|
senate vote 2013-02-06#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-31 12:00:53
|
Title
Bills — Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012; in Committee- Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Up to 450 Gigalitres
Description
<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1), (4) and (5) on sheet 7315 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 37), after "by", insert "at least".</p>- The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-02-06.52.1 Nationals amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Barnaby_Joyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Barnaby Joyce], the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate.
- This amendment replaces the wording of paragraph 86AA(3)(b) of the bill from "increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres" to "increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by up to 450 gigalitres". This amendment would reverse the effects of a previous amendment in the House of Representatives.[1]
- Senator Joyce argued that re-adding in the words "up to" would ensure that "we are not going to be tying people into an outcome which the reality is we do not have the money for".[2]
- Background to the bill
- The bill[3] was introduced to establish an Environment Special Account to fund projects that protect and restore environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) and protect water dependent biodiversity of the MDB.[4] The projects will include those that increase the available environmental water in the MDB by 450 Gigalitres.
- References
- * [1] This amendment is available [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2012-11-28&number=2&dmp=15&house=representatives here].
- * [2] Read the whole of Senator Joyce's contribution here and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-06.6.1 here]. The amendment is referred to as Nationals amendment number (1) on sheet 7337 and was discussed from 11:39 am.
- * [3] A copy of the bill, its explanatory memoranda and amendments are available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4925 here].
- * [4] Read more about the bill in this [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2073890/upload_binary/2073890.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (696 KB).
-
<p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (line 20), after "by", insert "at least".</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (line 34), after "by", insert "at least".</p><p>These amendments relate to the volume of water to be reclaimed for environmental use and are identical to the first amendment of Senator Hanson-Young. Currently the bill states a flat amount of 450 gigalitres. These items will amend the bill to state that 450 gigalitres is a minimum figure. This will give the account more flexibility and will emphasise the fact that it is vital that the greatest amount of water possible is set aside for environmental use. This amendment is also inspired by the wastage we have seen in other infrastructure funds where only a small number of projects have been approved and water returns have been smaller than expected. Last night I made reference to the fact that the Australian National Audit Office, the office of the Commonwealth Auditor-General, has been very critical of some infrastructure programs in terms of their effectiveness and the processes by which they have been approved. These amendments ensure that the object of the account is to increase the volume of water for environmental use by gigalitres, but that figure is the baseline and not the ultimate goal. It is about having a greater degree of transparency, of accountability and efficiency in terms of water being returned to the environment.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>The question is that amendments (1), (4) and (5) on sheet 7315 moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>If I may, I just indicate that I am grateful for the support of the Australian Greens given for the last question. They seem to have been my only colleagues to have supported it. I want, on the record, to save the Senate time in respect of another division.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Xenophon. We will now move to National Party amendments which I have listed as No. 1 on sheet 7337. Senator Joyce, if you would like to incorporate other amendments, I am sure the Senate can consider that.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>Thank you, Chair. I move amendment (1) on sheet 7337:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 36 and 37), omit paragraph 86AA(3)(b), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by up to 450 gigalitres.</p><p>We were thinking of delaying because we were thinking, for brevity, of moving a few more of these amendments together. The amendment under discussion is to make sure that we remove the words 'up to'. This is basically about making sure that 450 is a target that does not become explicit in the requirement. If we define 450 gigs, that could cause real problems. It is an object, it is a target we want to achieve, but we do not want to have any sort of suggestion that we are being held over a barrel for it.</p><p>Just understanding the quantum of this water, this is as much water as South Australia has. It is a large, large requirement and they have only allocated $55 million over the forward estimates for this. So it is kind of absurd to say, 'We are going to lock in this 450 gigs', even though with the real dollars that count in the forward estimates we only have $55 million. You have not got a hope. You will not get anywhere near it.