Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens support the intent of the coalition with this amendment. We do—and I think we articulated it very clearly in our committee minority report on this bill—have deep concerns about the impact of all the changes that are occurring in the basin, not just the purchase of water but also where we are going to be investing the $5.8 billion in infrastructure and also in any other structural readjustment.

We very strongly believe, as we articulated in that report, that we need a vision for where we are going with the basin. We need to make sure that we have a coordinated approach across the purchase of water, the infrastructure investment and any restructuring that occurs. We want the community intimately involved and, in fact, making those decisions. They need information to do that and they need to be given support by the government to facilitate that.

Our concern with this amendment is that we do not think it is well crafted or finetuned enough to actually produce the outcomes that we think the coalition are looking for. We cannot support it because it is only focused on the purchase of privately held water entitlements. We think that that is not the only thing that is impacting on these communities. It is unfair to say that it is just that particular element of the Murray-Darling crisis we are facing which will adversely impact on communities. There are a whole range of things impacting on these communities, not the least of which is the fact that we need to reduce water use by 42 to 53 per cent. Also, as the CSIRO sustainable yield report indicated yesterday, we are going to get a substantial decrease in run-off. So our communities in the Murray-Darling Basin are facing crisis as it is and are also facing the need for readjustment.

While we do understand where the coalition is trying to come from, unfortunately the Greens cannot support the amendment because we think it is a blunt instrument. While respecting where the coalition is coming from in requiring that impacts on communities be reviewed and dealt with, we do not think this is the way that that is going to happen. However, having said that, we are strongly encouraging government to engage the community. We have made a series of recommendations in our minority report to seriously engage the community and start helping them to make decisions about the future of their area.

Unfortunately, the amendment is not clear enough in terms of how this should be implemented. It talks about each region in the government’s purchasing; is it before or after? What is the decision-making role and, once the impact statement has been done, how is that actually put into effect? Do they intend stopping all the water purchases, for example?

We think a better way to go is for the government to adopt a process that engages the community upfront with the overall structure of the basin, with the overall future of the basin, and then in each particular region, each particular irrigation area, they should plan before investment infrastructure is carried out. This is so that we do not get what the ACF calls the ‘Swiss cheese’ approach, which is where only some entitlements are purchased. I will have to put on the record, though, that, where the government have the opportunity to go in and purchase water, we are not saying do not do that. We think it is important that, where the opportunity arises, the government need to be able to step in and buy that water. So that is what we are also concerned about—that this amendment might rule out the ability to go in and acquire water where the opportunity arises.

Having said that, and acknowledging that we need to allow room for that to happen, we do think there is a role for a much more coordinated and strategic approach to the way we are rolling out the $12.9 billion. We made that very clear in our minority report. We have set out a set of principles by which we think the government should be setting out that process and engaging the community now. There are examples of that. There is the TRAMS example, which the ACF mentioned extensively in its submission to the recent Senate inquiry. We think that is a good example of where you can engage the community in a coordinated approach. So, unfortunately, we cannot support this amendment, but we do understand the intent.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (21) and (22) on sheet 5629 together:

(21)  Schedule 2, page 308 (after line 5), after item 106, insert:

106A  Subsection 175(1)

After “directions”, insert “, which must be consistent with the objects of this Act,”.

(22)  Schedule 2, page 308 (after line 5), after item 106, insert:

106B  Before paragraph 175(2)(a)

Insert:

           (aa)    those aspects of the Basin Plan excluded from Ministerial direction under subsection 44(5);

These amendments relate to ministerial directions. The first one relates to adding a clause which says that any ministerial directions must be consistent with the object of the Water Act 2007. I need to say upfront that this act is here for the long term. Governments come and go. I am not casting, or attempting to cast, any aspersions on the current minister. However, I do think there is a need to provide protections in the act to ensure that any ministerial directions and the discretion that is exercised by the minister to use those ministerial directions are in fact consistent with the object of the act. I feel that is fairly simple and straightforward.

Amendment (22) relates to exclusions from ministerial directions—that is, to articulate what areas of the Basin Plan are excluded from ministerial direction. The amendment deals with those aspects of the Basin Plan excluded from ministerial direction under section 44(5). That relates to, for example, the mandatory content of the Basin Plan, shares in reductions in the plan and changes in reliability. This goes back to the Commonwealth risk and the new knowledge issue that we were talking about earlier. The minister may say that that is implicit in the act. What we are seeking to do is to make this explicit in the act so that it is very clear where the limitations to the ministerial direction are in fact in place.