PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Assembly by date
  4. 30 November 2000

Water Management Bill

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 2 of 63 | Next Item »


About this Item
SpeakersAmery Mr Richard; Page Mr Donald; Windsor Mr Antony; Webb Mr Peter; McGrane Mr Tony
BusinessBill, In Committee


    WATER MANAGEMENT BILL
Page: 11356

    In Committee

    Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.
    Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 29 November
        No. 1 Page 2, clause 3, line 28. Omit "social and customary use of land". Insert instead "social, customary and economic use of land and water".

        No. 2 Page 5, clause 5, lines 27 to 32. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
            (6) In relation to floodplain management:
              (a) floodplain management must avoid or minimise land degradation, including soil erosion, compaction, geomorphic instability, contamination, acidity, waterlogging, decline of native vegetation or, where appropriate, salinity and, where possible, land must be rehabilitated, and

              (b) the impacts of flood works on other water users should be avoided or minimised, and

              (c) the existing and future risk to human life and property arising from occupation of floodplains must be minimised.

            (7) In relation to controlled activities:
              (a) the carrying out of controlled activities must avoid or minimise land degradation, including soil erosion, compaction, geomorphic instability, contamination, acidity, waterlogging, decline of native vegetation or, where appropriate, salinity and, where possible, land must be rehabilitated, and

              (b) the impacts of the carrying out of controlled activities on other water users must be avoided or minimised.

            (8) In relation to aquifer interference activities:
              (a) the carrying out of aquifer interference activities must avoid or minimise land degradation, including soil erosion, compaction, geomorphic instability, contamination, acidity, waterlogging, decline of native vegetation or, where appropriate, salinity and, where possible, land must be rehabilitated, and

              (b) the impacts of the carrying out of aquifer interference activities on other water users must be avoided or minimised.

        No. 3 Page 6, clause 6. Insert after line 9:
              (a) to set the over-arching policy context, targets and strategic outcomes for the management of the State’s water sources, having regard to:
                  (i) relevant environmental, social and economic considerations, and

                  (ii) the results of any relevant monitoring programs.

        No. 4 Page 6, clause 6. Insert after line 25:
            (5) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the public consultation procedures to be complied with in relation to the establishment or amendment of a State Water Management Outcomes Plan.

            (6) A State Water Management Outcomes Plan has effect for the period of 5 years commencing on the date on which it is published in the Gazette.

        No. 5 Page 6, clause 7. Insert after line 28:
            (2) Such an order may only be made with the concurrence of the Minister for the Environment.

        No. 6 Page 10, clause 13. Insert after line 5:
            (g) at least one is to be a person nominated by the Minister for the Environment, and

        No. 7 Page 10, clause 13. Insert after line 12:
            (3) The members appointed as referred to in subsection (1) (a) - (e) should, as far as practicable, be persons who reside within the water management area for which the management committee is being constituted.

        No. 8 Page 13, clause 20. Insert after line 16:
            (a) must recognise and be consistent with any limits to the availability of water that are set (whether by the relevant management plan or otherwise) in relation to the water sources to which the regime relates, and

            (b) must establish rules according to which access licences are to be granted and managed and available water determinations to be made, and

        No. 9 Page 15, clause 26, line 28. Insert "and impacts on water quality" after "ecological impacts".

        No. 10 Page 19, clause 34, lines 17 and 18. Omit all words on those lines.

        No. 11 Page 23, clause 43, line 6. Insert "for ensuring the effective implementation of the water management principles" after "appropriate".

        No. 12 Page 23, clause 44, lines 9 to 12. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
            44 Periodic auditing of management plans
              (1) The Minister is to ensure that a management plan is audited, at intervals of not more than 5 years, for the purpose of ascertaining whether its provisions are being given effect to.

              (2) An audit under this section is to be carried out by an audit panel appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Water Management Committee where one exists.

              (3) In setting terms of reference for the preparation of a management plan to replace an existing management plan, the Minister must have regard to the results of the most recent audit conducted under this section in relation to the existing management plan.

        No. 13 Page 23, clause 45. Insert after line 17:
            (2) Such an order may not be made in relation to a water management area for which a management committee is constituted unless the Minister has consulted with the committee in relation to the proposed variation of the bulk access regime.

        No. 14 Page 23, clause 46, line 23. Insert "(and, in any case, within 6 months)" after "As soon as practicable".

        No. 15 Page 24, clause 46. Insert after line 3:
            (4) Section 41 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 does not apply to or in respect of a regional environmental plan made pursuant to this section.

        No. 16 Page 25, clause 50, line 18. Omit "principles". Insert instead "rules".

