Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments on sheet 7314, Nos (8), (9) and (25) together:

(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 5), after subsection 86AD(2), insert:

  (2A) In debiting amounts for the purposes of making payments in relation to projects mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or (c), priority is to be given to:

     (a) projects that will produce the maximum guaranteed increase in the volume of Basin water resources that are available for environmental use within the shortest time; and

     (b) projects that demonstrably take into account the most recent scientific knowledge in relation to ground water and climate change; and

     (c) projects that demonstrably enhance the environmental outcomes referred to in the objects to this Part.

(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 9), at the end of section 86AF, add:

(3) The terms and conditions must include a requirement that the financial assistance granted will be used for a purpose that:

     (a) is consistent with achieving, by 31 December 2019, an increase of at least 450 gigalitres in the volume of the Basin water resources available for environmental use; and

     (b) will enhance the environmental outcomes referred to in the objects to this Part.

(25) Schedule 1, item 6, page 13 (line 4), omit "subsection 86AF(2)", substitute "subsections 86AF(2) and (3)".

This group of amendments goes directly to how the money can be spent and for what purpose. The Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 contains a long list of purposes for which the $1.7 billion in the special account may be spent. There are also various conditions on the spending included in the bill. These amendments as circulated add requirements to guarantee that any expenditure from this account will be spent in the best possible way to give the best value for money. This means that expenditure on the project is buying the most water with the greatest certainty for the least money—getting the best bang for our buck, so to speak.

The amendments take into account recent scientific knowledge in relation to groundwater and climate change. We do not know, as I have said many times in this chamber before, what the future will bring and what new science might soon have to tell us about how we can be using our water resources more wisely. These amendments prioritise and reward new projects that reflect the most up-to-date knowledge and science on these important issues. We know that overallocation and falling into bad habits caused this entire environmental crisis in the first place. We need to make sure we are acting more wisely and smarter and that we are saving taxpayers' money along the way.

We cannot afford to see an amount such as this, almost $2 billion, simply frittered away because we are not using it in the smartest and most efficient manner. It does make sense at a time when we know all sides of the chamber are continuing to talk about the amount of money that is in the budget to pay for services. We do not want to see money unnecessarily spent on things just because we did not specify in the legislation that we are trying to get the best value for money for the environment and for the taxpayer.