Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments on sheet ZA379 as revised:

(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8), omit "1 January 2015", substitute "the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent".

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 1), insert:

Productivity Commission Act 1998

1A Section 25

  Before "The", insert "(1)".

1B At the end of section 25

  Add:

(2) Despite subsection (1), the Minister must appoint an Associate Commissioner for the purposes of an inquiry on the matter mentioned in subsection 87(1) or (2) or 88(1) or (2) of the Water Act 2007.

(3) An Associate Commissioner appointed under subsection (2) must have extensive skills and experience in water resource management.

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 17), at the end of the heading to subsection 87(3), add "etc.".

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 26), after subsection 87(3), insert:

  (3A) Once the matter has been referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Chair of the Productivity Commission must establish a stakeholder working group in accordance with section 89.

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (line 23), at the end of the heading to subsection 88(3), add "etc.".

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (after line 3), after subsection 88(3), insert:

  (3A) Once the matter has been referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Chair of the Productivity Commission must establish a stakeholder working group in accordance with section 89.

Regard to be had to objectives of National Water Initiative

  (3B) When conducting an inquiry, the Productivity Commission must have regard to the objectives provided for in clause 23 of the National Water Initiative.

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (after line 14), at the end of Part 3, add:

89 Stakeholder working group

(1) A stakeholder working group is to be established for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry (a referred matter).

(2) A stakeholder working group for a referred matter:

  (a) is to exchange information and views on the referred matter or any issues relevant to it; and

  (b) may provide advice to the Productivity Commission on the referred matter or any issues relevant to it.

(3) A stakeholder working group for a referred matter is to consist of such persons as the Chair of the Productivity Commission thinks fit who are representative of any:

  (a) agricultural, environmental, industry, Indigenous or urban water body; or

  (b) other body with an interest in the referred matter.

(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), the Chair of the Productivity Commission may determine:

  (a) any allowances that are payable to a member of a stakeholder working group in relation to his or her contribution as a member of the stakeholder working group; and

  (b) any other matter relating to the functioning of a stakeholder working group.

(5) Despite the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, a member of a stakeholder working group is not to be paid any remuneration in relation to his or her contribution as a member of the stakeholder working group.

(6) A stakeholder working group for a referred matter must meet at least twice about the referred matter before the Productivity Commission submits its report on the matter to the Productivity Minister.

(7) To avoid doubt, a member of a stakeholder working group is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (line 6), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of final reporting period, substitute:

  (b) ending at the end of the day occurring before the transition time.

Also I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to these government amendments.

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

I am sorry, I did not see the amendments circulated.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendments have been circulated, Senator Rhiannon. We can get a copy to you.

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

Can the minister just outline them briefly—which he was probably going to do—so we have got some clarity?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Rhiannon. I call the minister.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon and senators, of course, this debate has recommenced from earlier sessions, and these amendments were circulated in earlier sessions. So I appreciate they may not be the top of the pile of papers on your desks. But they certainly are available to all senators and have been circulated previously.

These amendments are a result of some constructive discussions with various crossbenchers, and I thank the various crossbenchers for their assistance and cooperation in the discussion on this legislation. It is important, given that a summing-up speech was not given by the government in relation to this legislation, to emphasise once again that the abolition of the National Water Commission is in no way changing or varying the government's commitment to water reform in Australia or the government's commitment to seeing the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time. It is simply about ensuring the delivery of that plan and about ensuring that the application of water reform in Australia occurs in the most efficient way possible. It is the government's view that the expense and cost of having an additional, stand-alone statutory authority is unnecessary, that its key functions in terms of undertaking the assessments on the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the assessment on the implementation of the National Water Initiative can be done in alternative ways without having that stand-alone entity.

These amendments that are before the chamber strengthen some of the consultation provisions and some of the arrangements for the conduct of those inquiries. To take the Senate through them, as Senator Rhiannon has requested, we have some additional requirements to the legislation that require the appointment of an Associate Commissioner for the purposes particularly of the Water Act and that that commissioner must have extensive skills and experience in water resource management. That is ensuring that when the triennial assessment against the National Water Initiative is undertaken we actually have in place appropriate arrangements whereby there is an expert as part of that assessment process in the Productivity Commission. There are some further changes that ensure that a stakeholder reference group is established within the Productivity Commission to, again, add expertise and make sure that the Productivity Commission is well placed to undertake a full, thorough and proper assessment of the application of the National Water Initiative.