        No. 17 Page 27, clause 52, lines 16 to 18. Omit "(including the watering of a garden not exceeding 0.5 hectares in area, not being a garden that is used for the commercial production of agricultural produce)".

        No. 18 Page 33, clause 61. Insert after line 29:
            (2) An application for a regulated river (supplementary water) access licence may only be made as part of an application for some other kind of access licence, which application must nominate one of the other access licences as the access licence with which the regulated river (supplementary water) access licence is to be associated.

        No. 19 Page 36, clause 66, line 28. Insert ", together with any variation in associated commercial activities," after "population".

        No. 20 Page 36, clause 66. Insert after line 30:
            (4) On the application of a local water utility, the Minister may at any time increase the utility's entitlement to water under a local water utility licence so as to reflect any rapid growth of population within the utility's area requiring an immediate increase in the availability of water for supply by that utility.

        No. 21 Page 37, clause 69, lines 26 to 28. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
            (a) for 15 years, except in the case of an access licence referred to in paragraph (b) or (c), or

            (b) for 20 years, in the case of a local water utility access licence, or

            (c) for the term of the associated access licence referred to in section 61 (2), in the case of a regulated river (supplementary water) access licence.
        No. 22 Page 42, clause 79. Insert after line 14:
            (7) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that a reduction of the water entitlements and allocations under an access licence as a consequence of a variation in the mandatory conditions of the licence does not constitute the compulsory acquisition of an access licence or any part of an access licence.

        No. 23 Page 43, clause 83, lines 27 to 29. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
            (c) such interests in an access licence as the holder of the access licence, or the holder of any interest in the access licence, requests to be included in the register.

        No. 24 Page 43, clause 83. Insert after line 29:
            (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (c), a person is not taken to hold an interest in an access licence held by a corporation merely because the person is a shareholder of the corporation.

        No. 25 Page 45, clause 87, line 23. Omit ", with the advice of the Valuer-General,".

        No. 26 Page 45, clause 87. Insert after line 26:
            (5) The amount of any such compensation is to be determined on the advice of the Valuer-General.

        No. 27 Page 45, clause 87, lines 31 to 33. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
            (6) A person who is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered to the person under this section, or with any delay in the payment of compensation, may appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

        No. 28 Page 48, clause 93, line 28. Omit "water use".

        No. 29 Page 51, clause 97, line 8. Omit "minimise harm". Insert instead "ensure that minimal harm will be done".

        No. 30 Page 51, clause 97, line 13. Omit "minimise harm". Insert instead "ensure that minimal harm will be done".

        No. 31 Page 51, clause 97, line 17. Omit "minimise harm". Insert instead "ensure that minimal harm will be done".

        No. 32 Page 51, clause 97, line 21. Omit "minimise harm". Insert instead "ensure that minimal harm will be done".

        No. 33 Page 51, clause 97, line 34. Omit "minimise harm". Insert instead "ensure that minimal harm will be done".

        No. 34 Page 55, clause 106. Insert after line 24:
            (3) For the purposes of this section, an irrigation corporation, private irrigation board, private drainage board or private water trust is taken to be a landholder of land in respect of which a water use approval or water management work approval held by it is in force.

        No. 35 Page 59, clause 114. Omit the clause.

        No. 36 Page 59, clause 115, lines 21 to 24. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
            115 Minister may impose fees and charges
              The Minister may impose fees and charges for the purposes of this Act.

              Note. Under the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992, any fees and charges imposed by the Minister under this section cannot exceed any relevant determination made by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

        No. 37 Page 63, clause 121. Insert after line 18:
            (3) The powers of entry conferred by this section are not to be exercised for a purpose referred to in subsection (1) (a), (f) or (g) without prior notice to the occupier of the land.

        No. 38 Page 85, clause 165, line 21. Insert "except in relation to damage caused by negligence and" after "water supply work".

        No. 39 Page 92, clause 181, line 15. Omit "ditches or channels". Insert instead "water delivery systems".

        No. 40 Page 92, clause 181, lines 23 and 24. Omit "ditches or channels". Insert instead "water delivery systems".

        No. 41 Page 92, clause 182, line 34 to page 93, line 3. Omit all words on those lines.

        No. 42 Page 99, clause 197, line 3. Omit "Part". Insert instead "Act".

        No. 43 Page 109, clause 223, line 19. Insert "construct a water management work or" before "take water".

        No. 44 Page 137, clause 282, line 11. Omit "that has ceased to exist".

