Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5361:

(1)    Clause 3, page 4 (line 1), after “to provide for the”, insert “regular and systematic”.

(2)   Clause 3, page 4 (line 4), at the end of paragraph 3(h), add:

       ; and (iii)    the long-term health, resilience and sustainability of Australia’s rivers, wetlands and estuaries.

There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. But I would also like to make a few comments. I am disappointed with the way the government responded to the Greens amendments. Our amendments are the result of a well thought out, very strongly considered analysis of the bill and what people said during the limited inquiry. Unfortunately, I missed the end of Senator Ian Macdonald’s comments. I did hear him commenting on the Democrats’ contribution. I was called away to the phone and I missed what he said about the Greens amendments.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not say anything, actually.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that interjection. In that case, I am extremely disappointed that the government did not even bother to respond to the Greens amendments in their summing up. As I said, these are the result of a carefully thought out analysis of the bill. Although I could not be at the committee hearing personally because I was in another committee hearing, a member of my staff sat in all day, listened to everybody, read every submission and has read the bill very carefully. We believe these amendments contribute significantly to improving this bill. I would have thought that the government would have given them more attention than to sling off at them, implying that they had already been dealt with when in fact they had not, and would have given them due consideration.

Having said that, I would like to ask the government for the clarification that I indicated in my second reading debate speech I would be seeking. As I understood it, during their evidence to the committee inquiry the department gave a rationale about why it would not be advisable to include a requirement in the bill that the plan should be finalised within two years. That rationale was because of the question of what happens if you do not get it done, and that leads to all sorts of complicated legal issues. As I understood it, there was an implication that the government would be clarifying, during the discussion, that the minister would undertake to direct the authority to finalise the first basin plan within two years of establishment. Is the government prepared to make that commitment so that the community can be assured that the intent is for the first basin plan to be completed within two years?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister in the other place committed to the plan being prepared and finalised within two years. If it were in legislation, the whole scheme could potentially fall over because, due to extra consultation, the plan took two years and one day to put together. The government are firmly committed to this. It is interesting to note that sometimes the government are criticised for trying to rush this through—and I am not saying that you are necessarily asserting that, Senator Siewert—and, on other occasions, questions are asked about whether we would use the fact that it had not be legislated to drag our heels. No, we would not. We as a government are very much committed to this. It is our anticipation that everything will be in place within two years. But the view was that, if we were to legislate it and it took two years and one day, it would require further amendments et cetera and that would delay proceedings.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer. As I said, I understand the arguments that were being put, but we were keen to ensure that the plan was done within two years. As I said earlier, the Greens are concerned about the time delays that are built into this process, so we want to make sure that that is underway. Minister, could you also give us clarification of the time line involved in the IGA? I appreciate that that is not entirely under your purview—there is a negotiation process—but what is the time frame the government would ideally like to work towards?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated, a certain plan is being provided to the states and, hopefully, being released this week. I will refer to that in the summing-up. To a large extent, it will depend on the response of the states. Like you, Senator Siewert, we would like to see this go forward as quickly as possible, but, at the end of the day, there is the requirement of cooperation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some other questions but they will come up during the discussions over the amendments. Our first amendment relates to monitoring an evaluation of the plan. The objects of the bill are actually quite comprehensive with regard to most issues. This deals with the issues around river health. We are concerned about the issues relating to collection and analysis of data. While the previous points make the responsibility of the act quite clear for managing river ecosystem health, it actually leaves out the issue around collection of information needed to undertake this management. Professor Peter Cullen pointed this out quite clearly in his evidence to the committee, so we have actually included two amendments.

One amendment provides for the regular and systematic collation, analysis and dissemination of information about that. Also, clause 3(h) is amended to include the long-term health, resilience and sustainability of Australia’s rivers, wetlands and estuaries. We want to make it crystal clear, under the objects, that information will be collected. At this stage, the bill says, ‘To provide for the collection, collation’ et cetera—I will not go into all the details—including information about Australia’s water resources and the use and management of water in Australia. That is actually different to the issues around long-term health, resilience and sustainability of Australia’s rivers, wetlands and estuaries.

The government probably does intend for that information to be collected, but it is not actually detailed in the objects of the bill. The Greens think it is much better if that is spelt out very clearly, because Australia’s water resources are different to the long-term health, resilience and sustainability of Australia’s rivers, wetlands and estuaries. We propose these amendments to make it crystal clear in the objects that that is the information that should be collected. I ask the government: why is it not clearly spelt out in the objects that that information should be collected for those issues, when, as I said, it is clear that the objects of the bill also include managing the river’s ecosystem and health?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government will be opposing both amendments. In relation to amendment (1), I draw the honourable senator’s attention to part 7 of the bill which is headed ‘Water information’. It deals with those issues quite comprehensively, I might say, and therefore we do not believe that there is any need for that to be included in the objects as well.

In relation to amendment (2), the matters proposed to be added are already included through paragraph 3(h)(i) at page 4, line 3, which provides for the collection of information about Australian water resources generally. ‘Water resource’ is then defined in clause 4 to include all components and ecosystems that contribute to the physical state and environmental value of the water resource. We believe that what Senator Siewert is saying is correct, but it is already all in there and therefore it is not necessary.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition’s position on these two amendments is the same as our position on all other amendments. We received them this morning. We were not previously consulted about them. There was no consultation before today. We have been critical of the government for the short time that we have had to deal with the bills. To be even handed, we would be critical of the movers for the short time that we have had to consider these amendments—although we do concede that everyone has been under pressure in this week to deal with a very extensive and tight legislative program. We do not believe that it is appropriate to effectively shoot from the hip in relation to this legislation by supporting amendments that we have not had an opportunity to completely investigate, especially in terms of any broad consequences that might arise from amendments that are set out in detail. I understand that Senator Siewert was not able to be at the committee hearing for other reasons. I recognise that Senator Siewert’s staff member was present, as far as I could tell, for most if not all of the committee’s hearing, as was I.

It may be that this is a valiant attempt to give expression to noble principles in relation to the legislation. We would be sympathetic in a general sense to a number of the amendments on sheet 5361. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate, as I said, to shoot from the hip and make amendments to the legislation now which we might regret later given more of an opportunity to scrutinise them and a better chance to understand the broad implications that each would have. So we will not be supporting these two amendments; we will not be supporting any of the amendments on sheet 5361, for the reasons that I have outlined. That may not be satisfactory to Senator Siewert, but that is the position that we find ourselves in and that will be the position reflected in our votes on all of the amendments in that package.

