Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2007:

All aspects of the Federal Government’s 10 point National Plan for Water Security, including:

(a)

whether it will return sufficient water to the Murray-Darling Basin to meet the environmental needs of the Murray-Darling Basin catchment; and

(b)

what mechanisms are in place to ensure farmers and the environment obtain maximum value from the funds expended.

The case for this reference is pretty straightforward, so I will not go on at great length about it. The plan to put in place a rescue package of up to $10 billion over 10 years for the Murray-Darling Basin has been widely debated in this place. There have been many questions and plenty of debate, coverage and publicity in the wider community.

I emphasise at the start that, in proposing that this matter be examined by a Senate committee, I am not in any way attacking the intent behind the plan. Indeed, for a number of years the Democrats have called for the federal government to take a stronger lead role with regard to the Murray-Darling Basin, to, if necessary, take over control of the catchment and, if necessary, to look in the wider context at assuming greater powers in the environment area.

So the move in this direction is not something that the Democrats are critical of in principle. Indeed, one could argue that the move in this direction is somewhat overdue given how badly things have failed to date and how inadequate the various responses have been in tackling the threats to the Murray-Darling Basin. This reference to a Senate committee does not seek to score political points or to attack the general principle underlying the proposal. It is an attempt to increase the chances as much as possible so that the plan for water security actually is successful and effective.

It is widely known that the plan was put together at extremely short notice. It is also widely known that the plan was put together with minimal consultation—certainly no consultation with state governments and minimal or no consultation with affected stakeholders. As we also now know, despite the price tag of up to $10 billion, it was not even approved by cabinet. There was not even that level of consultation; there was not even that degree of adequate costing of the various measures within it. On top of that, it has also been extremely difficult to pin down exactly how the various components of the plan are going to operate, how decisions are going to be made with regard to expenditure and what criteria are going to be used.

I appreciate that not all of those things necessarily get worked out right at the start, but the simple fact is that, if you are going to have a major plan costing up to $10 billion with significant rearrangements with regard to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin and the structures that need to be put in place for the expenditure of a very large amount of public funds, it is desirable to have as many of the mechanisms relating to that as possible clearly out in the public arena. Some more have come out since the plan was first announced, but I think it is fair to say there is still a fair degree of work in progress around the whole thing.

Obviously, since the plan was first announced there have been a number of meetings and consultations with the relevant state governments, sufficiently so that three of the four state governments affected by the plan have signed on. That is all well and good, and of course they have a perfect right to do that. Although the federal government, which decided to put forward a plan and demand that everybody just fall in line, has expanded the negotiations for a few other governments to sit down in a room somewhere, decide on it and then go ahead with it, that still leaves out a fairly important part, which is the affected communities, the general public and people with wider expertise. This should not be something that is just stitched up between various governments to satisfy each of their various short-term political needs. That is part of how we got into the mess we are in now. The more public examination we have of the details and the more questioning, querying and detailing we have of what is proposed, the better chances are that this will work effectively. I would like to think that that is what all of us want here.

The other concern, which is a very reasonable concern to have given past history—particularly considering that this is an election year and large amounts of money are being promised—is that significant amounts will be channelled towards people on the basis of vote-gaining consequences rather than on the basis of maximum value from the funds expended. That is part of the rationale behind proposing that a Senate committee examine this. A short inquiry is proposed here and it would not in any way hold up the implementation of this plan, which I would agree is urgent. What it would do is increase the chances of it being implemented in an effective way that actually gives the taxpayer value for money. Even trying to nail down the basic issue of what is being proposed with regard to amounts of water being made available for environmental flows has proven to be quite difficult. Even trying to nail down the simplest matter of whether or not there will be the potential for water rights to be bought back from irrigators where necessary has proven to be difficult. Very different messages have been coming out from different members and ministers within the Howard government with regard to that. Of course, on top of that you have the different assurances, promises and needs at state level. The more this can be nailed down at the start the better the chances of it being implemented effectively.

The other point that is worth mentioning is that it will enable clear, public, focused input from people with expertise in this area. It is one thing to have the direct stakeholders involved—and it is right that they be involved—but it is another to ensure that independent experts do have input at the start rather than after a lot of the decisions have been made. That has not happened adequately to date, in my view. This would be a simple and effective process for increasing the opportunity for that to happen.

Frankly, given all of the justifiable concern about how rapidly this proposal was put together and the completely inadequate consultation that has occurred to date, I would find it bizarre in the extreme if there were not support for this motion from the opposition. Despite agreements that have been entered into by state governments, it is a simple fact, as it always is with the federal government holding the purse strings, that they also hold the whip hand. There is plenty of opportunity for things to change down the track—for commitments to be modified and for core promises to become non-core promises as political imperatives come into play. The more things can be nailed down at the start the greater the chance of that being avoided.

This is a simple proposal from the Democrats to maximise public scrutiny of what is a major policy announcement and plan by the federal government. It is something that obviously can be scrutinised intermittently through Senate estimates—and I am sure it will be—but the appropriate time to have an examination of the adequacy and detail of this very significant and very expensive new plan is at the start. This allows for further input to occur that has not happened to date. It is a clear example of a Senate process doing what Senate processes are there for: to hold governments to account, including state governments; to enable greater transparency about the expenditure of public funds; to enable greater scrutiny of the public policy issues and the administrative procedures involved; and to allow public input from those who are directly affected, from independent experts who have knowledge of the issues involved and from those who are concerned about ensuring that the long-term environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin gets adequately factored in.

In proposing this, I am not in any way suggesting that this is not the intention of either the federal government or the state Labor governments involved in this plan. What I am saying, though—and history has shown this to be true any number of times—is that, if you have at the start of these sorts of plans the fullest possible scrutiny and the fullest possible non-partisan, independent checks and balances through an examination of the detail, then you significantly improve the chances of them being effective. It is very important for the future health of the Murray-Darling Basin, for the many communities that rely on the healthy river system and for the taxpaying public in general, who have $10 billion on the line here, that this proposal be effective.

As I said at the start, proposals such as this are ones that the Democrats have called for a number of times over many years, so we are not in any way attacking the principle. What we are seeking to do is to have proper public scrutiny of the implementation, and that has not occurred to date. I think it would be highly desirable that it did occur, and via a Senate committee process.