        No. 45 Page 139, clause 284, line 16. Omit all words on that line. Insert instead:
            water management work means a water supply work, drainage work, sewage work or flood work, and includes a work in the nature of a water supply work (being a work that receives water from a water supply work under the control or management of a water supply authority).

        No. 46 Page 160, clause 323. Insert after line 5:
            (e) the planning and management of water, sewerage and drainage systems,

        No. 47 Page 161, clause 324, line 4. Omit "for any reason". Insert instead "in the public interest".

        No. 48 Page 172, clause 347, line 7. Insert "the Minister," after "management of,".

        No. 49 Page 172, clause 347, line 16. Insert "the Minister," after "management of,".

        No. 50 Page 174, clause 353. Insert after line 12:
            (2) A person must not obstruct or hinder an authorised person within the meaning of section 121 in the exercise of the authorised person's functions under that section.
              Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

        No. 51 Page 175, clause 356, line 10. Omit "the occupation of land". Insert instead "a specific parcel of land".

        No. 52 Page 188, clause 379, line 5. Omit "381". Insert instead "380 (4)".

        No. 53 Page 188, clause 380. Insert after line 16:
            (5) Subject to this section, the constitution and procedure of the Board of Trustees are to be as prescribed by the regulations.

        No. 54 Page 188, clause 381. Omit the clause.

        No. 55 Page 189, clause 383. Insert after line 19:
            (c) establish works programs, and associated budgets, for projects to be carried out or funded by the Trust, and

        No. 56 Page 190, clause 388. Insert after line 26:
            (2) Water investment contributions are to be fixed in relation to specified works programs established by the Trust, and so as to yield receipts no greater in total than the amounts budgeted by the Trust in relation to the works programs so specified.

        No. 57 Page 191. Insert after line 1:
            389 Expert advisory panels
              (1) The Minister may appoint expert advisory panels for the purpose of this Act.

              (2) An expert advisory panel is to consist of such persons as, in the opinion of the Minister, have the qualifications and expertise appropriate to the matters proposed to be referred to it.

              (3) An expert advisory panel has the function of investigating, and reporting to the Minister on, such of the following matters as are referred to it for investigation and report:
                  (a) any State Water Management Outcomes Plan to be established under section 6,

                  (b) the terms of reference to be set by the Minister under section 15 for the preparation of a draft management plan,

                  (c) the adequacy and appropriateness of the provisions of a draft management plan submitted to the Minister under section 37 or 40,

                  (d) the effectiveness, in relation to the furthering of the water sharing principles, of any bulk access regime established by a management plan to be made by the Minister under section 41,

                  (e) any management plan in respect of which a review is being carried out under section 43,

                  (f) any implementation program to be established under section 51.

        No. 58 Page 198, Schedule 2. Insert after line 3:
            Eraring Energy

        No. 59 Page 218, Schedule 6, lines 18 and 19. Omit "inspection of any person on payment of such fee as may be determined by it from time to time". Insert instead "inspection, free of charge, of any person".

        No. 60 Page 245, Schedule 9. Insert after line 29:
            (3) Subclause (1) (a) does not apply to an entitlement that, immediately before the appointed day, was held by a local water utility.

        No. 61 Page 245, Schedule 9, line 34, to page 246, Schedule 9, line 3. Omit all words on those lines.

        No. 62 Page 246, Schedule 9. Insert after line 32:
            10 Local water utility licences
              (1) On the appointed day, the Minister must grant an access licence to any local water utility that, immediately before the appointed day, held an entitlement in relation to a water supply work.

              (2) The share component of such an access licence is to be expressed as a specified volume per year.

              (3) Subject to subclauses (4) and (5), the specified volume in relation to an access licence may be any of the following:
                  (a) the quantity of water specified in the relevant entitlements held by the local water utility immediately before the appointed day,

                  (b) a quantity of water calculated by reference to the nature and extent of the area to which the licence relates:
                    (i) having regard to population levels, geographical location and current water usages, and

                    (ii) assuming that reasonable demand management strategies are implemented in that area,

                    (c) a quantity of water calculated on the basis of the current yield of the water management works under the control or management of the local water utility by which the licence is taken to be held.

              (4) The yield referred to in subclause (3) (c) is to be determined with regard to historical stream flow data, and with regard to drought management strategies and demand management practices established by the local water utility concerned.

              (5) In the case of an access licence whose specified volume is greater than the quantity of water currently taken and used under the entitlement referred to in subclause (1), the Minister may at any time impose a condition on the access licence to the effect that water in excess of that quantity is not to be taken or used except with the consent of the Minister.

              (6) Such a condition is not to be imposed unless the Minister is satisfied that the imposition of such a condition is necessary in the public interest.

