Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make a couple of points to Senator Siewert—and it is a position that I think Senator Xenophon also articulated in his speech in the second reading debate. Essentially, there is a view that there should be an increase not only in Commonwealth power but also in bureaucracy in the management of the basin. Can I say that that is not the model the government have undertaken. We have undertaken a model of cooperation and collaboration. People might have different views about the benefit of that, but by taking this approach we have achieved an agreement that has never been achieved before.

We also recognise that, whatever criticisms senators or individuals may make of the states’ management, an enormous amount of expertise and information still resides in the states. Frankly, I would suggest to senators who want urgent action that rebuilding that at a Commonwealth level is certainly not the way to achieve something urgently. Whatever your views about the states, the fact is that they have a history of management and water information in this area, and we do need to utilise that collaboratively and cooperatively.

Senator Siewert is correct in her views about the importance of a register in terms of the market. We have been very clear, as the government, that we do see a more efficient and transparent water market as being an important means by which adjustment can occur. We think it is an important thing for irrigation communities because it does enable irrigators to make their choices about the way forward for them. It also enables water to go to where it is most highly valued. I have irrigators putting views to me about some significant problems still in parts of the market, particularly the delays around interstate transfers and similar sorts of complaints. These are matters which we are keen to address. There are a range of water market reforms contained in the act and the bill. We had a discussion yesterday about the ACCC’s involvement. We also believe that having a better and more comprehensive register within the basin is absolutely a policy objective. It is absolutely something we want to do. It is a question of how you do it. I would suggest that, apart from there being some constitutional doubts, on my advice, about this amendment, simply passing the amendment will not get the work done.

What are the government doing on this? What we are currently doing is discussing with the states and progressing through the COAG processes with the objective of developing a national register for water entitlements. These discussions are ongoing and they are progressing. We think there is a shared view that we do need a much more transparent water registration system. It is certainly the Commonwealth government’s view that we do and that that is key to a more efficient water market, which is of benefit for the reasons I have outlined. So I would say to Senator Siewert and Senator Xenophon that, yes, a register is a fundamental part of the water market improvements that need to be made, but a legislative amendment is not going to achieve that. What we need to do is build that with the state governments, who are currently vested with the authority to grant entitlements to take water and currently register those entitlements.

Question negatived.