There are some further and similar amendments, most of which are more procedural in their matters, about the establishment of the state border reference group and what its composition will be, ensuring of course that people from agriculture, industry, the environment, Indigenous communities, urban water and other interested parties will form part of that stakeholder reference group. So, really, these amendments are simply strengthening the provisions in the bill to ensure that we have proper ongoing consideration of assessments around the National Water Initiatives and make sure that the Productivity Commission is well placed to do so. I am sure and I hope and trust that all senators, regardless of their views in relation to the overall legislation, would see these as being sensible amendments that strengthen the provisions in the bill.

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

I indicate that I did not get an opportunity—and I bear responsibility for this—to speak on the second reading stages of the bill. I can indicate that I voted against this bill because I think when it comes to issues of water it is worth having a specialist body, such as the National Water Commission, to focus solely on these issues, rather than having them wrapped in with the Productivity Commission. Even though I have a lot of regard for the Productivity Commission, I think that having a specialist body with that level of knowledge is absolutely desirable and preferable to having this being rolled into the Productivity Commission. It raises issues of whether there will be sufficient time, in Senate estimates for instance, for the Productivity Commission's proposed new role to be adequately ventilated and be subjected to adequate questioning.

The National Water Commission did perform a lot of valuable work, and it still performs that work even though it has been effectively gutted through its funding being taken away. But it played a role in terms of water savings, re-use strategies and technology. Stormwater harvesting is another issue that I feel very passionately about. I know that Senator Rhiannon has a particular interest in that. I think it is important to have a body that is robustly independent and can fearlessly say to any government of any persuasion that you are going down the wrong path in relation to a water strategy. I cannot see that the Productivity Commission, as good and as capable as they are, will see itself as having the role of being a robust advocate for policy concerns in the water sphere. I remember that when I was elected to this place South Australia was in the middle of one of its worst droughts, as was much the of the nation. The Murray was little more than a creek and river banks were collapsing on themselves. It was an absolute crisis. I know that Senator Birmingham, the minister back then, was also a passionate advocate for a solution for the River Murray. I saw the National Water Commission as playing an integral role—being a watchdog in a sense. I think we will lose that with respect to this particular bill. We need a national independent body to monitor and oversee water use, a body that takes the issue out of the hands of the states and treats our national resource as just that: a national resource.

I am concerned about these changes. I met with the parliamentary secretary, Mr Baldwin, two nights ago, and I do acknowledge that the government has attempted to deal with some of these concerns. I appreciate the time and the effort Mr Baldwin and the minister have made on this, but I still think it is a second-best solution to having a strong and robust National Water Commission in the scheme of managing this nation's water policy.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition does not support these amendments, just as we do not support the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014, in its entirety, because as we have outlined it is lazy and short-sighted and I think these amendments are a cynical last-minute attempt to gain support for a dud policy. They do not go anywhere near far enough to ensure that the Productivity Commission can retain the value of the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission, as has been outlined by my Senate colleagues on this side of the chamber, particularly just recently by Senator McEwen, is an independent, expert authority whose work has not been completed, because water reform in this country has not been completed. But the government seems to be bent on getting rid of independent, expert authorities, be it the Climate Commission and now the National Water Commission. It is incredibly short-sighted.

Appointing an associate commissioner in this amendment, with expertise in water management, would of course add value to its work in water, should the National Water Commission be abolished. We acknowledge that. Also, binding the Productivity Commission to convening a stakeholder working group would also lend greater credibility to its work on water management. But these amendments really are just window dressing. They are a last-minute attempt to gain some support for this policy, which is just so incredibly short-sighted, when water reform in this country has not been completed.

We know that this commission was an initiative established by John Howard to deliver the National Water Initiative. The coalition government are now walking away from that initiative that was set up by the then Liberal coalition government. It is a little hypocritical, it threatens all of the progress that the National Water Initiative has gained and it betrays stakeholders who depend on effective national water reform in this country. For all of those reasons, the opposition will not be supporting these amendments.

