Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that I did not get an opportunity—and I bear responsibility for this—to speak on the second reading stages of the bill. I can indicate that I voted against this bill because I think when it comes to issues of water it is worth having a specialist body, such as the National Water Commission, to focus solely on these issues, rather than having them wrapped in with the Productivity Commission. Even though I have a lot of regard for the Productivity Commission, I think that having a specialist body with that level of knowledge is absolutely desirable and preferable to having this being rolled into the Productivity Commission. It raises issues of whether there will be sufficient time, in Senate estimates for instance, for the Productivity Commission's proposed new role to be adequately ventilated and be subjected to adequate questioning.

The National Water Commission did perform a lot of valuable work, and it still performs that work even though it has been effectively gutted through its funding being taken away. But it played a role in terms of water savings, re-use strategies and technology. Stormwater harvesting is another issue that I feel very passionately about. I know that Senator Rhiannon has a particular interest in that. I think it is important to have a body that is robustly independent and can fearlessly say to any government of any persuasion that you are going down the wrong path in relation to a water strategy. I cannot see that the Productivity Commission, as good and as capable as they are, will see itself as having the role of being a robust advocate for policy concerns in the water sphere. I remember that when I was elected to this place South Australia was in the middle of one of its worst droughts, as was much the of the nation. The Murray was little more than a creek and river banks were collapsing on themselves. It was an absolute crisis. I know that Senator Birmingham, the minister back then, was also a passionate advocate for a solution for the River Murray. I saw the National Water Commission as playing an integral role—being a watchdog in a sense. I think we will lose that with respect to this particular bill. We need a national independent body to monitor and oversee water use, a body that takes the issue out of the hands of the states and treats our national resource as just that: a national resource.

I am concerned about these changes. I met with the parliamentary secretary, Mr Baldwin, two nights ago, and I do acknowledge that the government has attempted to deal with some of these concerns. I appreciate the time and the effort Mr Baldwin and the minister have made on this, but I still think it is a second-best solution to having a strong and robust National Water Commission in the scheme of managing this nation's water policy.