|
senate vote 2013-02-07#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-31 13:03:26
|
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 - Auditing
Description
<p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>I would like to move item (5) on sheet 7336. I move:</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (after line 35), after paragraph 86AI(2)(c), insert:</p>- The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-02-07.99.1 Greens amendment] moved by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young].
- This amendment related to auditing the special account established by this bill. Senator Hanson-Young explains that it would "ensure that the National Water Commission will properly, rigorously, audit the special account after every financial year to make sure that the $1.77 billion is being spent wisely and productively."[1]
- Background to the bill
- The bill[2] 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.[3] The projects will include those that increase the available environmental water in the MDB by 450 Gigalitres.
- References
- * [1] See the rest of Senator Hanson-Young's explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-07.49.1 here]. The amendment was referred to as Greens amendments (17) to (24) on sheet 7314 and began at 1:29 pm.
- * [2] 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].
- * [3] 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">  (ca) for all water recovery for which an amount was debited from the Water for the Environment Special Account during the report year for the purposes of paragraph 86AD(2)(b)—how that recovery achieved a neutral or beneficial socio-economic outcome;</p><p>We do not intend to divide on this. We want to make sure that the amount is recovered—an environment special account during the report year for the purposes of paragraph 8682—and that they report back to us as to how this recovery was neutral. We have talked about socioeconomic and environmental neutrality. We need to know and the Australian people need to know how the government is doing this. At this point in time it is case of taking them on trust, and taking people on trust is a very dangerous proposition.</p><p>The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the Water for the Environment Special Account is achieved in the form that has been promised by the government—and by us—that there will be a socioeconomic neutrality for environmental outcomes. If we do not have this oversight, we have a strong belief that we are not going to get it and there will not be the delivery of the outcome back to the towns in such a way that does not decimate the towns.</p><p>We have got bureaucrats running round the joint cooling the planet. We have over 1,000 people in the climate change department. Let's see if we can give people a job that really matters: making sure that we do not destroy the economic base of places like Shepparton, Mildura, St George, Bourke—the places where we live.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I will just indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment as we believe it is already adequately dealt with in the legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I have got a question for the minister around allocations. It goes to how much of the 50 million allocated in the forward estimates will be allocated to a constraints removal works and on farm efficiency grants, bearing in mind that these are the types of things that I am assuming that our review would be interested in knowing.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>My understanding is most of the money will be spent on removing constraints.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>That means $50 million for the removal of constraints throughout the entire system?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>It will be as identified in the constraints strategy.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I am seeking clarification: we have allocated money with no plan?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Please repeat the question.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I am clarifying that we have allocated money in the forward estimates, $50 million, with no plan for how that will be spent.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. The government intends to spend that money in accordance with what we have indicated in the legislation and in the agreement with the parties. That is exactly what we will do.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I would still like more details on the parties and who is invited. We cannot get the details on what is going to be removed with the proportionality. I thank you for answering that aspect of it, that the majority of the $50 million will be going to constraint removal. Please outline how much will be going towards the study and information gathering that is clearly required to undertake that work.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>That will be a component of the expenditure. I do not think I can give you an exact amount at this stage, but it will be part of the overall spending of the $50 million.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>For the ease of the minister, if he does not have the figure on him, could he give a proportion of the $50 million that might be spent on data gathering and construction of the strategy, the research behind it?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>My understanding is that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is required to develop a constraints management strategy. That will be done in consultation with the states and it will then be clear just how much money is going to be spent in this area.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I do understand the process. My question was: of the $50 million allocated in the forward estimates, how much will the construction of the strategy cost? Seeing we do not know exactly what constraints are going to be removed and where, yet we have allocated this bunch of money, I am assuming some proportion of the $50 million will have to go to finding all that out. Do you have a figure of cost for that sort of study, work and consultation with water engineers et cetera, and getting out on the ground to see the types of constraints and the types of work that need to be done? I understand you might not have an exact figure of how much that research and study will cost, but I believe that either you or the officials beside you will have a ballpark figure of what that sort of work would cost.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. Most of this work has been done by the states. We are working closely with the states to find out where they have identified these constraints. We will continue to do that, and at this point in time I cannot give you an exact figure. If I could give an exact figure I would give it to you, but I cannot.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>My apologies, Senator Farrell, if the work has been done by the states. Can you confirm that the work has been done by the states as you indicated in your last answer?