During the committee, I referred to clause 35 of the legislation in proposed subdivision D and the fact that, where a state or an operating authority or an infrastructure operator established water-sharing arrangements that were not consistent with the basin plan, the legislation appeared to give the Commonwealth the opportunity to effectively bypass those entities and to prosecute an individual holder of a water access right as a means of applying pressure to the other entities mentioned in subclause 1 of clause 35—in other words, the least well-resourced part of the chain might be prosecuted, applying pressure to others above that person or entity in the chain. The officers of the department indicated that they would be prepared to undertake that such a practice would not be observed. I indicated that I would ask that the Commonwealth, through the minister, would give such an undertaking on the record. I repeat the request and ask whether the minister is able to give that undertaking today.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond to the criticism from Senator O’Brien. Senator Siewert has brought in some very compelling and important amendments to this legislation. Senator O’Brien ought to have been introducing amendments. The Labor Party has enormous wherewithal that the Greens do not. The pressure cooker situation here is an outcome of the government putting major legislation without time for proper Senate scrutiny and without time for proper Senate consideration—we all understand that. Notwithstanding that, Senator Siewert and her staff have been able to look at the 233 pages of legislation and at the evidence before the committee and its findings and come up with a suite of very important and sensible amendments. Then Senator O’Brien comes in and says, ‘I haven’t had time to look at them,’ although they were circulated and available yesterday and we sat here until 12 o’clock last night. Most senators were waiting on the deliberations of the Northern Territory legislation, and yet he says he has not had time to look at them and so he is going to vote against them all. The Labor shadow minister has a decision to make here. The legislation—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not the shadow; Mr Albanese is the shadow.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister’s shadow has a decision to make here. The legislation was brought in with totally inadequate time for the parliament to deal with it. Senator Siewert has diligently come up with recommendations to make it better. Senator O’Brien says he cannot handle that and he will vote against them, but he has as much responsibility in voting against those amendments and passing up the opportunity as he does in voting with the government for the government legislation. He cannot duck out of it as easily as that. Senator Siewert has done a remarkable job here—quite astounding, considering that she was also handling the Northern Territory legislation for the Greens. She has been up burning the midnight oil. She is smart; she is intelligent; and she knows this topic.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She should be the leader.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator opposite is suggesting that she should be leading the opposition benches. I would agree with that. But when you come to a parliament here you have to deal with what comes before you. It is no good saying, ‘I can’t deal with that, so I’m going to vote no on everything.’ That is not a responsible way to deal with the pressures that are put upon us by the government in the way it runs its schedule and the fact that we are sitting here on Friday, so I do not accept that. Labor takes all the responsibility and must accept all the responsibility for simply dismissing these amendments and saying that it will vote against them. The legislative outcome by missing some of these amendments will be its responsibility as much as the government’s if it denies the amendments.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to quote a little bit from Peter Cullen, from the Hansard. I would also like to point out that nearly all the amendments that the Greens are presenting are a result of submissions, evidence and consultation with community organisations. They are a result of actually listening to people—a result of evidence to the committee that everybody heard at the committee hearing, and everybody has had an opportunity to read the submissions. We had taken the time to consult with organisations, but that is on the basis of what they have been saying in their submissions and the evidence. Peter Cullen said this at the hearing so everybody could hear it:

As to the mission in the document, there are a lot of good requirements for water information, and I strongly support all of that. But there is no requirement for regular information on the health of the rivers, and yet we are doing all of this to restore river health. I believe the bill would be better if we could include in it a commitment to accelerate and to report regularly on the sustainable rivers audit that the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has been doing. We need to get a routine, regular, systematic measure of river health so we can see whether we are getting on with the task.

This is the scientist’s opinion. I agree that there are good information requirements, but they are not specific enough, in the expert’s opinion, to deliver on ecosystem health and on river health. This is a scientist saying this, not just us greenies going off half-cocked. This is the scientists saying that there is not enough provision here to report properly and to require the information collection for river health. That is why we think this amendment should be made, to make it crystal clear that information can be collected and why we are collecting it. We think it is a sensible addition. This bill is about the Murray-Darling system’s river health. Why not be explicit about it? If you think it is there already, make it explicit, because it is not explicit in the bill.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, in response to Senator O’Brien, the concern that the honourable senator raised was that a water access right holder who acted in accordance with their right could nonetheless act inconsistently with a basin plan. I understand that to have been his concern, and that has just been confirmed across the chamber. I can indicate to the honourable senator that this is not the purpose of the bill. I would like to assure the chamber that it is not intended to take any action under clause 35 against a water rights holder who acts in good faith and in accordance with the laws of the state and rights granted by the state in which the water is taken.

In relation to Senator Siewert’s comments, I simply indicate that the whole drafting of this bill has been as a result of months and months of consultations, discussions and negotiations. In conclusion, I refer the honourable senator to the meaning of ‘water information’ in clause 125 and then also to clause 130, dealing with national water information standards, including 130(2)(j), ‘any other matter relating to water information that is specified in the regulations’. So if there is deemed to be a need to further enhance these things then that can in the future potentially be done by regulation.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (3), (7) and (8) on sheet 5361:

(3)    Clause 20, page 36 (line 5), after “quantities of”, insert “and shares of”.

(7)    Clause 22, page 41 (table item 6, column 2), after “quantities of water”, insert “or share of water”.

(8)    Clause 22, page 41 (table item 7, column 2), after “quantities of water”, insert “or share of water”.

These amendments relate to the definition of a long-term sustainable diversion limit. Given the time, I am not going to go over the issues that I have talked about not that long ago in my speech in the second reading debate. These amendments, we believe, help define the long-term sustainable diversion limit better. We are also introducing the concept of a share of water. That is based, again, on evidence that Professor Mike Young presented. I thought he made a very useful contribution and also a very valuable suggestion. I will just read you the bit from the Hansard. Senator Heffernan had asked him a question about allocations and water use. Professor Young said:

That is very difficult to do quickly. Let me firstly make a very clear distinction between the northern half of the basin and the southern half of the basin. The northern half is best thought of as an event driven system where storages are largely on farms, and that is a very different situation from the southern system, which is a regulated system. In the north, if there is 35 per cent less water, then 35 per cent less would be taken, if the entitlements are defined as shares. I suggest and recommend that the committee consider amending the bill to talk ... more about shares and sharing the system.