</p><p>This is to make sure that the process is not tied to having to make sure of 450 gigs. It is ambiguous at the moment. We want to remove the ambiguity because ambiguities can work in both ways. They can work in your favour and they can work against you. We note the Greens and Senator Xenophon want to make a minimum. Obviously that would cause absolute problems. You would have to ask: where do you intend the water to come from—which towns, what areas? Then we would have to discuss with those people what we were going to do with their houses and where we were going to move them off to. I think they would deserve that right.</p><p>What this amendment talks about is omitting from paragraph 86AA(3)(b) and substituting:</p><p class="italic">(b) increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by up to 450-gigalitres.</p><p>We believe that in the use of the words 'up to' we are not going to be tying people into an outcome which the reality is we do not have the money for.</p><p>Even if you budget out the 450 gigs, it is looking at about $4,000 a megalitre and the current cost of where we are at the moment is around $10,000 a megalitre. If we really want 450, just purely from an accountant's perspective it is completely impossible to be able to deliver the outcome that you are requiring with the money available. It is just not possible so why do we say two incongruous things? It is like saying, 'I demand we buy a car for $4.50.' They are two incongruous statements. We should realise that the money that we have can aim towards a target but, with the $55 million we have in the forward estimates, you are not going to get anywhere near there. You are not even going to scratch the surface of what is required.</p><p>Obviously from a socioeconomic position—trying to look after the people of regional Australia and making sure that we maintain the capacity to provide Australian shelves with Australian food—we must provide the socioeconomic sustenance of the community. If we get to where we are passing the economic tipping point, where they are shutting down production facilities, losing manufacturing jobs, losing the underwriting of the value of houses and losing the capacity to underwrite the service industry that is pertinent to these towns, we are not going to compromise them for a number. We are going to make sure we look after the people first, so we set 450 gigalitres as a target. This amendment clearly states that we are not going to be held over a barrel by it.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I will comment on just the final part of Senator Joyce's contribution about jobs being lost. That is a concern I have very deeply for regional communities. I can tell the story of Ron Gray, a Riverland irrigator who has been a champion for decent country-of-origin food labelling laws in this country. Australian citrus growers are competing with concentrate for which we have had positively misleading food labelling laws under which you can call orange juice 'made in Australia' but it could be 90 per cent Brazilian concentrate. What are Ron Gray and his fellow farmers doing? They are ripping up their trees. It is absolutely heartbreaking.</p><p>The issue of water is absolutely critical but we also have issues about the high Australian dollar—an artificially high Australian dollar—that is killing our farmers. There has been no decent policy response from the Australian government to this. There is also the dumping of products from overseas at below cost. We have weak antidumping laws. There is another issue of our food labelling laws, which are woefully inadequate. I know that Senator Joyce and then-senator Bob Brown co-sponsored a bill. If that is not an unusual unity ticket in relation to country-of-origin labelling laws, I do not know what is. Senator John Williams has been absolutely passionate on this issue as well. So, let us look at a whole range of issues as to why jobs are being lost in regional communities. It is because of the policy failures of successive Australian governments in relation to country-of-origin labelling and the dumping of products from overseas below cost. Right now in this country our food labelling laws positively mislead consumers, and the government's response has been woeful.</p><p>I cannot support Senator Joyce's amendment because, by saying 'up to 450 gigalitres', means it is simply aspirational. There are no real teeth to the amendment. You might as well say 'up to 450 squillion gigalitres'—I do not know what 'squillion' is defined as in the <i>Macquarie Dictionary</i>but, whatever the amount, 'up to' does not give it any real teeth.</p><p>My question to the parliamentary secretary, and this is not in any way a criticism of Senator Joyce, is about the reference to 450 gigalitres being about the amount that South Australia takes from the Murray. It would be useful to put on the record what the present amount is. I have a view as to what the amount is but I may be quite wrong. The parliamentary secretary, through his advisers, might be able to assist us on that.