Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens do not support the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014. The National Water Commission is a most important organisation that we really do need to retain. It provides crucial oversight of our water policies. It is worth remembering that it operates with a very small team, doing important work. I understand that that team recently went from about 41 down to eight.

The commission has provided government and industry with quality information needed to make good decisions about the effectiveness of our current water policies and directions for the future. What is being lost here is the integrated approach. The integrated approach is so important when it comes to water, and that is what the commission has provided for water policy in the 10 years of its existence. We really cannot afford to lose it. It is of grave concern to me that, given the current threats to our water supplies from climate change and the mining industry, in particular, and the ongoing struggles between water used for production and water used for the environment, we are looking at removing the only body that brings together oversight of our water policy.

It is true that there are other bodies that provide important information in this area, such as the government's Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. But the National Water Commission is the place where these groups actually come together to sort through these issues. The processes of the National Water Initiative and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan have been well shepherded by the commission. This work is still tenuous and needs ongoing support. Removing the National Water Commission sends the wrong message to those involved in these processes. It is of great concern to me, as the National Water Commission itself has pointed out, that the proposed reporting date for the first audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been moved to 2018 in this legislation. We have already had delays in the readiness of this plan, which is why the commission was able to offer only an interim report in 2013.

This is one of the crucial aspects of this legislation that underlines why this bill should not pass. We need oversight of the Murray-Darling Basin process from an independent body. That is what we have right now. And that is what we could lose. As many of the stakeholders in this debate have noted, the government cannot be marking its own homework. That was the message we heard time and again at the inquiry that was held into this legislation. Yet, under the government's plans, the marking does not even occur. The plan will be implemented before we are able to intervene. This is a very concerning aspect of this legislation.

This legislation proposes to move the National Water Commission's reporting requirements on the National Water Initiative and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan over to the Productivity Commission. This is not satisfactory. It will really degrade this work. It is a concern to the Greens and should be a concern to all who care about the future of our water planning. You will hear many people here say that, but if they are sincere they will keep the National Water Commission.

As a number of submissions to the inquiry on this legislation have pointed out, the commission does not yet have the expertise needed to advise on these matters. The Productivity Commission's expertise is in economic matters, not those of the environment. That is set out when you look at the objects of how the Productivity Commission works. It is very clear. It is quite narrow—we are not disputing that—but it does not have the expertise and background to take on the important work of the NWC.

The Productivity Commission was never established with the management of environmental matters in mind. It came about in 1998 out of the combination of the Industry Commission, the Bureau of Industry Economics and the Economic Planning Advisory Commission. Its legislation reflects these priorities very clearly. Part 2, section 6 of the act, 'Functions of commission' sets this out. It uses the phrase: 'industry, industry development and productivity', and it uses those terms five times. Nowhere is the environment mentioned. Not once. Protecting the environment is not a function of the Productivity Commission.

Part 2, section 8 of the act, the policy guidelines for the Productivity Commission, is about economic performance, reducing regulation, encouraging growth and economic adjustments, and other issues to do with the economy and industry. It is not until we get down to part 2, section 8(1)(i) that we see the term 'ecologically sustainable'. This still is only in the context of industry development. It is not set out in terms of an environmental judgement; the environment is not a key consideration of how this body undertakes its work.

The Productivity Commission has multiple competing priorities in its reporting requirements. It is not able to sufficiently capture—and nor does this legislation allow it to—the breadth of work carried out by the National Water Commission. That is a key point. I know that the government has been lobbying hard to get support for taking the work of the National Water Commission over to the Productivity Commission, and making out that the Productivity Commission can cover the important endeavours and work undertaken by the NWC. But right now, with how the Productivity Commission is actually structured, that is not possible.

