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

I move:

That the committee does not insist on the amendments disagreed to by the House and agree to the amendment made by the House of Representatives to the Senate’s amendment.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak for the coalition on this message that we have received and the motion before us. As we all know, the Water Amendment Bill 2008 was debated at great length in this chamber last week. Tonight I want to pay particular tribute to Senator Fiona Nash, who led the debate for the coalition, as the then shadow parliamentary secretary for water resources and conservation, and did an outstanding job. It is with much regret that I, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, note that she has now resigned from that position, having done tremendous work in that role and in relation to this bill in particular. I also want to acknowledge the roles of Senators Fisher and Birmingham in the debate on this very important bill in this chamber last week.

There were a number of amendments made to this bill by the Senate that were supported by non-government senators and that we believe did improve the bill. The coalition sought to amend this bill because we believe that, in the original form it came into this place, it did not go far enough in delivering the national water reform which our coalition in government initiated and drove throughout 2007, only to be frustrated by the Victorian Labor government. Regrettably, this bill repeats the errors of 2007 in relation to the Victorian Labor government, in that it lets the Victorian Labor government off the hook with this quite destructive and outrageous proposal that the Victorian Labor government has to build a north-south pipeline to divert no less than 75 billion litres of water per year from the Goulburn and Murray rivers and the Lower Lakes to the city of Melbourne—an extraordinary event in this, the 21st century.

Last week in this chamber, with the support of all non-government senators, the coalition sought to improve the bill and improve water management in this country. We sought specifically to stop the construction of the north-south pipeline and the extraction of water from the Goulburn and Murray rivers for use in that pipeline. We sought to ensure that water saved through the Living Murray initiative is immediately released for environmental flows in the Goulburn and Murray rivers and to replenish the Lower Lakes, which are in such desperate need. We called for the government to immediately deliver $50 million in emergency relief funding to the Lower Lakes and Coorong communities in my and the minister’s home state of South Australia. We also sought to make amendments in relation to transparency, targets for infrastructure, community impact statements and structural adjustment. Additionally, we sought to protect farmers from the risks associated with ‘the new knowledge’ relating to climate change. The government’s definition of this new knowledge, of course, is not clear and they have not consulted with the industry on the potential ramifications of this approach. Regrettably, it was only the coalition that stood in this place to protect farmers in this way.

The Senate did support our amendments regarding the north-south pipeline, the Lower Lakes and additional transparency in this bill, and we sent the bill, as amended, to the House, seeking the support of Mr Rudd and his Labor colleagues in the lower house. As I have said, the Labor Party in the Senate opposed those critical amendments, and, regrettably, they opposed those amendments in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Prime Minister has now sent this legislation back to the Senate, rejecting the Senate’s endeavours to improve this bill. Regrettably, the Labor Party have not even sought to negotiate any of these amendments; they are instead simply resorting to the thuggery we are used to from the Labor Party in relation to the coalition and other senators, under the false pretences of accusing us of holding up water reform. This is the base cynicism of the Labor Party in full flight.

We in government, as the coalition, drove national water reform in this country. We remain committed to doing everything possible to ensure the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We did our utmost to oppose this really outrageous north-south pipeline, and the Labor Party simply rejected our position. Mr Rudd and Senator Wong—as I said, a fellow South Australian—now have political ownership of this dreadful and destructive pipeline. They are the only ones now who can stop the pipeline. They have it in their power to stop the pipeline. They have refused to do so and, in the process, have treated with contempt the will of the Senate. We will not let Mr Rudd hold national water reform hostage whilst he gives a green light to this pipeline. It is now very much Mr Rudd’s pipeline. Regrettably, this is a signal that he has given up on saving the Lower Lakes in our state of South Australia.

While we stand by our amendments in the Senate, we will not be insisting on these amendments in the chamber today. To do so, regrettably, would not stop this pipeline being built or water going down it but would delay the implementation of other important reforms in this bill. We do this with utter dismay at Labor’s complete lack of interest in helping the Lower Lakes and protecting the long-term future of the Murray-Darling Basin. We are not insisting on our amendments after having consulted closely with the irrigation community, farmers and individual irrigators. We cannot wait another summer for urgent national water reform to take place. We cannot let the actions of Labor in the state of Victoria again delay our vision for reform of the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

More than 20 different farming and irrigation groups have told us that they are afraid that the Rudd Labor government will use any delay to this bill to punish them over the forthcoming summer. Those groups include the National Irrigators Council, the New South Wales Irrigators Council, the Gwydir Valley Irrigators Association, the South Australian Murray Irrigators, the South Australian Irrigators Council, the Queensland Irrigators Council, the Ricegrowers Association, Murray Irrigation, the Horticulture Australia Council, the Murrumbidgee Horticulture Council, Murrumbidgee Irrigation, Namoi Water, Auscott, Mungindi-Menindee Advisory Council, South Western Water Users, the Central Irrigation Trust, the Renmark Irrigation Trust, the Bondi Group, the National Farmers Federation, the Victorian Farmers Federation and AgForce.

