Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition opposes item 78 in schedule 2 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 2, item 78, page 302 (lines 18 to 25), item to be opposed.

This deals with the new knowledge component. The minister would be very aware that, under the National Water Initiative, three reasons were advanced for why a reduction in water access would be available. They were: climate change, new knowledge and change of policy. The first, as the minister would know, is non-compensable. Regarding the second, irrigators would suffer up to a three per cent reduction in access, if there were any reduction in water access, as a result of the new knowledge component. The third, change of policy, was entirely to be borne by state and Commonwealth governments. However, the arrangements were changed. The Commonwealth government have since indicated that they will bear 100 per cent of the reduction.

Where this is of interest to the coalition is that, prior to the bill being introduced, discussions were to have taken place between industry and government around the definitions of climate change and new knowledge. What we are seeking to do in opposing this item is to delete the paragraph that relates to this area, given that a great deal of concern has been raised by industry about those definitions of climate change and new knowledge. We certainly believe that the parameters have been too tightly set around excluding climate change from being classified as new knowledge. As I said, we seek to delete that paragraph in the bill to return some degree of certainty to the industry in terms of the compensation that will be available.

People in the industry were very much of the view that, moving forward through this process, there would be consultation with them around those definitions. The concern from industry is—and quite rightly so—that if climate change were to be excluded from being assessed under the new knowledge component then all of the compensation would disappear and irrigators would be in a situation where a reduction in water allocation would be noncompensable.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to confirm: the government does not support this amendment. I am aware of the issues that have been raised by some New South Wales irrigators, in particular. The government has included in the bill a risk assignment framework which appears at schedule 3A. The proposed section 75(1A) in the bill simply clarifies the current operation of the Water Act and clarifies that reductions arising from the new knowledge and government policy categories of risk do not overlap with the third category of risk set out in the NWI, which encompasses reductions arising from seasonal long-term changes in climate and periodic natural events such as bushfires and droughts.

The amendment the government is proposing in the bill ensures that the bill reflects the three categories of risk set out in the relevant clauses of the National Water Initiative, which are 48 to 50. The Water Act originally intended to do this, and does so by reference to the NWI. On review, the government considered that this issue would benefit from clarification. I would emphasise, though—and I have had a range of discussions with stakeholders on this issue—that the authority will be able to consider risk assignment. The amendment does not change the basis of that consideration, and obviously the government will be looking to that consideration, as will users in the basin for the purposes of their views on the risk assignment allocation.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to the point the minister made about the amendments not changing the basis of the consideration, the minister may well then be accepting of the amendment going forward, because the amendment that we are putting forward to delete the provision in the bill clearly removes the uncertainty that currently exists around the definition of those particular categories of climate change and new knowledge. The minister would be very well aware that, as I said previously, discussions were to take place before a final decision was arrived at on how those two components would be treated. Indeed, by having this paragraph in the bill, it takes away any ability for that consultation with industry in determining those definitions and the very important impact of the compensatory ability surrounding the differing definitions that might be put forward. So I think that, in the interests of certainty and allowing the industry to be consulted on the definitions around those terms and the resulting compensatory activities, indeed the amendment should go forward and the provision be deleted from the bill.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say again to Senator Nash, and I understand the opposition do not agree: this is the clause which we believe clarifies the risk assignment framework. I also note that the categorisation of changes relevant to risk assignment is a matter that the authority will participate in and it will apply the categories of risk assignment that are framed under the act and the NWI. We believe that this muddies the waters, quite clearly, and we do not believe the amendment will be helpful in the circumstances, particularly given that there is a view that this clarification in the act is needed.

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

I must admit I am struggling to understand where the Commonwealth is coming from on this issue. Having said that, I am also a little bit concerned about the coalition’s amendment. I have paid close attention to what the irrigators council have been saying. They are worried about this amendment because it means that climate change will not be considered new knowledge. They want climate change as new knowledge. My concern is that climate change is a reality, and it is going to have a real impact. I am trying to weigh up the fact that we need to make sure we give effect to and do not override the commitments that were made in clause 46 of the National Water Initiative, but I do not want to go so far as to say, ‘This clause kicks in; climate change becomes new knowledge.’ I want to maintain that balance between climate change and new knowledge. As I understand it, the irrigators’ concern is where the boundary between climate change and new knowledge kicks in. I want to understand if this impacts on that significantly. With all due respect to the minister, I do not think she has adequately explained how this clause will work and where it kicks in. I apologise if I am being slow—it is first thing in the morning after a late night—but I do seek further clarification about why this is needed before the Greens can decide which way we are going to vote.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to Senator Siewert’s concerns, perhaps I can assist, given that it is a coalition amendment. I think the phrase that Senator Siewert used about the boundary is quite a good one. I think there is a recognition from industry at the moment that there are those definitions to be decided around climate change and new knowledge, and currently the boundary is a little blurred. I think the best way to describe their concerns with the bill and this provision being in the bill is: that boundary is very clearly placed by government as to where it should be—that they will be separate—and it does not leave room for that discussion in trying to ascertain exactly where it should be.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand the advice to me, under the risk assignment agreements, with anything in excess of three per cent of a component of reduction that is considered to be new knowledge, the Commonwealth bears the risk. In relation to climate change, all users bear the risk. Our concern about Senator Nash’s amendment is that, potentially, it risks leading to a situation where climate change could be regarded as new knowledge. We do not believe that is appropriate. There will be a discussion about what aspects of any reduction are due to new knowledge or climate change. We need to have that discussion under a clear legislative framework, and in the context of the authority being able to give a very clear indication of where it believes various reductions should appropriately be assigned.

Our concern with Senator Nash’s amendment is that it has the potential to muddy the distinction between new knowledge and climate change. The Commonwealth’s view is that this amendment bill in fact clarifies that they are distinct issues, recognising and not prejudicing the fact that there is still going to have to be consideration by the authority and therefore by governments and users about what components are carried by which entities, users or the Commonwealth, in the context of any reduction.

And I would make the point that, in fact, the Commonwealth has gone further than the previous Commonwealth government in that, as part of the IGA negotiations, my recollection is that we took on the 100 per cent above a first three per cent of new knowledge risk.

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

I thank the minister very much for her clarification and signal that the Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Schedule 2, item 78 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

I move Greens amendment (13) on sheet 5629:

(13)  Schedule 2, page 304 (after line 14), after item 90, insert:

90A  At the end of Part 2

Add:

Division 5—Investments

86AA Investment decisions

        (1)    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.

        (2)    To ensure that where any water entitlement savings are to be shared between the environment and an existing entitlement holder, the Minister must:

             (a)    have the extent of the savings confirmed by an independent auditor;

             (b)    reduce the existing licence holder’s access entitlement by at least 50% of the savings that are expected to occur after the investment is made.

This amendment relates to investment decisions and is trying to ensure public return on investments in water savings. This is a comprehensive set of amendments that seek to ensure that, where water entitlement savings are to be shared between the environment and an existing water entitlement holder, the minister must have the extent of the savings confirmed by an independent auditor and reduce the existing licence holder’s access entitlement by at least 50 per cent of the savings that are expected to occur after the investment is made.

The overall intent of this amendment is to ensure that the investments that we are making are actually delivered in terms of real savings. We are also trying to ensure that, where the minister makes investment decisions relating to the Murray-Darling Basin—including but not limited to investments relating to the modernisation on-farm or off-farm of irrigation infrastructure, major engineering works and the purchase of water allocations—there is a consistency of investment with the Basin Plan, that those decisions are consistent with the National Water Initiative, that we provide for transparency and accountability in the investment of funds, and that we are monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of the investment and making sure that we are meeting the objectives of the Basin Plan.

In other words: we have a Basin Plan, we are investing very heavily in that Basin Plan—$12.9 billion—and we are seeking to ensure that those investment decisions are transparent but give effect to the Basin Plan. So we believe that this adds an extra degree of vigour to the act to ensure that we are delivering real outcomes.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recognise the very good intent of this amendment from the Greens, and there have been a number of discussions around investment in water efficiency and infrastructure—indeed, the coalition has been very strong in leading the way in saying that this is actually the way forward to ensuring that we have water savings in the basin, rather than just a simple buyback approach. Certainly there is a place for buyback, but we believe that efficiency in infrastructure is the way forward to making sustainability gains into the future. The coalition is just a little concerned that this particular amendment is rather too prescriptive, and we are worried about perhaps leaving some room to allow a little flexibility. On the basis that it is rather too prescriptive, I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendment.

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

I indicate my support for this amendment. I do not believe it is too prescriptive. I believe that it does have a degree of rigour on transparency and accountability in what is being proposed. Billions of dollars are being spent in relation to these investment decisions, and requiring something such as certifying that the extent of the savings has been confirmed by an independent auditor has to be a good thing.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make a couple of points. The first is that the government is very clear on and very conscious of the importance of ensuring that taxpayers get value for money in terms of the return of water to the river. For example, there have been occasions where the government has been asked, including by some senators in this chamber, to purchase water at double the market price and, in terms of value for money for the taxpayer, we have made clear that there are difficulties associated with offering that sort of premium. We are also very aware in the context of irrigation and infrastructure projects that we do need to ensure reasonable value for money for taxpayers.

I would make the point that this could have a range of consequences, in different regions in the basin, which senators who are supporting this may not be aware of. For example, irrigation districts which have already achieved significant savings and have become efficient over time for a whole range of economic reasons and have been driven to install more efficient investments, more efficient irrigation systems and practices would find it more difficult than the most inefficient irrigators to achieve the 50 per cent requirement in 86AA(2)(b) of the amendment.

Senator Xenophon would know that that is a view put by some South Australian irrigators—that they have already achieved significant savings and that they are highly efficient and therefore for them to have any funding for infrastructure projects in their region, subject to the amendment that the senator is supporting, would become more difficult than arguably in irrigation areas where you still see open channels and the like where there may arguably be more readily available savings.

We clearly understand the importance of the policy objective for this infrastructure investment. It is about ensuring a viable, productive future for irrigation communities and irrigation industries in the context of declining water availability. The whole purpose is to enable an adjustment to climate change and to enable these communities and industries to become more efficient, which, by definition, means you have to look to water efficiencies.

In terms of accountability around that, the government will continue to ensure that due diligence is applied both to state priority projects through the bilateral agreements with the states and to any other investments under this infrastructure aspect of the government’s programs, because we recognise it is in the best interests of all that efficiencies are gained. However, the amendment, in our view, is overly prescriptive. Whilst we recognise the views put by the crossbenchers on this issue, the government are not minded to support the amendment.

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

I appreciate the government’s intent in obviously trying to maximise the value of their investment. One would expect that to be the outcome. We are trying to ensure that that is in fact given a legislative base. Section 86AA(2)(b) is clear: where there are any water entitlements savings they are to be shared. So, where there has already been an agreement, that investment will result in a share between the environment and the existing titleholder. That in fact requires that the existing licence holder’s access entitlement is reduced by 50 per cent. Does that mean that the government will be investing in some infrastructure where they will not be ensuring that the return of the savings will not be reduced by 50 per cent? That is what we are asking. We want to ensure that, where there is investment and an agreement is reached in terms of how much of the savings will be returned, that is actually what happens. It is about ensuring that, where an agreement is reached, it is given a legislative base.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to respond to the assertion that the government would be proposing to invest where there are no savings, that is clearly not the intention of the $5.9 billion. Obviously you seek to optimise savings and optimise the share between productive users and the environment, but those matters may depend on the project. There will clearly be a different availability of savings and therefore a different proportion of shares for the environment which may be able to be achieved in different parts of the basin. What I can say to you is that the objective, consistent with the guidelines and consistent with our negotiations with the states under the bilateral agreements for the states’ priority projects, is to achieve water savings. Precisely how those are allocated and what the quantum is are issues that need to be considered in the context of particular projects. What I can say is that we have been very clear about the policy objective of this money and we have been upfront and transparent about that. Consistent with Senator Nash’s view, we do not believe this amendment is necessary.

Question negatived.