The ongoing functions of the National Water Commission, in particular relating to stakeholder engagement on all water related issues, are nowhere to be found in this legislation. Imagine that! Stakeholder engagement is not found in this legislation; it is a key part of how the National Water Commission has operated and that is what we will lose if this bill goes through. Some minimal functions go to the Department of the Environment and others, but there is no central coordination of all these issues. That is another very worrying aspect; we need that central coordination and that is what we could lose. This I suggest is precisely what the government wants. There is an agenda here, pushed by the government, and this is part of it.

The government's approach is really quite fragmented. It removes the thorough leadership and the continuity offered by the commission. The government's plan to remove the National Water Commission is not leadership; it is not even the management we need when it comes to water policy across this country. Sustaining our water supply and protecting the environment should be our top priority. That is what we could lose if this bill goes through.

Hearings at the inquiry into this legislation have made it abundantly clear that contrary to government claims that the National Water Commission has done its job and that water is well covered by other government bodies, water reform at the state level is at risk of unravelling if we lose the National Water Commission.

In my state of New South Wales we have seen the consolidation of water bodies at the same time as water licenses are, according to the Australian Conservation Foundation, being handed out to farmers who have illegally diverted water. This is what we mean about 'unravelling'. Not only is there a lack of integration but some very dubious practices are being allowed to play out, and that threatens our water resources.

Following the abolition of Queensland's Water Commissioner that state is keeping up its reputation for really tearing apart anything to do with the environment by amending its water act to automatically grant licences to mine coal seam gas operations. That can be a direct threat to our water resources. Under no circumstances should it be allowed to happen automatically.

The picture is no better elsewhere. In Victoria, water protections are being weakened, and in Western Australia and the Northern Territory they are not compliant with the National Water Initiative. The National Water Commission itself has argued that water has fallen off the COAG agenda. This is actually not a surprise since it seems that the current policy of coalition governments at state and federal levels is a return to the laissez-faire days where we allow irresponsible use of water resources until there is another emergency. Governments may get away with letting anything happen to water resources and not have the plans and limits in place, but there will be another that drought. There will be another extreme weather event associated with climate change. There will be another weather emergency that we need to respond to and that is why we need to retain the National Water Commission—so we are well placed for that response, we are ready for it and we can take the measures to limit the impact of those very damaging extreme weather events

Crucial areas of water policy that were highlighted by the inquiry into this legislation, but were not covered at all by this legislation, demonstrate the need for real leadership on water policy. When you get rid of the National Water Commission, you are basically getting rid of leadership in this area. The commission's job to identify areas in need of reform and begin those discussions is the gap that will be left by the commission.

One of those crucial areas is Indigenous water rights. Working on Indigenous water rights with the First People's Water Engagement Council, the commission earned itself a most important and well-earned reputation for its consultative approach to these issues. This process involved extensive engagement culminating in a First People's National Water Summit, which gave advice to the commission in May 2012. It was outstanding and I would say it was historic—and, again, it underlines how much we stand to lose if this bill goes through.

The initiative has already wound back the Indigenous Water Advisory Committee formed by the Department of the Environment in June this year. This is a pattern we are seeing with this government. This legislation has not gone through yet but there has been so many steps that this government has taken, so many actions to actually gut the National Water Commission before the legislation gets here. I think it is a very immoral and undemocratic way that they operate.

The story of these organisations is a sad indictment on the way governments too often operate in their interactions with Indigenous people. For the first time, the Aboriginal community had been engaged on these issues. Such much would have been achieved at the meetings and roundtables of these organisations. There had been talk of even adding an Indigenous Commissioner to the National Water Commission. How impressive is that? Progress was being made but what we have seen is a government that makes out it has a commitment to Indigenous issues. It will even make out it has a commitment to decent water policies but, in that quite simple but very negative damaging act, it has set back the rights of Indigenous people with regard to water in this country. The closure of the National Water Commission will be the final step in undoing these important processes.