He went on to say that he thought that could be done quite easily. That is what we are attempting to do here: introduce this concept of sharing the water. As I articulated in my speech on the second reading, we are very concerned to ensure that we do have a proper definition of a long-term sustainable diversion limit. These three amendments seek to define that and to put that in place.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Briefly, the amendments are opposed. The cap—or, more formally, the long-term average sustainable diversion limit, as defined in the bill—already provides for a variable limit on water use between water years, and this can potentially be expressed as a share under clause 23(2)(c) where the Murray-Darling Basin Authority determines that this is appropriate. As a matter of practicality and enforcement, all shares must be converted to a quantity, as this is what is monitored.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (4) on sheet 5361:

(4)    Clause 20, page 36 (after line 7), after paragraph (b), insert:

           (ba)    the maintenance of essential ecosystem functions by ensuring that minimum flows of water regularly pass through the Basin’s river systems; and

This amendment expands on the purpose of the basin plan to include a requirement to consider downstream consequences and to ensure that water flows through the entire system. What we are trying to do is put in place an amendment that is to do with the maintenance of the entire ecosystem to ensure that the functions are ensuring that minimum flows of water regularly pass through the basin’s river system. We are trying to ensure that the whole of the system is looked after through this amendment.

This amendment is the result of recommendations from scientists who believe that the current bill does not necessarily ensure that the whole system is looked after. They very strongly recommended that we put in place end-of-basin flow targets so that we can ensure that we get water down through the length of the river and we look after the whole of the river. As I said, it was Mike Young’s recommendation that this sort of amendment be made to ensure that we are looking after the health of the entire river.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment is opposed. Clause 20 already provides for basin-wide environmental objectives for water dependent ecosystems to be set. Further to that, clauses 28(2) and 28(3) provide for the specification of targets to be set as part of the environmental watering plan, including flow targets. Setting targets of this nature should be on the basis of best available science and that is precisely what the independent expert Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be charged with doing, on the basis of the merits of the case for the use of the water available.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (5) and (12) on sheet 5361:

(5)    Clause 21, page 36 (lines 23 to 28), omit subclause (1), substitute:

        (1)    The Basin Plan (including any environmental watering plan or water quality and salinity management plan included in the Basin Plan) must be prepared so as to provide for giving effect (to the extent to which they are relevant to the use and management of the Basin water resources) to:

             (a)    relevant international agreements;

             (b)    the Australian Ramsar management principles as prescribed by section 335 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

             (c)    plans and strategies developed for implementing commitments under relevant Agreements in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 including:

                   (i)    any management plans for a Ramsar wetland under section 328 or section 333 of that Act;

                  (ii)    any recovery plan or threat abatement plan prepared by the Commonwealth under Chapter 5 of that Act or any recovery plan or threat abatement plan developed by a State or Territory;

                 (iii)    the China Australia and Japan Migratory Birds agreements and any wildlife conservation plans under section 285 of that Act.

(12)  Clause 55, page 71 (after line 16), at the end of the clause, add:

        (4)    A water resource plan must be prepared to give effect (to the extent to which they are relevant to the use and management of the Basin water resources) to:

             (a)    relevant international agreements;

             (b)    the Australian Ramsar management principles as prescribed by section 335 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

             (c)    plans and strategies developed for implementing commitments under relevant Agreements in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 including:

                   (i)    any management plans for a Ramsar wetland under section 328 or section 333 of that Act;

                  (ii)    any recovery plan or threat abatement plan prepared by the Commonwealth under Chapter 5 of that Act or any recovery plan or threat abatement plan developed by a State or Territory;

                 (iii)    the China Australia and Japan Migratory Birds agreements and any wildlife conservation plans under section 285 of that Act.

These amendments relate to integration with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The amendments are to ensure that the basin plan and the water resources plan are consistent with, and give effect to, not only relevant international agreements but also plans and strategies developed for implementing these commitments under the EPBC Act.

At the moment the bills are being consistent with, for example, Ramsar, the migratory bird conventions and the biodiversity convention. What we seek to do with these amendments is to ensure that the plans and the strategies that are developed to implement these are given effect under this legislation. It is quite an extensive amendment, which talks about how those plans should be implemented through amendments and to give effect to those under the EPBC Act. The Environmental Defenders Office, which made a submission to the inquiry, also talked about this quite substantially. In its submission it talked about how to improve the integration with the EPBC Act. It said:

The Bill could be improved by better coordination and integration with the implementation of international agreements under the ... the EPBC ... without limiting the Bills general scheme of giving effect to relevant international agreements.

What we are seeking to do here is to ensure that these international conventions are implemented, and that they are implemented through the plans and strategies—the ‘doing’ side of things. That is what we are trying to do here: ensure that the government is implementing the conventions through their strategies and plans. I know that the department is undertaking a review of Ramsar site management—I am hoping it is around Australia—because we know that the states are not implementing the plans. That comes back to the Commonwealth, because the Commonwealth is the signatory to these international conventions. These amendments seek to give effect to those plans and strategies so that we are actually doing what we say we are doing. This takes it one step further than just not being consistent with the conventions but in effect is implementing these conventions.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Greens amendments (5) and (12) are opposed. In relation to amendment (5), we say that the provisions of clause 21(1) already provide the appropriate reflection of these treaties, and it would be inappropriate for the basin plan to be required to implement the requirements of domestic instruments such as those made under the EPBC Act. The instruments made under the EPBC Act should be implemented under that act. We believe that that would be the most appropriate course of action. In relation to Greens amendment (12), the basin plan will provide for requirements that water resource plans must meet. As the basin plan must give effect to relevant international agreements, the requirements will need to reflect the obligations under those agreements.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Minister. Could you go back over the first bit about why we do not need this, because it is already happening?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that in relation to amendment (5) or (12)?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amendment (5).

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The notes I have in front of me say that the provisions of clause 21(1) already provide the appropriate reflection of these treaties, and it would be inappropriate for the basin plan to be required to implement the requirements of domestic instruments such as those under the EPBC Act. The instruments made under the EPBC Act should be implemented under that particular act.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, if I understand the argument, what the government is saying is that you should not be referring to the EPBC Act here; this just ensures it has been consistent. But what is actually implementing it is the EPBC Act, so we should not be amending it. Is that the argument? 