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

I move Greens amendment (14) on sheet 5629:

(14)  Schedule 2, page 304 (after line 16), after item 91, insert:

91A  Part 5 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Part 5—Murray-Darling Basin Water Rights Information Service and Register

91B  At the end of Part 5

Add:

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).

This amendment relates to the establishment of a basin water register, and it empowers the authority to progressively establish an entitlement register that is of guaranteed integrity and that facilitates both the low-cost registration of interests and the efficient transfers of registrable rights from one entity to another, which is in line with the National Water Initiative. Again, this is an issue that was raised when the Water Act was first introduced, and it was raised during the inquiry. The Greens believe that this is a good way to ensure good water management. Professor Mike Young first suggested it would be a way forward in modernising our water management in the basin. We think it is a pretty compelling argument. To quote Mike Young, 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 the register will build on the basis of producing a more secure and robust water market, and we think this provides a good base for doing that. We have suggested this as a way forward to ensuring that people have confidence in the water market. It gives the authority a role in ensuring that that happens. It gives the authority a role in establishing and running that register. We think this is a way forward in good water management. If we are serious about changing the way we manage water in the basin and serious about giving the authority the authority to set its mark in terms of that good management then this is the base on which to build that and it should be done in a progressive manner. We commend the amendment to the Senate.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition certainly recognises the intent with which this amendment is moved by the Greens. Having considered this, though, we are not convinced that this is the best way forward to reach the desired outcome being put forward by the Greens. We will not be supporting the amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a couple of points to Senator Siewert—and it is a position that I think Senator Xenophon also articulated in his speech in the second reading debate. Essentially, there is a view that there should be an increase not only in Commonwealth power but also in bureaucracy in the management of the basin. Can I say that that is not the model the government have undertaken. We have undertaken a model of cooperation and collaboration. People might have different views about the benefit of that, but by taking this approach we have achieved an agreement that has never been achieved before.

We also recognise that, whatever criticisms senators or individuals may make of the states’ management, an enormous amount of expertise and information still resides in the states. Frankly, I would suggest to senators who want urgent action that rebuilding that at a Commonwealth level is certainly not the way to achieve something urgently. Whatever your views about the states, the fact is that they have a history of management and water information in this area, and we do need to utilise that collaboratively and cooperatively.

Senator Siewert is correct in her views about the importance of a register in terms of the market. We have been very clear, as the government, that we do see a more efficient and transparent water market as being an important means by which adjustment can occur. We think it is an important thing for irrigation communities because it does enable irrigators to make their choices about the way forward for them. It also enables water to go to where it is most highly valued. I have irrigators putting views to me about some significant problems still in parts of the market, particularly the delays around interstate transfers and similar sorts of complaints. These are matters which we are keen to address. There are a range of water market reforms contained in the act and the bill. We had a discussion yesterday about the ACCC’s involvement. We also believe that having a better and more comprehensive register within the basin is absolutely a policy objective. It is absolutely something we want to do. It is a question of how you do it. I would suggest that, apart from there being some constitutional doubts, on my advice, about this amendment, simply passing the amendment will not get the work done.

What are the government doing on this? What we are currently doing is discussing with the states and progressing through the COAG processes with the objective of developing a national register for water entitlements. These discussions are ongoing and they are progressing. We think there is a shared view that we do need a much more transparent water registration system. It is certainly the Commonwealth government’s view that we do and that that is key to a more efficient water market, which is of benefit for the reasons I have outlined. So I would say to Senator Siewert and Senator Xenophon that, yes, a register is a fundamental part of the water market improvements that need to be made, but a legislative amendment is not going to achieve that. What we need to do is build that with the state governments, who are currently vested with the authority to grant entitlements to take water and currently register those entitlements.

Question negatived.

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

I move Greens amendment (15) on sheet 5629:

(15)  Schedule 2, page 305 (after line 16), after item 93, insert:

93A  Paragraph 110(1)(a)

Before “using”, insert “acquiring, holding or”.

This amendment relates to the section of the bill that deals with the application of state laws to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. The first part of that section talks about ‘any requirement of a law of a basin state that presents a person from using, on land that the person does not own, water available under a water access right’. To clarify and tighten up this provision, we seek to change ‘using’ to ‘ acquiring, holding or using’. We believe that tightens it up to ensure that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can acquire and hold on to the water. This amendment tightens up that section to ensure that the Commonwealth water holder can actually do what the act intends it to do.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, whilst we recognise the intent here we think that there is the potential for some unintended consequences to arise out of this amendment. We will not be supporting it.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think there is a very intended consequence, and that is to avoid any existing restrictions—and I use the term non-pejoratively—on trade applying to the Commonwealth. I am sure, Senator Siewert, that you are aware that this would be opposed by the states, and that it would establish, essentially, certain special treatment for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. It is important to recall that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder does not have a different class of entitlement to other users. We are actually stepping into the shoes of any other entitlement holder. So what we would essentially be saying is that as an entitlement holder we would have different rules applying to us. From a regulatory perspective, that might be regarded by many as problematic.

I have been very clear about the government’s view. We think there are benefits for the basin communities in a water market that is working as openly, efficiency and transparently as possible. We also recognise the significant community views of certain irrigation communities and regional communities—for example, in Victoria in relation to the four per cent cap. So we recognise that what will need to continue to occur is dialogue, both with community representatives and state governments, on these issues. We do not believe, in the context of this bill, that imposing this sort of requirement is going to lead to the sort of overall outcome that is required given that this bill is the subject of cooperative arrangements and that, as the senator and the committee would know, this measure would be opposed certainly by one, if not all, of the states.

Question negatived.

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

I move Greens amendment (16) on sheet 5629:

Schedule 2, page 306 (after line 1), after item 97, insert:

97A  Subsection 140(1)

Repeal the subsection (not including the heading), 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.

97B  At the end of section 140

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 is 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 included 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 included 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.

This amendment relates to the application of injunctions. It is about seeking to incorporate public standing provisions into the act. Again, it is an issue that I very strongly acknowledge we have sought to raise before. This has been an issue for the community, and particularly for environment groups, for quite some time, and we believe that it is an important provision in legislation such as this. Environment organisations have had longstanding arguments for public standing provisions in many areas of legislation and, of course, there are such provisions in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

We have held the position for some time—and this, I must also say, moves into the area of my subsequent amendment, amendment (17)—that it is important that community organisations and the public have the opportunity to take action under specific areas of legislation. It has been a longstanding argument that the Greens have put forward—and this is what amendments (16) and (17) are specifically about—that if, for example, government is not, heaven forbid, doing the right thing or does not take action, there are provisions in the legislation for the community to be able to do that. Other legislation does include public standing provisions for the community to be able to take action, and such provisions have been used very effectively on a number of occasions and have produced positive outcomes for the environment. Environment organisations in particular, as I have said, have been very supportive of this approach for a very long time. We believe it is appropriate in such forward-looking legislation as this that such provisions are included in this act.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not supportive of this amendment. The assertion was made that the government might not be doing the right thing. The minister and the government are not the enforcers of the Basin Plan. It is the authority—an independent authority—which has the power under the bill, and the act, to enforce. It is an authority that is going to be publicly accountable for its actions. The assumption behind the amendment is that there may be potential omission, error or failure to act by the independent body that we are, in fact, establishing. We would suggest the amendment is unnecessary, particularly given the powers which the government is proposing to enable the authority to have.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not be supporting the amendment. The amendment does not improve the intent of what is trying to be achieved here.

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

I perhaps need to remind the coalition that it is not just environment groups that may seek to exercise these provisions but other organisations. Indeed, farming organisations may choose to use these provisions. I used the environment organisations as an example because they are the organisations that have tended to access similar provisions in other legislation but, of course, because it relates to public standing provisions it is open to anybody to use those provisions.

Question negatived.

I move Greens amendment (17) on sheet 5629:

(17)  Schedule 2, page 306 (after line 1), after item 97, insert:

97C  At the end of Part 8

Add:

Division 10—Review of administrative decisions

170A Extended standing for judicial review

        (1)    This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to:

             (a)    a decision made under this Act or the regulations; or

             (b)    a failure to make a decision under this Act or the regulations; or

             (c)    conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act or the regulations.

        (2)    An individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if:

             (a)    the individual is an Australian citizen ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory; and

             (b)    at any time in the 2 years immediately before the decision, failure or conduct, the individual has engaged in a series of activities in Australia or an external Territory for protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems.

        (3)    An organisation or association (whether incorporated or not) is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if:

             (a)    the organisation or association is incorporated, or was otherwise established, in Australia or an external Territory; and

             (b)    at any time in the 2 years immediately before the decision, failure or conduct, the organisation or association has engaged in a series of activities in Australia or an external Territory for protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems; and

             (c)    at the time of the decision, failure or conduct, the objects or purposes of the organisation or association included protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems.

        (4)    A term (except person aggrieved) used in this section and in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.

170B Applications on behalf of unincorporated organisations

                 Applications for a review of decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 may be made by a person acting on behalf of an unincorporated organisation that is a person aggrieved for the purposes of that Act by:

             (a)    a decision made under this Act or the regulations; or

             (b)    a failure to make a decision under this Act or the regulations; or

             (c)    conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act or the regulations.

These are related to issues that I went through for amendment (16), so I am not going to go through the same arguments again. I simply move the amendment.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Per the previous amendment, our position stays the same: we will not be supporting the amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the amendment. First, the Basin Plan is a legislative instrument. The amendment will therefore not assist in the goal which apparently is being sought. Irrespective of those legal issues, we do not believe it is desirable that the Basin Plan—I think, despite our policy differences in this place, most senators agree that it is a good idea to get that done—which will provide for the first time a scientific basis for the consideration of extraction levels as well as the certainty of water entitlements, potentially be held up in the courts. Frankly, such an approach would be contrary to the very clear message that the government has been getting from stakeholders in the water debate. I emphasise that we do believe that consultation is critical. The act contains a comprehensive framework to ensure that interested parties are consulted closely over the development of the Basin Plan. We believe that the regime that is set out in the bill will provide public involvement and consultation. We do not believe there is any added public policy benefit from this amendment.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (18) to (20) on sheet 5629 together:

(18)  Schedule 2, page 306 (after line 1), after item 97, insert:

97D  Before paragraph 172(1)(a)

Insert:

           (aa)    to pursue and, where appropriate, encourage other agencies to pursue the objects of the Act as set out in section 3;

(19)  Schedule 2, page 306 (after line 1), after item 97, insert:

97E  Paragraph 172(1)(b)

After “quantity”, insert “and the threat to the long term health”.

(20)  Schedule 2, page 306 (after line 19), after item 100, insert:

100A  At the end of paragraph 172(1)(h)

Add “with specific attention to river, wetland and estuary health”.

Last night, we had some discussion about the authority to ensure responsibility for river health. These amendments are designed specifically to ensure that the authority clearly functions for pursuing the objects of the acts. This issue was raised again during the committee inquiry a couple of weeks ago. It was pointed out that it would be preferable that we clearly amend the act to make sure that the authority’s functions are to pursue the objects of the act.

Amendment (18) specifically deals with inserting a clause that says, ‘to pursue and, where appropriate, encourage other agencies to pursue the objects of the act’. That would be made one of the authority’s functions so that the authority encourages other agencies to pursue the objects of the act as well. It makes river health the explicit responsibility of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. There are also threats to long-term health, and that is an explicit responsibility. That is amendment (19). Amendment (20) is also about explicit responsibility for river health and adds the words, ‘with specific attention to river, wetland and estuary health’. Those amendments are about ensuring that the authority is very clear that part of its responsibilities is to ensure the health of the river system.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment is in conflict with the following amendment from Senator Xenophon. The coalition will not be supporting this motion. Looking at both of these amendments, our view was that the following amendment uses the words ‘make recommendations’, which we found to be more fitting with the intent of the motion—which I will get to in the next amendment. We will not be supporting the Greens amendment here.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regarding the three amendments, none of which the government is proposing to support, the first relates to the encouragement of other agencies. I assume that the policy objective behind this is to try to ensure that there is a whole-of-government approach. I suggest again to Senator Siewert that this sort of legislative direction is neither necessary to achieve it nor going to ensure that it occurs. Obviously there is a political accountability issue here. It could also create some complexities. For example, if you have particular statutory agencies such as the ACCC or the National Water Commission, which might have their own set of obligations or objects which are applicable to them under other pieces of legislation, to then have to have some legislative form of requirement, via the authority, to also pursue the objects of this act seems to us to be a rather complex way to try to achieve the policy outcome.

