Division Description Changes — Bills — Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019; in Committee — 24th Jul 2019

Change	Division
senate vote 2019-07-24#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2019-08-29 17:10:52	Title Bills — Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019; in Committee Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - Accountability measures Description ~~<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p>~~ ~~<p>I want to start with a question to the minister about how much the Drought Resilience Funding Plan that's going to be set up under this bill is acknowledging the reality of our climate crisis.</p>~~ <p>I had a read through the explanatory memorandum and, essentially, we're in a situation where drought is the new reality that we're dealing with because of our climate crisis. Hotter, drier climates are a reality. Minister, you yourself said in your closing statement that we are suffering through years of unrelenting drought. This is the new reality. We have got hotter, drier climates. That means less water. That means any drought fund, any projects, have to deal with the reality of: this is what climate change is imposing upon the Australian environment. And so, clearly, what we need to do is say: 'Right, this is the new reality, and these hotter and drier conditions are going to continue and they're going to get worse. Hopefully, we'll be able to do something about mitigating the climate change and reducing how much worse it gets. But hotter and drier climates are a reality. That means less water—less water across the board, less water for our agriculture and less water for our environment.'</p> The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.21.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens), which means they failed. The amendments would have [introduced accountability measures](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.21.1). <p>To our Greens' eyes, this means that any money that you're spending, any fund that you're setting up, has got to start with its bottom line acknowledging that reality and then work out what needs to be done to support farming and regional communities to deal with this new reality—supporting them and supporting agricultural businesses to use less water, building resilience and supporting regenerative agriculture. In particular, with this being the new reality, there is less water to go around and agriculture needs to use less water because the environment's got to have some left for it. We've got to have water for our natural ecosystems, for our rivers and streams, for the ecosystem services that we all rely on—the health of our rivers and streams, and healthy wetlands and estuaries.</p> ~~<p>So, Minister, is this fund actually going to start with the bottom line of the whole underlying philosophy behind this drought plan dealing with the fact that we are in a climate crisis?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p>~~ <p>As I indicated in my summing-up speech, this fund, once legislated and established, will generate $100 million of additional investment in initiatives, measures and projects to improve drought resilience and preparedness across impacted rural and regional communities. This comes on top of a whole series of other measures that we've previously announced as a government, $2 billion worth of additional measures to support farmers and regional communities in drought affected areas.</p> <p>In relation to the way the funding will be allocated under this fund, the governance framework for funding decisions under the Future Drought Fund is robust and transparent, noting particularly the requirements for extensive public consultation in developing the overarching drought resilience funding plan and consideration of independent experts' advice before allocating funds. The funding plan will be informed by advice from the expert consultative committee which will be established by the Future Drought Fund Bill. The committee will also advise whether the proposed design of Future Drought Fund programs are consistent with the funding plan.</p> <p>The Productivity Commission will conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of each funding plan before it expires, including having regard to economic, social and environmental outcomes. Further, all funding decisions must be consistent with the drought resilience funding plan and informed by advice from the Regional Investment Corporation. Programs to be supported under the plan will require approval through the annual budget processes, and funding for projects will be required to comply with Commonwealth procurement rules. These governance arrangements are consistent with similar arrangements for the Medical Research Future Fund and will help ensure that we achieve the policy outcomes that we are setting out to achieve.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p>~~ <p>Minister, you didn't answer my question as to whether acknowledgement that we are in a climate crisis—the new reality of less water and hotter and drier conditions—will fundamentally be the underpinning philosophy this drought fund will be based on. I'm asking this question because the evidence I see in this chamber on a daily basis is that this government does not acknowledge that we're in a climate crisis and, basically, the way of dealing with drought is to try and work out how you can squeeze more water out of already overstressed systems.</p> <p>Can you give me any assurance at all that the new reality—as the Bureau of Meteorology says and as all of the technical and scientific advice tells us—of this drought fund will be in the context of climates right across the country that are hotter and drier, which means that to deal with our water sustainably we need to use less water?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p>~~ <p>I don't agree, the government doesn't agree and, in fact, the Senate doesn't agree with your proposition of what the underpinning philosophy of this Future Drought Fund should be. As you know, your colleague Senator Whish-Wilson moved a second reading amendment that goes to the issue you raised. That was comprehensively rejected by the Senate. It was a very strong vote. Indeed, I believe that everyone other than the Greens political party voted against the proposition that you have now, again, sought to pursue.</p> <p>The principle underpinning this measure, from the government's point of view and, I believe, from the overwhelming majority of senators' points of view, is that we want to provide additional support to drought affected regional communities in a fiscally sustainable fashion. This will be done by generating a regular and reliable funding stream that can be used to help fund projects that improve drought resilience and preparedness in drought affected communities. This comes on top of other measures the government has already put in place with bipartisan support. I readily acknowledge and concede that point. But the government doesn't agree with the underpinning philosophy that you assert this measure should be, and the Senate doesn't agree with you.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Janet Rice~~
~~I want to start with a question to the minister about how much the Drought Resilience Funding Plan that's going to be set up under this bill is acknowledging the reality of our climate crisis.~~
I had a read through the explanatory memorandum and, essentially, we're in a situation where drought is the new reality that we're dealing with because of our climate crisis. Hotter, drier climates are a reality. Minister, you yourself said in your closing statement that we are suffering through years of unrelenting drought. This is the new reality. We have got hotter, drier climates. That means less water. That means any drought fund, any projects, have to deal with the reality of: this is what climate change is imposing upon the Australian environment. And so, clearly, what we need to do is say: 'Right, this is the new reality, and these hotter and drier conditions are going to continue and they're going to get worse. Hopefully, we'll be able to do something about mitigating the climate change and reducing how much worse it gets. But hotter and drier climates are a reality. That means less water—less water across the board, less water for our agriculture and less water for our environment.'