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have got a quick answer; it is yes.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But the matter is too important to be left with a one-word answer like that. What Senator Siewert’s amendments do, on behalf of the Australian Greens, is require the basin plan to abide by international agreements—that includes the Ramsar agreement, to which we are signatories, as prescribed in section 335 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Then there is the  follow-through under that act for other treaties, including those with China and Japan for migratory birds. I might add here that, even though a promise was made back at the turn of the century by the minister for the environment at the time, Mr Kemp, that there would be a migratory bird agreement struck with South Korea, we still have to see that one in evidence.

This amendment is very critical. It says that we should abide by the nation’s one major environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, that we should take it into account in drawing up the Basin Plan. There can be no worry with the government if it intends to do that. But this government’s performance is not one of abiding by the EPBC Act. It is not one of implementing its intent or even the letter of its outcome. Just this week a motion before the Senate calling for the environmental laws to be upheld with regard to protecting the habitat of rare and endangered species in this country was voted against by both the major parties, extraordinarily enough.

This is a crucial amendment and the Greens are very strong that the strictures of environmental law in this country be applied to the Murray-Darling Basin. That is what it is about. The practice so far is to ignore the environment and put it last. We are saying here: simply abide by the relevant international agreements we have signed and this nation’s single major environmental law. Surely the government—or the opposition, for that matter—cannot cavil with that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown made some quite complimentary comments about Senator Siewert’s contributions, and I think they are appropriate for the work that she has done. But the submission we have just heard from Senator Bob Brown would indicate that he has not done that degree of work. I refer him to page 15 of the bill, just in case he did not get that far. It states:

relevant international agreement means the following:

          (a)           the Ramsar Convention;

          (b)           the Biodiversity Convention;

…            …            …

          (g)           ROKAMBA

There is a long list, including the ROKAMBA convention. Further down, it states:

ROKAMBA means the Agreement with the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Protection of Migratory Birds done at Canberra on 6 December 2006.

All of those matters are in the bill.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (6) on sheet 5361:

(6)    Clause 21, page 37 (after line 3), subparagraph 2(a)(ii), insert:

                 (iii)    the need to take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects; and

                 (iv)    the need for sustainable management, conservation and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems; and

                  (v)    the need for adaptation to the impacts of climate change including appropriate and integrated plans for water resources and agriculture; and

Specifically, this amendment implements important and relevant elements of the climate change convention, which I referred to in my speech in the second reading debate. We believe that this is particularly important. Through this amendment, consistency with the Ramsar and biodiversity and various migratory bird conventions is maintained. We think it is also important that consistency be maintained with the climate change convention—because, as we know, climate change will have a pretty devastating impact into the future. In fact, we contend that it is impacting already on the Murray-Darling Basin. Therefore, we believe it is important that we maintain consistency with that convention. In addition, the environmental defenders organisation, in its submission to the committee, said that it felt it was important that we give effect to the climate change convention.

As we are aware, some people still believe that climate change is not impacting on the Murray-Darling Basin—but we believe it is. In fact, Bryson Bates of CSIRO has said that he believes climate change fingerprints are all over the Murray-Darling Basin’s decreased rainfall. In addition, many of those who made submissions and presented at last week’s hearing pointed out that they feel it is very important that we build resilience into the Murray-Darling system and that implementing the climate change convention would help answer the need for and give effect to the ability to build resilience into this plan. Did the government consider including the climate change convention into the bill; if not, why not?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the honourable senator to section 21(1), which says:

The basin plan must be prepared so as to provide for giving effect to relevant international agreements.

Going to the definition section on page 15, line 14, you will see that ‘relevant international agreement’ means the following, including the climate change convention. So I think on this we are in heated agreement, and it is already all in there.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am aware of that. Perhaps I should have indicated that in my comments. It gives more effect to the bill, compared with the other conventions it gives effect to. We are trying to give effect to the recommendations of the EDO, as the bill is silent on how the plan ought to give effect to the climate change convention. The others—which are in clause 21(2) and 21(3)—talk specifically about biodiversity and Ramsar but are silent on climate change. Is there a reason for that?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The plan will deal with all of these matters. We are of the view that the climate change convention, along with all the other conventions and other matters listed in the bill, should be considered to ensure that the plan ultimately has the impact, and effects the purposes, for which it was established. I am not sure of exactly how that could be further enhanced, given that it is specifically referred to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are specific clauses—clauses 21(2) and 21(3)—that give effect to the biodiversity and Ramsar conventions but do not go as far as the climate change convention. If I understand what you have just said, the plan will also give effect to the climate change convention.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the right-hand side of page 40 of the bill at section 2, item 3, ‘specific requirements’ are listed. On the other side of the page it states:

An identification of the risks to the condition, or continued availability, of the Basin water resources.

That matter is to be included in the plan. If you go down to ‘(b) the effects of climate change’, you will see that it is specifically addressed.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Believe me, at this time in the afternoon I am really trying hard not to be pedantic. Clauses 21(2) and (3) specifically take out articles from the Ramsar convention, and then the other one takes out clauses from the biodiversity convention. I am interpreting you as saying that, because there is reference to climate change and broad reference to international conventions, the climate change convention will be given effect through those clauses, even though it is not specifically referenced in one of the clauses. The advisers are nodding their heads. Is that correct?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The terminology that I am told I am looking for is that clause 22 is a non-limiting clause and, therefore, the senator’s concerns are thereby addressed.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. As you would appreciate, the Greens feel strongly about this convention; it is very important. If the minister can assure us that, even though the conventions are not named, they will be included and taken into account through that non-limiting clause then the substance of what we seek to include would be dealt with. I am chasing this up so that we can be assured that these issues will be included in any subsequent planning, despite the fact that that convention is not specifically named. So that answer does reassure me somewhat.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the climate change convention requires there to be a plan for water resources, and this bill deals with a water plan and is dealing with water resources and, therefore, to the extent that the convention is applicable to this piece of legislation, its terms are to be pursued.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (10), (11), (25) and (26) on sheet 5361:

(10)  Clause 44, page 61 (lines 1 to 3), omit subparagraph (3)(b)(ii).

(Amendment (11) is an alternative to amendment (10))

(11)  Clause 44, page 61 (line 12), omit subparagraph (5)(b)(i), substitute:

                   (i)    items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 or 10 of the table in subsection 22(1); or

(25)  Clause 175, page 167 (line 29), after “directions”, insert “, which must be consistent with the objects of this Act,”.