We recognise the benefit of giving the authority responsibility for meeting the objects of the act within the scope of the functions, and we do not believe this amendment really deals with the broader policy issue I assume is behind it: making sure that government seeks to improve through other activities the overall health of the basin. Obviously, in terms of compliance with the law, government, whether it is state or federal, must obey the law, and the Basin Plan will be a legislative instrument. In relation to amendments (19) and (20), we do not support these. I think we previously had a discussion on them. I suggest that the issues of wetlands and water dependent ecosystems are already dealt with in the current functions of the authority enumerated in section 172.

Question negatived.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Xenophon, move Senator Xenophon’s amendment (2) on sheet 5649:

(2)    Schedule 2, page 306 (after line 1), after item 97, insert:

97D  Before paragraph 172(1)(a)

Insert:

           (aa)    to pursue and, where appropriate, make recommendations to other agencies to pursue the objects of the Act as set out in section 3;

Unfortunately, Senator Xenophon had to leave the chamber for a few moments and I am happy to move the amendment for him. The coalition have indicated that we are supportive of Senator Xenophon’s amendment in this instance. If I could again just make the point that we were attracted to the phrase ‘make recommendations’ in the amendment. We believe that was a rather tighter construct than the previous amendment (18) by the Greens. It sought to deal more tightly with the intent of the amendment.

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

While we would have obviously preferred a stronger amendment, which is why we moved amendment (18) in the first place, this obviously goes some way towards achieving our objectives, so we support this amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the reasons I think we previously discussed, we do not support amendment (2) on sheet 5649. My comments in relation to Senator Siewert’s amendment are apposite here.

Question agreed to.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5640:

(2)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 32), after item 162, insert:

162B At the end of Part 12

Add:

258 Community Impact Statements

        (1)    For each region in the Basin in which the Commonwealth purchases or intends to purchase any privately-held water entitlement, the Minister must publish a Community Impact Statement specifying:

             (a)    social and cultural impacts;

             (b)    economic impacts;

             (c)    environmental impacts;

             (d)    the criteria used by the Commonwealth in deciding to purchase that water entitlement;

             (e)    any conditions upon which the purchase was made;

              (f)    other water entitlements the Commonwealth is considering purchasing in the region.

        (2)    A report published under subsection (1) must specify the modelling and evidence upon which the impacts referred to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) were determined.

        (3)    The Community Impact Statement must be used in determining the allocation of funds under any structural adjustment package determined under section 259.

This very clearly goes to the issue of being able to ascertain, measure and understand the potential impact on communities as a result of water being removed from those communities. We certainly do not believe that to date the government has focused anywhere near clearly enough on ensuring that the socioeconomic impact statements of particular communities and of particular regions are taken into account when we are looking at the issue of reducing water allocation to communities, to farmers and to irrigators.

We would like to see the introduction of this amendment bring about the provision for community impact statements. There would be a requirement under the legislation, for each region in the basin in which the Commonwealth purchases or intends to purchase any privately held water entitlement, that the minister must publish a community impact statement specifying social and cultural impacts; economic impacts, obviously; environmental impacts; and the criteria and any conditions upon which the purchase was or is to be made.

We believe these measures will ensure that there is a very clear recognition and understanding by government of the impact their actions will have in removing water from communities. I know that the minister has referred in the past to the impact being previous overallocation and climate change, and that may well have a place. But the minister’s words at that time were to the exclusion really of the importance of the impact of the current buyback. It may well be that in that context the minister was alluding to the fact that there really is not any water yet going back to the system—there is very little water to be allocated against the entitlement that is being bought back. Perhaps, to be fair to the minister, that was the intent of what she said at the time.

Through this amendment we are trying to ensure that there is focus by the government on the importance of the impact on our communities of taking water from those communities. We are not entirely sure that the minister is perhaps as cognisant of this as she should be, having travelled through the Murray-Darling Basin recently and had a significant amount of feedback from those communities that they did not believe the minister was aware as she should be of the potential impact on those communities from this buyback process. This amendment moves to clearly put in place a requirement that community impact statements will be done so that there is a very clear understanding of any of those potential impacts upon our rural and regional communities.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by responding not to the personal issues—and I am disappointed that that is the way Senator Nash chose to have this debate—but to Senator Nash’s statement about ‘removing water from communities’. She is having a go at the government for ‘removing water from communities’. What we quite clearly see underlying that turn of phrase is the opposition Senator Nash is putting up to water purchases. In my engagement with communities, stakeholders, irrigators and other users, I have found that people understand very clearly that the largest impact that these communities are grappling with is not from water purchases but from the lack of availability of water. It is a fact, for example, that communities such as Deniliquin have had in the last three seasons, unless there has been a change most recently, zero, zero and two per cent general security allocation. That is not from water purchases; that is the cumulative effect of climate change, of drought and of overallocation.

The senator and some members of the opposition—and I will come to that shortly—seem to be suggesting that the impact on these communities is because the government is purchasing water. The fact is that the impact that most of these communities are struggling with is the impact of lack of water availability. The senator also said—and I may be paraphrasing her incorrectly—that climate change may be an issue. The briefing that we were given a couple of weeks ago at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, which I chaired, tracked inflows against long-term averages and showed the step down that we have seen over the last 10 years. It then showed where we had tracked during 2006-07 and where we are currently tracking. These are extraordinarily low inflows. In the two years prior to our election we had the lowest inflows in the nation’s history—certainly since we have been taking records on the River Murray. Forty three per cent is the nearest low. That is the sort of step down that we have seen.

There are some on the other side who may take the view that this is not climate change, that this is a temporary drought. Well, I hope that they are right, but I have to say that the evidence appears to be to the contrary. It might be that in 10 or 20 years we can look back and say, ‘This much was a permanent step down as a result of climate change; this much was drought and overallocation.’ But we in government have to deal with a very harsh reality, which is being dealt with every day by irrigators, their families and their communities—that is, that in too much of the southern basin we see historically low levels of allocation because we see historically low inflows.

What do we do about that? This is something that I feel quite passionately about. This is one area where I think that if previous governments had actually been brave enough to make some hard decisions, to tell people what was really happening, then this government would not be left to pick up the pieces. But we are picking up the pieces because those on that side were not prepared to tell people how it was. They were not prepared to say, ‘We really have to make an adjustment and this what we have to do about it and, yes, we are prepared to work with you.’

I absolutely accept how difficult this is for many of these communities. One of the privileges of this job is having the opportunity to meet with a range of individuals from different parts of the basin. There are a lot of people who are not only struggling but are showing a lot of grit and determination in very difficult circumstances. What I have said to them pretty consistently is that we will try and call this problem as we see it, because for too long water has been the subject of too much politics and, frankly, too many politicians telling people what they want to hear. The responsible thing to do is to deal with the facts and to try and put in place programs which enable that adjustment, which we believe as a government has to occur for the benefit of those who are currently struggling with a lack of water availability. Those on the other side have a completely inconsistent position on this. They occasionally criticise us for purchasing and then they occasionally tell us that we should purchase more. I will come to some of those inconsistencies shortly.

This amendment would require a community impact statement for every region on every occasion that the Commonwealth purchased or intended to purchase water. We currently have tenders open in both the northern and southern basins. Does that mean, in relation to every single willing offer that is made—because we are not forcing people to sell to us—that we would have to publish a community impact statement? That simply is unworkable.

Those of us on this side of the chamber continue to hear different positions that different people in the Liberal Party put depending on where they are in the Murray-Darling Basin and who they are talking to. Initially, Mr Hunt said in April 2008, ‘We are pleased they’re involved in the buyback.’ Senator Birmingham, in estimates in February, said that he supported a 1,500-gigalitre buyback commitment. However, Mr Cobb has indicated that he opposed it and is critical of it. Mr Pyne said that we should be spending more money—$1 billion. Dr Stone, the member for Murray, said that, essentially, we can conduct a buyback but only in New South Wales because that is where it is overallocated, and Dr Nelson at some point in fact flirted with the idea of compulsory acquisition. This is the rainbow of positions from the other side.

There have certainly been criticisms of the purchase program that have been put to me by irrigators in my discussions with them. I will tell you what we did as a result. I understand that it is important to try and ensure that communities have the information they need, particularly at a time when things are so difficult. We all understand that it is easy to play politics and to play on people’s fears and concerns at difficult times. We, as a government, understand that we are not going to get responsible policy-making on this front from the opposition. We will get this rainbow of positions. We are faced with that. We are faced with communities who are worried about their futures and are concerned about the fact that they have seen such low allocations over too many seasons.

What did we do with our first $50 billion purchase? We established a stakeholder consultative committee with irrigators and users on it. We commissioned a report, the Hyder review into that first purchase, and we are implementing changes as a result of its recommendations. I am upfront about these recommendations—they called for better communication about the purchase program and more publicly available information about it. So we are taking steps to respond to those recommendations because we always want to improve the way in which this purchase program is being implemented. Of course, it is the first time the Commonwealth has done this. Those opposite never did.

I also want to get the amount of water into perspective. I was asked on Adelaide Talkback, last week I think, how much water we had bought. I provided those figures—I think it was approximately 23 gigalitres of entitlement through the first tender round, leaving aside the Tarraleah purchase, which, by the way, Mr Hunt originally supported and then he opposed. That is actually how much water has been sold to us. Again, that is voluntary. I understand that people made those decisions in difficult circumstances. There are difficult circumstances in too many regions in Australia at the moment because of the lack of water availability due to climate change and the drought. But these are willing sellers. Just under 23 gigalitres of entitlement was the most recent figure that has been purchased. My recollection of reading the review is that there was demonstrated economic benefit to those communities where that water purchase occurred—it enabled those who wanted to exit to do so, it enabled those who wanted to sell part of their entitlement to reinvest to do so, and it enabled water to be allocated to where it was most highly valued. This is in the economic interest of those communities.

I encourage Senator Nash, because I think she seeks to represent her communities, and I encourage people here to help manage this adjustment process responsibly. We will continue to improve the way in which we run the purchase program. We have had stakeholder input into and feedback on our first purchase, which is informing how we are currently undertaking this purchase, and we will do so again. We have also had the Hyder review of our initial purchase program, and we are taking into account its recommendations and its views in the context of the current tender process. We have also commissioned advice from ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, on the impacts of water buybacks, and the government will consider this information.

These are issues we are very conscious of. We want to do this properly and engage with stakeholders. We will not play the political game played in here by some of those opposite, who, frankly, would do better, if they wanted to responsibly engage with these policy issues, to at least come to some coherent position regarding purchases. The same sort of political divide is being played out on the opposition benches that prevented the Howard government from addressing these issues for 12 years. We are seeing the worst form of politics. We have South Australian senators going down to the Lower Lakes and Coorong and telling them that we need more water and that the government should purchase more. We have senators and members from the Liberal and National parties in New South Wales and Victoria saying that we should not purchase or being critical of our purchases. At some point, communities are going to wake up to the fact that those opposite are telling people different things depending on where they are because they think different people want to hear different things. That is not political leadership.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say it is very disappointing to hear the minister making the remark that this side of the chamber is playing politics when she is indulging in it herself. I think that is very unfortunate. I must not have made myself clear in my initial remarks. I think the minister referred to me as having a go at the government for removing water from communities. Of course, I did not say that at all. Perhaps the minister was just paraphrasing what I was saying, but that was certainly not what I said.

