|
representatives vote 2023-10-18#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-27 18:34:47
|
Title
Bills — Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Report to parliament each year
Description
<p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>I rise in consideration of this, particularly around schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, which are the most egregious, the most damaging and the most traumatic to regional communities up and down the basin. They go to buybacks. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 tears at the very heart of the bipartisan support that was given to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2012, designed by the Labor Party, designed and accepted by both sides of the House. As hard as it was for us in regional and rural Australia, we accepted that something needed to be done. And we have done something. We have recovered over 2,100 gigalitres of the 2,750 gigalitres that are required to complete the plan, but we were doing that with common sense and we were doing that with infrastructure, being able to return that to the environment.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.21.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie), which means it will be included in the bill.
- ### What does the amendment do?
- Ms Sharkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.21.1):
- > *The reason for this amendment is really around transparency and accountability. This amendment will require the minister to come into the parliament each financial year and explain to the parliament and to the nation exactly where we are with respect to the 450 gigalitres and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in general.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 29), after item 20, insert:*
- >
- > *21 After Division 4 of Part 2*
- >
- > *Insert:*
- >
- > *Division 4A — Annual progress reports relating to water recovery targets*
- >
- > *85AB Secretary to prepare annual reports*
- >
- > *(1) The Secretary must prepare an annual report on the activities undertaken for the purpose of making progress towards the following:*
- >
- >> *(a) increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres;*
- >>
- >> *(b) the Commonwealth's water recovery target in relation to SDL resource units (as defined in the Basin Plan);*
- >>
- >> *(c) projects that relate to adjustments of long-term average sustainable diversion limits under section 23A;*
- >>
- >> *(d) any other matter specified by the Minister in writing.*
- >
- > *(2) The Secretary must prepare a report under subsection (1) in relation to:*
- >
- >> *(a) the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023; and*
- >>
- >> *(b) each subsequent financial year up to and including the financial year beginning on 1 July 2027.*
- >
- > *(3) The Secretary must provide each report under subsection (1) in relation to a financial year to the Minister by 30 October in the following financial year.*
- >
- > *(4) The Minister must cause a copy of each report under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.*
<p>The minister interjects and says we weren't doing that. Well, I don't know where she was for a couple of years when COVID was on—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The Leader of the Nationals will pause. This is not a general debate. I ask you to be specific, not stray into second reading amendment territory.</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>I will clarify. I am talking about schedules 1 and 2, and I made that very clear when I sought the call. They go to buybacks and the reason why we don't need buybacks. I am, I believe, being relevant to what I am actually contesting here.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The Leader of the Nationals has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>Thank you. This is important. This goes to the very heart of what Labor has done. They have torn up the fact that we were going to get away from buybacks because they destroy the communities. The farmers might get the money, but it's the communities that are left behind. The irrigation shops, the machinery dealers and even the hairdressers are the ones that see that these communities are being ripped up. I've seen them in my electorate: the little towns like Dirranbandi and St George. This is nasty ideology that goes to the very heart of tearing up regional Australia.</p><p>You couldn't even wait for a Senate inquiry to complete going through the details, understanding the impacts of what this will do to these communities and why buybacks are so detrimental to these communities. You did not even give the respect of going out and talking to these very communities to understand the detrimental impacts this is having not just financially but emotionally. I have had people in my arms crying about losing their very businesses because of water buybacks, because of the destruction of their towns, but this reckless, nasty ideology that will just destroy regional communities is without any understanding and proper process even of wanting to understand and listen to these communities about. The buybacks that they will go towards in adding an additional 450 gigalitres on top of the plan will put sheer destruction through these communities, but there is not even the respect to understand that and go out and listen to these communities.</p><p>We were completing this plan with infrastructure and that has been delayed because of this little thing called COVID. There was no need to rush back into buybacks; we just needed to allow the states to build that infrastructure. I do acknowledge that government does want to extend that time for those infrastructure projects to be complete—and in a bipartisan way. It was me when I was minister, with the member for Watson, who was the shadow, that we got through the sustainable diversion limit legislation that allowed that to happen so that infrastructure could be used, not buybacks. Buybacks just don't make sense.</p><p>This has simply been about ideological views trying to tear up a bipartisan approach to what is not just important to the environment but important to our people. For those three million that live up and down the basin, their future has just been ripped away with the stroke of a pen by reckless ideology. Their peoples' future has been destroyed, and not even with a show of respect to turn up. This was a bipartisan plan. We were achieving it. We should be proud of what we have achieved. We should stick to the principles that we had when we all entered into this in 2012. They deviated from it for simple political gain, in one city alone, just for those that live in Adelaide. But, for the rest of this nation, you will also pay this bill, because your cost of living will go up. If you take away the tools that farmers need, then you will pay that consequence. This is reckless, nasty policy. This will be a dark day for every community up and down the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a day that we lost bipartisanship on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and that stands squarely at your feet.