They have reasonable fears, and their fears are: firstly, that the Rudd government will continue to hold farmers’ infrastructure funding hostage to their position; secondly, that the Victorian Labor government will hold water back from the river; and, thirdly, that the South Australian Labor government will use this as a reason to flood the Lower Lakes with sea water, which we have already seen warning signs of in my own state’s major newspaper today and which would be a tragedy for the Lower Lakes. For these reasons, as I said, the coalition will not insist on its amendments in the Senate tonight. But Labor’s intransigence means that we now cannot, through this bill, stop the north-south pipeline, tragic and regrettable as that is.

In addition, the coalition will not be supporting any more substantive amendments to the bill, so that it can proceed through the Senate, we hope, tonight. We do this with enormous dismay and disgust with the actions of this new Labor government. As a South Australian I want to again put on record how disappointed we are that this government is on the face of it completely ignoring the plight of the Lower Lakes. Today the Alexandrina Council, based in the Lower Lakes, has again confirmed its complete opposition to the north-south pipeline. It simply cannot understand why the government is treating it with such contempt.

The coalition will elevate our campaign on the north-south pipeline and the Lower Lakes. We have introduced a private member’s bill in the House of Representatives, and we will introduce one in the Senate, calling for the Rudd government to take immediate action on these issues. I also foreshadow a coalition amendment to the motion before the Senate that the report of the committee be adopted. The amendment calls on the government to stop the north-south pipeline and immediately act to protect the Lower Lakes. We believe the Rudd Labor government must deliver urgent assistance to these basin communities. If they do not, the outcome will be disastrous for Australia’s agricultural industry and food security.

We urge the Senate tonight to support our amendment to the motion, to call on the government to block Mr Rudd’s pipeline and to release the urgent funding to support the Lower Lakes and Coorong communities. I give the assurance that the coalition will not stop fighting on behalf of the people of the basin for national water reform and, most importantly, to stop this disastrous north-south pipeline.

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

The Greens stand by the amendments, believing they are important, particularly in relation to the north-south pipeline—which Senator Minchin has been talking about—which we believe is a bad project. We do not believe that it is for the benefit of the basin and we do not believe it will deliver water for Melbourne, bearing in mind that the Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis, that we are reducing water supply and that we have to cut consumptive water use in the basin by between 42 and 53 per cent. The water that is being saved—once we prove that it is being saved—for the food bowl project should be going back into the Murray. There is no doubt in our or the community’s minds that that water needs to be in the Murray. We are spending billions of dollars buying back water only to have Victoria siphoning off some of the water that should be going back into the basin and taking it down to Melbourne. We also believe that the amendment that the Senate passed that dealt with a reduction in water use outside the basin was an important complementary amendment to ensure that, in a progressive manner, communities outside the basin also start to wean themselves off the basin.

I foreshadow that the Greens will be moving an amendment, as circulated in the chamber, to the motion that the opposition will be putting after we conclude the committee of the whole. I will get back to that in a minute.

The other amendments talked about critical human need, the authority’s functions, objects of the act, ministerial direction, full-time members of the authority, transparency, supplying $50 million in resources to support adjustment and restructuring for Lower Lakes and Coorong communities and the River Murray, and the subsequent amendment dealt with Water for Rivers projects that complemented the north-south pipeline. These are important amendments that we believe enhance the bill and therefore the Water Act. We believe that the act needs further work. We do not think the act is where it should be in delivering outcomes for the Murray-Darling Basin. We feel that these amendments help the act get there and we are disappointed that the opposition is not supporting them. As I said, we will be supporting those amendments, because we think, as I said, they enhance the Murray-Darling Basin.