The minister also mentioned that the lack of availability of water was the real reason for impact on communities at the moment. I found that quite amusing. As a farmer from the Central West in New South Wales, I am very well aware that it is the lack of rain that is making it extremely difficult for communities right across the country at the moment. I know a lot of farmers and a lot of irrigators all over the place. They actually cope brilliantly with adversity and they cope brilliantly with drought. They understand that drought is a natural occurrence. Where they do have some questions and difficulties relates back to what I said earlier; we need to ensure that the impact that government decisions are having on our rural and regional communities is measured because that is indeed a government decision. In spite of the difficulties, farmers are well able to cope with things that occur naturally. When things occur as a result of ministerial or government decision, they want to be absolutely sure that the decisions that the minister and the government are taking have been thoroughly assessed and thoroughly measured, that there are criteria in place and that, indeed, all the impacts have been assessed by the government because it is a government decision. It is not a natural occurrence which is out of their hands.

Perhaps I can just clarify for the minister some points around the community impact statements. The amendment itself uses the words:

(2) A report published under subsection (1) must specify the modelling and evidence upon which the impacts referred to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) were determined.

Of course we do not expect a fully written statement to be supplied as a preface to each particular purchase. What we are saying is that there should be balance—that the government and the minister should look at the overall potential reduction of water in communities and at the flow-on effects and follow up with a very clear statement so that people know that that consideration has taken place.

The minister said that there are, indeed, some positives for those who want to exit the industry. I do have some concern, as the minister referred to, that some of the sellers—who are of course willing sellers; I note that it is a non-compulsory buyback—are distressed sellers. That of course can often narrow people’s options as to what they can and cannot do in any particular situation.

Just before I finish I would also clarify that the minister referred, and quite rightly, to the 23 gigalitres of entitlement that the government has purchased. Just to clarify: the minister said water has been sold to us, but it is not water that has been sold to us; it is actually entitlement. It will become—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s your policy? See, here we go—it’s the same thing.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps, Minister, when you have finished I might continue. I want to make it very clear that that water will not be available to the allocation to place against the entitlement until the water is there. Perhaps we are being semantic about this, but I would not like the Australian people to be of the view, when the minister talks about 23 gigalitres of water returned to the system, that it is actual water. It potentially will be, if the allocation is there against the entitlement. I completely concur with that. But at this stage it is not water.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support Senator Nash’s comments and, clearly, the opposition’s amendment. We need more water in the system. We are going through a process of getting more water back into the system. As we do that we also need a process to distribute the water. All we are after—and it is what the Australian public deserves—is proof positive that Kevin Rudd and the minister are delivering on their promise to the electorate of evidence based policy, in particular in respect of bringing water back into the system. Of course the coalition supports water buybacks. That was Malcolm Turnbull’s policy. Of course the coalition supports the purchase of property with water rights attached to bring water back into the system. But the point is that not only the coalition but also the Australian electorate deserve to see that the government has done the work to ensure that the right water is being purchased, that the right properties with water rights attached are being purchased and that an evidence based plan has assessed the consequences of both those things happening.

There is not enough water for the users who want it at the moment. That means, as the minister has acknowledged, that there are some really hard choices to be made. We are asking the government to make the hard decisions and show the Australian electorate—as the events unfold and after the event is just fine—that it has done the work to assess that this particular action should be taken, acknowledging the painful consequences. In terms of the community impact statements contained in this amendment, what we are talking about is proof positive, when certain communities have to bear pain—and they will; we accept that—that the government has done the responsible and evidence based assessment to show that, unfortunately, there will have to be some pain experienced by the community.

The minister has said that the government has a plan to manage a purchase program. The Australian electorate deserves to see, as we go through that program, that the government is doing the evidence based assessment at every step of the way. The minister has suggested that this particular amendment is unworkable, for some reason, including commercial-in-confidence. This amendment contemplates, after the event, evidence from the government—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn’t say that. At least be accurate, Senator Fisher.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I have misunderstood and misrepresented the minister’s contention I am sorry. I am sure the minister will correct subsequently and I look forward to hearing that correction. What this amendment seeks is an indication for the Australian electorate, in particular the communities concerned, after the event that the government has done the evidence based assessment of the impact on particular communities. This amendment ought to be passed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just a couple of points. We see again, from Senator Nash’s contribution, that the opposition cannot decide whether they are pro or anti water purchase. I suppose Senator Nash, from New South Wales—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You weren’t listening.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on! Senator Nash has had a go about the fact that we bought entitlement, not water. I think she knows enough about irrigation to know that that is what you buy. I am sure that a government that was seen by any irrigator to be giving itself a different type of entitlement—that is, one that was more reliable, particularly in the context of reduced water availability, which I will come to in a moment—would be roundly and rightly criticised. We buy entitlement; we buy what other water users buy and we stand in the shoes of other water users. The difference between us and those on the other side is that for the first time the government is doing it for the health of the rivers. We understand the benefits to all communities of ensuring that we have functioning and healthy rivers. That is what has been lacking over the years.

I am not sure what Senator Nash was speaking about in terms of lack of rain. The point I was making about availability is that—and this is where climate change appears to be having an impact, on the evidence that we see from scientists—not only have we seen reduced rainfall in parts of Australia but also we are seeing reduced water availability, reduced inflow. People tell me different things in different areas about why run-off is less, why the ground is drier and why the temperature is higher. We are certainly seeing different patterns emerging in different catchments of the basin, which is compounding the difficulties for many communities and really emphasises why we need to make the adjustment that has to be made.

I also make this point: I said last night in terms of the Sugarloaf Pipeline amendment—which was then the subject of a bit of political game playing from the other side—that the bill that Malcolm Turnbull introduced did not have any proposition about stopping that pipeline or other pipelines despite the fact that that announcement came before Mr Turnbull introduced the bill as minister. So in the last year, having crossed over to the opposition benches, they now want to play politics with that.

A second point I would make is that when the now opposition was government they wanted to purchase water. The Howard plan trumpeted on, I think, Australia Day of 2007 that they had $3.1 billion for water purchase. They never actually did anything with it, Senator Siewert. We know that and I hope people occasionally remember that. They never actually bought anything or invested in any infrastructure or provided any assistance but they did have $3.1 billion for water purchase. I do not recall Mr Howard or Mr Turnbull demanding community impact statements in the legislation. This is their legislation. They were going to purchase water but it is only now that Liberal senators come in here and demand for a purchase program community impact statements that they never demanded of their own government.

I am very aware, as the responsible minister, of the importance of engaging with communities through this process. I am also very aware of some of the concerns raised by some members of the public and by some communities. And I am also very aware of some of the recommendations which have been made by our stakeholder consultation and by the review. What I can say is that we will continue to improve this purchase program. We will ensure that the results of the current tender round are also assessed and considered so that we can look at how we can improve this purchase program.

I also want to emphasise—and this might be in the context of the next amendment to be moved by the opposition—that we are investing $5.8 billion in irrigation infrastructure for these communities. That is substantially more than we are proposing to purchase in terms of the amount of money. So it is very clear that the government does regard investment in these communities as a key and important aspect of adjustment to climate change, and knows that it is important to deal with the current circumstances of drought and the legacy of mismanagement of overallocation that has been inherited.

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

The Greens support the intent of the coalition with this amendment. We do—and I think we articulated it very clearly in our committee minority report on this bill—have deep concerns about the impact of all the changes that are occurring in the basin, not just the purchase of water but also where we are going to be investing the $5.8 billion in infrastructure and also in any other structural readjustment.

We very strongly believe, as we articulated in that report, that we need a vision for where we are going with the basin. We need to make sure that we have a coordinated approach across the purchase of water, the infrastructure investment and any restructuring that occurs. We want the community intimately involved and, in fact, making those decisions. They need information to do that and they need to be given support by the government to facilitate that.

Our concern with this amendment is that we do not think it is well crafted or finetuned enough to actually produce the outcomes that we think the coalition are looking for. We cannot support it because it is only focused on the purchase of privately held water entitlements. We think that that is not the only thing that is impacting on these communities. It is unfair to say that it is just that particular element of the Murray-Darling crisis we are facing which will adversely impact on communities. There are a whole range of things impacting on these communities, not the least of which is the fact that we need to reduce water use by 42 to 53 per cent. Also, as the CSIRO sustainable yield report indicated yesterday, we are going to get a substantial decrease in run-off. So our communities in the Murray-Darling Basin are facing crisis as it is and are also facing the need for readjustment.

While we do understand where the coalition is trying to come from, unfortunately the Greens cannot support the amendment because we think it is a blunt instrument. While respecting where the coalition is coming from in requiring that impacts on communities be reviewed and dealt with, we do not think this is the way that that is going to happen. However, having said that, we are strongly encouraging government to engage the community. We have made a series of recommendations in our minority report to seriously engage the community and start helping them to make decisions about the future of their area.

Unfortunately, the amendment is not clear enough in terms of how this should be implemented. It talks about each region in the government’s purchasing; is it before or after? What is the decision-making role and, once the impact statement has been done, how is that actually put into effect? Do they intend stopping all the water purchases, for example?

We think a better way to go is for the government to adopt a process that engages the community upfront with the overall structure of the basin, with the overall future of the basin, and then in each particular region, each particular irrigation area, they should plan before investment infrastructure is carried out. This is so that we do not get what the ACF calls the ‘Swiss cheese’ approach, which is where only some entitlements are purchased. I will have to put on the record, though, that, where the government have the opportunity to go in and purchase water, we are not saying do not do that. We think it is important that, where the opportunity arises, the government need to be able to step in and buy that water. So that is what we are also concerned about—that this amendment might rule out the ability to go in and acquire water where the opportunity arises.

Having said that, and acknowledging that we need to allow room for that to happen, we do think there is a role for a much more coordinated and strategic approach to the way we are rolling out the $12.9 billion. We made that very clear in our minority report. We have set out a set of principles by which we think the government should be setting out that process and engaging the community now. There are examples of that. There is the TRAMS example, which the ACF mentioned extensively in its submission to the recent Senate inquiry. We think that is a good example of where you can engage the community in a coordinated approach. So, unfortunately, we cannot support this amendment, but we do understand the intent.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (21) and (22) on sheet 5629 together:

(21)  Schedule 2, page 308 (after line 5), after item 106, insert:

106A  Subsection 175(1)

After “directions”, insert “, which must be consistent with the objects of this Act,”.

(22)  Schedule 2, page 308 (after line 5), after item 106, insert:

106B  Before paragraph 175(2)(a)

Insert:

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

These amendments relate to ministerial directions. The first one relates to adding a clause which says that any ministerial directions must be consistent with the object of the Water Act 2007. I need to say upfront that this act is here for the long term. Governments come and go. I am not casting, or attempting to cast, any aspersions on the current minister. However, I do think there is a need to provide protections in the act to ensure that any ministerial directions and the discretion that is exercised by the minister to use those ministerial directions are in fact consistent with the object of the act. I feel that is fairly simple and straightforward.

Amendment (22) relates to exclusions from ministerial directions—that is, to articulate what areas of the Basin Plan are excluded from ministerial direction. The amendment deals with those aspects of the Basin Plan excluded from ministerial direction under section 44(5). That relates to, for example, the mandatory content of the Basin Plan, shares in reductions in the plan and changes in reliability. This goes back to the Commonwealth risk and the new knowledge issue that we were talking about earlier. The minister may say that that is implicit in the act. What we are seeking to do is to make this explicit in the act so that it is very clear where the limitations to the ministerial direction are in fact in place.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate, on behalf of the coalition, that we will be supporting these two amendments. We think that they probably add a level of amenity to the bill and we will be supporting them.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not regard these amendments as necessary, although my attitude differs slightly between amendment (21) and (22) and I invite the chamber to consider that. In relation to amendment (21), my advice is that we do not consider it to be necessary. There is a general principle that if a minister exercises powers under an act it would need to be in accordance with the purpose and object of the act. But the government are not of the view that this is so pressing that we would be standing firm in opposition to it.

Amendment (22) deals with the issue that we dealt with last night, Senator Siewert, in amendments to section 44. What I said to you at that time was that the existing act—that is, Mr Turnbull’s act, so I am surprised that the opposition want to amend this again—already makes clear what the minister cannot make a direction on. Section 44(5) goes through the things the minister must not make a direction on, so we consider this amendment to be duplicative and unnecessary.

