member for Watson—and prior to that myself and the member for Watson—trying to make sure that we avoided precisely what we are doing here. Did the member for Watson get it wrong? This is the Labor Party's policy.

Now we are going to have annual progress reports. The whole statement is a paradox. What's your definition of 'progress'? Is your definition of progress that someone doesn't have a job? Is your definition of progress that the prospect of social advancement in these areas has been removed? Is the definition of progress seen through the eyes of Jerilderie and Dirranbandi, or is it seen through the eyes of Sydney? What's the progress that you're talking about, Minister? As the member for Maranoa, the Leader of the Nationals, said before, it is lived experience. We would like to help you with the definition of how you determine an annual 'progress' report. We are very much alive. We can give you a whole range of suggestions of items that should be tabulated, addressed and spoken to in your annual progress reports. But I think what you'll find, Minister, is there'll be no progress in your progress reports.

An opposition member: Regress.

Yes, regress. Of course, it's going to tick the political box for the people in Sydney, in the seat of Grayndler and other seats. It will tick their boxes. It will tick the boxes for the Greens. But, for us, you're taking us backwards and you're doing it just for a political point.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak in relation to the annual progress reports relating to water recovery targets. I note proposed section 85AB1(a) refers to a progress report towards increasing the volume of basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres. The understanding is that the progress report will report on the fact that potentially water will be got through buybacks.

Buybacks are known to be an incredibly corrosive form of water recovery, because we've lived it. People who live in the basin have lived it. They haven't seen progress. They've seen regress when water buybacks have happened. There are better ways of doing it. Water buybacks basically remove the economic fuel of our regions. I wonder how some of those members opposite would feel if a government went into their electorate and removed the vital thing for their economy, because that's what's happening in my electorate of Nicholls in the Goulburn Valley. It's appalling.

The annual progress report talks about 450 gigalitres. The initial Basin Plan talked about how that 450 gigalitres could only be taken if there was no socioeconomic detriment What's happened to the spirit of that? The member for Watson said, 'We've got this thing called the 450 gigalitres, but it requires socioeconomic neutrality.' What happened to that? A lot of people only signed up to the plan—which has taken a huge amount of water out of my region—because there was that socioeconomic neutrality. That was part of the plan. So is this progress report going to talk about the socioeconomic effects in basin communities? Is this report going to talk about what I believe will be incredible economic damage to places like Shepparton? Is the progress report going to talk about what might happen to a business like SPC, which produces processed fruit for Australians and for people all around the world?

Is the progress report going to talk about what might happen to the thriving dairy industry that exports products—and that's one of the reasons why the Victorian government doesn't want this to happen. They understand what an important driver the dairy industry is to their state. But buybacks for the 450 gigalitres are going to smash that industry. So is the progress report going to talk about the progress—or should I say 'regress'—of that industry?

Is the progress report going to talk about what happens to the price of temporary water when allocations are reduced? Some of the speeches from the other side have shown a fundamental lack of understanding about how the water market works. When you take out 450 gigalitres through buybacks, the price of all the rest of the water goes up, and people have to buy that on an annual basis when the allocation's reduced. All of a sudden, their business model doesn't work anymore because the inputs are too high. Farming businesses don't work anymore because the input cost is too high because you remove part of the resource and the cost of the rest of it goes up.

This whole thing, but particularly the 450 gigalitres, is a very sad day for this parliament, and I think the effects will flow on to my communities. We'll feel it first. The progress reports will talk about how much progress there is towards getting rid of the 450. So we'll stop farming, but then it'll flow on to the rest of your electorates because your food prices will go up, or it will be coming in from China. If that's what you want, go ahead and vote for this.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo has moved an amendment, and we are happy to support the amendment. I want to thank the member for Mayo for both this amendment and her ongoing interest and sincere commitment to the future of the Murray-Darling Basin.

As the member for Mayo said, this amendment will require the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to prepare an annual progress report relating to water recovery targets. This will include reporting progress towards increasing the volume of basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres; the Commonwealth's water recovery target, known as the 'bridging the gap target'; projects that relate to the adjustment of the sustainable diversion limits, or the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects; and any other matters specified by the minister in writing.

Each year, I'll be required to table an annual progress report relating to the water recovery targets, including the 450-gigalitre target, the bridging the gap target and the projects that relate to the adjustment of the sustainable diversion limit—that's the 605-gigalitre target. This is a common-sense proposal which will strengthen government transparency on the delivery of water quality targets. I am pleased that the government will be able to support the member for Mayo's amendment.

Mr Speaker, can I just add a couple of comments in relation to the comments made by previous speakers on this amendment. The Leader of the Nationals and the member for Riverina have talked about how progress was afoot under them. I'm just going to table the graph that shows what progress happened under the previous government. The member for New England and others have talked about food prices. In fact, in 2011-12, the year when water purchase was highest, when 493 gigalitres of water were bought, food and beverage prices fell by 3.2 per cent. So, in the year that water purchase was highest, 493 gigalitres were bought. Food and beverage prices went down by 3.2 per cent that year.

I think it's important to note that, of course, input costs have impacts on prices. Fuel prices have an impact, water prices have an impact, what's happening to commodities overseas has an impact, droughts have an impact and floods have an impact. The idea that this is a simple, linear equation is just nonsense.

I also want to make a comment about the member for New England talking about water purchase. In 2017, the member for New England took a very special interest in the buyback of water licences in southern Queensland. It just so happened that $80 million of buybacks made by the member for New England, the then minister, was from water licences owned by an investment fund based in the Cayman Islands, established by the now shadow Treasurer. It seems that those opposite are absolutely opposed to water purchase unless it's the member for New England buying it from a company established by the shadow Treasurer. So it seems like not all purchases are a problem.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, in that this is misleading. The department does the purchases, not the—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Resume your seat. This wasn't a point of order. Has the minister concluded?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I will just reiterate that the government will be supporting the amendment from the member for Mayo.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mayo be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1):

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 3), before item 2, insert:

1A At the end of subsection 86AA(2)

Add:

Note: Environmental outcomes can also be enhanced in other ways, including increasing the volume of water resources available for environmental use in the Darling-Baaka or in other northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin.