(26) Clause 175, page 168 (line 13), at the end of subclause (2), add:

            ; or    (e) those aspects of the Basin Plan excluded from Ministerial direction under subsection 44(5).

The Greens oppose clause 38 and clause 62 in the following terms:

(9)    Clause 38, page 56 (lines 8 to 18), TO BE OPPOSED.

(13)  Clause 62, page 75 (lines 9 to 19), TO BE OPPOSED.

Again, I am not going to drag the chamber through the arguments about the independence of the authority, which I mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate on the bill. These amendments specifically relate to the independence of the authority. They address concerns about the level of ministerial intervention in the operations of the authority, which is intended to be, as we understand it, an independent decision-making body, operating on the basis of the best available science. We believe the amendments address ongoing concerns about the potential politicisation of the basin planning process.

In moving these amendments, I would like to clarify some of the issues that I raised in the briefing we had. When the minister reports back to parliament, I want to clarify the issue of where they are following or diverging from the advice of the authority. During the discussions around the development of this legislation, public statements were made on when the minister would be reporting to parliament. From what I have been told and from reading certain documents, I understand that, where the minister diverges from advice given on policy and where the minister directs on the basin plan, that advice will be tabled in parliament but that where that advice is about finances it will not be. Is that a correct understanding?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just being briefed in relation to aspects of the FMA Act, but I assume that the honourable senator is seeking information not about that but more about the science and things of that nature. I do have some information for her. The government believes the bill strikes the right balance between the independence of the authority and government accountability to the electorate. The minister’s capacity to give directions to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has been appropriately limited to reflect the independent and expert based nature of the authority, while ensuring that the democratically elected government has an appropriate role, if required, in important decisions such as those involving trade-offs between economic, environmental and social objectives. However, the minister cannot give directions on any matters of a scientific or factual nature. This means, for example, that the minister could not direct the authority to change its assessment of the water needs of particular ecosystems within the basin. However, the minister may direct the authority on priorities in circumstances where trade-offs need to be made. In all cases where the minister gives direction to the authority, which it is anticipated will be rare, the minister must table the reasons for such directions in parliament.

In the case of directions relating to the basin plan, the minister must include reasons for not following the advice of the authority. I think the senator was also asking within what time frame that work had to be tabled. I am advised that that information would be tabled at the same time as the plan is tabled. The minister is also prevented from giving any directions to the authority in respect of any enforcement related action the authority decides to take. If there are any other matters in this bracket of amendments, I am happy to try to answer them.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I understood your answer correctly just then, if the minister makes a direction that will be tabled when the new plan is tabled. I do not know whether this is the appropriate time to raise this issue—people who made submissions to the inquiry raised it as an issue—but I will raise it because it affects the independence of the ministerial council authority that will, as I understand it, be set up under the IGA. I am confused about the ministerial council. Will there now be one ministerial council or two?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be two.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will they have the same people on them?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Potentially so but, undoubtedly, with different functions. One will be dealing with the Water Bill matters and the other one will be dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin matters.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So one will be the Murray-Darling Basin Authority Ministerial Council?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendments (10), (11), (25) and (26) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that clauses 38 and 62 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendment (14) on sheet 5361:

(14)  Page 97 (after line 15), after clause 77, insert:

77A Acquisition on just terms

                 In order to maintain the reliability of water access rights and water access entitlements or return water use to sustainable limits, the Minister may acquire a proportion of every water access entitlement and water access right in a water resource area on just terms.

Note:       This would mean that water could be acquired only in a manner that is consistent with the principles established under the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 .

The Greens oppose clause 255 in the following terms:

(28)  Clause 255, page 220 (lines 22 to 31), TO BE OPPOSED.

These amendments relate to the issues around compulsory acquisition and just terms acquisition. I do understand why the government moved to rule out the issues around compulsory acquisition. As I understand it, they largely relate to the politics of the basin. Some people believe that there should not be any compulsory acquisition. Some pretty compelling arguments were put forward by way of submissions and in evidence to the hearings about acquisition on just terms, to keep as a last resort compulsory acquisition and use the just terms provisions, which we have just extensively debated in the previous legislation. Has the government considered that? It seems to the Greens, from the evidence that we received—and despite the fact that we have always said that, as a last resort, we will not necessarily rule that out as being one mechanism in the basket of mechanisms that you may want to use—that some pretty compelling advice was given around the use of ‘just terms’ and how that will potentially be beneficial to the farming community. Was that talked about at all and considered? If it was not and you did not proceed with it, can you enlighten us as to why you did not think those were useful provisions?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Section 255 makes it quite clear that the government, through the act, will not authorise compulsory acquisition of water rights. The reason for that is that, as part and parcel of our consultations over that seven-month period, there was a degree of opposition to that prospect. We also believe that that clause in the bill will provide integrity and security to water rights and will assist in the overall development of the markets in relation to water rights. That is why we came to that conclusion, and it is now in the legislation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do understand why the government has ruled that out. The evidence that the committee received revolved around issues of just terms and the fact that, by excluding it, you are excluding a mechanism that may be useful to farmers. I have taken on board what you said, but I do not necessarily agree with it. But did you look at those issues around just terms compensation and the fact that it may be useful to help farmers exit from what in the future could be difficult circumstances in the basin, if what we fear occurs—that is, there is an overall reduction in the amount of water in the basin? Obviously, there will be a reduction in the cap at some stage, but that may be much more significant in the future than we are anticipating if climate change does have the impact on water resources that some suspect it might. It might be a useful tool for government and the community to actually have. Was that considered?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be fair to say that over that seven-month period many things were considered, and I would be surprised if all the issues that the senator has raised were not put into the mix and considered. One thing that I would point her to is the $10 billion National Plan for Water Security. Five billion dollars of that is set aside for modernising irrigation in Australia and $3 billion is to address overallocation, which will enable purchasing of entitlements and structural adjustment. We believe that that can and will be done on a voluntary basis and, without delaying the Senate, I suppose it is the same approach we had to Securing Our Fishing Future. We had money made available to buy back licences, albeit on a voluntary rather than a compulsory basis. We believe that that would work in these circumstances and we do not see the need to go down the route of compulsory acquisition.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suspect that answers my question. You mentioned the $10 billion package and the money for overallocation. In a briefing I did raise again—and heaven forbid that I should have something in common with Senator Heffernan, but it is an issue that he has raised on many occasions—the issue of the MISs, and I have also raised it here on previous occasions. As we are told, there are a number of larger corporations that hold a significant amount of water that they have bought up through MIS investment. How is the government planning to deal with big entities that hold large amounts of water? If what the people in the water market tell me is true, they have already distorted the water market by buying those large allocations. These big entities or corporations may not now want to go ahead with their MIS investment because the rules have changed. Has the government given consideration to how they are going to deal with that major amount of water that is on the market through the big corporations? I am told that they have got a lot of water that they have bought from farmers and that they may be looking to offload that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know where to start on that one. I will sidestep the MIS issue, because it would be fair to say that Senator Heffernan and I might have disagreeing views in relation to that. Coming back to the issue at hand, which is water, the water market will be guided by the ACCC. They will have input into what is occurring. In general terms, one would assume that the market would operate, but of course it does have the ACCC’s involvement as well.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendment (14) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that clause 255 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Siewert, I move Greens amendment (15) on sheet 5361:

(15)  Page 106 (after line 12), at the end of Part 2, add:

Division 5—Investments

86A Investment decisions

                 The Minister, in making investment decisions related to the Murray-Darling Basin, including but not limited to investments relating to modernising on-farm and off-farm irrigation infrastructure, major engineering works and the purchase of water allocations, must:

             (a)    ensure consistency of the investment with the Basin Plan; and

             (b)    ensure consistency of the investment with the National Water Initiative commitments, giving effect to the principles of full-cost recovery, user pays and pricing transparency; and

             (c)    provide transparency and accountability in the expenditure of funds; and

             (d)    monitor and measure the effectiveness of the investment in meeting the objectives of the Basin Plan; and

             (e)    assess the cost effectiveness of the proposal.

This is to ensure that the minister in making investment decisions relating to the Murray-Darling Basin has consistency in the investment with the basin plan and with the National Water Initiative. It also makes sure that those decisions on the investment by the minister give effect to the principles of full cost recovery, user-pays, transparency, accountability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the investment in meeting the objectives of the basin plan and cost-effectiveness of the proposal. So it is a motion for good accountability and to ensure that the minister in making these quite enormous investment decisions abides by these principles in making those decisions.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (16) and (17) on sheet 5361:

(16)  Heading to Part 5, page 120 (line 3), at the end of the heading, add “and Register”.

(17)  Page 121 (after line 30), after clause 103, insert:

103A  Progressively established Basin Water Register

        (1)    The Authority may establish a guaranteed Water Rights Register in a manner that is consistent with the Basin Plan.

        (2)    The Authority may establish a process enabling the voluntary transfer of registrable water rights issued by States to the Register established under subsection (1).

Items (16) and (17) relate to the establishment of a basin water registry. Again, this was put forward during the committee process. I did articulate the reasons for that in my speech on the second reading in that it was recommended that it was a good way to ensure good water management. Mike Young, as I think most people will know, is a very strong advocate for good water management in the basin. He made some pretty compelling arguments for such a register. He said:

What I am envisaging is that there will be a step on from where we are now, and I hope there is. There must be for the sake of Australia. To me that means that we need to have an authority that is enabled to grow, expand and be proactive. That is why I suggest they should be responsible for pursuing the objects of the act and, in stepping forward, starting to build really good entitlement registers that are much more secure and that give everybody confidence, progressively working through the many issues.

We believe that a register will, in fact, build the basis of a much more secure and robust water market. I think people will be aware that Mike Young has been advocating something of this nature for some time. We think it is an eminently sensible idea and that is why we are moving these amendments to put in place such a basin water register.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may briefly return to the previous amendment that was put as I was still seeking some advice. I indicate that we understand the intentions in relation to the investment decisions, we can understand what is behind it, but at the end of the day a minister would be required to make those investment decisions on that basis, and of course for transparency and accountability any investment made by the minister would potentially be able to be discussed at Senate estimates. So we believe it would be inappropriate to put restrictions on the investment decisions by the government and the decisions, of course, will be guided by the basin plan.

In relation to the amendments that are currently before us, the difficulty is that water resources are vested in the states, which therefore have the authority to grant entitlements to take the water. The Commonwealth does not have this power and is, therefore, unable to grant entitlements or to protect the entitlement. Registers provide the legal security for people with legal interests, including ownership, in the entitlement. Consultation with the states has clearly demonstrated the need for unique and complete registers. The development of multiple registers would likely lead to uncertainty and, while it would be possible to establish a central single register for the basin, this would require a referral of power and considerable disruption to the current development of secure registers. The Commonwealth and state governments prefer to retain compatible state registers with a common central information system that will provide easy access to the state registers. This is provided for in part 5 of the bill.

Question negatived.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (18) on sheet 5361:

(18)  Clause 110, page 126 (line 1), before “using”, insert “acquiring, holding or”.

This amendment would alter clause 110, Application of state laws to the Commonwealth environmental water holder. Subclause (1) of that is:

(1)

Any requirement of a law of a Basin State that prevents a person from:

(a)

using, on land that the person does not own, water available ...

This amendment changes that to ‘acquiring, holding or using’ to ensure that it is spelt out that the clause applies to the acquiring or holding of water, that a person does not own the use of that water. It makes that clear so that the acquiring or holding of water does not escape the clause.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The clause as it stands is appropriate for the needs of the environmental water holder. It addresses the key limitation in state laws. The Commonwealth has taken the view that it should override state laws only to the extent absolutely necessary to achieve the objectives of the environmental water holder. Limitations on acquiring and using water are often imposed by state laws to achieve legitimate environmental outcomes and the Commonwealth does not wish to legislate to override such restrictions.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intent here is to make sure that water being used on land that a person does not own becomes available for those purposes, and that use should include acquiring or holding, and that is the point of this. Can I just point out too that, under the terms of this clause, when we come to (d) we come to this sentence: ‘that it does not apply to the Commonwealth environmental water holder in relation to the use of Commonwealth water holdings to water water dependent ecosystems’. I have never seen the word ‘water’ used three times out of four words in the one sentence ever in my acquaintance with the English language. I think that might be a record. I note at the start we are referring here to the basin states and I do hope there is a good outcome from this legislation so that we do not have basin state blues further down the line.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope the honourable senator remembers 17 August 2007 as the date on which he saw ‘water’ used three times in the one sentence.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (19), (20) and (21) on sheet 5361:

(19)

Clause 140, page 142 (lines 5 to 9), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1)

If a person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct consisting of an act or omission that constituted, constitutes or would constitute a contravention to which this Part applies, an application to a Court for an injunction may be sought by:

(a)

the appropriate enforcement agency; or

(b)

an interested person (other than an unincorporated organisation); or

(c)

a person acting on behalf of an unincorporated organisation that is an interested person.