We have also seen initiatives from the commission highlighting the potential impact of coal seam gas on our water supplies. Across the nation, I am sure many of us have witnessed in the last three or four years in particular an explosion of local communities coming together opposing coal seam gas and mining projects. Often they are farmers whose livelihood depends on the safety and health of their water. Whenever I visit these communities, the issue that is raised is: how do we protect our water now and into the future? The National Water Commission raised this issue in 2010 and continued to voice concerns that this is an area which needs more work.

Staying in New South Wales and looking to our northwest, there is an ongoing drought there. This is a real reminder that what will happen in this country is there will be another drought. There will be massive droughts and droughts located in certain areas. We need to be prepared. We have much more knowledge these days. But we need the National Water Commission to provide that integrated leadership. We may have recovered from the millennium drought, and we may have negotiated—and I emphasise 'negotiated'—a plan to recover the Murray-Darling, but the work of water reform is far from over. The negotiations are not really finished despite what we are hearing from the minister. I would have hoped that we would learn from this process. It is very expensive to retrospectively fix a problem with water and sometimes it is not possible. And I would point out to Minister Joyce, who seems to think that if we just build massive dams everywhere we will be fine, you have to have the water to start with. Dams do not create water, as the minister seems to allude to in some of his ridiculous statements. Not only do we need to preserve our water but we need to ensure we do it in a way that is clean.

We also need to make sure we will not be diverting water from places where it is desperately needed—and that is another great failing of Minister Joyce's approach to water conservation in this country. It is a not only a grave mistake to destroy our only body, the National Water Commission, that is independent and has the relevant expertise to guide our governments on water policy but it is really utterly irresponsible.

As was pointed out to the committee investigating this legislation, keeping the National Water Commission would push the government's budget out by one-ten thousandth of a percent. This is not a budget measure in this case. We often can identify what is a budget measure—obviously the higher education bill this week has been a standout. This bill, however, is not a budget measure. You really feel it is ideologically driven because the government wants to strip down the quite simple but not extensive leadership and at times control the National Water Commission has in this area because it wants to be able to favour its big constituents—those who need big water operations for their activities in rural Australia. Again, that is very short-term thinking, even short-term thinking for those who will benefit in the short run. Because right now we need to be doing everything to bring our water policy to a point where it is responsible, not just for certain users but for the whole nation, not just for this generation but for future generations and not just for those of us in the city but for those of us across the whole country. And environmental protection needs to be a part of that.

As was pointed out to the committee investigating this legislation, keeping the National Water Commission would push the government budget, as I said, out by just a fraction. That is a bargain. I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote against abolishing the National Water Commission and to support the reinstatement of funding that is about to go to the Productivity Commission if this bill is passed. The National Water Commission still has its leadership in place. All its fine work is still there: the need to address issues across the nation—integration between the states and to take forward the National Water Initiative—is work that remains to be done. This bill should not pass.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014.

In 2004, the Howard government established the National Water Commission, or NWC, as part of the National Water Initiative—the national plan for sustainable water use in Australia—to ensure that communities and industry have a reliable water supply, while protecting the health of our water systems. It was set up in recognition of the need for national water leadership to help address serious challenges. These included drought and climate change, water's role in securing Australia's economic and environmental future, the value of water for recreation and tourism, the need to advance the sustainable use of water and the impacts of fast-growing cities on water availability and delivery.

Labor contends that these issues are just as important today as they were in 2004. We believe this bill will create a huge gap in the area of national water oversight and will threaten ongoing water reform for very little gain. I was the deputy chair of the inquiry into this bill through the Environment and Communications Committee. The inquiry received 32 submissions from a range of stakeholders, experts, government bodies and interested individuals. Many submissions pointed out Australia's excellent international reputation for taking early, decisive action in the area of water reform. This was particularly evident in the case of the millennium drought, which resulted in large portions of the country being drought declared and which saw the federal government provide $4.5 billion in assistance.

On this issue, the OECD's 2012 report entitled Meeting the water reform challenge said:

… some countries have been at the cutting edge of water policy innovation and have developed sophisticated policy frameworks to address water challenges.