This amendment is in relation to the new provisions of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 which would allow the Water for the Environment Special Account to be used to purchase water entitlements toward the 450 gigalitres for environmental outcomes. It seeks to explicitly use the special account, including via buybacks, to enhance environmental outcomes in the northern basin. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that water recovery undertaken by the government towards the 450-gigalitre target is strategic. The government should target water recovery to deliver the maximum environmental benefit at the lowest socioeconomic and environmental cost. Water purchases along the Darling/Baaka or in other parts of the northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin offer the best potential to achieve this.

When considering this bill I consulted widely, with water expert Lee Baumgartner at the Gulbali Institute; with Suzanna Sheed and Rob Priestly from the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District; with Dr Anna Roberts and Patten Bridge from the Water for Indi group of experts, which I convened in 2019; with the heads of the local catchment management authorities; with farmers, including Jock Blakeney and Jan Beer on the Goulburn; and with scientists from the Wentworth Group—all underlined to me that the government's approach to water purchases must be strategic. It must consider all areas of the basin, it must aim to maximise benefits and minimise negative impacts, and it should be equitable in terms of distribution of impacts.

Part of such a strategic approach involves recognising the physical limits of the basin system. My electorate of Indi is not only the source of more than half of all the water flowing into the basin but also home to the basin's three largest water storages. As a result, the majority of environmental water already recovered is stored in Indi and flows through Indi. Environmental flows at their existing levels already have considerable negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts. During my visit to farmers along the Goulburn in Indi last week, floodwaters had inundated high-value farmland and destroyed silage, crops, pasture and fencing. High-flow releases of environmental water from the Eildon Weir have cut into the bank of the river, literally undermining century-old red gums, causing them to topple over. Erosion leads to sediment flowing down the river, with detriment to water quality and native fish habitat.

Increases in environmental flows coming out of storage in Indi will only worsen environmental outcomes in these upper reaches of the Goulburn and Murray. Local land and water management organisations have clearly stated that if water is stored in Indi there is almost no way of getting it to South Australia without significant further riverbank erosion from high flows. The potential for further negative environmental impacts in Indi seems particularly inequitable when contrasted with the years of mismanagement and resultant overextraction and environmental collapse across the northern basin.

The dire state of the northern basin is unacceptable and should shock all Australians, yet what is clear from this current reality is that the greatest potential for improvements to environmental outcomes is in the northern basin. This bill as it stands may not restore the health and connectivity of the Darling/Baaka that's so desperately needed. My amendment ensures that efforts to increase environmental water flow in the most degraded part of the Murray-Darling Basin are absolutely on the table.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in opposition to this amendment, particularly to item 1A in the member for Indi's amendment. An easy solution will fix this problem by taking the water from somewhere else, so take it from the northern basin. The northern basin is an ephemeral system that traditionally floods and goes dry. Water in the northern basin, by the way, is one of the biggest employers of Aboriginal people. We've heard a lot in the last month or two about how we care about our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, while we might take the water away for places like Moree, Brewarrina, Burke Narrabri, Wee Waa, Gunnedah, Warren, Narromine, Dubbo. All of these towns rely on water from the northern basin. The reason they grow the crops they grow in the northern basin is that it is an ephemeral stream. I also represent the lakes at Menindee. Are we going to drain the lakes at Menindee more quickly to fulfil that 450-gigalitre promise to South Australia? You can't send the water back upstream, so have you been out and spoken to the people at Menindee about how this amendment will help drain those lakes quicker?

I have been in this place for a long time. This is not my first rodeo when it comes to the water debate in this place. But I've got to say I've never seen before such a turning-away. At least for the first go around, when Minister Burke came up with this policy, there were some safeguards and there was a bit more balance. I actually supported the first Basin Plan. The 450 extra gigs that came in later was not part of the plan. I've never supported that, and now we have the member for Indi saying: 'That's fine, leave my area alone. We'll take it from up in the northern basin.' Incidentally, the Parkes electorate represents a third of the northern basin. My community has already been gutted by this. I suggest that the members might like to go and visit Collarenebri and see what happens there when a hundred jobs are lost, largely Indigenous jobs. Go to Toorale station and see what it's like at Bourke when a hundred jobs and 10 per cent of the ratepayers at Bourke Shire Council are removed. Go to Warren and see what happened when the water was purchased out of there, the businesses that have closed down and the empty streets.

I will not take this lying down. The people of the northern basin have got just as much right to exist. The farmers in my electorate grow more food and fibre per megalitre of water and litre of diesel than anywhere else in the world. They are the most efficient users of water, and they have already taken significant cutbacks. They are very efficient, and I cannot support this amendment.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

AINES () (): I rise to acknowledge the member for Parkes and his defence of his community. I understand what he is saying. I want to be clear that we each represent our communities in policy debates in this House, and I fully respect his views. I want to be clear, though, that this amendment speaks to targeting and strategic buybacks, and it's very easy when the largest amount of water that flows through the Darling Basin comes from the electorate of Indi to simply target the southern basin. I'm simply asking of the government that they're strategic, that we stop this Swiss-cheese approach of buybacks and that we target those buybacks. In that targeting we must consider the northern basin equally, rather than go simply to the southern basin, where the majority of water is stored.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Briefly, this is one of the most divisive, disgraceful amendments I've seen. We've had a nation that's been divided for the last six months, and now the member for Indi wants to come in here and pit community against community up and down the basin. We've had enough of that. We've explored that, and we've had it. The trauma is still there, and we're about to relive it. The member for Indi actually voted in the second reading debate for more buybacks, but then just then articulated the concern about the buybacks for her community. I just don't understand how the member for Indi can, with principle, stand there and support the government's bill to increase buybacks, and then move an amendment that says: 'Well, that's okay, because we don't want it to come from my part of the world.'