However, having said that, we have also said very clearly on the record that we do not think the bill and the act go far enough in delivering an outcome for the Murray-Darling Basin in a timely manner. I remind the chamber that the basin plan—despite the fact that we are ensuring that this bill is through this parliament and the authority can start its work and despite all the efforts that we are all now making to get this debate concluded—does not come into effect until 2019. It will be 2019 before we start getting the water-sharing plans in Victoria actually in line with the basin plan. That is 11 years from now—11 years too long. I remind the chamber that the Greens sought to amend the bill to ensure that all catchment plans and water-sharing plans were brought into line with the basin plan within six months of it coming into operation in 2011. So, despite our ensuring that this bill does go through, we still do not get an outcome for the Murray-Darling Basin until 2019. If we were really in a ‘go slow’ process, I would hate to see how long that would take.

I flag that the Greens will be supporting the opposition amendment, although we will be seeking to amend it by including an additional clause that adds in the populations outside the basin. We do not believe that we can cut off those communities straight away, and we are not seeking to do that. But we are seeking to ensure that the message is sent to those communities that they need to start weaning themselves off the basin water. If they do not, there will not be any water for them anyway. This is the issue that has come up in debate both in this place and in the communities. People say, ‘You lot are trying to cut us off from the water.’ I am sorry, but the basin is going to do that itself, because the water will not be there. You are better off managing this change in a structured manner than waiting until suddenly the taps are not running anymore. What we are trying to say to these communities is let’s work together to see how we can actually start weaning you off this water, because the water is not going to be there in the future. Also, the Greens message is we need to be taking a much more coordinated and structured approach to the way we are going about restructuring in the basin, because let’s face it: that is what we are talking about; we are talking about restructuring. We have to reduce our water use to an extent that is going to have such a community impact, so we need to be acknowledging that now and working on that now. I think it is really dishonest to let farmers go out the back door without any help. Let us acknowledge it upfront and do it in a much more structured manner.

During the debate we did support in principle the things to do as to the issues around restructuring. We could not agree to the opposition amendment because we did not think it took enough of a holistic approach. Our clear message is: this bill—and this resulting act—will not deliver the change that we need unless we complement it with a strategic, coordinated approach of working with communities. We are saying to the government: please start working with communities to deliver that coordinated approach. Let all of us have an honest conversation with the communities about the need for restructuring and acknowledge that we have to reduce our water use, because it is going to happen anyway. It can happen with a great deal of pain or with some pain that we can help to manage. As a legislative body, we are not being honest if we do not acknowledge that.

I am disappointed that the opposition is not supporting these amendments. The Greens stick by these amendments. We totally reject the north-south pipeline as a most ineffective and inefficient way of dealing with Melbourne’s water problems. We are not denying that there is an issue, but the north-south pipeline is not the way to fix it. The water that is saved—and I will believe an independent audit will be held when I see an independent audit about the amount of water that is going to be saved—should be going back into the Murray. The Greens have never said that this is additional water coming out of the Murray. We know that it is supposed to be coming from savings. Our point is those savings should be going back into the Murray like everybody else’s savings are going back into the Murray.

Victoria is saying to the rest of the community: ‘We’ll take your $1 billion bribe to sign on but we won’t actually implement the basin plan until 2019 and, by the way, we want an extra 75 gigalitres’—although it is actually more; it is closer to 100 gigalitres—‘so we’ll take that as well, thanks very much.’ I have a little bit of a question about a whole-of-government approach that needed such a big bribe to get Victoria on board. In particular, the 75 gigalitres—and up to 100 gigalitres, depending on how much water is not going back into the groundwater through this process—are being supplied to Melbournians because they have not been efficient in dealing with their water through water conservation, bearing in mind that 400 gigalitres of stormwater is going out to sea. That is not sensible water planning. If that is what the future of the Murray is, I think the Murray is facing a lot more trouble than we thought and we are not going to get there as quickly as we thought. As I have said, the Greens stand by the amendments. Although we believed these amendments did not go far enough, they improve the bill and they are a good start.

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

I indicate, along with the Greens, that we ought to stand by these amendments and maintain the position that the chamber took. I understand the opposition’s position. I appreciate the discussions that I have had with Greg Hunt, the shadow minister, in relation to all this. This is something that has weighed very heavily on me. In November last year I was elected to the Senate to represent the people of South Australia. It is not a responsibility that I will ever take lightly. Having been elected as an Independent, I knew that there would be times when I would have to stand alone if I were going to stand up for what I truly believed was right. This is one of those times.