Our view is that, whilst we think it is unnecessary, the government do not oppose amendment (21) if the Senate wishes to insert it. We do think amendment (22) is unnecessary for the reasons I articulated last night, and we would oppose that.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendments (21) and (22)—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you put them separately if they are not going to change it. I am just indicating our position.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to indicate that the coalition’s position will remain as stated earlier.

The Temporary Chairman:

I will put the amendments separately. The question is that Australian Greens amendment (21) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that Australian Greens amendment (22) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move Greens amendment (23) on sheet 5629:

(23)  Schedule 2, page 308 (after line 5), after item 106, insert:

106C  Subsection 178(6)

Omit “must”, substitute “may”.

This amendment relates to the composition of the authority and it changes one word—that is, it omits ‘must’ and substitutes ‘may’. This relates to whether the authority can have more than one full-time member if it needs to.

As we have been talking about last night and today, it is very important that the authority is set up and gets on with its job. It is facing a very difficult task, and we think the authority may need the opportunity to have more than one full-time member. We are not saying that it shall have more than one full-time member. We are changing the word ‘must’ to ‘may’ to allow for the possibility that, if it is needed, the authority can in fact have two—or more, for that matter—full-time members to enable it to get on with the task.

We are setting the authority an extremely hard task. There is no doubt about that. There is no shirking from the fact that they are going to have a difficult task. We should be able to facilitate their role as much as possible. That is why we are merely seeking to change ‘must’ to ‘may’, so that there is the ability for them to put on more full-time members if they in fact see the need.

I will acknowledge straight away—and the coalition may need to bear this in mind—this is an amendment to Mr Turnbull’s bill. However, you have seen the light on a number of issues, and I encourage you to see the light on this amendment. Given the nature of the activities the authority have to carry out, I think we should give them the ability, if they need to, to be able to have more than one full-time member.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition has given this some consideration and is happy to give it a bit further consideration. Perhaps the minister could outline for the Senate the government’s position on this and also clarification on the ‘must’ clause.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure your leader could probably tell you, Senator Nash, about why he put that in. But I can tell you why we would like it to be retained as it currently is.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fisher interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is Mr Turnbull’s act, Senator Fisher. Let us remember that the authority is not just the chair and part-time members. I am sure Senator Siewert is aware of that. This is quite a large organisation. We are talking in the hundreds, Senator Siewert, because of the work that needs to be undertaken. So let us understand: you essentially have another government agency which is responsible for the very significant task of preparing the Basin Plan. I think it is important to recognise the different roles and responsibilities between the authority members and the chair. We do think the chief executive is a full-time job. We do believe these other positions are part-time positions.

I would also make the point that there are arrangements, if not in the act then in the IGA, about part-time membership agreements between states and the Commonwealth about who appoints which. There might be a view from the states if, for example, the Commonwealth in its discretion—if that is what is being proposed here—appointed some of those appointments as full time and some as part time. We might then have to have a negotiation about which appointments should be part time and which should be full time. Our preference is for the model that the IGA sets out—so the act as amended by the bill—which is for a part-time chair, a full-time chief executive, who has already been appointed, and part-time authority members which are appointed via this agreed arrangement with the states in terms of who is appointed. My suggestion to the opposition is that they consider those different roles and responsibilities as well as the agreement that we have reached with the states about the balance of how those appointments would be progressed. For those reasons, we do not support the amendment.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, on consideration, I do not think that the amendment precludes the arrangements from staying as they are, and we will be supportive of the amendment.

Question put:

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

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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5663:

(1)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 8), after item 161, insert:

161A  After section 255

Insert:

255A Mitigation of unintended diversions

        (1)    Prior to exploration licences being granted for subsidence mining operations on floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part of the Murray-Darling system inflows, an independent expert study must be undertaken to determine the impacts of the proposed mining operations on the connectivity of groundwater systems, surface water and ground water flows and water quality.

        (2)    Where a substantial risk is identified exploration licences must not be granted.

This is an amendment which I would really label the ‘Tony Windsor amendment’, because the honourable member for New England is largely responsible for the fact that my attention was drawn to the disagreement between farmers in the Namoi Valley and the huge coal exploration company BHP Billiton about the potential for damage to be done to the water catchment of one of the most productive food lands in Australia, certainly in the Murray-Darling Basin, and in the world.

Last month Mr Windsor and I visited Tim Duddy and the other farmers and saw firsthand the concern that they have about the prospect of mining under these crop lands, disrupting the all-important water flow systems. We must remember that the water flowing underground in catchments is very directly connected with the water on the ground and that the whole aquatic system is crucial to the productivity of farmlands not just in the Namoi Valley but in the whole of the Murray-Darling and, indeed, everywhere in the world.

The problem here is that the mining operation is being conducted without there being an adequate and independent study of the potential impact as it cuts right across the aquifers underground, the impact of concern being that on the region directly affected and on the whole of the catchment downstream. It is a very crucial matter. We know from practices elsewhere in the world that undermining regions has led not only to collapses in the ground above but to mighty disruption, even disappearance of rivers, because of the interruption of aquatic systems.

A proposal has been put to the state government of New South Wales and to the federal government—and I promote this now—that before BHP Billiton goes ahead with this mineral exploration there be an independent study undertaken of the potential impact. That has not happened, because mining is the responsibility of the state authority, but we are dealing here with the water catchment itself. It is fundamental to know that, if mining disrupts the aquifers, it will disrupt the productivity of the basin. If you are going to have legislation which gives authority to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to determine how best to manage the water then that must include authority to protect water flowing underground, including the whole of the basin underground. You cannot manage that responsibility unless you know what the impact will be. This amendment simply requires due diligence: a proper study before damage occurs. Let me read out the amendment:

(1)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 8), after item 161, insert:

161A  After section 255

Insert:

255A Mitigation of unintended diversions

        (1)    Prior to exploration licences being granted for subsidence mining operations on floodplains that have underlying groundwater systems forming part of the Murray-Darling system inflows, an independent expert study must be undertaken to determine the impacts of the proposed mining operations on the connectivity of groundwater systems, surface water and ground water flows and water quality.

        (2)    Where a substantial risk is identified exploration licences must not be granted.

It is pure common sense. The amendment states that if there is going to be a mining operation which affects the water catchment then have an independent study done. If a substantial risk is identified then do not allow that mining operation to proceed. Of course, if a substantial risk is not identified, if it is found to be safe, then the mineral exploration will proceed. This is not rocket science; it is just plain, good old country common sense. I recommend the amendment to the committee.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this amendment, especially in relation to the black soil farming country in the Gunnedah area—Breeza Plains, Liverpool Plains—which Senator Bob Brown has referred to. It is probably some of the most magnificent farming land not only in Australia but in the world. I have been saying for some 12 or 18 months that to sacrifice a thousand years of farming for 30 years of mining does not make sense. We need to have a proper independent inquiry into underground aquifers in these areas and many other areas in the Murray-Darling Basin if this is to be an issue in the future. It is vital that the truth be brought out about these prime agricultural areas. It is vital that this study be undertaken, hence I offer my support for this amendment. The National Party has worked on this area over the last 12 months. My state colleagues Andrew Fraser, Rick Colless and Andrew Stoner have had a close look at the issue. We need to ensure that the long-term viability of this agricultural land is not put under threat at any stage and the best way to do that, as I have said, is to have an independent assessment of the underground water aquifers and the impact that mining may well have on this agricultural land. I support this amendment.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Duddy is obviously from the Caroona Coal Action Group. I know that Senator Bob Brown visited the area. This amendment is very pertinent to the issues that are happening there. I hope the message is conveyed to the people of the Caroona area that we will support them on this matter, create the numbers so that this amendment will succeed. And we have kept our part of the deal. It also especially pertains to people in the Haystack Plains area, and I know Senator Boswell will have a little bit to say on that. Like Senator Williams, we in this nation clearly have to make the decision whether we are going to treasure prime agricultural land, which is what we as a nation need if we are to maintain our food sovereignty. The more we impinge on that, the more we are setting ourselves up in the future for a huge fall, when we will have to rely on other countries to feed us, which will leave us in a very tenuous position. As Senator Williams rightly said, there is no point in compromising the prosperity of the future and our capacity to feed ourselves for the sake of a 30-year window in mining.

However, in this instance, most of that is covered by state legislation. But where we do have the capacity to have at least some say in what is going on is in this amendment as moved. We recognise that the support of the National Party was sought for this. The National Party, as part of the coalition, has made an effort to work with the Greens to obtain the crucial numbers. This was always going to need more than one person to vote for it to ever get anywhere. I hope the wonderful people of Caroona and Breeza Plains and the Haystack Plains realise that, for something to succeed, you need at least 39 senators to vote for it and you need more than half of the lower house to vote for it. I hope that is recognised and taken back to the people of the Liverpool Plains, and I hope we get a chance to read about it in the Northern Daily Leader.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it very unusual that we seem to be getting closer and closer to the Greens. We have not seen eye to eye with the Greens on this for the last seven or eight years. We seem to be aligning some of our decisions with them. I have said this before: I suppose that a stopped clock is right twice a day. I find myself in agreement with this amendment. As Senator Barnaby Joyce has pointed out, you can have all the best ideas in the world, and you can have right on your side, but if you do not have the numbers it does not mean one iota. Today we have delivered for the people of the Liverpool Plains and the even more fertile valley of the Breeza Plains. I know there has been a great deal of concern about this in those two areas. Today we have delivered the numbers in the Senate to carry this amendment, and that will give them some sort of satisfaction. I again point out to those people that Independents can do nothing. It is only when you get the full horsepower of the coalition and the Independents or the Greens that you can deliver anything. I would like the people out there to remember that. Anyone can huff and puff, but it is only the numbers that will deliver on these issues.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with my colleagues and indicate the broad coalition support for this amendment. The remarks made by my colleagues go right to the heart of this issue. It is about a study to be undertaken on due diligence. Senator Bob Brown said that it is simply good country common sense, which I think encapsulates the intent of the amendment completely. What we are seeing here is a very sensible, measured approach to ensuring that the operations of mining in rural areas do not impact in an untoward fashion on the water system. It is interesting to see that the mover of this amendment in the House was not able to get Labor’s support in the House. Perhaps in the Senate the minister might be rather more agreeable to what is a very sensible, very pragmatic and very good amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand where the Greens are coming from. I also understand that the National Party does not want to be outmanoeuvred by Mr Windsor—and that is fine. But I would ask if the Liberal Party, particularly the senators from the mining states, have considered this amendment. Far be it from me to put the view of the resources sector, but this requires that, prior to any exploration licences being handed out, the state authorities, who regulate mining, undertake the sort of study that is proposed. I do not know where Senator Johnston is. I think he represents the opposition on resources. I have not heard that view from the Liberal Party representative in this debate. That is an issue for the opposition.

Can I say that, as a broad principle, the government is supportive of addressing the impact of activities such as mining on water resources. That is why the act enables a pathway to allow that to occur. I would ask senators to consider the existing legislation at section 22(7). We know that the Basin Plan will place sustainable limits on the diversion of both surface and ground water, which is long overdue. The Water Act, in its current form, already provides for the Basin Plan to deal with the assessment of interception activities such as subsidence mining. Section 22(3)(d) of the act says that the Basin Plan will set out requirements in relation to how water resource plans must regulate interception activities that have a significant impact on basin water resources. Section 22(7) of the act says that, in doing so—and this is the important provision—they:

(a)     may require that interception activities—

and for this purpose, Senator Brown, you could interpolate ‘mining’—

with, or with the potential to have, significant impacts on the water resources of the water resource plan area are assessed to determine whether they are consistent with the water resource plan before they are approved under:

(i)  any other laws of a Basin State; or

(ii) a particular law of a Basin State; and

(b)     may require that water access rights be held for specified kinds of interception activities.

The government is mindful of these issues. I am also aware of Mr Windsor’s interest in these issues. The government’s framework here enables these issues to be addressed by ensuring that, if there is an interception activity with the potential to have significant impacts on water resources, it will be assessed and also, through the adoption of the Basin Plan, that water access rights can be required to be held for specified kinds of interception activities. This is an area where, as I have said publicly, more work needs to be done in terms of requiring, where appropriate, water access rights for specified kinds of interception activities. Not enough has been done on this in the past.