This is about equity, and to say that we're going to pit one community against another—we're better than that. This country's better than that and this parliament's better than that. How could you walk in here and say you want to pit one community against another? That's one of the most disgraceful things I've seen in this parliament, and the Nationals will not support it.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've seen many disgraceful things in this parliament in the time that I've been here, so I do take objection at levelling that. I have consulted widely across my electorate and beyond. What I've asked for in this amendment is that the government consider strategic buybacks that have the best outcome for the impacts that the government are seeking to achieve. If the Leader of the Nationals were to go back and look at my speech from last night—and I encourage him to do so—he would understand that the people of Indi absolutely understand the competing interests of water. This is one of the most contested areas of public policy. What I am putting forward in this amendment is that if we are to do buybacks—and this bill is doing that—then we should do so backed by the science, and they should be done strategically so that we get the best outcomes for those buybacks.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know exactly where the member for Indi is coming from. She's talked about relying on the science if we are purchasing water and being strategic in those purchases. Of course, the government will do that. But I believe the proposed amendment, as drafted, is unnecessary.

What I really want to do is keep the Water for the Environment Special Account as flexible as possible. The Leader of the Nationals has spoken a number of times about water purchase. I've said in this place—and I've said it consistently, including just this morning to the National Farmers Federation—that it's not the first tool we reach for; it's not the only tool in the box. One of the reasons that we want to keep this flexibility in the Water for the Environment Special Account is so that, if we have other options, including on-farm water efficiency options, water purchase and also other infrastructure programs, rules changes and so on, we have that full suite of options available to us in meeting the objectives of the plan. Consequently, the government won't be supporting this amendment; it is unnecessary. As was set out in the agreement of 22 August 2023, we are proposing as a government that projects that are funded from the Water for the Environment Special Account be based on an overall assessment of value for money, informed by minimising socioeconomic impacts on communities. We will, of course, consider both environmental, utility and water market price, and consequently the government won't be supporting this amendment.

Question negatived.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(2) Schedule 1, page 7, after line 16, after item 11, insert:

11A After subsection 86AJ(3)

Insert:

(3A) In conducting a review under subsection (1), a panel must also consider the effectiveness of payments made, or expected to be made, under paragraph 86AD(2)(c) in relation to a purchase referred to in paragraph 86AD(2)(b).

This amendment relates to the terms of reference for the statutory review of the Water for the Environment Special Account, otherwise known as the WESA. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill opens the possibility of the WESA being used to support communities affected by water purchases. However, the bill does not go far enough towards ensuring the adequacy of support for impacted communities. It's here that I want to acknowledge the words of the member for Nicholls in the prior debate about this. We need to make sure, with this new element of the bill, that at every stage we put communities at the centre of compensation.

My amendment would provide a review of government support to affected communities. It would absolutely scrutinise the government's support of communities, ensuring that it's commensurate with impacts experienced, and meaningfully address their needs. The amendment would achieve this by ensuring that the statutory review of WESA considers the effectiveness of payments made using WESA funds to adequately address any social or economic detriment that is associated with purchasing water access rights.

I propose this amendment in the context of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, expanding the scope of options available to the government to deliver the target of the 450 gigalitres to include purchases of water allocations and also, in the context of the removal of the requirement for any projects contributing towards the recovery of 450 gigalitres, to demonstrate a positive or neutral socioeconomic impact. We know that water purchases can have socioeconomic detriment. While the exact extent of the impacts of buybacks on agricultural production, jobs and rural economies can be contested, the reality is that basin communities do hold grave fears about future water buybacks. These communities deserve to be supported, and support shouldn't just be a tokenistic one-off payment for a bit of community beautification or a sports facility, for example.

Support provided to affected communities needs to be a meaningful, long-term driver of community development. It needs to adequately offset the impact of the buybacks and it needs to empower communities to make their own choices as to how they invest in their future. The bottom line is that affected communities should be at the front and centre of government considerations when planning and implementing buybacks. The onus is also on the government to further explore the specific impacts of buybacks on agricultural production, on local jobs and on local economies. I note the important work of Professor Sarah Wheeler in this space. Detailed impact studies will be required to ensure support to communities is commensurate with the effects of buybacks. Thanks to my amendment, the success or failure of Commonwealth efforts to adequately support communities will be held up for the public to see following each review of the WESA.

I thank the Minister for the Environment and Water and the minister's office for working in good faith with me to improve this bill and to improve outcomes for communities by supporting this amendment—if she so does.

Finally, with the enlargement of the measures that can be funded by the WESA, it's my hope that the special account will also be used to provide First Nations groups with meaningful opportunities to protect and enhance cultural values associated with environmental flows. We're hearing today that rivers throughout the Murray-Darling Basin system are the lifeblood of so many communities, including First Nations communities. This bill opens the door to support all impacted basin communities.

I encourage the minister to accept this amendment.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I acknowledge the member for Indi's amendment, which is effectively about how we fly the white flag for compensation in regional communities, I can't support it. But I do acknowledge that she has conceded in this place—and I would hope others would listen to her—that water buybacks occasion socioeconomic harm. The water minister in South Australia doesn't accept that premise, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Way back when this agreement was negotiated, it was Craig Knowles who said: 'What we really need is a healthy working river.' I'm not here to fly the white flag. I'm here to ensure we have a healthy working river. Don't take my word for it. Ben Haslett is a premium citrus producer in my electorate. At a recent forum he said: 'You know what I think we're headed towards? We might end up with a healthy river, but it's not going to work anymore, and that's a big deal for us.' Ben is at the coalface, and in my world he's an expert. Let's go to the experts.

Aither published a report in 2020. That report was commissioned by the Victorian Labor government. There's no suggestion that this is a centre-right whitewash. It was the Victorian Labor government. What does this report say? This report says that, if you take an additional 500 gigalitres of water out of the basin, 'there's no horticultural product that will be viable'. Let's be clear here: people think you can remove water and the remaining water will sustain the economy of the basin. When you remove this water from the consumptive pool and you put it in the environmental pool—and I'll come back to that—you drive up the cost of temporary water, and, by driving up the cost of temporary water, various commodity groups in the basin can't remain sustainable. Almond, citrus, dairy—I don't need to list them.