I am not against compromise. In fact, I have worked hard to try and achieve some kind of compromise because I realise the seriousness of this issue. It is no exaggeration to say that what is at stake is the future of hundreds of Australian communities, the future of hundreds of thousands of Australians, the future of the environment, the future of food security and the future of a significant part of our economy. I am not against compromise but what we have here is just unacceptable. The government wants the chamber to endorse, without these amendments, this water bill and the intergovernmental agreement upon which it is based. ‘Agreement’ is a funny word. It implies common ground. Sure, the parties involved might have some differences of opinion but the term ‘agreement’ implies there are enough areas of mutual understanding so that cooperation can occur. But it is not an agreement if various state and federal governments are cajoled or bullied into submission by one state government which has so little respect for the agreement that it is willing to destroy it to achieve a political end.

I believe the federal government, many of the state governments and, apparently, the opposition are mortified by what the Victorian government could do—and that is on the public record. Given Victoria’s threat to trash the IGA if it does not get its way, other governments are willing to agree to what I believe is an inherently unfair deal. Acting like the political equivalent of a spoiled child, the Victorian government has thrown itself on the floor and is writhing around screaming at the top of its voice. My concern is that if you give in once to that sort of behaviour you will be giving in to it forever. I agree with the opposition and the Greens that the north-south pipeline is a disgraceful plan. How could anyone agree to allow Victoria to direct 75 billion litres of water each year away from a dying river system is beyond me. It must be stopped. We had the opportunity to do that in the Senate, but it just seems that unfortunately there is not the political will to do so for a whole range of reasons—and I am not going to be critical at all of my colleagues the Greens and those in the opposition. I understand their position but I hope they can understand mine.

I have listened to a number of my colleagues—and, interestingly, I heard this from both sides of the chamber—who have mounted the argument and it has been said in good faith that ‘the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good’. It is a nice-sounding argument, but I do not believe that is what we have got here. What we have is the really bad being the enemy of the unacceptable. I believe the water bill is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. It creates the pretence of a national takeover in place of a real one. The federal government could take over the Murray-Darling Basin and run it in the national interest. Constitutional law experts, such as Professor John Williams from the University of South Australia’s law school, say it can be done and that the powers are there. The federal government has the constitutional powers; it is a case of having the political will. We saw what the Hawke government did in 1983 when it took on the then Tasmanian government over the Franklin Dam. It used its constitutional powers to get an outcome that has been widely applauded; it was the right thing to do. But here we are presented, instead, with a piece of legislation that I believe will not work, despite its good intentions, despite what is intended.

I wish to refer to what the editor at large of the Canberra Times, Jack Waterford, said in an opinion piece several months ago, a few days after this agreement. Mr Waterford pointed out that the agreement between the Commonwealth and the basin states sets out a series of principles for management of the river system and paves the way for a national plan to be created by a panel of experts from the newly created Murray-Darling Basin Authority. But how much real authority does this new authority have? That is where things started getting political and started getting watered down.

Under the agreement the authority will be assisted by a ministerial council and advisory committee, as well as a committee of federal and state officials. As Mr Waterford pointed out the authority will only exist, thanks to a limited referral of powers from the states to the Commonwealth, some complementary legislation, a base agreement and working principles, which can be changed only by the unanimous agreement of all parties. So if one state does not agree, we can have a stalemate for any changes Notwithstanding, if those changes are clearly in the interests of the entire river system it can still be stalemated; it can still be held up. To me, that is a fundamental flaw. The fact that the states still have considerable veto powers in the implementation of the basin plan—the way it will operate—is a fundamental flaw.

The biggest problem is that if this bill is passed it may well give false hope to some communities. My fear is that we will be back here again in a year or two. If the drought does not break—and we know the impact of climate change—we will be back here again. It will not solve the problem. It cannot be portrayed as some sort of effective takeover strategy because it has only a limited referral of powers. The last, best hope for the river system is to have a full federal takeover. If this plan were a boat it would sink; it has enough holes. I support a national takeover, but this is not a national takeover.

My concern, and that of the Greens, is that this will take so long. I understand what the government said but it seems that in the absence of a full referral of powers, and with the current timetable, it will be too late for too many farmers. It will be too late for the environment. I cannot be a part of this bill. I do not believe that South Australians should accept the north-south pipeline. I do not think we should be waiting until 2019 and I do not think South Australians should accept that this is the best the federal government can do. In all conscience I cannot and will not vote for this bill.

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

Senator Siewert has put the Greens’ position very clearly, but let me just add to that. We are not in the Hawke government’s situation relating to the Franklin Dam where we had a government which said, ‘We will use federal powers against an intransigent state to get the proper result here.’ We are in a position similar to that of the Fraser government, which preceded the Hawke government, which said, ‘We will try to work with the states to get an outcome, even though we are not going to achieve that outcome through taking that direction.’