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

The Greens do not support the amendments in the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014. The amendments do not improve the situation. We need to remember that this legislation is about removing the National Water Commission and that once the legislation has gone through that body is gone. The amendments that we now have before us to the Productivity Commission are not a saviour in any way at all, and that is what we need to be focusing on in this aspect of the debate. We are about to lose a body that has great expertise, that brings the independence that is so critically needed to something that is so fundamental to this country and to this continent—a very dry continent. We have heard many speakers in the second reading debate refer to the challenges with el Nino that are possibly coming on. Individual farmers are experiencing drought. Some of the National Party members are speaking about these issues regularly, and here we have a situation where National Party members will be voting with the Liberal Party to ditch this most important body that is not favouring any side of politics—but it is needed for our economy, our environment, our livelihood, for the very way our rural areas work and for how we protect the environment. It is right across so many areas.

That is why it is worth reminding ourselves of what will be lost—like the Murray-Darling Basin plan, which is not completed yet, and which is critical to Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia. That work will continue, but it is a reminder of why we need the National Water Commission in so many areas—particularly in New South Wales, which I obviously know well, as I come from there, but increasingly in other states. Conflicts between mining, development, farming, local environment protection are very challenging issues for our governments to work out. For us as lawmakers, this is where this body is so urgently needed. What possessed the government to come up with this legislation? Let us remember where it comes from. It comes out of the very ugly 2014 budget—a budget that will go down in the history of budgets. When else have we had a budget that people talked about for a whole year? The moves by the government to get rid of the National Water Commission is again an attempt to save money, which is one of the key aspects of this legislation. That is where this bill has come from.

On the second day after the 2015 budget came down, surely this government should have come to its senses. They remembered a few things in the budget that were bad news for the people of Australia and shifted away from them to some extent. Surely this should be one item that is put into the basket of 'we will just rescue that from the 2014 budget, and we will not pursue it', because the National Water Commission is our only independent body that oversees water policies in this country. That is what we are about to lose. Again, I would remind you that these amendments add nothing. They do not retrieve the situation at all. It is an enormous setback. It is a setback for our country and it is obviously a setback for wise water policies. But I would say it is particularly a setback for people in rural communities. That is where lack of water hits first, and hits hard.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to comment in relation to a few points made by the previous contributors. Firstly, I think it is quite irrational of the Labor Party and the Greens to oppose these amendments. As I said in moving them, I respect the right of those other senators who wish to oppose the bill to oppose the bill. But these amendments, should this bill be passed, will strengthen arrangements in the future, which I would have thought would have been welcomed by all senators. In fact Senator Singh, in her contribution, said that the establishment of an associate commissioner for the purposes of undertaking the inquiries 'would add value'. Senator Singh said that the establishment of the stakeholder working group proposed by these amendments 'would lend greater credibility'. If they are going to add value and lend greater credibility, why would you vote against the amendments? You can still maintain your position of opposition to the overall package, but these amendments will strengthen the package if it goes through. Frankly, I think it is irresponsible of Labor and the Greens to be opposing amendments that clearly make sense and clearly will ensure that, should this bill pass, there will be better arrangements in the future. In effect, by voting against these amendments they are saying: 'Should the bill pass, we want weaker arrangements in the future.' That is a very foolish position to take in terms of being constructive in the development of legislation in this chamber.

More generally, Senator Singh noted that the National Water Commission was established under the Howard government. That is correct. It was also established with a sunset clause and a provision at the time; it was never envisaged that it would be an entity there forever. It was always recognised that as an entity it had some particular roles to be undertaken and that in time, as the skills and establishment of water architecture and policy at the Commonwealth level further developed through the water reform process, there may be better and more efficient ways to have the jobs of the National Water Commission undertaken. I think it is important to remind senators that we do have an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority that will continue to do its jobs, one of which is managing the overall operations of the Murray-Darling river system. The other job it does is the development and management of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It still does those two jobs, quite clearly, and will continue to do so under these reforms.

In relation to some broader water policy issues, we have an independent expert scientific committee that provides advice to government on water issues in relation to matters like coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. It is an independent body providing advice to government and it will continue its operation.

The Department of Environment continues their work, particularly in the recovery of water, in relation to meeting the objects of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is important for all senators and those listening to this debate to understand that the National Water Commission did not develop the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and does not recover the water under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. All it does in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is undertake a five-early assessment of compliance against it. The government's assessment is that that work, along with the work in relation to the three-yearly assessment of the National Water Initiative, can be undertaken more efficiently by having the Productivity Commission do it, instead of having a separate body, with all of the overheads and costs in place. We think the Productivity Commission is well placed to do so. They have done previous reports in relation to water policy, including during the life of the National Water Commission. The Productivity Commission, as it currently stands, even without the amendments proposed, has a very strong expertise in relation to water policy.