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>There are a few things to respond to there. Firstly, I indicate that the government does not support the amendments that Senator Joyce is moving. We did seem to get off the legislation a bit, talking about some of the matters that Senator Xenophon referred to. Talking about trees being removed, one of the great benefits of this legislation will be that those beautiful red gums along the Murray will be restored to health by virtue of this legislation. There is a very famous band of that name—Redgum, which I think I have heard. In answer to Senator Xenophon's question, my recollection of the figures is that, certainly prior to the drought, Adelaide took about 200 gigalitres off the Murray. There were about 40 gigalitres from other parts of the state and the total amount extracted was about 600 gigalitres, so that would include all of the extra water for irrigation. Putting that into perspective, when Senator Joyce says that 450 is more than comes out of South Australia, in fact it is probably less.</p> <p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>In the context of the 450 gigalitres-amendment that is in front of us, Senator Xenophon, you are absolutely right to raise those issues. I ask the parliamentary secretary on the issue of 'up to 450 gigs': if the government is not going to agree to the amendment to have in place up to 450 gigalitres, which is entirely the appropriate thing to do, if the 450 gigalitres simply cannot be reached through the infrastructure efficiencies and the works and measures, what happens then? What if you simply cannot get that? We have already had some discussions around the 650 currently in place for the states to reach through the environmental works and measures and the efficiencies. There is some consternation about whether we will be able to reach that. What happens in the event that we do not have the wording 'up to 450 gigalitres' and that simply cannot be found through the efficiencies and the works and measures?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I have an update on the figure I mentioned a moment ago—a more exact figure. The total South Australian extraction is 665 gigalitres a year. I was about that mark but it was slightly higher. On Senator Nash's question, our objective is to get 450 gigalitres. That is part of the agreement that has been reached between the Commonwealth and the states. We are confident that that figure will be reached. I do not think we really want to get into hypotheticals as to what may happen if we do not reach that figure, but that is the objective of the government. We are confident that that figure will be reached and that what we have agreed in order to get this historic piece of legislation through the parliament will be achieved.</p> <p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>I note that the parliamentary secretary has used the word 'objective' and I agree, of course, that that is the intent of the government. So, if it is an objective of the government, why is the government opposing the amendment by saying that 'up to 450' is perfectly in line with an objective to reach 450 gigalitres, and on what basis is the government confident that the 450 gigalitres will be available through those processes? Specifically, what work has been done to identify that so that the parliamentary secretary can make the claim that he is confident that that 450 gigalitres will be reached through those processes?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Thank you, Senator Nash, for the question. I know Minister Burke, and I know that when he says we will get to 450 gigalitres that is what we will do.</p> <p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>Seriously? That's what you're basing it on?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>There is no trick about this. There is not a sleight of hand here, Senator Nash.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>That'd be a first.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>You can say that, Senator Williams, but this government has achieved what no government in the past, in Australia's history, has been able to achieve. That is, for the first time, agreement between the federal government and the states on the restoration of the communities in the Murray and the environmental outcomes. We have achieved that. Most people thought that was impossible. We have achieved it. When we say we are going to implement this plan, that is exactly what we are going to do: we are going to implement this plan. We are going to restore the environmental health of the Murray—we are going to see those red gums returned to health along the Murray and the Murray-Darling—and we are going to protect those communities that rely on the water from this river. That is what we are going to do. That is what we have set out to achieve, and that is what we will do—if you pass this legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Fiona Nash</p><p>I was hoping for a rather more fulsome answer from the parliamentary secretary as to what work had been done through the process to underpin his claim that the 450 gigs will be reached. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will forgive me for not being prepared to take on board his assurance, 'The minister says it will be so, so therefore it will be,' from a government that said there would be no carbon tax under this government with the Prime Minister that currently leads it. So the parliamentary secretary may be able on a bit of reflection to provide rather more assurance to the chamber on the detail that underpins his claim that the 450 gigalitres will be reached. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for this government to oppose this amendment, because what the amendment does, as I said earlier, is to align what the parliamentary secretary just said—that the 450 gigalitres is the objective. This amendment reflects that intent very clearly.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|