</p> <p class="speaker">Rebekha Sharkie</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 29), after item 20, insert:</p><p class="italic">21 After Division 4 of Part 2</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">Division 4A — Annual progress reports relating to water recovery targets</p><p class="italic">85AB Secretary to prepare annual reports</p><p class="italic">(1) The Secretary must prepare an annual report on the activities undertaken for the purpose of making progress towards the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres;</p><p class="italic">(b) the Commonwealth's water recovery target in relation to SDL resource units (as defined in the Basin Plan);</p><p class="italic">(c) projects that relate to adjustments of long-term average sustainable diversion limits under section 23A;</p><p class="italic">(d) any other matter specified by the Minister in writing.</p><p class="italic">(2) The Secretary must prepare a report under subsection (1) in relation to:</p><p class="italic">(a) the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023; and</p><p class="italic">(b) each subsequent financial year up to and including the financial year beginning on 1 July 2027.</p><p class="italic">(3) The Secretary must provide each report under subsection (1) in relation to a financial year to the Minister by 30 October in the following financial year.</p><p class="italic">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of each report under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.</p><p>The reason for this amendment is really around transparency and accountability. This amendment will require the minister to come into the parliament each financial year and explain to the parliament and to the nation exactly where we are with respect to the 450 gigalitres and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in general. I respect every member's position in this place. I also have the very end of the river—I have the most vulnerable part of the river—and we need to ensure that this river is healthy for future generations. So, to all members who are interested in accountability and who are interested in transparency, I would appreciate if you would support this amendment. Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael McCormack</p><p>Consideration in detail, schedules 1 and 2—this is bad policy.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The member for Riverina, you are entitled to speak on this regarding Ms Sharkie's amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael McCormack</p><p>I'll speak to the amendments, and the amendments include buybacks. The amendments include—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. The amendment that we're dealing with before the House is schedule 1, page 10, line 29, after item 20, regarding annual progress reports. It is not about buybacks; this is a detailed amendment about what has been moved before the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael McCormack</p><p>Annual progress reports also affect buybacks. They do. They go to the point where the buybacks that are going to be put into place, which are unnecessary, will be part of what the member for Mayo's amendment includes. Yes, we all want progress as to where we are, and we would all like to see annual updates. But those annual updates should not include amounts of water taken unfairly out of the river communities, out of the productive communities, out of those communities which grow food. As the Nationals leader has just clearly enunciated, this is nasty policy, this is lazy policy and this is typical Labor policy. We were in process—we were in progress, and you can—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The member for Riverina will resume his seat. The contents of this debate are specifically, under the standing orders, regarding the specific amendments about financial reports. I know where he is going with this, and I'm trying to be reasonable, but, under the standing orders, he can't talk about history or other topics. This is specifically about what is before the House in this amendment, which is quite narrow. The member for Riverina has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael McCormack</p><p>With all due respect to you, they are annual progress reports on buybacks. The annual progress reports will include an annual update on water taken out of the productive system, which is code for 'buybacks'—which is buybacks.</p><p>Well, it's projects. Thank you, water minister. It is projects which were in place. It's progress and projects which were in place with the neutrality test and which were in place with the clear say-so of states which the former government was working with very closely—Labor states included, noting very carefully and in a very considered way that Victoria is not part of the plans that are in place to change the entire Murray-Darling Basin Plan. A Labor state!</p><p>Yes, we want progress. We do want progress reports. We do want updates, but we don't want to see updates on water buybacks because we don't want to see buybacks. That's because buybacks are going to take more productive water. When we have a cost-of-living crisis, we do not want to see everyday, ordinary Australians and families paying more at the checkout for their fresh food and groceries. That's what will happen. The member for Lyons can shake his head all he likes, but that is what will happen. When you take more productive water out of the system, the price of food will go up. And the buybacks will see, yes, farmers selling their water.</p><p>Once the Commonwealth enters the water market, it distorts the price of water. The price of water goes up and everybody suffers. They sincerely do. Farmers take the money and run, and they leave communities like Jerilderie, Cobram, Griffith, Narrandera, Leeton, Coleambally and Whitton, where the Indigenous affairs minister is from. She would well know how important this is to a community such as Whitton, in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. We don't want to see those effects on communities which are already crippled by hardships and which are still getting over the last drought. Let me tell you: this will cause another drought—a man-made drought. A drought will be brought on by none other than the member for Sydney, the water minister. This is so unnecessary. Yes, progress reports are important, but buybacks should not be part of the current or future Basin Plan.</p> <p class="speaker">Elizabeth Watson-Brown</p><p>While there are some amendments that we do support in principle, the Greens will be abstaining on amendments to the restoring our rivers bill in the House as a Senate inquiry into this bill is ongoing. We'll be reserving our position for the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>Are the progress reports going to talk about the progress—or otherwise—of regional towns? Are the progress reports going to give reference to the fact that, especially for Indigenous people in towns that the member for Maranoa knows very well, such as Dirranbandi and St George, the greatest mechanism for social advancement surrounds the irrigation industry? I remember that in Dirranbandi I saw progress. I sold my house to an Aboriginal family. The pub next door—the best pub—was owned by an Aboriginal family. This was the progress—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! The Member for New England, this is clearly entering into a policy debate. I want to state to all members: this is a technical debate. This is not a general debate. We've had that. Under the standing orders, if the member continues and doesn't refer to the actual amendment and the clauses within the specific amendment regarding annual reports, regarding the secretary of the department, regarding subsection (1), regarding the financial years and subsequent financial years—you can't simply continue to talk about general issues.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|