We're doing this at a point in time when the red wine industry is literally on its knees. There are three billion litres of wine around the world that have no home. We consume less than that globally in a year. These people are desperate. The minister opposite will say, 'But these are willing sellers.' Well, these are the kind of willing sellers you get when you're absolutely on your knees. Let's just remember that this isn't a debate about 500 gigalitres; this is a debate about Australian horticulture in the basin, full stop. That's not the member for Barker saying that in some highfalutin, overreaching speech; these are world experts on water economics: Aither.

So what are we doing this for? We're doing it to recover more water for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Some in this place might be interested to learn that in the last 10 years, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has not used all of its allocation at any point in the last 10 years. In fact, in one particular year, it carried over a thousand gigalitres. Right now what we're saying is we've got to give more water to the environment at the cost of my constituents, my growers—and, by the way, the Riverland population shrunk by 30 per cent last time we did this—to give yet more water to the environmental water user, who haven't yet used their full allocation to this point in any one particular year. You can understand why the environmentalists in my electorate, the 75-year-olds who are going to Ramsar listed sites to plant trees and to dig trenches to get water to the red gums, throw their hands up in despair.

By the way, the farmers don't live next to the Ramsar listed wet sites. Nobody visits them. Certainly the department from Canberra doesn't. I can assure you of that much. So, Friends, let's not fly the white flag. Just to be clear, in my electorate alone, SA's contribution to this target, 32 gigs, is likely to be 5,000 hectares of mandarins and $200 million a year in production gone. That's year on year; that's this year, next year and the year after. Do you know what those opposite are saying? 'She will be right. We'll chuck you $20 million in compensation as a one off. It's all good.' I tell you what: I'm not here to fly the white flag. The people of Barker didn't send me to fly the white flag, and not all South Australians support this approach.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be supporting this amendment to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, and I thank the member for Indi for moving this amendment and for the constructive way in which she's engaged with me and my office on this legislation. This amendment would ensure that the independent review panel considers the effectiveness of payments made using WESA funds that are made to address any socioeconomic impacts of voluntary water purchases. It will make sure we're examining the effectiveness of any payments made to offset any detrimental social or economic impacts on the wellbeing of any community in the Murray-Darling Basin because of a voluntary water purchase.

The member for Barker, I just need to take issue: you can't just make up figures like this. There is a lot of contested modelling around this.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're the expert?

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You were given a fair go during your speech, so please let the minister speak.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this is a time for rational and sensible debate. I thank the member for Indi for the way that she's engaging in that.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (3), as circulated in my name:

11A After subsection 86AJ(3)

Insert:

(3A) In conducting a review under subsection (1), a panel must also consider the effectiveness of payments made, or expected to be made, under paragraph 86AD(2)(c) in relation to a purchase referred to in paragraph 86AD(2)(b).

(3) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (lines 3 to 5), omit subsection 7.08A(3), substitute:

(3) The roadmap, and any substantive amendments of the roadmap, must be prepared in consultation with:

(a) the Basin States; and

(b) the Commonwealth; and

(c) affected communities and landholders; and

(d) the public.

Consultation must be active, timely and address the underpinning science for the intended measures and outcomes.

(4) Schedule 2, item 49, page 24 (lines 9 to 13), omit the item.

(5) Schedule 2, page 24 (after line 13), after item 49, insert:

The amendment requires road maps for the constraints relaxation projects to be prepared in consultation with the basin states, the Commonwealth, affected communities, landholders and the public. Consultation must be active and timely and must address the underpinning science for the intended measures and outcomes. Constraints relaxation projects are an important part of delivering environmental benefits for the basin. This bill aims to drive progress for delivery constraints projects across the southern basin by allowing the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to develop and implement constraints road maps.

When I consulted on this bill, I heard from farmers and land and water management authorities that flooding resulting from environmental flows can have negative impacts on farming properties, infrastructure and riverbanks. Just last week, I visited local farmers Jock Blakeney and Jan Beer on the Goulburn River, who showed me what can happen to farms when floods occur because of high flows from Eildon weir, one of the basin's largest water storages. Jock, Jan and other farmers on the Goulburn and below Hume dam, the largest water storage, stand to be significantly impacted by increased environmental flows. Jock pointed out pastures under water that had been mere days away from being cut for silage; that crop is now lost. In other areas, silage bales were like islands dotted throughout flooded paddocks.

These are areas that have been flooded multiple times in the recent La Nina years, with each flood killing pasture, introducing weeds and damaging fencing. Returning the land to production after a flood takes time and money, and, with the potential for environmental flows to result in flooding in seven out of 10 years, local farmers are questioning whether it's worth continuing to farm on these areas.

Part of the issue is the timing of water releases. For many, mid-spring to late spring is too late to be releasing high volumes of environmental water flows, as spring is the very time when farmers are trying to apply fertiliser, grow silage and put cattle on the most productive areas. Further, I've heard that landholders are not provided with adequate warning of when releases will occur and what the intended outcomes of the releases are. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority often does not provide specific information about locally important issues, like these constraints projects.

This amendment ensures that affected communities and landholders are adequately consulted about a constraints project affecting them, including the intended outcomes. Communities dissatisfied with basin state or Commonwealth efforts to engage with or compensate them on constraints projects should have avenues for recourse. This is not in the bill, but I urge the minister to please consider this further. Increased flows could change the way of life of these communities in the same way that buybacks could change the way of life of other communities. Therefore, all negatively impacted communities deserve to be engaged with, listened to and compensated, and that's what this amendment seeks to achieve.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely understand the intent of the member for Indi in moving this amendment and in flagging the importance of effective community consultation and other landholder consultation on the constraints relaxation program. I absolutely understand and agree with the intent. However, the government won't be supporting this amendment, because we believe that the measures that we've already taken to ensure that consultation will do the job that the member for Indi has identified. The constraints relaxation program is absolutely critical to making sure that, when we recover water for environmental purposes, that water makes it safely into the areas that require it, including into the flood plains that require that watering.

The bill already requires the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to undertake consultation for the constraints relaxation implementation road map, both during the development of that road map and at any time that it's amended. In addition to the requirements in the bill, state governments, which are responsible for implementing these programs, must also undertake stakeholder consultation through the existing federation funding agreements, including community engagement and negotiation frameworks and plans. I also want to reassure the member for Indi that, as part of the constraints relaxation implementation road map, a new independent constraints facilitator will make sure that we do much better community and landholder consultation when it comes to constraints relaxation.