Australia, for example, has had a long period of water policy reform …

There is little doubt that the National Water Commission played an important role in this proud history, and to abolish it now would be short-sighted to say the least. Not one sector of our economy could survive if we did not have secure, safe and strategically managed water supplies. Our economic, environmental and personal health and, indeed, the stability of our society, relies on the security and strategic allocation of water resources.

It has been said that water is either an A-level issue or a Z-level issue. That is to say that in times of drought, or when concerns about scarcity or pollution arise, water quickly shoots to the top of the political and media agendas. However, a little while after the crisis passes, complacency can set in and water can slip off the policy radar. Attention wanes and resources are allocated to other issues. But we need to recognise that it is the solid, ongoing reform work that is done during 'Z' times that ensures that 'A' times do not hit or, if they do, that we are better equipped to respond to them. To cut funding to vital water reform institutions just because we have had a few good years of rain is short-sighted to say the least. If we do not maintain resources now, we will force a hastily-invoked crisis response when water challenges inevitably arise in the future.

Submitters to the inquiry told the committee how crucial the NWC has been to the progress that has been made so far on the National Water Initiative. Again and again, the committee heard concerns for the future of this important reform if the NWC is lost. In fact, it was hard to find any criticism of the NWC in the submissions.

Here are just a few comments to give you an idea of the regard held for the commission and the critical role it has played in our water management arrangements. Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science, Prof. Richard Kingsford said:

The National Water Commission has performed and excellent service in coordinating water reform in Australia, as an independent organisation at arm’s length of state and Federal governments.

Environs Kimberley said in their submission:

The importance of the Commission’s role in providing independent expert advice on matters of national water reform and assessing and monitoring the National Water Initiative (NWI) cannot be overstated.

The Arid Lands Environment Centre said:

The National Water Initiative has provided critical support for national decision-making on issues related to water management. The long-term vision and independence of the Commission has provided Australia with a world class national water policy framework that has supported a holistic approach to water management and water reform.

Stormwater Qld said:

The National Water Initiative, facilitated by the National Water Commission (NWC), provides the opportunity to augment the economically, socially and environmentally efficient management of water in Australia. We believe the NWC has played an important role in advancing total water cycle management and water sensitive urban design in Australia.

The Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre said:

There has been substantial technical innovation and reform by industry and state governments in meeting urban water needs across Australia in recent years, in large part driven by the challenges of changing climate conditions and drought. We believe that these initiatives were greatly assisted by the national focus that resulted from the establishment of the National Water Commission (NWC) in 2004 and the development of the National Water Initiative (NWI).

These words all echo the findings of the independent COAG review into the NWC, which was undertaken in 2011. The report of the review recognises the importance of the NWC in Australia's strategic water reform arrangements when it says:

Having a single entity responsible for monitoring, audit and assessment, and knowledge leadership therefore enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of each of the individual activities. This will become even more important in the future as reforms become more difficult.

Which begs the question: if the vast majority of stakeholders rate the work of the commission so highly, then why is the government persisting with its abolition?

The main argument used by the government to justify the actions of the National Water Commission is that it will save money. However, as the Australian Conservation Foundation pointed out in their submission to the inquiry 'the potential savings represent less than 0.0001 per cent of our annual budget'. Surely the care and management of our most precious national resource is worth that much. We also need to look at what we stand to lose with the savings touted by those opposite. On this matter Stormwater Queensland said:

We believe the economic costs of abolishing the [National Water Commission], in terms of inefficient water management, are likely to far outweigh that cost.

The government has said the key functions of the National Water Commission will be carried over to other bodies including ABARES, the Productivity Commission and the Department of the Environment. However, submitters to the inquiry contradict this view. The submissions from the Australian Water Association and the Water Services Association pointed out that the bill transfers only two statutory functions to the Productivity Commission. Similarly, the Australian Conservation Foundation raised concerns in their submission that a number of legislative policy advice functions have not been transferred in the new arrangements.