        No. 63 Page 253, schedule 9, lines 16 to 20. Omit all words on those lines.

        No. 64 Page 255, schedule 9, line 18. Insert ", irrigation corporation or private irrigation board" after "public authority".

    Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.01 a.m.]: I move:
        That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council's amendments.

    Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.02 a.m.]: The Water Management Bill has been through a very long process since its inception. There has been a white paper, a draft bill, followed by a final bill with 160 amendments moved by the Government, and the upper House has spent the last three days debating the bill. There has therefore been a lot of input to this legislation. Notwithstanding that great amount of debate, the Opposition still has a number of concerns about the legislation, including two major concerns which I shall now outline.

    The arrangements regarding the transition period between now and the date that the new water management plans will come into effect are a major concern. Under the current legislation it is mandatory that a complete review of all bulk access regime arrangements and environmental flow rules be conducted. The Opposition's position on that is quite plain. Environmental flow rules and bulk access regime arrangements have been determined in respect of four valleys, and with regard to two valleys the bulk access regime has been determined, but there is an argument about sharing between irrigators in the two valleys. However, putting those two valleys aside, in respect of four valleys we have been through the process of determining the share between the irrigators or water users and the environment, and those rules have been set in place after a lot of deliberation.

    It is our view that those environmental flow rules and the bulk access regime arrangements should flow through and form the foundation for the new water management plans. Unfortunately the Government has not seen fit to accept the Opposition's amendment, and has decided that there will be a review of all environmental flow rules right across the State. In our view that is unnecessary. Indeed, I predict that it will be very unhelpful and it will create quite a lot of angst particularly among irrigators, who will defend their situation as they have had to do in the past two or three years.

    I believe that the Government is simply buying a problem for itself. It is a great shame that the Government has not accepted the fundamental principle that a process was put in place, outcomes have been determined through an orderly process which in many cases have created quite a lot of pain for the stakeholders involved, and those arrangements should remain in place and be the foundation for the new water management plans. That is the Opposition's major concern about the legislation. As regards the end of the water management plans the Opposition sought to promote what I believe was a very sensible amendment. Essentially, the amendment provided that, unless the most recent periodic audit under section 44 indicated otherwise, the Minister would, on expiry of the management plan, replace it with a plan in substantially similar terms.

    The reason for that amendment is that these water management plans will be audited periodically by an external or independent party. Provided a water management plan fulfils its objectives and those objectives reflect the objectives of the legislation—it is not possible to have a water management plan unless the objectives of the legislation are included in that water management plan—if the water management plan is given a big tick when it comes to a periodic audit in years 8, 9 or 10, that should form the basis for a new plan and there should be a presumption that there will be a renewal of that plan because everything is seen to be going well.

    There is nothing new or radical about that idea; we simply thought it was a way of providing certainty to water users. Unfortunately the Government has not seen it that way. The Government has moved an amendment which, in my view, is not strong enough. The amendment simply provides that the Minister must have regard to the audits that are carried out. We all know that the requirement that the Minister have regard to something is not the same as a stronger clause which would indicate that if the audit says that everything is in order, there is then an assumption that the plan would be renewed. The Opposition is still very unhappy about that.

    I wish to place on record that even at the end of last night's long debate in the upper House, at the eleventh hour, in the final Committee stage, we sought to recommit those two concepts, to give the Government an opportunity to change its mind on those two issues. We put those amendments again at the end of the debate, but unfortunately the Government chose to oppose the amendments and they were defeated. However, I wish to place on record that the Opposition still passionately believes that we were right, and are right, on those issues, and I am sure that we have the support of water users across New South Wales, who at the end of the day are looking for some certainty as a result of this legislation.

    Another issue that the Opposition is concerned about relates to the Minister for the Environment having a concurrence role. The Minister for the Environment is not involved in the process, and yet under the legislation he or she has a veto power at the end of the process. We do not believe that is appropriate. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation should be the primary person involved in ticking off the plan, and he or she should consult with the Minister for the Environment. We do not believe that the Minister for the Environment should have a veto power at the end of the day.

    My concern is that people who work for the Minister for the Environment, for example officers of the Environment Protection Authority, will be able to smile to themselves as the plan is being drafted and put through, knowing full well that at the end of the day they will be able to say to their Minister, "We don't want a bar of this," and the Minister will simply say, "Sorry. This plan is not going to be approved." We believe that that is a disproportionate amount of power to give to the Minister for the Environment. We are very happy for the Minister for the Environment to be consulted, but we do not believe that the Minister for the Environment should have a concurrence role.