Question negatived.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (4) to (6), as circulated in my name, together:

(4) Schedule 2, item 49, page 24 (lines 9 to 13), omit the item.

(5) Schedule 2, page 24 (after line 13), after item 49, insert:

49A After subsection 7.27(1)

Insert:

(1A) The Inspector-General may:

(a) audit calculations made by the Authority for the purposes of Parts 2 and 4; or

(b) appoint or establish a person or body that is independent of the Authority to audit calculations made by the Authority for the purposes of Parts 2 and 4.

(6) Schedule 2, item 50, page 24 (line 15), after "Inspector-General", insert "(unless the Inspector-General is conducting the audit)".

Under the 2012 Basin Plan, basin states and the Commonwealth agreed to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water for the environment. To achieve this goal, the Basin Plan allows states to propose projects that will deliver an equivalent environmental outcome to buying back water licences without removing water from the consumptive pool. This is known as the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, and projects are referred to as sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects, or SDLAM projects. In total, the proposed SDLAM projects promise to deliver 605 gigalitres of equivalent environmental benefits, yet we're seeing delays. There are significant questions about whether the projects will deliver the promised benefits. In New South Wales, in particular, many of these projects have not even begun or have changed so significantly that they will not deliver the promised benefits.

This bill extends the deadline for these SDLAM projects. I support that. It also includes provisions which ensure basin states are held to account for meeting their obligations in relation to these projects. These are important provisions, which I support, so we can deliver on the 2012 base plan targets, but they can be improved.

Independent and transparent scrutiny of these projects is absolutely necessary to ensure the Australian public and the environment are not being short-changed on taxpayer money for projects to return water to the basin. This scrutiny is the role of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. The inspector-general must have appropriate powers to hold basin states accountable and to determine compliance with sustainable diversion limits and the promised outcomes of projects.

My amendments further strengthen the inspector-general's powers to make sure the states and projects are delivering. They enable the inspector to undertake an independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's sustainable diversion limit, or SDL, calculations. These audits can be undertaken by the inspector-general or an independent person or body they appoint. SDLAM accounting, knowing what water is returned to the environment via supply or efficiency projects, should be done in a comprehensive, transparent and publicly accessible way that uses the best available science. This is to ensure that benefits for the environment are aligned with the targets of the Basin Plan.

It's the general practice of the inspector to make its work publicly available and therefore transparent, so, if these independent audits are showing that projects are not meeting their promised environmental benefits, we will know. The public then must see a path to compliance or a path to ensure the environmental benefits are delivered by other means.

In drafting this amendment, I particularly wish to thank the Water for Indi group, a voluntary community group that I set up in 2019 with local experts, including Dr Anna Roberts and Patten Bridge, who have experience across all impacted sectors. Water for Indi note that improved accountability includes the need to provide better publicly accessible information, such as catchment-by-catchment information about sustainable diversion limits and progress against meeting catchment-by-catchment targets. We need to improve the granularity of hydrological modelling and water reporting units, and, linked to this, we need better data and we need whole-of-basin modelling. Better data includes additional gauges to report on inflows and outflows of tributaries across the basin.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists' work also informed this amendment, and they want that process used by the basin authority for determining the sustainable diversion limit with the best available science.

Improving data and modelling will improve the accountability and outcome for all basin actors, and any independent audit must encompass these best-practice methods. I thank the minister and her office for working with me so constructively on this particular amendment, and I look forward to her response.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Dr Haines, the member for Indi, has said, this amendment will empower the Inspector-General of Water Compliance to undertake an audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's sustainable diversion limit calculations in their capacity as an independent entity. The amendment further bolsters the audit powers of the inspector-general to ensure accountability and transparency of water accounting methods relating to the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism reconciliation process and the 450-gigalitre target.

I'm very pleased that the government have been able to work so constructively with the member for Indi on these amendments (4) to (6), as circulated in her name, and that we have been able to work with both the member for Indi and the member for Mayo to strengthen the accountability mechanisms in this bill.

Of those sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects that the member has alluded to, about a third are complete, about a third are on track and about a third are looking quite dicey. We'll continue to work with the states. Extending the time frames in the plan, as we're doing with this legislation, gives us the opportunity to complete those projects that can be completed. We've also said to basin states and the ACT that we're happy to look at additional projects, should they emerge. I'll spend a moment saying that the Inspector-General of Water Compliance has done an excellent job to date. Engaging the inspector-general in this way is an excellent step to increase compliance and transparency, and I thank the member for putting forward the amendments.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (4) to (6), moved by the honourable member for Indi, be agreed to.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1), (3) and (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:

(3) Schedule 2, page 11 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 6.08(5)

Omit "following the commencement of a water resource plan".

1B Subsection 6.08(6)

Repeal the subsection.

(4) Page 99 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 7 — Responding to climate change

Water Act 2007

1 Before paragraph 3(a)

Insert:

(aa) to recognise and acknowledge:

(i) the threat of the impacts of climate change to the communities, environment and industries of the Murray-Darling Basin; and

(ii) the need for immediate and urgent action in response; and

2 Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

National Standard means the standard determined under section 53A.

3 Before paragraph 20(a)

Insert:

(aa) immediate, urgent and adaptive responses to the impacts of climate change; and

4 Before subsection 21(1)

Insert:

Basin Plan to respond to the impacts of climate change

(1A) The Basin Plan (including any environmental watering plan or water quality and salinity management plan included in the Basin Plan) must be prepared so as to provide immediate, urgent and adaptive responses to the impacts of climate change.

5 Subsection 21(4)

After "Subject to subsections", insert "(1A),".

6 After subsection 53(1)

Insert:

(1A) There is to be a National Standard for Managing Water in a Changing Climate. Water resource plans must be consistent with this National Standard.

7 After Subdivision A of Division 2 of Part 2

Insert:

Subdivision AA — National Standard for Managing Water in a Changing Climate

53A National Standard for Managing Water in a Changing Climate

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine a National Standard for Managing Water in a Changing Climate that sets out minimum standards for water planning and management rules and practices.

