Senate debates

Wednesday, 24 July 2019

Bills

Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019; In Committee

12:23 pm

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

I will start by noting the outcome of that division, where it was just the Greens who voted in support of our proposal that the drought fund should divest itself from coal, gas and oil and from those companies that are the cause of climate change. I will reflect on what that means. It means that the Senate has just voted to say that it is perfectly okay for the drought fund to invest in Glencore, in Santos, in Woodside Petroleum and in the Adani Group. It means, basically, that it's perfectly okay for the drought fund to invest in the companies that are profiting from the very causes of our climate crisis, that are profiting from the ongoing use of coal, gas and oil and from the ongoing burning, mining and export of coal, gas and oil. They are the very things that are contributing to our climate crisis, that are causing our climate crisis.

That's actually in complete opposition to what BHP have come out with. They've said: 'This is serious. This is a climate emergency.' BHP are divesting out of coal because they recognise that it's not a going thing into the future, that the world needs to change, that if we are to have a future we've got to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that we've got to stop our over-reliance on them and that we've got to stop our fossil fuel dependency. Yet, despite the science saying that and despite companies like BHP saying that, this Senate does not accept that reality. This Senate is in denial. This Senate is not taking the future of Australia, Australians and our future generations seriously. It is vesting in them such a damaged future, and I find that appalling. I move amendment (1) on sheet 8703:

(1) Page 22 (after line 29), after clause 25, insert:

25A Consistency with the Water Act 2007

(1) Before making an arrangement or a grant under section 21 that affects Basin water resources (within the meaning of the Water Act 2007), the Drought Minister must request the Murray-Darling Basin Authority provide written advice as to whether the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007.

(2) The Authority must provide the written advice requested by the Drought Minister as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the request.

(3) The Drought Minister may make the arrangement or grant if the Authority advises the arrangement or grant is consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007.

(4) The Drought Minister must cause the publication of the Authority's advice on the Agriculture Department's website as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the advice.

This amendment to the Future Drought Fund Bill requires the drought plan to be consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I note that in the bill there is a requirement for the drought plan to be consistent with Regional Investment Corporation activities. I think it is highly appropriate—in fact, much more important—that any projects funded under this fund and the plan that will come out of this legislation are consistent with the Water Act and, particularly, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan.

I wouldn't have thought this would be controversial. Yes, we've all got our various views about how effective the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is and how effective the Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be, but it is the plan that we have for the management of water across our agricultural regions, across all of the incredibly important agricultural areas in eastern Australia. It should be straightforward to make sure that any plans that come out of this drought fund are consistent with that and to make sure that, if there is any uncertainty in legislation as to which one should have primacy, it should be the plans of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This is good planning. Water is a scarce resource. In terms of the Murray-Darling, it's the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that sets out how water gets allocated, and anything impacting upon that should be consistent with the operations of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Comments

No comments