    The Opposition does not believe that the arrangements in relation to local government agreements are strong enough. We believe that any existing agreement should be honoured. The reality is that, in the scheme of things, councils are relatively small users of water, and it would not have been too much to have asked the Government to give an undertaking that it would honour all existing agreements between local water utilities and the Government, whatever form those agreements may take.

    A number of councils are affected and, whilst the Government has come part of the way in accommodating some of their concerns, it has been extremely legalistic in its approach. Basically, it has said that unless there is some legal agreement arrangements will not be honoured. Many agreements are not contained in legally binding documents. Nevertheless, they are entered into in good faith by the local water utility and local government. They ought to be honoured, not least because local government should have access to water because of its significance to regional development and employment. We are concerned that the Government has not embraced the concept in its totality and has chosen rather to implement a partial solution.

    We are pleased about a number of aspects of the bill. When the debate started there was no provision in the white paper for compensation. It was specifically stated that the Government under no circumstances would pay compensation for loss of water entitlement. We have come a long way since then. There is now a compensable water right which lasts for 10 years. The National Party and other members can take credit for pushing that issue as hard as we have. I am not prone to claiming credit for things but I hope that the Government will acknowledge that when the process started there was very little water security for users. We now have something which is a lot better. It is not entirely what we want—as I said, we have problems about the beginning of the process, the period between now and when the water management plans come in, and what happens at the end of the 10 years—but we have achieved a 10-year compensable water right. That is a lot better than the original proposals.

    We are pleased that the Government accepted the validity of the argument and the amendment in relation to an appeal right for people who have a partial loss of entitlement. The original proposal was that the Minister, while receiving advice, could choose to pay no compensation and there would be no appeal right. I felt that it was totally inappropriate and that people should have an appeal right. Water management committees were another hot topic. Again I thank the Government for accepting the amendment in relation to the residential aspect: wherever practicable the people on the committees should live in the valley their committee relates to. It is all about local ownership and decentralisation of management.

    I conclude by thanking a number of people, particularly the Irrigators Council, which has taken a particular interest. Brett Tucker and Col Thompson, the Chairman of the Irrigators Council, have been closely involved with the process. New South Wales Farmers made a contribution in the closing stages of the debate. Many people sent me copies of the submissions that they sent to the Government. I have been impressed by the interest shown by the stakeholders and the genuineness of their approach to achieve workable, practicable and fair legislation that will not cause too much pain. The debate has been characterised by a desirable new approach to natural resource management. Wherever possible, we should take politics out of these kinds of decisions and look at things in a dispassionate and fair way. Generally speaking, the debate has been conducted with a very high degree of integrity by the people involved. The result is not a bad piece of legislation.

    We are all probably relieved at being at the end of a fairly long process. As I said, we are still concerned about two aspects. The Minister will probably say to me in the next 12 months, "Don, you were right. I wish that we had locked up those bulk access agreements. They are creating no end of pain." We all know what will happen. The stakeholders will have a new bidding war, which could have been avoided. Many of the benefits of the stakeholders talking the legislation through might be lost in the next 12 months as they enter a new round of negotiations. I hope that between now and when year 10 comes around we will be able to do something in relation to what happens at the end of year 10. We have a lot of time to do it. I am sure that people of goodwill will be able to provide some sort of security. They are my comments for what they are worth. The Opposition obviously will not vote against the amended bill but we have concerns particularly in relation to the period between now and implementation of water management plans and what happens after 10 years.

    Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [10.17 a.m.]: I agreed with most of what the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ballina, said about the progress of the bill through the upper House. I also have concerns about the transition period. There is a risk of creating angst, particularly with the irrigators, by revisiting the environmental flow rules for the start of the new water management plans. I ask the Minister to outline the intent of the process from now on. I am led to believe that in all likelihood the old rules could prevail in the valleys that have been through the management process for determining environmental flows. The honourable member for Ballina made an important point, and I congratulate the Minister and his staff on this: all players have tried to work through this enormous process. The shadow Minister, the Minister and many others, bearing in mind the variety of water users and the demands from various sections of the community, have worked with goodwill on all sides.

    I ask the Minister to explain the arrangements for local government. I think I am on top of what is happening but with so many things happening in the upper House and other places last night there may well have been minor changes. I personally thank the Minister for his attention to the specific problem Tamworth City Council had in relation to its allocation and its legal arrangements of yesteryear and the way that has been embraced in the bill. The honourable member for Dubbo, who is in the Chamber at the moment, I know, would also thank the Minister and the department for the way in which they have dealt with the circumstance in Dubbo. The honourable member for Ballina expressed concerns about other local government areas that may not have had some prior, blinding legal arrangement.