Another factor to consider is resourcing. We know that the National Water Commission had 41 staff before the budget, but questioning during the hearing revealed that only 12 or 13 of these staff will transfer to the department. Surely, the government cannot really expect us to believe resources can be cut by two-thirds with no loss of output, stringency or depth. We will need to remember that this situation can only be exacerbated by the broad staff cuts that are currently being inflicted on the Public Service. The reality is that the government's argument about cost savings does not stack up. The committee has been told that in fact the opposite is true. We simply cannot afford to drop the ball on water reform now.

Another argument the government has used in its attempt to axe the NWC is that, in the words of Senator Birmingham, 'much of the commission's reform work has already been done'. However, Senator Birmingham's statement is contradicted by the vast majority of expert advice. In fact, the COAG review I mentioned earlier also had a bit to say about the state of water reform in Australia when it said:

The NWI remains a relevant and active reform agenda supported by most stakeholders.

It added:

The elements of the NWI still to be implemented are, by their nature, the more difficult ones and the role that can be played by a specialist and independent body like the NWC is likely to be … more important in the future.

Submitters to the inquiry also concurred with this perspective. On this issue, the Australian Conservation Foundation said:

National water reform, as envisaged under the National Water Initiative is a long term journey. While progress has been made, there is still a long way to go, particularly within the context of changes to the use of water resources in northern Australia.

Submissions from the Australian Water Association, the Water Services Association of Australia and Konfluence noted that the reasons that the Howard government established the NWC are just as relevant today as they were 10 years ago. They also pointed out that a number of new challenges have arisen to make the task even more complex. These include the role of water management in energy production, generation and use of energy in water management, the potential alignment of water, energy and waste services at a retail level, the special issue of water management in northern Australia and balancing the creation of long-lived assets such as desalination plants against short-term affordability issues.

All three submissions also acknowledged the very contemporary issue of water management in the resources sector, especially coal seam gas. And all three submissions echoed the concerns of many when they said that meeting these challenges will be harder 'without national leadership' and could result in 'inferior outcomes for customers, industry and the environment'. The Australian Water Association also saw the need for specific reforms in the areas of water pricing, trading and infrastructure as well as long-term sustainability in urban and rural water use.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists was also very specific in its analysis of the work still to be done and provided the inquiry with a long list of areas where reform is still needed. These included the treatment of extreme events in water plans, improvement and expansion of water markets, integrated management of surface and groundwater, identification of over-allocated systems, environmental watering monitoring, urban and rural water pricing and the impacts of water planning decisions for Indigenous communities. So we can see that there is a clear conflict between the government's claims that reform work is largely complete and the expert testimony that the water reform journey has just begun. Unlike this government, Labor is willing to listen to the experts. And unlike this government, we are not willing to compromise Australia's ability to respond to the ongoing challenges of water reform.

Another concern shared by many of the submitters to the inquiry was that the abolition of the NWC would see a loss of independent oversight of Australia's water arrangements and the National Water Initiative. Submitters recognised the value of an independent body that can provide frank and fearless advice to governments and maintain a long-term perspective that transcends election cycles. On this issue, Environment Centre NT submitted:

Independent Federal oversight of the NWI is required to ensure water resources are far less likely to become depleted, that resource allocation decisions are made under a fair, transparent and informed process.

Importantly, research conducted and funded by the NWC has also been critical to building well-informed decision-making processes around water resource allocation and management.

Many submitters took particular note of the important role the NWC has played in overseeing the actions of the states, which are largely responsible for implementing actions within the National Water Initiative. On this matter, University of New South Wales's Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science, Professor Richard Kingsford, raised concerns about the potential for 'a loss of engagement and accountability of the states and what they are doing'. He went on to say, 'That is my biggest concern about the National Water Initiative'. Interestingly, it was not that long ago that those opposite seemed to agree. In fact, in 2012 Senator Simon Birmingham said the National Water Commission's:

… role in holding the states and the Commonwealth to account for actually delivering on water reform is [vital].