(2) The Minister must ensure that the minimum standards are an immediate, urgent and adaptive response to the impacts of climate change.

53B Basin State water planning and management rules and practices must meet the National Standard

Each Basin State must ensure that its water planning and management rules and practices comply with the National Standard.

8 Before subsection 55(1)

Insert:

(1A) A water resource plan for a water resource plan area must comply with the National Standard.

9 After paragraph 172(1)(a)

Insert:

(aa) to review Basin State water planning and management rules and practices to ensure objectives can be achieved under likely climate scenarios;

I apologise to the minister and the chamber, especially my crossbench colleagues—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Just pause. If members can leave the chamber—there is far too much noise for the member for Goldstein to be heard. She has the call.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise to the minister and the chamber, especially my crossbench colleagues, for the lateness of these amendments. I appreciate the diligence with which the minister's staff have consulted with me on this important legislation. While I understand the lateness of these amendments means they won't pass, I hope the government will consider integrating these elements as the bill progresses.

My first and fourth amendments would require climate change and its impacts on the Murray-Darling to be taken into account in the administration of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The fact is that the Darling is already suffering significant stress, and all of us should worry about the consequences for the Menindee Lakes and the Coorong, for example, should we suffer another drought, which seems highly likely. According to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, winter rainfall and stream flow in the southern basin have declined by nearly 40 per cent since the mid-1990s, and climate change is only making it more difficult. This is not a climate trigger, although I believe that should be a feature of much other legislation. This would, though, incorporate climate change into the objects of the act. Its absence is a significant oversight, and this would rectify a serious omission.

The third amendment goes to water resource plans, which are an integral part of implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. All jurisdictions, other than New South Wales, have successfully completed their MDB Water Resource Plans and had them accredited. But, as the Wentworth Group points out, despite being more than four years late and having accumulated deficits over the past three years as a result of overextraction in the case of the Barwon-Darling and the Gwydir River systems, these cumulative deficits will be zeroed under provisions in the existing Basin Plan when the New South Wales Water Resource Plan is accredited by the Commonwealth. As all other jurisdictions have met their commitments under the plan to submit and have their Water Resource Plans accredited by the Commonwealth, New South Wales remains the only jurisdiction not to have done so. When they eventually do, they will not be penalised from exceeding the SDLs from 2019 to the accreditation date. The amendment is designed to remedy this oversight.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Goldstein's amendments in relation to the impacts of climate change on the basin. They seek to amend the Water Act to recognise and acknowledge the threat of climate change to the communities, environment and industries of the Murray-Darling Basin, and the need for immediate and urgent action in response.

These amendments also require the Basin Plan to be prepared to provide immediate, urgent and adaptive responses to the impacts of climate change. The current Basin Plan doesn't integrate the impacts of climate change at all. In my consultations on this bill, I heard time and time again that this is a significant failure. We must confront the facts. Climate change already does, and will increasingly, cause declines in average water inflows into the basin and increases in flow variability. And we can't stick our heads in the sand on this; we've known this to be the case for years. In 2007, when the Water Act was passed, the CSIRO estimated that by 2020 average annual flows could decline by about 15 per cent due to climate change; recovery from bushfire; farm, dam and plantation expansion; and increasing use of groundwater. I've seen this up-front in my electorate.

The CSIRO's estimates, in fact, came true. And it wasn't the Greens or the scientists themselves that brought them to the public's attention in 2007. I'd like to remind the House that it was John Howard, in his address to the National Press Club in 2007, where he stated:

… with the prospect of long-term climate change, we need radical and permanent change.

And:

That means looking at the evidence as it emerges …

So radical and permanent change led to the Water Act and the Basin Plan, and it was John Howard who said those words.

We need a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that puts us on the front foot, with a healthy river system that delivers for basin towns, communities, farmers and the environment, and which is resilient in the face of a changing climate. While I understand that the member for Goldstein's amendments won't be passed today, their aim is to address that. Ultimately, if we can't incorporate climate change into our complex public policy on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, then we have serious, serious issues that we will be confronting when we seek to draw up the next plan. So I commend the member for Goldstein for her amendments.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Goldstein for her work and the work of her office with my office and officials on proposing these amendments to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill. The member for Goldstein has mentioned that we've only just received them this morning, and I understand the reason for that: her office has been much occupied with the very difficult situation in Israel at the moment, with many constituents requiring her attention. So I completely understand why the amendments have only just now been presented to the parliament.

While there are a number of elements here that we broadly agree with, we won't be supporting the amendments today. The government will continue to work with the member for Goldstein on the very strong issue she has on better environmental outcomes that the restoring our rivers bill is intended to produce. I want to thank her for her continued engagement. We really have seen a decade of delay on the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and one of the things that we've observed through that decade is the impact of climate change right across Australia but most particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin. We know that climate change is already impacting the basin, with record droughts punctuated by the most intense floods. Environmentally, it has been a very, very difficult time for the people living in those basin communities. Sadly, we know that climate change means that those impacts will not only continue but are likely to worsen. We don't, for a moment, discount the seriousness of the issues that the member for Goldstein is alluding to.

One of the most important things that we can do now is actually deliver on the Basin Plan to make sure that we prepare. We know we're going into another hot, dry cycle; we know that. The Bureau of Meteorology has told us that we're going into another hot, dry cycle. For the benefit of everybody whose livelihood depends on the basin, for those communities—three million people rely on this river system for their drinking water—and, of course, for the environment, we need to prepare now for those hotter, dryer times that are coming.

I want to reassure the member for Goldstein that we are taking this very seriously. We're investing $22 million to update Murray-Darling Basin science for the very reason that she's mentioned today. We're assessing the impact of climate change on the 16 Ramsar listed wetlands in the basin to support their future protection and management. We're reinstating the Sustainable Rivers Audit to track and report on the health of basin rivers. We're updating the CSIRO sustainable yields study to show how much water will be available in the future with climate change. We are doing that scientific work now. We are making those investments.