One of the key issues that I have consistently said the Basin Plan will need to consider under the terms of the act, and because it is good policy, is the interaction between groundwater and surface water. What I am saying to the Senate is that the legislation that the Howard government put forward on this did in fact enable the Basin Plan to address these issues. I should also let the Senate know that we have funded a $2 million project to be undertaken by the National Water Commission to develop planning guidelines and tools for managing the cumulative impact of mining on water resources. So this is an issue the government is aware of. We do not consider that this amendment is workable in the circumstances. For the reasons I have outlined, we think the pathway that is proposed in the legislation is better.

A range of amendments have been passed. I am not sure what the opposition intends to do when the bill is returned from the House, but I ask the Senate to consider section 22(10), which was an important aspect of the agreements with the states—that is, the agreement to refer powers in relation to water but not in relation to other natural resource management issues. There is a specific preclusion, essentially, of the Basin Plan addressing land use planning, the management of natural resources and the control of pollution. These are important issues for the state. These are issues that, I am sorry to say, were in Mr Turnbull’s legislation, and they are perceived by the states as being of significance. So if the coalition propose to support this amendment, I would say to them: you should be aware that some of the states would have some real concerns about this amendment. There is also a very clear ability in the Basin Plan to address precisely the policy issue that Senator Brown raised. We do regard this as a policy issue which needs addressing, and there is a pathway through the legislation in the Basin Plan which enables that to occur.

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

I indicate my support for this amendment. The minister acknowledges that there are provisions in the act that deal with the whole issue of groundwater, but they do not require that an expert study be undertaken. The amendment goes a step further, and I think that is a good thing in terms of accountability. I note what the minister says in relation to section 22(10). Subsection (a) refers to ‘land use or planning in relation to land use’ and subsection (b) to ‘the management of natural resources (other than water resources)’. But, insofar as an exploration licence which relates to land use would impact on water resources, I query whether the minister acknowledges that there is some work to do on section 22(10) in relation to this whole issue. Senator Brown’s amendment makes it explicit that there ought to be an independent expert study of the impact it would have on groundwater.

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

I thank the senators who have contributed to discussion on this motion and I particularly commend the opposition and Senator Xenophon for recognising the importance of this amendment to the rural community. Minister Wong has said: ‘Well, you can rely on other parts of the act with words like ‘can’ or ‘may’, and somebody will decide somewhere down the line’—against the might of a corporation like BHP Billiton—‘whether or not a study should proceed. Then there is the previous commitment to exclude land use planning and resource management. Therefore, this amendment should not stand.’ Well, you cannot have it both ways. This amendment says there must be a study—it is very clear about that—particularly to look at the impact on water. This legislation is about a holistic view of the water catchment of the Murray-Darling Basin, and you cannot have that holistic view if some other operator can come in and have a major impact on that water resource through another activity. This amendment makes it quite explicit for people in the basin that that must be a study. It is not just the Namoi catchment; other parts of the basin are threatened by exactly the same process of mining coming in and cutting across the water resource in a way which could be detrimental—as one of our colleagues from the National Party has pointed out—for potentially 1,000 years, forever, to the crop-producing potential of that region. It is just plain common sense.

What Senator Wong has not done is outline a reason against the need for a study. She said, ‘We’ll leave it to somebody else to do that study.’ I have always been one for being clear in legislation and saying, ‘The parliament is saying a study ought to be done in these circumstances and it ought to be independent.’ If the study shows that there is not going to be an impact on water then the activity can proceed. If the study shows that there is a substantial risk then the farmland should be protected against that impact. So there it is.

I might add that there is an extremely good proposal for the Liverpool Plains to have an independent study done. It has been supported by the Liverpool Plains Land Management Committee, the New South Wales Farmers Association, Namoi Water, Gunnedah Shire, Liverpool Plains Shire, Narrabri Shire and the Namoi Catchment Management Authority. This would involve top expertise from the University of New South Wales, the University of New England and the University of Queensland, and then Dr John Williams, the New South Wales natural resources commissioner, having a look at the very matter that is at stake here, which is the proposed mining under the Liverpool Plains. Where is that study? Why is it not happening, if this can be left to some other device? It ought to be happening. It is what is called a stitch in time. I commend the opposition and Senator Xenophon for supporting this amendment. It is a very important addition to this legislation, and we as parliamentarians should be making sure that we are as clear as this amendment is about our intention to ensure that the water catchment in its totality is protected.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to respond briefly to some of what I think were not particularly reasonable assertions by Senator Brown, he seems to be suggesting that the provisions in the act, because they use words such as ‘may’, is parliament ducking responsibility. Senator Brown, this is a plan developed by the independent authority that your party supports. You support an independent authority. And what I am saying is that the government is committed, that it does believe we should address the impact of activities such as mining on water resources and that the act enables the authority to make an assessment independent of government about how that should occur. So I appreciate it, Senator Brown, if you do not agree with that pathway, but I think it is unfair to characterise this as somehow ducking the issue. What we are saying is that we are setting up a policy process here, an independent authority, to look at this issue as with other issues. If the authority believes either that a study is required or that a licence is required, that can be included in the basin plan for the reasons I set out. So I did want to make clear the basis on which the government was of the view that this was not a necessary amendment. If the parliament thinks it is the body that by legislation should put all the bits of the basin plan together, I suggest that is not actually in the best interests of the basin, broadly. I accept that Senator Brown has a view about why this needs to be put in in this form. I simply say that the reason I made reference to the authority is that that is the independent body that is putting together the basin plan in the context of the legislation.

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

I appreciate what the minister is saying, but this does not in any way compromise the independence of the authority; it simply requires that a study be done if there is potential damage to the aquatic systems anywhere in the catchment by a mining operation—find out about it first before it is allowed to proceed. I might ask the minister: does she think that an independent assessment of the BHP Billiton proposal at the Breezer Plains ought to be undertaken before that project goes ahead?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to, in the context of this debate, make pronouncements on one or any particular projects. Those are issues that I will consider the detail of. I will also consider what the appropriate Commonwealth role is. I do not know if you heard before that I have also approved funding of $2 million for the National Water Commission to develop guidelines and tools for managing the cumulative impact of mining on water resources. The reason for that is that, as the senator would be aware, the Commonwealth is not generally the granter of mining licences; these are state functions. So the reason the project is being funded is to enable relevant state authorities to better understand how to manage those impacts.

I also make the point that it is very unclear in this amendment who grants the licence. An exploration licence, as I have previously said, is not generally a Commonwealth licence. I am not a resources minister—I do not have department officials here on that point—but generally, as I understand it, they would be licences provided by relevant state authorities. So what we are inserting into federal legislation, and the coalition is supporting this, is a requirement on state mining regulatory authorities about what they do in relation to exploration licences. It is not clear to me from the amendment, with a substantial risk being identified, who makes the decision about that. Is that the independent expert study? Is that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority? Or is it the unnamed, un-enumerated state authority who issues the exploration licence? Nor am I clear how the Commonwealth could in fact require a state mining agency to undertake this assessment and the risk assessment that is contemplated in proposed subsection (2), under the terms of the water bill.

I make all of those points because I want to be very clear that the policy intent of ensuring we better assess and manage the impact of activities such as mining on water is a sound one. The issue is how we do that in the circumstances where clearly there are examples where people assert that has not occurred. We do that in the context of the Murray-Darling Basin through a basin plan and an independent authority that can consider these issues and can determine whether, in appropriate circumstances, a water entitlement is required for such activities.

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

The minister, firstly, says that this is too specific and there are already provisions for this matter to be looked at if the authority wants to. Now she is arguing that it is too vague and non-specific. She cannot have it both ways. What the amendment clearly sets out to do is to make sure that information is independently gathered about the impact of mining on the catchment before that mining proceeds. It is pure logic and common sense and we should be clear about it in the legislation.

I have not heard anything from the minister that would give me confidence that the government supports such a study being done as to the Liverpool Plains or anywhere else. We have a great mining industry in Australia that brings enormous wealth to this country and employs lots of people. It is a very important part of our economic wellbeing, but so is the food-producing and fibre-producing resource of the land. In fact, in terms of employment, it is a much greater generator of wellbeing in this country. And sometimes these two things clash. This amendment is saying that if the two things do clash let’s ensure that the information is available for the authority to decide whether it is prudent to proceed, and you must not proceed if there is a substantial risk identified.

It is a reasonable amendment. It is what we are here as legislators to sort out and not leave to somebody else. But we are not dictating what an outcome will be; we are simply saying, ‘Let’s get the information, make sure it is independent and let’s make sure a good decision is made.’

Question agreed to.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (3) on sheet 5640:

(3)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 32), after item 162, insert:

162C  At the end of Part 12

Add:

259  Structural adjustment package

        (1)    The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine a scheme in the nature of a structural adjustment package to allocate appropriate funding to communities affected by the purchase by the Commonwealth of any privately-held water entitlements.

        (2)    A scheme determined under subsection (1) must provide for structural adjustment assistance to be allocated to communities to assist them to adjust to:

             (a)    reduced water availability;

             (b)    reduced economic activity associated with the closure of farming or other enterprises;

             (c)    changes in land use.

        (3)    In determining the amount of funding to be allocated to any community under the scheme, regard must be had to the Community Impact Statement in relation to the affected community published under section 258.

I am pleased to move this coalition amendment around structural adjustment for communities affected by the removal of water as a result of any purchase by the Commonwealth of privately held water entitlements. What we have seen from this government is a lack of focus on ensuring that where communities are going to have to adjust and where there is going to be change in the future as a result of removing water out of those communities—a reduction in water, reduced economic activity and changes in land use—there has to be recognition that those communities may well need structural assistance in some form or another and a structural adjustment package should be in place.

On this side of the chamber we want to see the government ensuring that that assistance is provided where it is necessary. We have not taken much of a level of comfort to date from the priority that the government has placed on structural adjustment packages and what is actually necessary for those communities. With this amendment we are placing within the bill itself a requirement that structural adjustment take place. Many in this chamber would know that when we were previously in government there was a very significant focus on the need to assist communities where necessary.

I know the department have indicated previously to senators their belief that structural adjustment is indeed captured through the current buyback process. We certainly believe that there is a need to take a more holistic approach towards structural adjustment. Assistance must be made available to those communities where necessary by the government.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been in this debate for a long time so I will try to be succinct. The first point is that when the Howard government announced their $10 billion plan they did not allocate money for structural adjustment. The second point is that we do believe that the taxpayer, through this program, should assist in restructuring the basin.

We believe that the best way to assist communities with this challenge, and I do not deny the scale of it, is to invest for the future—to ensure that irrigation communities get the benefit of some $5.8 billion of investment funding for investing in more efficient water use and in infrastructure that enables irrigators to do more with less. Not only have we committed the $5.8 billion in our first budget but, through the COAG process, a total of just under $4 billion has been committed towards basin water infrastructure projects. This is an unprecedented commitment to the basin by a federal government. Of course, nothing like this was ever delivered by Mr Turnbull, as minister.

After 12 years of failure, inaction and delay by the previous government, we are acting on the Murray-Darling issue. We recognise that it is a huge task, not just for government but for the communities, for the reasons I have just outlined to the chamber. I have also explained that we are continuing to consider and monitor the rollout of the purchase program, but it is the case that currently the primary economic and social impact that we see in communities in the Murray-Darling area is not a result of the purchase program. It is a result of the fact that these communities are struggling with a long-term reduction in allocation. Senator Nash might not agree with that, but if you go to these communities you know that. Senator Nash also ignores the fact that when we purchase water that money does go back to communities. It goes to those irrigators who choose to sell to us. Some of them do choose to exit, I accept that. But some of those irrigators also choose to utilise those funds for other investments and make other choices with those funds. So we do think that this is the best way to secure the future of these communities in the face of what is an enormous challenge, and I do not pretend that this is not a huge task. I acknowledge that we have a long way to go, but what we are doing is making progress. We will continue to ensure that we obtain information about the impact of these reforms across the basin. As I said, the government has asked the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics to consider these issues so we can monitor their impact on these communities.

