Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I want to comment in relation to a few points made by the previous contributors. Firstly, I think it is quite irrational of the Labor Party and the Greens to oppose these amendments. As I said in moving them, I respect the right of those other senators who wish to oppose the bill to oppose the bill. But these amendments, should this bill be passed, will strengthen arrangements in the future, which I would have thought would have been welcomed by all senators. In fact Senator Singh, in her contribution, said that the establishment of an associate commissioner for the purposes of undertaking the inquiries 'would add value'. Senator Singh said that the establishment of the stakeholder working group proposed by these amendments 'would lend greater credibility'. If they are going to add value and lend greater credibility, why would you vote against the amendments? You can still maintain your position of opposition to the overall package, but these amendments will strengthen the package if it goes through. Frankly, I think it is irresponsible of Labor and the Greens to be opposing amendments that clearly make sense and clearly will ensure that, should this bill pass, there will be better arrangements in the future. In effect, by voting against these amendments they are saying: 'Should the bill pass, we want weaker arrangements in the future.' That is a very foolish position to take in terms of being constructive in the development of legislation in this chamber.

More generally, Senator Singh noted that the National Water Commission was established under the Howard government. That is correct. It was also established with a sunset clause and a provision at the time; it was never envisaged that it would be an entity there forever. It was always recognised that as an entity it had some particular roles to be undertaken and that in time, as the skills and establishment of water architecture and policy at the Commonwealth level further developed through the water reform process, there may be better and more efficient ways to have the jobs of the National Water Commission undertaken. I think it is important to remind senators that we do have an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority that will continue to do its jobs, one of which is managing the overall operations of the Murray-Darling river system. The other job it does is the development and management of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It still does those two jobs, quite clearly, and will continue to do so under these reforms.

In relation to some broader water policy issues, we have an independent expert scientific committee that provides advice to government on water issues in relation to matters like coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. It is an independent body providing advice to government and it will continue its operation.

The Department of Environment continues their work, particularly in the recovery of water, in relation to meeting the objects of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is important for all senators and those listening to this debate to understand that the National Water Commission did not develop the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and does not recover the water under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. All it does in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is undertake a five-early assessment of compliance against it. The government's assessment is that that work, along with the work in relation to the three-yearly assessment of the National Water Initiative, can be undertaken more efficiently by having the Productivity Commission do it, instead of having a separate body, with all of the overheads and costs in place. We think the Productivity Commission is well placed to do so. They have done previous reports in relation to water policy, including during the life of the National Water Commission. The Productivity Commission, as it currently stands, even without the amendments proposed, has a very strong expertise in relation to water policy.

Mr Harris, the chairman of the Productivity Commission, has noted in correspondence with some of the crossbenchers that both he and Daryl Quinlivan, the head of office at the commission, were previous commissioners of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and have a strong interest in water policy as a result of that work. Other members of the commission's executive have also worked on water policy in the past, and are therefore well placed to approach these tasks with a good knowledge base and a strong professional interest.

But we have acknowledged that we can strengthen the Productivity Commission's capacity to do this. We are, of course, funding them to do this work in the future. The amendments before us strengthen their capacity to do this work by providing for the appointment of the associate commissioner, who will have extensive skills and experience in water resource management. Complementing that work of the associate commissioner and the Productivity Commission in general, we require the establishment of a stakeholder reference working group, which will provide for a raft of other skills and experience to come in. Frankly, it will probably lead to a more independent, more robust and more consultative arrangement, as these reviews are undertaken, than we have through the existing framework.

I commend the amendments to the Senate. I am confident that what we will see is a robust and independent framework in future, that will ensure that we get on with the job of delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time, and that we ultimately have in place arrangements that provide for strong and robust critiquing of water policy around Australia, as we currently have, in the same time frames as we currently have, just in a more efficient manner.