Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We've got it clear, at least, that you don't accept that's the underlying philosophy. You don't accept that being in a climate crisis is what needs to underpin any measures that deal with drought. That, then, goes to my first set of amendments, which I wish to move. They are those on sheet 8701, and I seek leave to move all four—(1) to (4)—together.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8701 together:

(1) Page 21 (after line 24), after clause 22, insert:

22A Arrangements etc. are legislative instruments

(1) The following are legislative instruments:

(a) an arrangement made under section 21;

(b) an agreement made under section 22.

(2) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2) (b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to an instrument mentioned in subsection (1).

(2) Clause 36E, page 36 (lines 4 to 9), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) Before the Drought Minister first makes either an arrangement or a grant under section 21, the Drought Minister must:

(a) request the Committee to advise the Drought Minister about whether the proposed design of the program of arrangements or grants to be made under that section is consistent with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan; and

(b) have regard to any advice that the Committee has given to the Drought Minister under this section in relation to the proposed design.

(3) Clause 36H, page 36 (after line 25), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Before the Drought Minister appoints a person as a member of the Committee, the process set out in sections 36HA and 36HB must be satisfied.

(4) Page 37 (after line 15), after clause 36H, insert:

36HA Nominations from the public for appointments of members of the Committee

(1) The Drought Minister must publish a written notice on the Agriculture Department's website requesting members of the public to nominate persons to be appointed as a member of the Committee within a period specified in the notice.

(2) If the Drought Minister receives any nominations within the specified period, the Drought Minister must have regard to those nominations before publishing a notice under section 36HB proposing the appointment of a person as a member of the Committee.

36HB Consultation on proposed appointments of members of the Committee

(1) The Drought Minister must publish a written notice:

(a) stating the person the Drought Minister proposes to appoint as a member of the Committee; and

(b) stating whether the person had been nominated by a member of the public (see section 36HA); and

(c) setting out the reasons the Drought Minister is satisfied the person is suitable to be appointed as a member of the Committee; and

(d) requesting written submissions be made in relation to the proposed appointment within 30 days after the notice's publication.

(2) The Drought Minister must have regard to any submissions made within those 30 days in determining whether to appoint the person as a member of the Committee.

Given that we haven't got this understanding that we're in a climate crisis and that everything needs to be focused around how we are going to use less water, because that's the new reality that we're going into, it is absolutely critical that we get the accountability measures of this fund right. It's absolutely critical that we make sure that any decisions that the minister is making are based on good science and what is in the overall interests of the community. We are really worried that that's not going to be the case, because you're ignoring the science as it is at the moment. Given you're doing that, the only way we're going to possibly make up for that is to make sure that there is really good accountability, so that decisions that are being made as to what projects get funded and what the drought resilience plan looks like are transparent and accountable.

I acknowledge there were some significant improvements to this bill when it went through the House in the last parliament, due to amendments by Cathy McGowan, in terms of setting up a consultative committee and making sure the minister had regard to what the consultative committee had to say in terms of establishing the drought plan. But we as Greens don't believe these measures go nearly far enough. First of all, we've got to make sure that the consultative committee also gets asked about the individual projects that are going to be funded under this fund. We've got to make sure that the minister must listen to that committee. At the moment the bill doesn't say that the minister needs to listen to the committee. It says that the minister needs to listen to the committee when it comes to the overall plan, but, as for particular projects, the committee can be consulted and the minister can just ignore what those committee members say. We think this is a really big gap in the accountability of exactly when decisions are made as to which decisions get funded.

This is where it really comes to the crunch. You can have this drought plan, but then the projects that get funded in fact could end up being projects that aren't in the context of using less water and helping to make sure that farmers are more resilient. They could end up being projects that actually support the big irrigators, that support corporate agribusiness, projects that are going to end up taking more water out of the environment. Certainly, that's what I hear the Nationals in this chamber saying all the time—that the whole answer to dealing with drought is just to build new dams. Sadly, when you're in a regime and an environment where it's hotter and drier and less water is falling from the sky, building new dams isn't going to help. What it might do is just suck up even more of the water in the upstream areas and leave even less water for farmers downstream and certainly leave less water for the environments that need water. These are some of the issues that we are addressing in these amendments that I have moved.

The other thing that needs to happen is that, once the decision is made with the advice of the committee, and the minister has listened to the advice of the committee and made some decisions on what grants are being issued or what the arrangements are, those arrangements must be legislative instruments that are disallowable, to add that extra level of transparency and accountability. If it's pretty clear that there are suggestions that there are grants being made to projects that are not consistent with us being in a climate crisis, not consistent with a hotter, drier climate, not consistent with ecological sustainability, the parliament would have the oversight to knock them off and say, 'No, they're not appropriate.'

The final area that we want to make sure to address in these accountability measures is about who actually gets to be on this consultative committee. It's all very well to set up a consultative committee and say that it's going to be an expert committee and you're going to seek advice from the expert committee, but as it stands at the moment the minister can just pick and choose who is going to be on the committee. I can very easily see a scenario where that committee is stacked with people who basically supported the government's position.

The processes that we are proposing in our amendments are that, firstly, there should be a process of calling for submissions for members of the committee. There are lots of people with expertise all across the country, who might like to be considered for or nominated to this committee, who I don't think the government are going to necessarily call upon in the first instance. We would like to see those people have the ability to nominate themselves or have someone nominate them, and for the minister then to have regard to those submissions. If there is clear evidence of some really talented, expert people who have got such a strong case as to why they should be on the committee, the minister should have regard to appointing them. Secondly, these amendments say that once the minister has made some decisions and has some proposals as to who should be on the committee, then that also should be publicly advertised. You put the committee membership up, and people can then make submissions on the appropriateness of those committee members.

If we put those accountability measures in place, they would go a long way to make up for the fact that we've currently got a government that's planning this plan without acknowledging the new reality that we're in. I know that the community around the country accepts we're in a climate crisis. Certainly the scientific community accept we're in a climate crisis. I know those people who are working on the issues of drought and water resources accept we're in a climate crisis. With those accountability measures—actually getting that wisdom from the community; making sure that wisdom is taken account of—it would go a long way to improving accountability and transparency, and would make up for the climate denialism that is currently a feature of this government.