It is the case that the government, in the context of the intergovernmental agreement, has agreed to consider assisting states and there are provisions for further assistance if it is demonstrated that communities are severely and adversely affected by basin water reforms. So of course these are issues that we will consider. But I very much believe that the best way forward here is to ensure we spend a very substantial amount of money in the basin to drive the efficiencies, because that economic base is the best way of ensuring those regional communities continue to thrive.

I will address Senator Xenophon’s amendment after he has moved it; it is, I think, an amendment to this amendment. But, for the reasons that I have outlined, we do not support this amendment. What we see, again, is the opposition putting up something that they were not prepared to do in government. They were not prepared to put this in their legislation and they were not prepared to make a transparent funding decision as to proposed structural adjustments.

My final point is this: I do not know if the opposition have a policy on how they would cost this and which part of the current $12.9 billion Water for the Future plan they say should be directed to this. Perhaps Senator Nash would say that we should spend less on water purchases. That of course would be contrary to what they tell the South Australians. Perhaps Senator Nash would say that we should spend less on infrastructure. I would have thought irrigation communities would not want that decision to be made. So there are consequences to the approach that Senator Nash is proposing—consequences that they did not face up to in government that they now want to put through a parliamentary process. In short, we believe the best way of dealing with the challenge that we face is a very substantial investment in more efficient water use and infrastructure, enabling irrigators to do more with less so that we can continue to secure the economic base of these communities in the face of climate change, drought and overallocation. We have put out a range of programs to that effect. In addition, we will continue with the water purchase for the reasons we have outlined and we will absolutely continue to monitor the impact of water reform and water purchase programs on regional communities.

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

The Greens believe that we need a third component to our approach of restructuring the Murray-Darling Basin besides the $5.8 billion buyback of water and the investment in infrastructure, because, let us face it, that is what has to happen. I will go into the reasons why I believe that in a minute. There also needs to be a component of structural adjustment. However, to just tie it—and I have indicated this to the coalition—to the purchase of water is a serious mistake. When you are look at the impacts that the basin is experiencing and the degree of change that is going to be necessary, it is entirely appropriate to look at how we can help facilitate the decision making from a community perspective and how we can help the decision making about where we should be investing and how we can help to assist the restructuring in a strategic and coordinated approach. Because this amendment is only looking at one element, we cannot support it.

The impacts that the basin is facing are significant, as is what we are going to have to do in terms of reducing its consumptive water use by around 50 per cent. There is a significant reduction in run-off being generated by climate variability and climate change. These are all significant impacts. So it is not fair or appropriate to just tag any impacts that are occurring on the community to water purchases when there are really big things coming at these communities like climate change and the need for overall adjustment.

Again, this amendment is an instance where we support the intent. We do agree that there should be resources for restructuring, because that is a real and honest acknowledgment that we cannot continue business as usual in the basin. We simply cannot. We cannot do the same with less water. Even if we were not overallocated now, which we are, in the face of climate change we are facing a very significant issue and a very strong need to decrease our water use. We would prefer to see a much more strategic and coordinated program and planning process occur across the whole of the basin. I articulated the process that we think should be undertaken to provide resources and community support for community planning in my speech in the second reading debate. We believe this is absolutely essential to enable communities to produce plans to integrate the infrastructure investment, water sales and structural adjustment, to provide incentives for them to do that and to help create community plans that actually take a strategic approach to the way that they manage their region.

I will add one thing that has not come up in the dialogue before. We strongly support the need for adjustment and the need to provide resources, but I have expressed in this place innumerable times my extreme disappointment with the way the government has refocused Caring for Our Country and taken the emphasis away from supporting regional natural resource management organisations. That, unfortunately, is undermining the very thing that we have been talking about here—taking a structured and strategic approach to catchment planning and to community planning to deal with these very significant issues.

I heard the minister say, ‘Where do you get the money from?’ The fact is that we are talking about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin. We need to invest in readjustment as well and to acknowledge, as I said, in an open and upfront manner that we are expecting these communities to adjust to massive change. To pussyfoot around that issue is not being honest. We cannot just make a few minor adjustments and expect that we are going to solve this crisis. We are not. In light of that, to say that it is just the purchase of water that is causing the impact is unrealistic. But we do agree that we need a structured approach. We support the intent but I cannot support the amendment, because it will skew the decision making to make us think that it is only this part of the package and only this part of the crisis that we are facing that we need to deal with. That is simply not correct. It is not true and it is not facing reality. As I said, we support the intent. We very strongly support the need for structural readjustment, but let’s do it for the big picture, not just for one particular component.

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

I support this amendment. I agree with Senator Siewert that we cannot have business as usual and that it is reasonable to consider other matters in relation to structural adjustment. But I see this as a template for change. I see this as a template for moving forward. There is no reason why the concept of the structural adjustment package in the form set out by the coalition cannot be expanded further to look at the other issues that Senator Siewert has raised. I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I think it is important that this be supported as a means of entrenching the concept of the structural adjustment package.

I want to move the amendment in my name in an amended form. Where ‘industries’ appears after ‘irrigation’, I wish to move that ‘districts’ be substituted for ‘industries’. That was a typo, in a sense, on my part. I apologise to the Senate for that. My amendment requires the minister, in considering the content of any structural adjustment package, to take into account the history of relative water efficiencies in irrigation districts and the means by which they have been achieved. This relates to the many discussions I have had with irrigators in the Riverland in South Australia. The most recent was a discussion I had at the beginning of last week with a leading citrus grower who made the point that, in the context of any adjustment package, you need to consider those districts that have done the hard yards over many years. I know that Senator Wong has referred to that. If there is going to be a structural adjustment package, the history of water-saving measures by those districts that have done the hard yards over many years ought to be taken into account. I move my amendment, as amended, to Senator Nash’s amendment:

At the end of proposed section 259, add:

        (4)    The Minister, in considering the content of any structural adjustment package, must take into account the history of relative water efficiencies in irrigation districts and the means by which they have been achieved.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly concur with Senator Xenophon in that there are a number of irrigators in irrigation communities that have done an enormous amount of work to adjust and become more efficient. Certainly, right throughout New South Wales, the state where I live, there are a significant number of irrigation districts that have done a huge amount of work. I indicate our support for this amendment on that basis. I think it is important to note that the amendment is talking about the need for the minister, in considering the content of any package, to take into account a broad overall view of the history of efficiencies in irrigation districts. We believe this is worthy and we will be supporting the amendment.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Xenophon’s amendment to Senator Nash’s proposed amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I just want to indicate our opposition to this. I think Senator Xenophon knows that we do not believe, for the reasons I outlined last night, that the history of who is better is the way the government should be assessing the contributions to particular districts or regions. I have had a lot of people come before me and say that they are the most efficient irrigation district in Australia. I do not engage in that discussion, because I do not think that is helpful. The reason the government did not support that is that it simply buys into that kind of discussion.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is Senator Nash’s amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (4) on sheet 5640:

(4)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 32), after item 162, insert:

162D  At the end of Part 12

Add:

260  Water saving infrastructure program

        (1)    The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine a scheme to achieve water efficiency measures through Commonwealth investment in water saving infrastructure.

        (2)    A scheme determined under subsection (1) must set clear targets for water to be saved from on-farm and off-farm infrastructure projects.

        (3)    A report is to be prepared as at 1 July 2009, and for each subsequent six-month period, containing a schedule for each project being undertaken or planned and, for each project:

             (a)    the expected water savings;

             (b)    the share of savings to be dedicated to environmental, irrigation or other purposes;

             (c)    the licence associated with those savings.

In this amendment we are calling for the minister, by legislative instrument, to determine a scheme to achieve water efficiency measures through Commonwealth investment in water-saving infrastructure. Our intention with this amendment is to make sure that there are very, very clear water-saving targets set for on-farm and off-farm infrastructure projects. The importance that the coalition attaches to ensuring that we have a very structured and rigorous approach to water saving and water efficiency will be no surprise to this chamber, as I have talked about it on very many occasions. In spite of the words the minister has been trying to place in my mouth, we do agree that there is a place for buyback. But we want to see a much more rigorous and structured approach to ensuring that water savings throughout the basin are attained and that water efficiencies to achieve those savings are achieved wherever possible.

Recently, as the chamber would be well aware, on a tour through the Murray-Darling Basin a number of irrigators and communities put forward very strongly the identified amount of savings that they believed they could procure with some assistance from the federal government. With this amendment, we would like to make sure that there is reporting and that there is a much more structured and clear approach to the water-saving infrastructure program to achieve some clarity and direction for this very issue.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just supplement Senator Nash’s support for this from the coalition’s perspective. This is an important amendment because it is about transparency, accountability and timeliness. It does not seek to be overtly prescriptive on the government. What it seeks to ensure, though, is that the government, as they commit Commonwealth funds to supporting these important infrastructure projects, reveal the details of those projects and the savings they are seeking to acquire. It seeks to ensure that they keep the parliament and the public updated, on a six-monthly basis, as to the progress of and changes in those projects and that, in doing so, they can be held to account for the progress of those projects and, ideally, the water that is saved. It is an important measure of transparency. It is also, as I indicated, about timeliness. The first report would be due by the middle of next year, which would ensure that the many different water-saving infrastructure projects that exist throughout the basin community can be fully assessed and detailed by the government in that time line so that we all understand precisely where we are going from there. With that, I would commend the amendment to the committee and encourage the government to consider it as a measure not that seeks to tie their hands but that seeks simply to ensure the type of transparency, accountability and timeliness that we believe is necessary to deliver appropriate water-saving infrastructure.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As always, Senator Birmingham has a particular spin on something. This is not just a transparency measure; it is a legislative instrument, which can be disallowed in this chamber and which seeks, ahead of time, to set targets on a decentralised basis. Frankly, it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of the irrigation investments that the government is currently working on.

First, there are the state priority projects, the detailed proposals for which are at various stages of being developed and submitted to the government for due diligence assessment—and I have been very clear publicly that they will be subject to a proper due diligence process. My expectation is that these proposals would include details of achievable on-farm and off-farm water efficiency savings that can be realised from the projects and the time lines over which these savings would be achieved.

One size will not fit all. A project in the Riverland is necessarily going to be different to projects in some of the Victorian regions or projects in some parts of New South Wales. The sort of central-planning approach that the coalition is suggesting really does not understand the realities of the ways in which these projects are being brought forward. It is reasonable for projects, in any arrangement for funding, to have clear requirements. It is our expectation, if projects satisfactorily pass the due diligence assessment stage, that obviously the Commonwealth would enter into contracts with project proponents and that those contractual arrangements would include issues such as water recovery targets; conditions on the distribution of water efficiency savings between environment, irrigation and other purposes; as well as time frames. That is a responsible approach. The amendment essentially seeks that the Commonwealth mandate targets and time lines ahead of receiving all project proposals from the basin states and from private irrigation corporations. We do not believe that is an appropriate approach.

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

The Greens can see the direction from which the coalition is coming on this issue, and it is a similar direction to that from which the Greens are coming, which is that we need—and I would probably couch this as a question to the coalition—to establish a plan by which the Commonwealth is investing in the water-saving infrastructure program. As I articulated earlier, the Greens believe that we need a coordinated approach to that.

However, I have also listened to the minister’s comments about this potentially taking away their ability to make some decisions further down the track, in terms of some of the projects that are coming up. She said this might actually stop some of their future decision making. I am wondering if my assessment of this amendment is correct—that it is about establishing a plan for how we will go about putting in place this infrastructure program. Also, Senator Nash, I would like your opinion on the minister’s comments just then about how it might tie their hands on some of their investments.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a plan. The intent of the amendment was to ensure that there is a focus on making sure there is adherence to getting those efficiency gains. We believed the best way to make sure there was this focus was through an amendment such as this. You know as well as anyone else, Senator Siewert, of so many of the areas where the gains are to be made. The point of all of this is to ensure that we have that balance in those savings, to make sure that, while some will stay on farm, a large percentage will go back to the environment. We figure that putting a plan in place to do this is going to make more efficacious the government’s ability to get that water back to the system.