In addition, the government is investing $103.7 million in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to review the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This forward-looking review is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to futureproof the basin based on updated science and information. We're doing the science now, and one of the reasons we don't agree with the proposal to change the date of the review of the Water Act is because we want to get this science done and the review of the plan done. The review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will consider the challenge posed by climate change and set the basin up for the future, ensuring that the river system is healthy, and the basin is sustainable.

Of course, we're also going to look more broadly. The impact of climate change is not confined to the Murray-Darling Basin, so our renewed National Water Initiative will look at our water needs nationally, because we know that they will also be affected in other states and territories by the impact of climate change.

I very much understand the intent of what the member for Goldstein has moved, and we will look at some of these elements in the Senate, but for today we will not be able to support the proposals as suggested.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendments (1), (3) and (4) as moved by the member for Goldstein be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 6), omit "2027", substitute "2026".

As the minister mentioned previously, the legislation incorporates a number of reviews. Mine is simple. The existing legislation sets a review of the act for 2024. Because of the delays entrenched in this bill, the government is proposing that it be delayed until 2027. There is an argument, given what we've seen over the lifetime of the plan, that it should remain at 2024, particularly given the integrity issues within the system. As a compromise, I'm suggesting in this amendment that it be 2026, based on the advice of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and others, a year before the latest commitments for this much-delayed plan are due to be met. Transparency and accountability are paramount to the success of this plan, from my point of view, and, of course, that was a key pillar on which I and other members of the crossbench were elected.

Question negatived.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (31), as circulated, together and present a supplementary explanatory memorandum:

(1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 11 (line 16), omit "publish guidelines", substitute "issue and publish guidelines under subsection 215V(1)".

(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 11 (after line 18), at the end of subsection (2), add:

Note: The Inspector-General must consult the Basin States, and have regard to any submissions made by the Basin States, in preparing guidelines under section 215V: see section 215VB.

(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 12 (line 8), omit "publish guidelines", substitute "issue and publish guidelines under subsection 215V(1)".

(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 12 (after line 10), at the end of subsection (2), add:

Note: The Inspector-General must consult the Basin States, and have regard to any submissions made by the Basin States, in preparing guidelines under section 215V: see section 215VB.

(5) Schedule 2, item 48, page 24 (line 4), after "SDL", insert "resource".

(6) Schedule 3, item 2, page 47 (after line 18), at the end of subsection 100ZH(3), add:

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see section 154E.

(7) Schedule 3, item 2, page 48 (after line 5), at the end of subsection 100ZJ(3), add:

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see section 154E.

(8) Schedule 3, item 2, page 48 (after line 21), at the end of subsection 100ZK(3), add:

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see section 154E.

(9) Schedule 3, item 3, page 49 (line 15), definition of material effect, before "a decision", insert "for the purposes of Part 5A,".

(10) Schedule 3, item 4, page 52 (after line 11), after subsection 101B(3), insert:

(3A) A person who provides a water markets decision to the Bureau under paragraph (1)(a), or reports the announcement of a water markets decision to the Bureau under paragraph (3)(a), must comply with the requirements (if any) prescribed by the regulations in relation to the manner or form in which one or more of the following are provided:

(a) the decision;

(b) the report;

(c) details in relation to the decision or the report.

(11) Schedule 3, item 4, page 52 (line 13), omit "or (3)", substitute ", (3) or (3A)".

(12) Schedule 3, item 4, page 58 (after line 31), at the end of subsection 101M(3), add:

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see section 154E.

(13) Schedule 3, item 4, page 59 (after line 19), at the end of subsection 101N(3), add:

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see section 154E.

(14) Schedule 3, item 4, page 59 (after line 34), at the end of subsection 101P(3), add:

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see section 154E.

(15) Schedule 3, item 4, page 60 (before line 1), at the end of Part 5A, add:

Division 8 — Information required under this Part and Part 7

101Q Interaction between this Part and Part 7

If, apart from this section, a person would be required to give the same information to the Bureau under this Part and Part 7:

(a) the person is required to give the information under this Part; and

(b) if the person gives the information under this Part—the person is not required to give the information under Part 7.

(16) Schedule 3, item 17, page 82 (lines 11 and 12), omit the note.

(17) Schedule 4, heading to Part 1, page 84 (line 4), after "water", insert "access".

(18) Schedule 4, item 2, page 84 (line 13), after "water", insert "access".

(19) Schedule 6, item 6, page 89 (after line 10), after paragraph 137(ba), insert:

(baa) the ACCC if the contravention is a contravention of a provision of Part 10AC; or

(20) Schedule 6, item 8, page 89 (line 21), omit ", regulations made for the purposes of Part 5,".

(21) Schedule 6, page 90 (after line 21), after item 9, insert:

9A Subparagraphs 215C(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and (b)(i) and (ii)

Omit "10A", substitute "5, 10A, 10AC".

9B After paragraph 215C(2)(a)

Insert:

(ab) by the ACCC under Part 8; or

(22) Schedule 6, item 10, page 92 (after line 10), after subsection 239AJ(5), insert:

(5A) A person is liable to a civil penalty if:

(a) the person refuses or fails to comply with a notice under subsection (2); or

(b) in purported compliance with such a notice, knowingly gives information or evidence that is false or misleading.

Civil penalty: 100 penalty units.

(23) Schedule 6, item 10, page 92 (after line 14), after subsection 239AJ(6), insert:

(6A) Paragraph (5A)(a) does not apply to the extent that the person is not capable of complying with the notice.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see section 154E.

(24) Schedule 6, item 10, page 92 (after line 23), after subsection 239AJ(7), insert:

(7A) Paragraph (5A)(a) does not apply to the extent that:

(a) the notice relates to producing documents; and

(b) the person proves that, after a reasonable search, the person is not aware of the documents; and

(c) the person provides a written response to the notice, including a description of the scope and limitations of the search.

(25) Schedule 6, item 10, page 92 (lines 24 and 25), omit "paragraph (7)(b), a determination of whether a search is reasonable for the purposes of that paragraph", substitute "paragraphs (7)(b) and (7A)(b), a determination of whether a search is reasonable for the purposes of those paragraphs".

(26) Schedule 6, item 10, page 93 (line 10), after "Code", insert "and section 154E of this Act".

