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

I understand where the Greens are coming from. I also understand that the National Party does not want to be outmanoeuvred by Mr Windsor—and that is fine. But I would ask if the Liberal Party, particularly the senators from the mining states, have considered this amendment. Far be it from me to put the view of the resources sector, but this requires that, prior to any exploration licences being handed out, the state authorities, who regulate mining, undertake the sort of study that is proposed. I do not know where Senator Johnston is. I think he represents the opposition on resources. I have not heard that view from the Liberal Party representative in this debate. That is an issue for the opposition.

Can I say that, as a broad principle, the government is supportive of addressing the impact of activities such as mining on water resources. That is why the act enables a pathway to allow that to occur. I would ask senators to consider the existing legislation at section 22(7). We know that the Basin Plan will place sustainable limits on the diversion of both surface and ground water, which is long overdue. The Water Act, in its current form, already provides for the Basin Plan to deal with the assessment of interception activities such as subsidence mining. Section 22(3)(d) of the act says that the Basin Plan will set out requirements in relation to how water resource plans must regulate interception activities that have a significant impact on basin water resources. Section 22(7) of the act says that, in doing so—and this is the important provision—they:

(a)     may require that interception activities—

and for this purpose, Senator Brown, you could interpolate ‘mining’—

with, or with the potential to have, significant impacts on the water resources of the water resource plan area are assessed to determine whether they are consistent with the water resource plan before they are approved under:

(i)  any other laws of a Basin State; or

(ii) a particular law of a Basin State; and

(b)     may require that water access rights be held for specified kinds of interception activities.

The government is mindful of these issues. I am also aware of Mr Windsor’s interest in these issues. The government’s framework here enables these issues to be addressed by ensuring that, if there is an interception activity with the potential to have significant impacts on water resources, it will be assessed and also, through the adoption of the Basin Plan, that water access rights can be required to be held for specified kinds of interception activities. This is an area where, as I have said publicly, more work needs to be done in terms of requiring, where appropriate, water access rights for specified kinds of interception activities. Not enough has been done on this in the past.

One of the key issues that I have consistently said the Basin Plan will need to consider under the terms of the act, and because it is good policy, is the interaction between groundwater and surface water. What I am saying to the Senate is that the legislation that the Howard government put forward on this did in fact enable the Basin Plan to address these issues. I should also let the Senate know that we have funded a $2 million project to be undertaken by the National Water Commission to develop planning guidelines and tools for managing the cumulative impact of mining on water resources. So this is an issue the government is aware of. We do not consider that this amendment is workable in the circumstances. For the reasons I have outlined, we think the pathway that is proposed in the legislation is better.

A range of amendments have been passed. I am not sure what the opposition intends to do when the bill is returned from the House, but I ask the Senate to consider section 22(10), which was an important aspect of the agreements with the states—that is, the agreement to refer powers in relation to water but not in relation to other natural resource management issues. There is a specific preclusion, essentially, of the Basin Plan addressing land use planning, the management of natural resources and the control of pollution. These are important issues for the state. These are issues that, I am sorry to say, were in Mr Turnbull’s legislation, and they are perceived by the states as being of significance. So if the coalition propose to support this amendment, I would say to them: you should be aware that some of the states would have some real concerns about this amendment. There is also a very clear ability in the Basin Plan to address precisely the policy issue that Senator Brown raised. We do regard this as a policy issue which needs addressing, and there is a pathway through the legislation in the Basin Plan which enables that to occur.