I refer to my initial comments. We are just not given a real level of comfort at the moment as to where the government is headed in terms of getting the water. So we would see it, certainly, as a plan to be put in place to get that to happen. On the minister’s comments: the minister put that view that it will tie their hands. I think they would be able to determine well enough an assessment, at least some way into the future, in such a way that it does not tie their hands.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, there is this gap between what the coalition say on their feet and what the amendment says. This is a legislative instrument that requires us, prior to our receiving projects, to set out predetermined amounts, predetermined targets. I have not had an irrigator community put what you are putting to me, Senator Nash—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; it is true. The point that the coalition appears to be missing is that this is not a central planning process. These are projects, whether they are private irrigator or state priority projects—which may be state government and private irrigator—whether they are on or off farm, that are driven by those project proponents and assessed against guidelines. I absolutely agree that we need appropriate transparency. I have gone through an appropriate due diligence to ensure the savings because, as I previously said, one of the rationales for the taxpayer funding this is that this is actually about contributing to an adjustment in the basin. So of course, therefore, you will need water savings.

My point is I do not believe this is the best way to do it. I do not believe the amendment matches what the coalition senators are saying. Rather than the parliament or the minister through regulation determining who should bring forward projects, we should remember that there has to be an economic imperative around this. There have to be private irrigators who think they can make this work. They want money from the government for this sort of investment, this sort of restructuring, because they think they can make it work. It has to be driven from their end rather than from senators telling people what to do.

Question negatived.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (5) on sheet 5640:

(5)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 32), after item 162, insert:

162E  At the end of Part 12

Add:

261  Water market transparency

        (1)    The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine a scheme to ensure transparent operation of the water market in respect of the purchase of water entitlements by the Commonwealth.

        (2)    The scheme must ensure that there is disclosure of information in relation to price, volume, security, location, terms and conditions attached to the purchase of entitlements; whether the purchase of water entitlements was contingent upon the purchase of real property rights and, if so: the criteria by which it was determined to proceed with the purchase; and the evidentiary basis for any subsequent changes to the use of property so acquired.

        (3)    The scheme must also provide for a real-time or live exchange disclosing irrigation region, latest sale and value, bid and offer and price by megalitre.

This amendment relates to water market transparency. One of the issues that have been raised with the coalition by communities and irrigators themselves is the issue of getting transparency within the water market, within the buyback process that the government is undertaking. I know that the minister has given her views to Senate estimates committees, as has the department, around the issue of water market transparency, and they believe that it is indeed transparent in its current form.

A lot of the view from the irrigators’ community is that it is not transparent enough. They feel, and we concur, that in each region, in each area, irrigators have a right to know amount, price, volume and timing. I think it is vitally important that, when the government is entering into the market through buyback processes, as they are doing, irrigators have the right to understand exactly how that process is working.

I know the minister will say that it is entirely transparent and it is entirely fine, but that is not the view of the irrigators out in the community. They are very concerned that there should be a much greater degree of transparency. We must be looking at it to ensure there is disclosure of information in relation to price, volume, security, location, terms and conditions—a number of those things that currently are not being provided by the government.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made it clear to various stakeholders, various irrigators, that this $50 million was the first tender process and that I wanted to ensure that we continue to improve in terms of management of that process. That is why we commissioned the review. That is why we established a stakeholder committee to give us feedback. Surprisingly, Senator Nash, I agree with you. I think it is a well-managed program, but I think governments can continue to improve the information that communities have, and we will do that.

I will pause here and say that one of the asks of some members of the community—though not all of them—has been that the government tell them what a fair price is. I have been clear with them that that is not for the government to do. Obviously, we can publish information about price in the market but, ultimately, that is a decision that an irrigator needs to make. It would not be appropriate at all for government, as a potential buyer, to be advising the potential seller what a fair price is.

What we have done is sought to purchase water at prevailing market prices. An obvious reason for this is to provide value for money to the taxpayer, but it also ensures that both the buyer and seller consider the agreed price to be fair and reasonable. The department is directing prospective sellers to publicly available sources of market information. We are assessing sell offers against prevailing market prices so that the impact on the water market is minimised, and the assessment process takes into account the average yield of each entitlement. That is an important point because, whilst there has only been the first completed round in the current tender, obviously the government is potentially a very large player, over time, in the water market. So we do need to continue to consider our impact on the water market.

Information on our purchases in 2007-08 is available on my department’s website and it is regularly updated. Information on prices paid is being posted on state registers as soon as trades are finalised, as is the case for other water trades. I have referred also to the independent review assessment and stakeholder consultation which occurred post the first purchase program. I would like to make the point that the independent assessment did endorse the approach taken by the government, concluding that the first purchase round was efficiently run, that water purchase decisions were appropriate and that it delivered value for money. That assessment was released in October and it is also available on the website.

In terms of community consultation, the committee I established provided direct input into this assessment and also endorsed the first phase of the purchasing. I acknowledge that they had certain views, and made certain recommendations, about the issue, and we are taking these on board and considering them. Eight regional workshops were held to obtain feedback from the wider community. One of the things that the department have changed as a result of this purchase is that we are publishing a summary of water entitlement prices reported on state registers so that sellers have improved access to market information. So we are committed to ensuring appropriate transparency, and we are doing that through the mechanisms I described. However, our view is that those mechanisms are the best way to deal with these issues. Again, what the coalition is seeking to require is a legislative instrument to ensure transparent operation of the water market. Some of the issues in subsection (2) are covered by the information available on the web, to which I have referred.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a couple of further comments in relation to this. I think it is quite important that we do focus on the community’s view that there should be more transparency. I know I am reiterating what I said earlier, but I think that it is important for the committee to note that this is a very, very serious issue for irrigators. They are very keen to see a greater level of transparency and to have more fairness and equity within the arrangements.

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

I move as an amendment to opposition amendment (5):

Omit subsections 261(2) and 261(3).

By omitting subclauses (2) and (3) just the first subclause will remain, and that is:

The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine a scheme to ensure transparent operation of the water market in respect of the purchase of water entitlements by the Commonwealth.

I agree with the coalition that there is a wish in the community for transparency. However, I think subclauses (2) and (3) bind the Commonwealth too closely and are too prescriptive. There are some issues there that may serve to adversely affect the ability of the Commonwealth to purchase water. I do have concerns that the opposition amendment may affect the Commonwealth’s ability to acquire water, but I and the Greens agree with the issue around transparency. So what I am proposing is that we amend the amendment so that there is a requirement to determine a scheme to ensure transparent operation. That is done by legislative instrument, which is a regulation that the Senate does get to comment on. Hopefully, that will help to ensure that it gets a review as well and that it achieves the objective of transparency but it does not adversely impact on the Commonwealth’s need to be able to operate in the market.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do think it is better, Senator Siewert, but what I would say—and I did not go into this—is that, of course, there are also provisions in the act which deal with water market reform, ACCC involvement in water market rules, water charge rules, and—from memory—the authority in terms of water-trading rules. So there are a range of water market reform measures which deal, in part, with some of the issues here. My concern is that if we start requiring that the minister, instead of all these various statutory bodies, determines a scheme, it actually cuts across some of that reform work. Senator Siewert’s amendment does deal with the issues that she raised, and we appreciate that, but I have to say, more broadly, that we do not think this is the way to go forward. We do recognise our obligations to work to improve transparency. I have outlined a range of mechanisms by which we are seeking to do that.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that amendment by Senator Siewert to omit proposed sections 261(2) and 261(3) from opposition amendment No. 5 on sheet 5640 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that opposition amendment (5), as amended, on sheet 5640 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (6) on sheet 5640:

(6)    Schedule 2, page 318 (after line 32), after item 162, insert:

162F  At the end of Part 12

Add:

262  Inquiry into bulk water arrangements

        (1)    The Minister must cause an inquiry to be held into the effects of Commonwealth water purchases from bulk water arrangements.

        (2)    The inquiry must consider what steps the Minister should take to prevent third party effects within bulk water arrangements on remaining parties. 

        (3)    The inquiry must report by 1 July 2009 and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of receiving the report.

        (4)    The Minister must have regard to the recommendations of the report of the inquiry in proceeding with subsequent purchases of water from bulk water arrangements.

This amendment relates to bulk water arrangements. Briefly, the concern that has been raised with us is that if the environment becomes a user of water similar to irrigators it should be paying the same fixed and variable costs that irrigators currently pay. There is a very clear message coming through: if, for the purposes of public good or for environmental good, that water were to come out of an irrigation district, the fixed costs and charges that would remain would be dispersed through a smaller number of people. That is a real concern as to what we all agree will be a public good. It is about the negative effect that would then remain within that irrigation district. So there needs to be, in terms of a way to describe it, a community service obligation, if you like, to cover the costs so as to avoid forgone revenue for those bulk water providers in those areas. It is a sensible amendment. The amendment itself is probably a little bit wordy, but it is a very sensible amendment to make sure that there is a provision in place. We are talking about an inquiry into this to determine if it is indeed the case that these problems arise, to deal with the situation, to report and to then put forward an appropriate process to deal with the arrangements.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, I will be very quick as I am sure all of us would not mind eating something. We do not support this amendment. I want to remind senators that some of the issues that Senator Nash raises and also some of the issues that have been raised with me are issues such as transformation, exit fees et cetera. In fact, they are issues that the ACCC is dealing with and conducting a public inquiry into. So what you are asking government to do in effect, Senator Nash, is to cover the same area through the inquiry proposed in the amendment as we would say is already being covered by the inquiry underway as a result of the ACCC’s power under the existing act, which will be expanded under the bill. So we think this is being dealt with.

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

If I could, I would ask the minister a question on how extensive that inquiry is and whether it is actually taking into account the impacts on third parties of bulk water arrangements.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My recollection is that the ACCC have invited public submissions in relation to both of the aspects that they are working on. I know they have consulted with irrigators, because when irrigators have raised this issue with me I have asked, ‘Have you met with the ACCC and have you talked to them?’ and they have said, ‘Yes.’ Some of them have said, ‘We’re not sure they understood what we were saying.’ I have said, ‘Well, maybe you should make sure they do.’ So there is, I think, what looks like a quite good consultation process—an iterative one. Again, on these issues there are different views about what is the best way forward in terms of which fees should or should not be paid or should be retained and, if so, what quantum of them. We do think that the best way is to allow this ACCC process to proceed. My recollection is that the ACCC will make draft rules which will then be provided to the government for determination. If there is further information as to this area, which is a bit complex in terms of the different processes, I will be happy to arrange for the relevant officials to give you a briefing.

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

Thank you, Minister; I would appreciate that. Obviously it is not going to impact on the decision that we are making here today. I have a couple of concerns. One is the extent of the review that is currently being carried out. While the ACCC may be receiving submissions from communities and affected irrigators, for example, whether the terms of reference of the inquiry provide the ACCC with the ability to actually make recommendations as to those is an issue. I am seeing nodding heads—so it is?

The Temporary Chairman:

We cannot record nodding heads in Hansard.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Siewert. I do not actually have here either officers from the ACCC—obviously so because it is a statutory agency—or from the department on that specific program. My recollection is that they are consulting currently, they will make a recommendation to the government in relation to—from memory—two aspects of the water market rules and the government will make a determination. In fact, third parties are one of the issues to be determined.

I have some notes here. I am advised that the ACCC is also considering water-charging rules which cover termination fees payable on the sale of water. These fees will be able to be charged in ways to ensure that there is no lasting cost imposed on an irrigation corporation. Take, for example, the consultation with me. The corporation will say, ‘We want a higher exit fee because we have to continue to pay certain costs’—the issue that Senator Nash raised. The irrigator who is selling wants a lower exit fee, for obvious reasons. These are issues that the ACCC is considering, and there is a process under the act for the consideration and determination of those. We consider that to be a more sensible process. It is a process that is currently ongoing, currently underway, and it would not be sensible to impose another inquiry on top of that.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This might assist Senator Siewert. I know there was a level of disquiet, if you like, around the ACCC process with irrigators. I look forward to the minister coming back with information about the effect on those third parties. Part of the reason for this to come into being was perhaps a level of discomfort with the ACCC and other processes, and this was a more appropriate way to approach it.

Progress reported.