(27) Schedule 6, item 10, page 93 (line 15), after "Code", insert "and section 154E of this Act".

(28) Schedule 6, item 17, page 96 (line 1), definition of relevant agency, after "means", insert ", for the purposes of Part 5A".

(29) Schedule 6, page 97 (after line 15), after item 30, insert:

30A Subparagraphs 215C(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and (b)(i) and (ii)

After "5,", insert "5A,".

(30) Schedule 6, page 98 (line 2), heading to Part 3, after "information", add "and annual reporting".

(31) Schedule 6, page 99 (after line 12), after item 41, insert:

41A At the end of section 215Y

Add:

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of each annual report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

There are a number of amendments that I have proposed today, because we have continued to take on feedback provided by basin states, by commonwealth agencies, by industry and by community stakeholders on the version of the bill that was introduced to the parliament on 28 September 2023. The government is introducing amendments to the bill to: firstly, strengthen transparency and accountability in the Basin Plan, including for the role of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance; secondly, ensure the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can enforce its new information-gathering powers by making the ACCC the appropriate enforcement agency and adding a civil penalty provision for contraventions; thirdly, ensure the Inspector-General for Water Compliance does not have oversight of the ACCC or the Commonwealth or basin agencies that the ACCC regulates in relation to the integrity and conduct obligations in the bill; and, fourthly, to make minor and technical amendments in response to feedback from Commonwealth and basin state agencies and to ensure the bill would operate as intended.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While there are a considerable number of amendments here, we were only made aware of them late last night, and obviously there are a number of them that should bear some more scrutiny. One in particular goes to the heart—it tears away at the very tenet of our judicial system, around the presumption of innocence. I think that sets a very dangerous precedent where the onus of proof and the evidential burden are now on an individual, which goes against the very key tenet that has underpinned our judicial system. I don't know why an irrigator would be treated any differently to anyone else in our community.

Though the minister talks about how these amendments have come from feedback—yet they were only prepared to give them to us late last night—the feedback has been very, very narrow in its scope. The government hasn't bothered to go and visit basin communities and sit down and have public meetings or town hall meetings with them. If the courage of your convictions on this is so strong, wouldn't you go and articulate the science when you articulate the reason why you are doing this to the very people whose lives and livelihoods you are changing in such a significant way? Instead, they voted against a Senate inquiry that would actually go and visit real communities instead of just putting them in Canberra and Adelaide. There was no opportunity to go to Griffith, no opportunity to go to St George or Dirranbandi and no opportunity to go down to Mildura or Shepparton to actually listen to the impacts of what this is doing.

You are tearing up the very legislation, which you created and we supported in a bipartisan way in 2012, to understand that these communities have accepted that Basin Plan. We are about to complete the Basin Plan, but now you want to shift the goalposts and add another 450 gigalitres of water without any safeguards. These are the safeguards that the member for Watson, who was the water minister, brought in. He did the right thing because he understood the pain that we put on these communities. We have borne and we have accepted those safeguards, but now you're seeking to change those rules and add another 450 gigalitres without even talking to these communities. That is nasty ideology that turns its back on the men and women in the basin communities. These men and women have had the courage of their conviction, their sweat and their money to go and invest and to change their lives to create a future for their children. It's being ripped away by a government that doesn't have the courage of its own conviction to face them. The government doesn't have the courage of conviction to stand there and prosecute why it is tearing up the very piece of legislation that it asked us to support, which we did in a bipartisan way in 2012.

There's been a lot of water recovered for the environment. The last bit should be recovered through infrastructure, not through buybacks. That is common sense. We are a smart nation, we're a proud nation. Why wouldn't we back ourselves and protect Australians who have had the courage to start a business, to produce your food and fibre? Why wouldn't you back them? Why wouldn't a government back them if we want to get back to first principles, returning water to the environment? There is an opportunity to return water the environment through infrastructure, rather than the blunt instrument of buybacks, which have enormous social and economic impacts on our communities. Will we become the forgotten Australians? If you don't live in a capital city, you are forgotten by this government. It all comes down to ideology, not practical reality and common sense.

The Nationals and the Liberals have understood that change needed to happen. We backed ourselves and worked in a bipartisan way. I pay homage to the member for Watson who, when I was water minister, worked in a collaborative way to achieve commonsense solutions. We achieved so much in the legislation that we put through to make sure that we didn't have to go down this path of buybacks. He understood the impacts buybacks would have. This government has changed its stripes. It's lost its principles and its values of standing up for every Australian, no matter where they live, no matter their postcode. It's not the Australian way. Every Australian will pay the bill for this. If you take away the tools the farmers need to produce your food and fibre, you will pay more. This will land squarely at the feet of this government whose ideology is destroying regional and rural Australia.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the opportunity to clarify, for the Leader of the Nationals, that the specific amendment that he is referring to is to provide additional clarification on who has the evidential burden by inserting notes at the end of application provisions for trusts, partnerships and unincorporated associations in the bill. The Water Act already has this provision which reverses the evidential burden for persons seeking to rely on an excuse, exemption or justification in proceedings for a pecuniary penalty order. That's already there.

It's the legislation that the Leader of the Nationals is boasting about supporting. This amendment is intended to provide clarity on the reversed evidential burden in certain application provisions in the bill, and it doesn't alter the operations of the relevant sections. The Leader of the Nationals is talking about progress. Just 16 per cent of water that has been recovered towards the plan has been done in the last decade, when you had the opportunity to recover it. If you thought you had a better way of doing it, you should have used the last decade to do it, but just 16 per cent of the total was recovered.

Opposition members interjecting—

Well, when? On the current projections on the 450, we would have got there in the year 4000.

An opposition member interjecting—

I'm not sure whether you think achieving an objective in the year 4000 is delivering for communities.

Finally, I have to clarify that the reason we're extending the delivery time for infrastructure projects is so that we can complete more of them. If more of them come forward, we're happy to look at them. We're happy to look at on-farm efficiencies. We're happy to look at off-farm efficiencies. We are very happy to look at the broad range of mechanisms for delivering the plan. What we're not prepared to do is not deliver, which is what's been happening for the last decade.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the government be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the bill, as amended, be agreed to.