Mr Harris, the chairman of the Productivity Commission, has noted in correspondence with some of the crossbenchers that both he and Daryl Quinlivan, the head of office at the commission, were previous commissioners of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and have a strong interest in water policy as a result of that work. Other members of the commission's executive have also worked on water policy in the past, and are therefore well placed to approach these tasks with a good knowledge base and a strong professional interest.

But we have acknowledged that we can strengthen the Productivity Commission's capacity to do this. We are, of course, funding them to do this work in the future. The amendments before us strengthen their capacity to do this work by providing for the appointment of the associate commissioner, who will have extensive skills and experience in water resource management. Complementing that work of the associate commissioner and the Productivity Commission in general, we require the establishment of a stakeholder reference working group, which will provide for a raft of other skills and experience to come in. Frankly, it will probably lead to a more independent, more robust and more consultative arrangement, as these reviews are undertaken, than we have through the existing framework.

I commend the amendments to the Senate. I am confident that what we will see is a robust and independent framework in future, that will ensure that we get on with the job of delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time, and that we ultimately have in place arrangements that provide for strong and robust critiquing of water policy around Australia, as we currently have, in the same time frames as we currently have, just in a more efficient manner.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put a question to Senator Birmingham, but firstly I cannot let that go. He is trying to justify these amendments by saying that the opposition is somehow weakening the government's own bill through not supporting these amendments. It is, in fact, the government that is weakening water reform in this country by having this bill pass in this place. It is certainly not the opposition who want to weaken water reform; in fact, we want to continue to strengthen water reform and we support the National Water Initiative through the continuation of the National Water Commission, because we know the work of the National Water Initiative—carried out by this independent expert body—has not been completed.

It was in fact former prime minister John Howard who saw the need to establish this National Water Commission to fulfil this task of water reform. So it is not, in any way whatsoever, the opposition that is weakening the water initiatives in this country; the government is weakening them by putting forward an abolition bill which gets rid of the National Water Commission.

I ask the minister, in light of the fact that the National Water Initiative has the task of water reform—and the National Water Commission is intrinsic in carrying out that role—and in light of the fact that that is not completed, what is the justification, other than this word of 'efficiency'? This would mean a saving of only .0001 per cent of its expenditure in the forward estimates.

How can you justify abolishing this independent expert body? Without it the future of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be continued to be threatened and our water resources will be left worse off. How can you justify its abolition, when your former prime minister John Howard saw the need to set it up to ensure that water initiatives and water reforms were carried out in this country?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in relation to Senator Singh's preamble, I will let others form a judgement on the basis of Senator Singh's trying to justify why it is that she and the Labor Party are voting against amendments that she says, in her own words, would add value and lend greater credibility. They were her words. She says the amendments would add value and lend greater credibility but she is going to vote against those amendments. It is a nonsensical position but others can form their own judgements; I will not re-litigate the arguments, there.

In relation to Senator Singh's overall question, 'Why do this?' as a government we believe that if you can get things done more efficiently it is worth doing so. The budget savings from this measure amount to around $20 million. I am sorry that Senator Singh does not think that $20 million of taxpayers' money is worth saving if you can save it. We on this side of the house do believe it is worth saving if you can save it. We do not believe that $20 million is inconsequential. It may only be a small fraction of the enormous scale of government expenditure that occurs each year, but it is still $20 million. It is still $20 million that taxpayers are paying for or that we have to borrow, sadly, in our current deficit situation. So we believe it is well worth saving. But we are doing so in a manner that we think is completely responsible.

We are not saving all of the costs associated with the National Water Commission; we are, instead, directing funding from National Water Commission appropriations to the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture and the Productivity Commission so that the various important functions that we value in the National Water Commission can be continued into the future

The funding required to undertake the work has been redirected to other agencies to ensure that work is undertaken whilst getting the savings that we can without jeopardising the quality of the work in place.

Senator Singh can claim time and time again that, somehow, the loss of the National Water Commission will endanger delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I am yet to hear any evidence that demonstrates how that could be the case. Ultimately, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, approved by this parliament, and delivered through the work, largely, of the Department of the Environment working with the states. It is the Department of the Environment that undertakes all of the water-recovery activities associated with delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The National Water Commission did not develop the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It does not do work in implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Its role is to undertake a five-yearly assessment of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That five-yearly assessment will still be undertaken every five years by the Productivity Commission instead.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (8) on revised sheet ZA379 moved by the minister now be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.