In terms of a national effort to deal with the urgent situation of the Murray-Darling Basin, this legislation is manifestly 10th rate. That said, I do not think this is an occasion for rejecting the advance in thinking there has been—that is, that it has to be a national fix. I think this is a staging post for getting the result that Senator Xenophon wants—and he is absolutely right—which is to have a much more powerful authority able to deal with the plight of the Murray-Darling Basin than the one we see here. It is a small step on the road to what should be a solution that should be urgently invoked, and it should not have the timeline of 2019 anywhere near it. That said, the north-south pipeline issue is one that the opposition should have stood strong on.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have.

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

Senator Minchin, through you, Chair, no, that is not what is happening here tonight. Had that happened, the pressure of the Victorian government on the Labor Rudd government would have been counterbalanced by the forcible pressure from the Senate, but the opposition has blinked first. That means that the north-south pipeline gets the nod rather than the stopper that it should be getting here in the chamber tonight. That is why we will be voting to reject the House of Representatives amendments which, effectively, take away the Senate’s earlier condition that the north-south pipeline should not proceed.

The final point I want to make is about climate change. We now know that Senator Wong will be announcing a fortnight from today, or yesterday, the targets that the government will be setting in terms of climate change. I think these will be manifestly weak, like this legislation is, and short of the mark; otherwise, I believe the government would be making the announcement about those targets before Senator Wong goes to the global conference in Poznan.

This is high danger for the Murray-Darling Basin. We know that Professor Garnaut has said that it is going to be lost as we know it if the weaker targets that are involved in accepting a 550 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent pollution of the atmosphere are taken up. That means a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in flow on what we have now in the Murray-Darling system by mid-century. This is catastrophic. This is absolutely catastrophic. It will be traced back to tonight, to the government’s failure tonight, and to that announcement coming up before Christmas, unless it is an announcement to go for targets in the order of the Greens targets—that is, a 40 per cent reduction in 1990 levels by 2020 and carbon neutrality by mid-century. That is the challenge we have. It is a challenge that is being failed in this legislation and I think it is a challenge for which we are going to see the government fail between now and Christmas as far as those targets are concerned.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First is also concerned that the lower house has not accepted the Senate’s recommendations. I will focus primarily on the north-south pipeline. There are some real problems with the pipe because the issue is pitting country folk against city folk and dividing Victorians quite strongly. I have said before that Australia really needs to start to think about water in a different way. We have water gushing out into the ocean and in another spot we put a nozzle into the salt water and, at the cost of a huge carbon footprint, turn it into fresh water. I think we need to start to think about where water is gushing out into the ocean around Australia, and has been doing so for some time, and look at distributing that water in a way that provides a surplus well in excess of the need, to make sure that we can support areas where we are short of water. I have said before that we do not have a water shortage problem but we certainly have a water distribution problem. Family First believes that the concept of piping water from Tasmania to Melbourne and even from Melbourne back up to the Goulburn Valley system would make much more sense than stealing water down from up there. That is the key to this. It is very much a shame that the lower house has not accepted the Senate’s amendments to the bill.

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

I will make a few comments, first, to acknowledge the contributions made to the debate by all senators. I particularly acknowledge the contribution made by Senator Nash to the previous debate and, notwithstanding that I did not agree with a lot of what she did, the obvious workload that she took on in that regard.

I welcome Senator Minchin’s indication on behalf of the opposition that the opposition will not be insisting on the amendments. It is clear that in the opposition wiser heads have prevailed. Senator Minchin made a few accusations and criticisms and some strong rhetorical points in his contribution. I do not propose to respond to them on behalf of the government tonight. I think that many of the issues have been well traversed in earlier debate and the government’s views are clear. Despite the rhetoric, the fact is that the opposition are not insisting on their amendments, including in relation to the pipeline. That is the indication from Senator Minchin. As I said, we welcome the fact that wiser heads have prevailed.