(20)

Clause 140, page 143 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(7)

For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct, an individual is an interested person if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory, and:

(a)

the individual’s interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct; or

(b)

the individual engaged in a series of activities for protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems, at any time in the 2 years immediately before:

(i)

the conduct; or

(ii)

in the case of proposed conduct—making the application for the injunction.

(8)

For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct, an organisation (whether incorporated or not) is an interested person if it is incorporated (or was otherwise established) in Australia or an external Territory and one or more of the following conditions are met:

(a)

the organisation’s interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct;

(b)

if the application relates to conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the conduct:

(i)

the organisation’s objects or purposes include the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems; and

(ii)

the organisation has been engaged in a series of activities related to the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems; and

(c)

if the application relates to proposed conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the making of the application:

(i)

the organisation’s objects or purposes include the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems; and

(ii)

the organisation has been engaged in a series of activities related to the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems.

(21)

Page 163 (after line 12), at the end of Part 8, add: Division 10—Review of administrative decisions170A Extended standing for judicial review

This is about public standing provisions and seeking to incorporate into the act such provisions. I think the environment movement has, and in fact other non-government organisations have, put the longstanding arguments for public standing provisions in many bits of legislation. Of course, there are such provisions in the EPBC Act. I will move these amendments, but I have a question for the government: why were such provisions not included in the act?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We believe that it should generally be the responsibility of governments to enforce the law. In this context where we are setting up an authority made up of independent experts, specifically to make and enforce the plan, which cannot be directed with respect to enforcement action, it is particularly appropriate that it have the sole enforcement role. This argument is even stronger, given that the basin plan will represent a balancing of competing interests.

The government does not agree there is a need for public standing provisions in the bill. Such provisions would run the risk that the basin plan, a central factor in providing certainty over water access entitlements, could be held up in the courts, and we believe that not to be appropriate. Rather, the government has included in the bill a comprehensive framework to ensure that all interested parties may have input to the basin plan and that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the minister must take account of all issues raised during the consultation process.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will be aware that under the EPBC Act public standing provisions have been used on a number of occasions to enforce the legislation. The Greens have held the longstanding position that it is in the interests of the environment that the public have standing under various bits of legislation. We think it is particularly important for this piece of legislation in terms of enforcement. I take the minister to issues around a number of areas where environmental provisions are not being enforced. For example, water is being stolen, illegal bunds are being built and illegal drains are being dug et cetera. The Greens believe that the community having the ability to enforce legislation is a positive addition to such legislation and in fact holds government accountable. If the government is not prepared to act, this gives the community the capacity to act. There are instances in the Murray-Darling Basin where—and I have raised this issue in this place—water being provided for the environment is being stolen; it is not making it to the site that is supposed to be watered. That is just one example of why we think such public standing provisions are important. Again, that is a recommendation made by a number of organisations that made submissions to the inquiry, believing that this would strengthen this act. Again I ask the government: is giving the community the ability take these positions a positive in helping to empower communities and get positive environmental outcomes?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are always general considerations and specific considerations in determining the approach that should be taken with any particular set of facts. I suppose the general approach is that, if somebody is aware of illegal activity, rather than they themselves bringing the court action or seeking to enforce the law they should report it to the relevant authority to undertake the prosecution. In this particular case, we have an independent body that by its very nature will have had to make a number of on-balance decisions. We believe that the enforcement role is best left up to this particular authority in these circumstances.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the world were perfect, I might agree with you; but the fact is the world is not perfect. The most recent example is that community organisations have documented evidence—photos, times et cetera—of water being siphoned off and stolen. That information has been provided to the authorities and no action has been taken. These particular organisations would welcome the opportunity to take action themselves if the relevant authorities were not prepared to do it. In the past that information has been provided to the authorities and no action has been taken. As I said, if it were a perfect world I might agree with you, but the world ain’t perfect.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I fully agree with you. If it were a perfect world there would be no need for legislation and, guess what, there would be no need for this place. That would be heaven! I dare say the senator is referring to the Gwydir situation. That is the responsibility of the New South Wales government. I confess I am not fully across all the detail of that. I know that people are, from time to time, frustrated that they provide information to relevant authorities and prosecutions do not take place or there are considerable delays before a prosecution is laid. Before making comment on that, it is necessary to be fully briefed in relation to the facts so that we can be assured that any criticism levelled is valid. I know of the Gwydir situation, courtesy of the media, but I do not have a detailed brief as to what information has been provided and whether the New South Wales authorities are pursuing it in an appropriately diligent manner. I cannot assist the senator further.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now go to a hypothetical case rather than that specific case, but I will use the nature of that case as an example. Going to a different scenario: if various plans agree that environmental flows are to be released into a Ramsar wetland, and that water is stolen and evidence of that is collected by the community, whom do they take it to? Do they take it to the state? Do they take it to the Commonwealth? Do they take it to both?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, the stealing of water would be the crime of stealing under the various criminal jurisdictions of the various states, so that would remain in place. In the event that there was no satisfaction in relation to that aspect, I understand that if the same information were to be provided to the authority they could launch a prosecution. In fact, there would be two potential avenues to pursue a prosecution in the event of water stealing if this legislation gets through.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That brings me to my next question. Again, I raised this in the briefing. I think I said that I would raise it here so that we could get clarification. Very recently, in April, when the clearing went on in northern New South Wales, there was an issue around notification and when the Commonwealth was actually notified. The states are not required to tell the Commonwealth when they get a licence to clear; they tell the Commonwealth, as I recall, only when the illegal activity has happened. So, although it was impacting on a Ramsar area, the state did not tell the Commonwealth—it was not required to tell the Commonwealth. When I asked about it at estimates I was told that there was an informal network that provides information, but there was not a compulsion to inform the Commonwealth. Is that going to be corrected? Have provisions been put in place to correct that?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable senator told us earlier that we do not live in a perfect world. Clearly, that is the case. We would like to think that this legislation might make it a little bit closer to being perfect. There will be, hopefully as a result of the IGA and other matters, greater consultation and information sharing, which will hopefully overcome that. But, at the end of the day, it is still largely a state jurisdictional issue.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will push my luck, and I am watching the clock. I ask the minister to give a commitment that he will try to address this under the IGA so that there is actually a clear information-sharing process. That process fell down because there was not an information-sharing process until after the event. I would hope, given that you are now giving greater emphasis to, or are being consistent with, the Ramsar convention et cetera—which is good—that there are even more compelling reasons for you to be able to get that information-sharing process right.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the senator that, as with all things, the Howard government will do its very best. Clearly, the IGA is related, but we are straying into the IGA with these matters and we are, in fact, considering the Water Bill. But, of course, I accept that the two are related.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously it has an effect on the IGA. I will not go through all the arguments that we have been through, but obviously the Water Bill is absolutely dependent on an effective IGA. I put on record that a lot of the community organisations are extremely concerned that, because of the way the nature of the IGA is being negotiated, there is a lack of consultation through that process. A great deal of this bill is being delivered through the IGA and it is not subject to the consultation process, and we have some issues with some of the consultation that the bill was subject to.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would assert that the bill stands alone. The IGA will seek further reform, but a delay in signing by the states will not impact on the bill and its implementation.