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Not all of it. I indicated that a lot of it—</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>You've got no idea what you're talking about, mate!</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Senator Heffernan, please come to order. If you are seeking the call please do so when it is the appropriate moment. Senator Farrell has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I have forgotten what the question was. Could Senator McKenzie repeat it?</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I am happy to, Senator Farrell. Could you confirm that the work of the constraint removal will be done by the various states? My understanding from your earlier answer was that the identification research work has been done by the states, and in the future they are going to be doing the constraint removal program.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>The point I am trying to make is that the identification of the constraints has principally been done by the states, though not entirely. But there is a process, and there is going to be a strategy developed. When that strategy is developed then there will be a course of action that follows from that which will involve the removal of those constraints and the spending of that money.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>I noted in one of Minister Burke's previous media releases that he nominated $200 million to be allocated for constraint removals. I wonder, in light of that media release that Minister Burke put out, and in reflection of the previous $50 million figure being talked about, why these two figures do not seem to line up? Could Senator Farrell elaborate on them a bit?</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Thank you, Senator Joyce, for your question. The questions being asked by Senator McKenzie related to the $50 million over a specific time frame. You are correct, Senator Joyce, that Minister Burke referred to $200 million, but that is over the entire life of the project. We are getting some confusion about the period: Senator McKenzie was talking about the $50 million expenditure; you are talking about an amount over the entire life of the project.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>I realise you are in a difficult position, Senator Farrell, because this is a political fix designed to get everyone past the next election. My question is—</p><p class="italic">Senator Farrell interjecting—</p><p>You have no idea, mate!</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Heffernan has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I object to that!</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>That is good. I am pleased you object to that. There is nothing like facing the truth! My question is about the $50 million that is going to be expended. Senator McKenzie has pointed out the proportion of what we will be thinking about and planning to do about it as opposed to actually doing it. You say that the Murray-Darling Basin mob are going to do some of the planning and thinking. My question is: will you be transferring into their normal budget some of the budget for the planning and thinking from this particular pocket of money, or will they expend their own budget in doing that? In other words, is this just a fancy way of topping up their budget? And you don't know the bloody answer because there is none!</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, please use appropriate language in the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I thank Senator Heffernan for his question. The reality is I am not sure that we know the answer to that question yet.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>Bearing in mind that we are lacking a little bit of the detail on how the money will be spent, where it will be spent and how much the research to spend the money will be as a proportion of total allocated money, you mentioned earlier in an answer to Senator Joyce that the process has a specific timetable. Can you give a time frame of when various programs will be rolled out—as examples, the constraint study, the research that needs to be done in order to inform the work, when we are thinking of starting the work on infrastructure and when we think on-farm grants may be available to primary producers. I am sure we have thought this out a little further, given the amount of time and money that has gone into the consultation process and the desire of a lot of people to see this sorted. I am sure we have done some work on time lines. Could you please outline that for us.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>While you're thinking about it, this is one of the worst examples of a taxpayer farce—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, please come to order.</p><p class="italic">Senator Heffernan interjecting—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, are you seeking the call in order to ask a question?</p><p>No, I'm waiting for the answer.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Then please refrain from interjections.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>As you say, Senator McKenzie, an awful lot of work has been done, but the reality is there is an awful lot more work to be done. The reason the government has allocated this funding is to ensure—</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>To get you past the next election.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>No, it is not to get us through the next election. It is to do something about restoring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin—something that was long overdue under your government. We have done something about it. Minister Burke has done something about it. This government have done something about it. We are trying to proceed to save all of those Murray-Darling Basin communities which you claim to want to represent and, most importantly, to restore the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. That is what we want to do. We have allocated funding so that we can do that. Senator McKenzie wants to pin me down to the exact time frame for the expenditure of that money. I cannot do that, but what I can tell you is that this money will be well spent and spent in a way that does what we want to do, which is restore the Murray-Darling Basin to good health restore the environment.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>When you say 'be well spent'—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: It does not sound like a point of order.</p><p>It is going to be a point of order if you could be patient.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, you do not have the call. Senator Farrell.</p><p class="italic">Senator Heffernan interjecting—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, you do not have the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I do not think there is anything I can add to my previous answer.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|