Clearly, the Abbott government is no longer concerned about ensuring accountability, but Labor are, and this is yet another reason we will be opposing this bill.

Another big concern the committee heard with the abolition of the NWC is the enormous amount of knowledge and expertise that we stand to lose. Currently, the National Water Commission Act specifies the areas of high level expertise required by commissioners for appointment, including water resource management; freshwater ecology or hydrology; resource economics; public sector governance; and the audit, evaluation or implementation of programs relating to natural resource management.

The National Farmers Federation called for this expertise requirement to be maintained in the transfer of National Water Commission functions to the Productivity Commission. Sadly, if this bill proceeds, this will not happen and Australia will lose this incredible bank of knowledge and experience. Under questioning, the Productivity Commission conceded that this expertise does not exist within the organisation and would have to be hired in on a needs basis. This is very different from having ongoing in-house expertise that can inform every element of water reform, and Labor does not believe that it is sufficient.

Labor are concerned that if the bill proceeds, Australia will lose this expertise and with it the ability to make the best decisions based on the latest scientific information. As part of this bill, responsibility for assessing progress on the National Water Initiative and for auditing of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as well as monitoring water markets and payments to Basin states would transfer to the Productivity Commission. While no-one would suggest that the Productivity Commission is not an excellent and laudable institution, the inquiry heard many concerns that the NWC role in stakeholder engagement and consultation would be lost if the bill proceeds. Many submitters lauded the success of the NWC's coordination and consultative processes, which have been performed through its stakeholder reference group. And many voiced concerns that the Productivity Commission is not equipped to take on this type of ongoing consultation and engagement.

In this regard, the National Farmers Federation recommended that the Productivity Commission institute a stakeholder reference panel, but, unfortunately, this option is not on the table. Labor is persuaded by the arguments of the NFF and other submitters that the NWC's consultative role is vital and that it will not adequately be supported in the new arrangements.

Another commonly voiced concern with the transfer of functions to the Productivity Commission is that of focus. Many were worried that the Productivity Commission's prime focus on economic factors would see the vitally important social and environmental factors reduced to a lower priority. The National Farmers Federation were particularly concerned about this and recommended in their submission that the Productivity Commission should be required to adopt a triple bottom-line approach to their proposed water functions. Realistically, however, this change will not be made with this bill, and if it is passed the concerns of the NFF will still stand.

One of the only submitters that fully supported the government's proposed abolition of the NWC and associated arrangements was the National Irrigators Council. Unfortunately, many of the concerns raised by this council in its submission actually will not be addressed by this bill. Issues raised are unlikely to be affected at all by the abolition of the National Water Commission.

Labor stand in unity with the vast majority of submitters to the inquiry into this bill that a national, coordinated approach to water reform is needed to deliver on the National Water Initiative. We believe that the National Water Commission provides valuable, frank and independent advice to governments of all persuasions across jurisdictions. We believe that the NWC's level of expertise and role in bringing stakeholders together cannot be lost. We believe the NWC has a proven track record for promoting the need for and benefits of ongoing water reform, and ensuring plans are made to secure Australia's economic future.

We believe this plan threatens the stability, coherence and accountability of Australia's water reform and puts it at serious risk of falling off the agenda entirely. We do not believe that the very small annual saving goes anywhere near compensating the losses that this bill will create in terms of expertise and the fulfilment of other functions. We also believe that for such a small saving, we simply cannot risk the possibility that we will drop the ball on water reform.

Clearly, this amount of money is negligible when compared to the future of water in this country. And, clearly, when this government is willing to spend billions of dollars to pay millionaires to have babies, we can see some seriously twisted priorities at play. As in so many areas, the statements of this government are at a variance with the experts who deal with this issue every day of their professional lives. Again, this government is ignoring the advice of scientists and experts in— (Time expired)