Additional comments by Labor Senators


Additional comments by Labor Senators

Labor has consistently supported greater national leadership in water policy and water reform. In fact, national water reform began with the historic COAG Agreement in 1992 led by the Keating Labor Government and the Murray Darling Basin Act 1992.

Labor believes the water reform process must be led by the national Government and be ongoing so we properly fix the over-allocation of water licences in the Murray Darling Basin, ensure harmony between the environment and consumptive use, and help address the impact of drought and climate change on water supply.

Climate change will have a significant impact on water supply generally and the health of the Murray Darling Basin in particular, and we note that the CSIRO will provide an important report in late 2007 on the hydrology of the Basin and what the sustainable extraction levels are for the Basin.

The Commonwealth’s Water Bill 2007 is a step towards fixing some of the Murray Darling Basin’s long-term problems. It gives the Commonwealth greater control over water planning for the Basin and should help deliver greater water security.

Nevertheless, it is regrettable that, despite clear warning signals about the health of the river system, it has taken 15 more years to see the next stage of Commonwealth action to address the problems of the Murray Darling Basin.

It is critical that all levels of Government work together in the national interest, and Labor deplores the Government’s failure to consult in good faith with State Governments and other stakeholders over the final version of the water bill which had changed significantly, and the related Intergovernmental Agreement.

We are concerned that because of the haste of its development in an election year, the Water Bill 2007 represents a second best solution on national water reform.

A yet-to-be-released and, we are advised, legally unenforceable Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will guide federal and state relations, direct investment and ensure water plans function properly. Nevertheless, its development is critical to the effectiveness of the Basin Plan and future water management in the Basin.

Labor Senators are very concerned that the Prime Minister refused to provide the proposed IGA to the Committee, State Governments or any stakeholders in the Basin.

Further, we are concerned that, as a result of unilateral changes foreshadowed by the Howard Government regarding the operation of the IGA, the effectiveness of the Basin Plan and future water management in the Basin may be unnecessarily affected.

In any case we believe that water security and planning must improve, while at the same time steps are taken to help water users adapt to less water and climate change.

Most witnesses canvassed the possibility that the long-term average sustainable water diversion limit or cap for the water resource plan will have to be reduced. In the event that that occurs there will be compulsory water entitlement reductions under Clause 77. Labor Senators question how this will be different to compulsory acquisition. Under clause 77 of the Bill, when that cap is reduced it appears that the water entitlement holder may receive compensation for that reduction. Clause 77 sets out the way in which the liability for that compensation will be distributed.

We note that clause 255 of the legislation does not authorise the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements. On the other hand Clause 77 sets up a mechanism for paying out irrigators for a legislated reduction in their water entitlement. Labor Senators believe that that is a distinction without a real difference and that clause 77 may in effect be a mechanism for the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements.

While the Bill is a step forward, there is confusion and doubt over several key issues:

  • Why do we have both a Murray Darling Basin Authority, and a Murray Darling Basin Commission?
  • How will compulsory water entitlement reductions under section 77 work, and how are they different to compulsory acquisition?
  • When will the Government circulate the all important Inter-Governmental Agreement?
  • What will the risk sharing arrangements be with States, and why should the States carry more risk than was agreed to with the Prime Minister in early July?
  • And why aren’t the water needs for towns and cities in the Basin and the other down-stream consequences of water planning dealt with in the Bill?

To date the Government has not adequately addressed these issues of concern.

Labor Senators believe that the following approach is needed for ongoing national water reform:

  1. A cooperative and constructive approach with State Governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure;
  2. Full implementation of the National Water Initiative principles agreed to in 2004;
  3. Fixing of the over-allocation of water licences once and for all, and establishing coherent, streamlined rules which ensure the problem of over-allocation never recurs;
  4. Recognition that economic instruments including water trading are necessary to address the fact that water has been over-allocated, undervalued and misdirected;
  5. Proper consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption and consistent use of efficient agricultural practices;
  6. Returning sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray Darling Basin to ensure the long term health of all rivers, wetlands and all connected groundwater systems in the Basin and, as a result, ensure the health of the communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers; and
  7. Measures to ensure industrial and urban water users adapt to maximise water efficiency.

 

Senator Ruth Webber
ALP, Western Australia

 

Senator Dana Wortley
ALP, South Australia

 

Senator Kerry O'Brien
ALP, Tasmania

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page