Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor senators oppose the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 because it is very bad policy and very bad legislation. A Bureau of Meteorology report from 2013 showed that, between the years 2050 and 2100, the effects of El Nino are set to intensify, causing lower than average rainfall, or even drought, on Australia's eastern seaboard. To help combat the effects of El Nino, in 2012 the former Labor government extended the Howard government's National Water Commission. The National Water Commission provided an ongoing robust and transparent oversight of all Australian governments' water reform commitments, in particular the important National Water Initiative. Labor believed the National Water Commission was the best means of providing independent assurance on the progress of all governments, particularly for the National Water Initiative and Murray-Darling Basin reforms. Those reforms are very important in my home state of South Australia, where we are disproportionately affected by droughts caused by El Nino.

Ongoing oversight of national water reforms is crucial to Australia's work towards effective and efficient water management and use—particularly in times when the threat of El Nino is heightened. The importance of water in securing Australia's economic and environmental future demands no less—yet today the Senate is faced with the repeal of the National Water Commission. As a South Australian, I cannot see any merit or benefit whatsoever in abolishing this very important independent authority. This bill effectively abolishes an independent expert agency with important functions for both urban water services and the Murray-Darling Basin—important functions that are still required today.

Some of those important functions include auditing the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; assessing the performance of the basin states in implementing agreed milestones under the National Partnership on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin; playing a role in the assessment of Carbon Farming Initiative proposals; and publishing water market reports and national performance reports for metropolitan, regional and rural water agencies. These functions are fundamental to the management of water resources in this country, and even more so for South Australia, where of course water resources are very limited. The NWC also has a key role in providing water sector knowledge leadership, investing in studies or research where knowledge gaps were identified, and developing tools to assist the delivery of technical tasks and generating discussion amongst stakeholders. In many respects this role is critical to non-government stakeholders because it provides the only forum to remain informed and abreast of the issues, to access essential information and to participate in public discussion of the issues.

When it comes to positive environmental reforms, the coalition government has not, unfortunately, had a good track record so far, and this was highlighted in last night's budget. In the 2015 federal budget, climate change and environmental reform got barely a mention. It is a very disturbing budget from the point of view of anybody in this country who is concerned about environmental reforms and the protection of our environment for the future. Last year, we saw the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, humiliated by world leaders as he was forced to acknowledge that climate change was a priority. Also, embarrassingly, he had to backflip on his initial refusal to contribute to the Green Climate Fund—an international fund to support environmental reform. He was pressured by comparable countries to us to make a contribution to that fund. Just last month, the government released a so-called energy white paper which made no link whatsoever between energy and climate change. Of course, we know the reason for that, and that is that the federal government is hostage to people who do not believe in climate change, despite repeated influential reports from independent authorities about the devastating effects of rapidly increasing climate change caused by global carbon emissions.

A recent report from the Australian Conservation Foundation on the Murray-Darling Basin shows that the basin is still not protected and that much more needs to be done to support the important Murray-Darling river system. Of the 20 indicators mentioned in that report, seven are red lights while only two are tracking well. The report states that the government has made 'limited progress' on establishing Indigenous water rights, despite 'significant discussion and research'. It also notes that the coalition's cap on water buybacks is 'likely to drive up the cost and reduce the availability of water for the environment'.

The bill that we are discussing here today is yet another step in the wrong direction for the Abbott government's environmental credentials. We have already seen the government slash funding for the Landcare and Caring for Our Country projects that were assisting in returning health to the Murray-Darling system. In trying to abolish the National Water Commission, the coalition is putting a water system of national environmental significance, the Murray-Darling, at risk.

In last night's budget, sadly but not unexpectedly, there was, as I said, very little for the environment and climate change. Unfortunately, the cuts to funding for the Natural Heritage Trust component of the Landcare program of $12.3 million over five years will have severe and lasting effects. Furthermore, the cuts of $22.7 million over two years for water buybacks in the basin could potentially jeopardise full implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Murray-Darling is a lifeline for my home state of South Australia. There are thousands of people and hundreds of communities, flora, fauna, ecosystems and livelihoods that depend on the river. The successful rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is crucial to the future of all of those communities and all of those environmental considerations in South Australia. While the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is still in a relatively early stage of its implementation, the National Water Commission's a role in auditing its implementation and associated water resource plans was and is especially important. Any changes to the NWC will risk the plan and subsequently risk a vital resource for South Australia. According to the South Australian Labor government, which has campaigned very hard to protect and enhance the environmental security of the Murray-Darling, any changes to the NWC will also risk a loss of knowledge, leadership and expertise as well as effective support for, and scrutiny of, water reform efforts. The South Australian Labor government believes there is a strong argument for retaining the National Water Commission to ensure effective delivery of the Basin Plan.