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.21.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens), which means they failed. The amendments would have [introduced accountability measures](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.21.1).
To our Greens' eyes, this means that any money that you're spending, any fund that you're setting up, has got to start with its bottom line acknowledging that reality and then work out what needs to be done to support farming and regional communities to deal with this new reality—supporting them and supporting agricultural businesses to use less water, building resilience and supporting regenerative agriculture. In particular, with this being the new reality, there is less water to go around and agriculture needs to use less water because the environment's got to have some left for it. We've got to have water for our natural ecosystems, for our rivers and streams, for the ecosystem services that we all rely on—the health of our rivers and streams, and healthy wetlands and estuaries.
~~So, Minister, is this fund actually going to start with the bottom line of the whole underlying philosophy behind this drought plan dealing with the fact that we are in a climate crisis?~~
~~Mathias Cormann~~
As I indicated in my summing-up speech, this fund, once legislated and established, will generate $100 million of additional investment in initiatives, measures and projects to improve drought resilience and preparedness across impacted rural and regional communities. This comes on top of a whole series of other measures that we've previously announced as a government, $2 billion worth of additional measures to support farmers and regional communities in drought affected areas.
In relation to the way the funding will be allocated under this fund, the governance framework for funding decisions under the Future Drought Fund is robust and transparent, noting particularly the requirements for extensive public consultation in developing the overarching drought resilience funding plan and consideration of independent experts' advice before allocating funds. The funding plan will be informed by advice from the expert consultative committee which will be established by the Future Drought Fund Bill. The committee will also advise whether the proposed design of Future Drought Fund programs are consistent with the funding plan.
The Productivity Commission will conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of each funding plan before it expires, including having regard to economic, social and environmental outcomes. Further, all funding decisions must be consistent with the drought resilience funding plan and informed by advice from the Regional Investment Corporation. Programs to be supported under the plan will require approval through the annual budget processes, and funding for projects will be required to comply with Commonwealth procurement rules. These governance arrangements are consistent with similar arrangements for the Medical Research Future Fund and will help ensure that we achieve the policy outcomes that we are setting out to achieve.
~~Janet Rice~~
Minister, you didn't answer my question as to whether acknowledgement that we are in a climate crisis—the new reality of less water and hotter and drier conditions—will fundamentally be the underpinning philosophy this drought fund will be based on. I'm asking this question because the evidence I see in this chamber on a daily basis is that this government does not acknowledge that we're in a climate crisis and, basically, the way of dealing with drought is to try and work out how you can squeeze more water out of already overstressed systems.
Can you give me any assurance at all that the new reality—as the Bureau of Meteorology says and as all of the technical and scientific advice tells us—of this drought fund will be in the context of climates right across the country that are hotter and drier, which means that to deal with our water sustainably we need to use less water?
~~Mathias Cormann~~
I don't agree, the government doesn't agree and, in fact, the Senate doesn't agree with your proposition of what the underpinning philosophy of this Future Drought Fund should be. As you know, your colleague Senator Whish-Wilson moved a second reading amendment that goes to the issue you raised. That was comprehensively rejected by the Senate. It was a very strong vote. Indeed, I believe that everyone other than the Greens political party voted against the proposition that you have now, again, sought to pursue.
The principle underpinning this measure, from the government's point of view and, I believe, from the overwhelming majority of senators' points of view, is that we want to provide additional support to drought affected regional communities in a fiscally sustainable fashion. This will be done by generating a regular and reliable funding stream that can be used to help fund projects that improve drought resilience and preparedness in drought affected communities. This comes on top of other measures the government has already put in place with bipartisan support. I readily acknowledge and concede that point. But the government doesn't agree with the underpinning philosophy that you assert this measure should be, and the Senate doesn't agree with you.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~