    To assist some communities with future planning, I ask the Minister to outline the intent and the impact of the amendments passed in the upper House. Many meetings have taken place to facilitate discussion of the provisions of the bill. I know that very early in the consultation process when the white paper was released the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Northern tablelands and I spent a week travelling throughout various valleys talking to several irrigators to ascertain an overview of what was happening in areas of the State other than our own electorates. That has helped us in the contributions we have made and in our attempts to come to grips with a massive piece of legislation which will apply to the whole State rather than particularly to individual river systems and valleys within various electorates.

    I congratulate the Minister on the manner in which he has conducted the process of this legislation. The honourable member for Ballina made the point that the Minister embarked on a process of consultation but that some players may not be totally happy. I have concerns about minor matters, but many of those may be resolved by the way in which the Minister and the department implement the legislation. The provisions are flexible enough to be interpreted either harshly or in a friendly manner, but the consultative approach to date and the changes that have been accepted indicate the Minister's preparedness to talk, to listen and, in some cases, to change his mind. Moreover, the shadow Minister has been prepared to go beyond politics in relation to this legislation and has adopted a constructive approach to natural resource management.

    The approach adopted in relation to this bill is very different from the way in which the vegetation legislation was dealt with in this Parliament. A feature of this bill has been an attempt to bring balance into natural resource management and as this Parliament moves into management of other natural resources and attempts to deal with problems of salinity, I encourage every Minister and every Government to undertake the type of consultative process that has been adopted in relation to this bill. If all the players believe that there is no hidden agenda of the Minister or of the Government, there is a better chance of coming to grips with the problems and finding solutions for them through legislation. I thank the Minister's staff for the way in which they have made themselves available for consultation to all and sundry, irrespective of whether people's interests were in conservation, industry, irrigation, farming or even whether they were members of Parliament. The attitude of the Minister's staff has been excellent. They have obviously contributed a tremendous amount of work to this legislation and they deserve great credit.

    Mr WEBB (Monaro) [10.20 a.m.]: I briefly place on the record the indebtedness of members of the National Party, other members of the Opposition and, indeed, all other members of this Parliament to the honourable member for Ballina and shadow Minister, Don Page, for the tremendous amount of work that he has contributed over the last 12 months to scrutinising the provisions of this bill and formulating most of the amendments that have been considered by the Parliament. I, for one, and many of my colleagues convey our thanks to the honourable member for Ballina, Don Page, and also to Emma Watts, who is the secretary to the Hon. D. F. Moppett in the other place. I thank her for her efforts in dealing with the backlog of work that has come to her as result of consideration by the upper House of the amendments to the Water Management Bill.

    I take this opportunity also to pass on thanks to the secretary of the honourable member for Ballina, Bernadette Ensby, for contributing a great deal of time and effort to formulating the Opposition's responses to the bill. I thank all staff in the National Party who have contributed to the scrutiny of, and opposition to, various provisions of the bill. I echo the comments made by the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Tamworth who expressed concerns as well as thanks to the Minister and his staff.

    Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [10.24 a.m.]: I endorse the comments made by the honourable members who preceded me in consideration of this bill at the Committee stage. I share the concerns outlined by the honourable member for Ballina, Don Page, the honourable member for Tamworth, Tony Windsor, and the honourable member for Monaro. The attitude of the Government towards local governments lacks some flexibility. Although areas in the Tamworth and Dubbo electorates are probably secure, other areas where verbal agreement have been entered into between various councils and water authorities may have some problems. As I understand it, a verbal agreement is being treated as just a verbal agreement which cannot be substantiated and that is unfortunate. Those areas of local government are very concerned which brings upon the Government the possibility of a bad outcome for a bill that, in a sense, has been well discussed.

    As honourable members who preceded me have said, the Minister's approach has been excellent in his openness and in his deliberations in bringing the bill to this stage. His approach has gone beyond party politics, and that is great. It is the first time I have had the experience in this Parliament of party politics been taking out of the equation when dealing with legislation. That has come about solely because of the leadership of the Minister. I congratulate also his staff and officers of the department. I have led a number of delegations to the Minister, his staff and officers of his department. We always received a great welcome and a fair hearing, reflecting openness in government which augurs well for the end result. Nevertheless, I still have concerns which have been outlined by honourable members who preceded me in this debate. Of course I recognise that there needs to be give and take, but I think the treatment of local government authorities and irrigators was unfortunate because they have not received quite the measure of justice that I feel they deserve.

    Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt—Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [10.27 a.m.]: I thank all honourable members who made contributions to the Committee stage. I will deal briefly with some of the comments that had been made. At the outset, I make the observation that every few years this Parliament discusses legislation which by any measure—volume, years of effort or extent of consultation undertaken with interest groups and the community—is very substantial. To make the understatement of the day, this bill has definitely been one of those bills. The legislation came about as a result of the white paper that has been referred to by the shadow Minister and honourable member for Ballina.

    The white paper began a quite lively debate in rural New South Wales and many claims have been made. Some of those claims were exaggerated and others were very valid. The scene was set for what I believed would be a very contentious and divisive debate this year. The legislation that was tabled in June departed somewhat from the white paper to address some concerns that had been expressed, but the consultation process that followed the introduction of the bill resulted in 160 amendments being proposed by the Government when debate on the bill began at the commencement of the session. Amendments that have been considered by the upper House amounted to 220 on top of 160 amendments that were moved in the lower House when the bill was introduced. To say that the bill has been subjected to a substantial round of public consultation and has been characterised by give and take by all parties is virtually an understatement.

    For the record, I mention that of the 220 amendments that were moved in the upper House, 34 were new Government amendments. The reason they were considered in the upper House was not because the Government forgot to introduce them in the lower House but, rather, because all through the process of debate, while the legislation was being considered by the lower House, honourable members and representatives of local government, the Irrigators Council and the Nature Conservation Council were trotting through my office, and 34 last-minute amendments were accepted for inclusion in the legislation. Quite a number of amendments—220 in total—were considered by the upper House and many of those which were moved by the Opposition were accepted by the Government—I will discuss those shortly—whereas some amendments that were suggested were dealt with by way of compromise and rewording to better reflect the intention of what the Government was trying to achieve.

    The Government opposed a number of the amendments and with the support of crossbench members was successful in voting them down. It was the same with the Greens, the Christian Democratic Party, the Shooters Party and so on. I said in the second reading speech that when the bill gets to the upper House it will look like a lot of messerschmidts have attacked it. The bill has certainly lived up to that analogy. However, I received a message from Zoe De Saram to say that the bill had landed. I was pleased it did, although it had a few holes in it. I thank the shadow Minister for Agriculture, the honourable member for Ballina. This bill could not have been debated in this time frame during this session without the genuine and professional contribution of the New South Wales Opposition. We disagreed on many issues, ditched some of them, and voted against many Opposition amendments in the upper House, but it could not have been done without that assistance from the shadow Minister and the Opposition.

    I put that on the record, despite the fact that debate in the upper House took four days, involving 22 hours of debate, making it the second longest-running debate, second only to the Industrial Relations Bill, which took 30 hours six years ago. The honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Dubbo raised concerns about environmental flows forming part of the management plans. They questioned why the Government did not accept environmental flows for the next 10 years. I argued that issue during the second reading debate but I also spoke to irrigators and councils. Environmental flows were established in 1998 and considerable work went into that process. They were to be in place for five years, and without this bill and the amendments the environmental flows would be due for review in about two years time.

    The Opposition, the honourable member for Tamworth and the Irrigators Council suggest that the environmental flows should be locked in but that would mean that people who worked on them 2½ years ago, knowing they were for five years, would then be pushed out to 13 years. It would involve a more rigorous process if the environmental flows were to be in place for 10 years rather than coming up for review in five years. Despite recognising that considerable work went into putting environmental flows in place, I do not believe it is appropriate that they be for 10 years. I hope that the review and the bulk access regime will allay many of the fears that have been expressed.

    It has been suggested that this has been a big grab for water on political grounds. When the water reform process was introduced, including the environmental flows, the cap was 10 per cent and only two rivers, by consensus, went over the 10 per cent; the others were 4 per cent, 6 per cent and the like. If the Government was doing this for political reasons it would have imposed 10 per cent on them all. River management committees recommended as low as 4 per cent, for example in the Murrumbidgee, and the Government accepted that recommendation. When the bulk access regime is reviewed, the Government will take into account work done on environmental flows, and if an adjustment in the river systems is sought, that will be considered on scientific grounds, not for political reasons. Time will tell how successful the process will be, and that is why environmental flows could not be locked in.

    We shall agree to disagree on the plan-to-plan process. I know that the Opposition fought hard to have a stronger audit process but the Government will take into account the audit process when moving from plan to plan. I know that the honourable member for Ballina said that one day the Opposition will be saying it was right and the Government was wrong. However, I hope we have a system that does not seek to prove who was right and who was wrong but whose process will be scientifically sound and will allay the concerns of most of the community.