As I think I said in the second reading debate, the first agreement in relation to the River Murray was in 1914. In 1992 the latest version of the Murray-Darling agreement was put in place. From 1914 to date we have not had a management regime, an architecture, dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin that recognised the simple fact that rivers flow across state borders. The legislation before the house puts that architecture in place for the first time. It is architecture that delivers a whole-of-basin approach. It seeks to manage the basin as a whole. For the first time in this nation’s history it will set a cap based on science. For the first time in this nation’s history it will ensure that that cap and the basin plan, after consultation, ultimately are decisions of the Commonwealth minister. Importantly, it will also ensure that the basin plan is undertaken by an independent authority, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Can I make this point: I think it is 12 months tomorrow since the Rudd government ministry was sworn in and there has been a substantial amount of progress on water in that time. We see this bill before the Senate, which, as senators know, required a very extensive set of negotiations with the states, for the first time engaging the enabling and referral powers upon which some of the bill is predicated. But I want to make it very clear to the chamber that the government understand that there is a lot more left to do. We are making progress but we do understand that the challenge of the Murray-Darling Basin is an enormous one. It is one that is compounded by the inaction of the previous government. It is compounded by years of failure to manage the basin properly and sustainably—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the Brumby government? Do something!

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

Senator McGauran, there is a certain tone to the debate which, I do not know if you have noticed, we are seeking to engage in at this point. What I was saying was—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop talking piously if that is the tone you want.

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

I am just wondering, Madam Chair, if Senator McGauran has finished his interjections.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure he has, Minister.

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

I was saying that the government recognise that there is a lot more to do in the Murray-Darling Basin. We are battling, all of us—and by that I mean the communities of the basin—the effects of climate change, the mismanagement that has occurred in the past over allocation as well as the current drought. We recognise that communities in the basin are facing very difficult times indeed, and we recognise the scale of this challenge. One of the things that I have often said as minister is that we need to do things in the short and medium term as well as the long term. The things for the short term and medium term are the policies of the government—the purchase of water and the investment in infrastructure in order to ensure that we can do more with less, to ensure that we are more efficient and to ensure that we maintain and continue to grow viable productive irrigation industries, because, of course, that is the economic base that is so important to basin communities. We need to purchase water to return water to the river to deal with a very significant environmental problem that occurs up and down the river, but we also need, in the longer term, to change the architecture of the management of the basin.

I am very pleased tonight that the opposition are not insisting on their amendments and will support the bill. We do believe this is a very significant step forward because it will enable, for the first time, this basin to be managed on a whole-of-basin approach. That is a very significant thing, particularly if you consider when the River Murray agreement was in place and what has not occurred between 1914 and now. I thank senators for their contributions to the debate.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Wong’s) be agreed to.

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

I move:

That the report from the committee be adopted.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

                 but, due to the Government’s failure to support in the House the amendments made by the Senate, the Senate calls on the Government to immediately:

             (a)    prohibit construction of the North-South Pipeline and extraction of water from the Goulburn and Murray rivers for use in that pipeline;

             (b)    ensure that water saved through the Living Murray Initiative is immediately guaranteed and then released for environmental flows in the Goulburn and Murray Rivers and to replenish the Lower Lakes; and

             (c)    deliver $50 million in emergency relief funding to the Lower Lakes and Coorong communities.

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

I move, as an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Minchin, Australian Greens amendment on sheet 5690:

                 After paragraph (a) of the amendment, insert:

           (aa)    encourage and support other populations outside the Basin who currently rely on the extraction of water from the basin to broaden their water security by expanding their use of other water sources such as stormwater capture and recycling;

This amendment seeks to amend the opposition amendment on sheet 5688 by inserting a paragraph along the lines I discussed earlier in the debate—that is, ‘encourage and support other populations outside the Basin who currently rely on the extraction of water from the basin to broaden their water security by expanding their use of other water sources such as stormwater capture and recycling’.

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

I seek leave to move an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Minchin, as sought to be amended by Senator Siewert.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, I am advised that, if you are actually seeking to amend Senator Minchin’s amendment, it would be wise of us to deal with Senator Siewert’s amendment first. So I shall put the question that the amendment moved by Senator Siewert on behalf of the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

                 but the Senate calls on the Government to:

             (a)    direct the CSIRO to undertake a comprehensive hydrological assessment of the proposed North-South pipeline project, and the proposed extraction of water for the pipeline; including an audit of the water savings to be achieved by the Victorian Food Bowl Modernisation Project and its impact on the water resources and environment of the Murray-Darling Basin; and

             (b)    ensure that the CSIRO is adequately funded to undertake that assessment.

This amendment seeks to amend the amendment moved by Senator Minchin, as amended by Senator Siewert.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Xenophon to Senator Minchin’s amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Acting Deputy President:

I now put the question that the amendment moved by Senator Minchin, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wong) adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order for the next day of sitting.