Question negatived.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (22), (23) and (24) on sheet 5361:

(22)  Clause 172, page 164 (after line 10), before paragraph (1)(a), insert:

           (aa)    to pursue the objects of this Act as set out in section 3;

(23)  Clause 172, page 164 (line 17), after “quantity”, insert “and the threat to the long term health”.

(24)  Clause 172, page 165 (line 32), at the end of paragraph (1)(h), add “with specific attention to river, wetland and estuary health”.

These come under part 9—‘Murray-Darling Basin Authority (administrative provisions)’—clause 171, and clause 172, which goes to the authority’s functions. It has a list of the authority’s functions but, indeed, it is very light on the reference to the requirement under the objects of the act and the matters that we have been discussing today to ensure the environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin. These amendments point more specifically to that. Firstly, it would say, ‘The authority has the following functions,’ and, rather than just going to the functions confirmed for the authority under parts 2, 5 and 10, it would begin with new clause (aa), which says: ‘to pursue the objects of this act as set out in section 3’—and those objects specify, amongst other things, the environmental requirements.

It also amends clause 172(1)(b), so that it would read: ‘To measure, monitor and record the quality and quantity and the threat to the long-term health of the basin water resources’. The insertion of ‘threat to the long-term health’ in the clause will ensure that the authority is looking at not just where the basin is now but where it will be down the line, taking into consideration the overview that it must have of the future. Under subclause (1)(h)—‘to collect, analyse and interpret information about the basin water resources and water dependent ecosystems’—we add ‘with specific attention to river, with land and estuary health’ to make sure that those matters are given the priority they deserve.

I might just add that I went to the Macquarie Marshes a year or so ago and saw the appalling state of this internationally renowned wetland and bird breeding place—tens of thousands of birds used to breed there. It is in an appalling state because it has been deprived of water. At that time, egrets, which had reproduced in their thousands each year, had not reproduced at all for the preceding six years. That was the impact of not just climate change and drought but the diverting by irrigators of the water away from that system without adequate government assurance that the ecosystems got the water which is their lifeblood. These amendments simply point more directly to the need for the ecological considerations to be given the priority that they deserve.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This batch of amendments is opposed. We say that the authority’s main role is the preparation and enforcement of the basin plan. Clause 20 of the legislation sets out the purpose of the plan, which is to provide for the integrated management of the basin water resources in a way that promotes the objects of the act. The government considers that this requirement gives the MDBA responsibility for meeting the objects of the act within the scope of its functions. The government notes that meeting some of the objects of the act are more a responsibility of the ACCC or the Bureau of Meteorology than a responsibility of the authority.

In relation to amendment (23), we say that that matter is in fact covered by clause 172(1)(c). The addition of the words ‘long-term health of basin waterways’ is covered by the generality of the clause, which deals with the condition of the water dependent ecosystems. In relation to amendment (24), which seeks to add the words ‘with specific attention to river wetland and estuary health’, there is the potential to assert that that in fact constrains the clause and that emphasis would be given to these particular issues as opposed to the generality of basin water resources and ecosystems. We do not think that there is a need to stress some particular aspects over others. We believe that the totality of basin water resources and ecosystems should be considered.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is just a difference in emphasis. Clause 172(1)(c) does not address the need to draw the authority’s attention to its function to ensure measuring and monitoring and therefore provide against threats to the long-term health of the river and its ecosystem. That is not there; it is not going to be there. We want it there.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, the term ‘health’ is more limiting than the term ‘condition’. ‘Condition’ is a lot broader and therefore potentially has a lot greater impact for the benefit of the environment.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (27) on sheet 5361:

(27)

Clause 178, page 170 (line 29), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

Basically, this is a rather small amendment. It is to change—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is Bill’s amendment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. It changes the word ‘must’ to ‘may’ in the section regarding the composition of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This amendment would enable more than one member of the authority to be full time. The original plan was to require all the members to be full time in the early phase. But then when the nature of the authority changed there was a decision made to make only one of the members full time and to make the others part time. This change from ‘must’ to ‘may’ will enable more than one member to potentially be full time. The Wentworth Group highlighted this issue in their submission. The National Farmers Federation recognised that the decision was made that there should be only one full-time member. The role of the authority was somewhat reduced because of the changes that came after Victoria refused to refer its power and therefore there was not necessarily a requirement for everybody to be full time. However, what the NFF pointed out was that where we go from here is largely dependent on the IGA. What they were saying is that the role of the authority might get bigger in the future. The legislation at the moment restricts the authority by saying that only one member can be full time. This amendment puts in place a provision to enable members to be made full-time members if in the future that is required. Rather than the government of the day having to come back here to make an amendment to change ‘must’ to ‘may’, we can do it now to enable more members to be full-time members if that is required.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the arguments in relation to this matter, but we as a government will resist delaying the bill for the sake of this one particular amendment—despite the great oratory in support of it by Senator Siewert.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean that the other place does not feel like coming back at a quarter past four on a Friday afternoon?

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

WATER (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2007

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Bill agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.