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

I want to make a number of points about this amendment. I want to make the point, first, that there is already an audit process covering the Living Murray, known as the Independent Audit Group. On the issue of the protection of water from the Living Murray, there are detailed arrangements in place for this purpose, such as the provisions of the Living Murray Business Plan and the Living Murray Intergovernmental Agreement. Section 28(1) of the Water Act for the Basin Plan, the environmental watering plan, has the purpose of safeguarding existing environmental water. I also make the point that, on completion of the water recovery project, an independent review is undertaken by one or more members of an independent review panel to ensure there is evidence of project implementation and outcomes, and this report comes to the ministerial council, which I chair, before the savings are listed on the formal register. So the agreements associated with the Living Murray already provide that this water is not used for other purposes.

In terms of Senator Brown’s apologist comment, I simply would make the point that this was a Howard government initiative—in 2004, from memory—but, obviously, this amendment was not moved by them in the context of their Water Act 2007. But I would make the point that we do not regard this amendment as necessary, given that there are already very clear audit requirements and intergovernmental agreement requirements that those opposite were actually party to as part of the Living Murray arrangements—and which they are seeking to supersede now they are not in government. Regarding Senator Brown’s point about the Sugarloaf, this amendment, as I understand it, is not needed to ensure compliance with the EPBC conditions. We had a lengthy discussion, Senator Brown, and I cannot recall for what aspect of that discussion you were in the chamber, but I am sure you are aware that there are compliance provisions under the EPBC Act which are directed at ensuring compliance with those conditions. So, as I understand it, this amendment is not necessary in terms of compliance with EPBC conditions.

The advice I have, given what I have read out in terms of Living Murray arrangements, is that it is unlikely to alter the audit mechanisms that are already being applied pursuant to the intergovernmental arrangements which apply under the Living Murray and which the previous government was party to. I would make the point that this directly goes to issues that are relevant to the states, so the states would have a direct interest in the amendment that is before the chamber, and it certainly was not something that was discussed or negotiated in the context of the intergovernmental agreement. So I come back, in terms of the opposition, to your consideration of how much risk you are prepared to put this legislation to, and that will be a decision that awaits you when this returns from the lower house.

Question agreed to.