There are many surprising things about the legislation but what surprises me in particular is the support it is receiving from South Australian members of the coalition in this chamber, in particular. So, although a 2011 COAG review stated that the National Water Commission 'has become a credible specialist organisation in water reform', South Australian senators on the other side of the chamber are still backing the abolition of the National Water Commission. I note that in his former capacity in the environment portfolio, Senator Birmingham promoted the proud record of achievement of the National Water Commission, and that is recorded in Hansard numerous times. Senator Birmingham previously went on record as saying that the National Water Commission is integral to getting water reform right in this country. He was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald earlier this year as saying—about the National Water Commission—'Nowadays it is nothing more than a government-funded commentary organisation.' Well, what a turnaround in the opinion of that coalition senator—to disparage the National Water Commission, an independent expert authority, in such a way. But of course, we know the coalition government has no truck with independent advice from respectable organisations, and it has persistently tried to abolish or demolish, or underfund or de-fund, numerous independent expert advice organisations, including the Climate Commission. Senator Birmingham also stood in this place in February 2012 and reiterated that one of the first issues he addressed in parliament was the future of the River Murray. He said:

It was partly out of my own personal concerns for better management of the Murray, it was partly as a result of it being the top issue confronting people in my home state of South Australia and it was partly a result of the groundbreaking announcement made by then Prime Minister John Howard in his Australia Day speech of 2007 committing to deliver national management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

But now we see that Senator Birmingham and other coalition senators have changed their tune. Once they were passionate to save the Murray-Darling Basin, and had the plan implemented; but today they are going to support the abolition of the National Water Commission which was set up to do exactly that—to assist in the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and to secure the future of the Murray-Darling Basin.

I note that the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee examined the provisions of this bill last year. At that inquiry, senators would have heard—or will have subsequently read—first, the benefits of the National Water Commission that were outlined in the comments by Dr Stuart Khan of the University of New South Wales:

Throughout the last decade, the oversight of the National Water Commission ensured the implementations of advances in many of the objectives laid out in the NWI. Water trading capacity has improved agricultural productivity for many rural Australians. Formal allocation of water to the environment has revived the long-term survival prospects for wetlands and other ecosystems. Major urban water supplies have been bolstered, drastically reducing the likelihood of water restrictions being imposed for most Australians in the coming decades. Drought-plagued States of the USA, such as California, Colorado and Arizona, now point to Australia's NWI as a successful example of cooperation to achieve more sustainable water management.

That is a glowing accolade for Australia's water management under the National Water Commission and under the National Water Initiative. Senators taking part in that inquiry would also have heard the Environmental Farmers Network's submission, which stated:

An independent body with a professional approach and an untrammelled long term view is seen as invaluable in transcending the pressures of short term election cycles and in rationally assessing options and policy directions.

In fact, during the whole inquiry there was very little support for this bill from stakeholders. The urban water industry wants the National Water Commission retained. Environmental scientists want the National Water Commission retained. Traditional owners want the National Water Commission retained. Even groups that are not exercised by the idea that the NWC could be abolished, such as the National Farmers' Federation, admit that the Productivity Commission's own legislation would need to be amended to retain the important stakeholder engagement and expertise functions that are held within the National Water Commission. Nevertheless, despite all the objections from witnesses to the inquiry into this bill by the Senate environment committee, still the coalition are intending to pursue the abolition of the National Water Commission.

Handing over the functions of the commission to the Productivity Commission totally ignores the expertise, the independence and the experience of the National Water Commission. The Productivity Commission is not equipped to undertake the audit and assessment functions of the National Water Commission, and handing over the functions will leave our water resources worse off. Of course, that will be devastating to my home state of South Australia, where every drop of water is precious.

We know the government must step up and take the protection of our resources seriously, particularly in a situation when climate change is causing longer droughts, with greater impacts, in Australia. We all know also that the government's excuse that this bill will help in their so-called budget savings is a farce; you only have to look at last night's budget to see that reinforced. This is merely taking more money out of the environment to shore up the Prime Minister's job, going into a future election.

The government has given no indication so far that it will address the weaknesses in this bill, which include the weakness of giving this responsibility to the Productivity Commission, which as I said does not have the capacity, legislative or otherwise, to do the work of the National Water Commission has done. Perhaps the Australian Conservation Foundation said it best when they said:

To abolish the National Water Commission (NWC) and give responsibility of water management to the Productivity Commission would be a short-sighted and backward step, particularly in the absence of substantial changes to the mandate and operation of the Productivity Commission. It would likely result in another wave of conflicts over water due to the absence of what all sides regard as a well-respected expert independent body.

'A well-respected expert independent body': that is why most of the submitters to the environment committee's inquiry into this bill supported the retention of the National Water Commission. Without an independent agency such as the commission, not only is there a risk of inefficient management and the prospect of increased water costs for stakeholders but there is also the risk of significant backsliding on environmental reform as it applies to water in particular. That will jeopardise the agreement between the states to pursue reform in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as well as the little bit of multiparty support in this place that there has been for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I oppose this bill. It is a disturbing piece of legislation—not surprising, of course, from a government that has absolutely no environmental credentials or credibility. I urge senators, particularly my South Australian coalition colleagues in this place, to think about what they are doing when they support the abolition of this very valuable National Water Commission.