    The involvement of the Minister for the Environment has been fully debated in this House and the upper House. I am pleased that the upper House stood its ground and allowed strong involvement by the Minister for the Environment. The water reform process has to be considered by the two Ministers, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and the Minister for the Environment. One should not have a lesser role. The Minister for the Environment and the environment agencies are involved in the process more and more, and that has been recognised in the Committee stages of the bill. The argument that the process will be blocked at the whim of the Minister for the Environment is taking the amendment too literally. I do not believe that will be the process, because that has not been evident in my dealings with the Minister and his agencies in the past.

    Local government is a big issue, particularly for the honourable member for Tamworth. I know that the honourable member for Ballina said that the National Party should take credit for these changes. Country Labor members, the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and others have also made contributions and they are all correct to a certain extent. There is no doubt that the argument put by the National Party was something that the Government took into account during the public consultation phase. It is not just political grandstanding: Country Labor has shown itself to be effective in public debate. I have gone through the process of internal lobbying within Caucus and there is a vast difference between that and the process followed by some of my political opponents. Country Labor was an effective lobby group in Caucus, and I give credit to that emerging force within Labor politics in this State.

    I thank also the honourable member for Dubbo, the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Northern Tablelands for their hard work on local government issues. The Government came up with a proposition that, as the months unfold, should allay all of their concerns. Tamworth, for example, uses about 9,000 megalitres of water each year yet it has a water entitlement of approximately 16,000 megalitres. Some thought the Government would reduce it from 16,000 to 9,000 straightaway and that Tamworth would only get an increase each year based on population increases. Through negotiation, the honourable member for Tamworth strongly argued the case, as did the honourable member for Dubbo and the honourable member for Bathurst on behalf of their respective councils. The Government's compromise position was to give them a licence for the amount of water they need. However, the Minister will have flexibility and any argument about recent developments or water efficiencies that were gained some years ago through an anomalies process will be considered.

    Second, access rights will be available so that in Tamworth the allocation will still be 16,000. If there is increased urban development, commercial development or other industrial development, the council will be able to apply to the Minister—the five years waiting period has gone by the board with these amendments—which will increase the water allocation to the original entitlement. Therefore, no council will be disadvantaged through this process. Of course, if Tamworth, Dubbo or Blayney want to bring in Visy Board, a Cadia mine or any other substantial industrial development, they will have to buy the water in the marketplace, the same as other developers have done in the past. Using that process, I believe that the Government will be able to work through any anomalies.

    Those are the major issues with which I had to deal. The honourable member for Dubbo said that the Government did not go far enough in relation to verbal agreements. That is a difficult problem to solve. The Government said it would examine a number of contracts and verbal agreements, but I think I am right in saying that no documents have been produced to prove the existence of those agreements, even the agreement relating to the famous Tamworth case. The Government believes, without resorting to legalistic terms, that it has adequately addressed those concerns. It is difficult for anyone to take sides when a council states that it has a verbal agreement and someone else states that there is no such agreement. I hope that the amendments to the bill that have been made by the Legislative Council will resolve those disputes in future. I am given to understand that some councils may have written agreements and other councils may not.

    The amendments that were moved in the upper House will resolve all those issues and do away with the need to request lawyers to determine the validity of any agreements. I thank the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for Monaro and others for all the complimentary comments they made and for the role they played in the debate on this legislation. I thank Emma Watts, who worked closely with industry groups; staff in my office who worked extremely hard; and members on the crossbenches. Honourable members would be aware that Independent members, who represent smaller political parties, had to work hard to come to grips with these amendments. I thank Jenni Emblem, who worked with members on the crossbenches in the Legislative Council to sort out the problems that they encountered with the 220 amendments that were moved in that place.

    The Hon. I. M. Macdonald paid tribute to all the industry groups that were referred to by the member for Ballina—groups such as the Irrigators Council, New South Wales farmers, the Nature Conservation Council, Aboriginal land councils, the Local Government and Shires Associations and many individuals who made representations to committees. I place on record my appreciation of the sterling work done by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, who had carriage of all stages of the Water Management Bill in the Legislative Council. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald said that when he was handling the debate on the bill he felt like Geoffrey Boycott, a former cricketer. He stayed at the crease day in and day out and did not concede his wicket. He did very well.

    Mr Page: He didn't score?

    Mr AMERY: He scored just enough. I think he scored 34 runs for the Government. He did a good job. I place on record my appreciation for all the work that he did. I thank also all those who thanked my office and staff for the work that they did. Bob Smith, the Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation, has been thanked by members of the Opposition, the crossbenchers and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald. I echo the sentiments expressed by those honourable members. Bob Smith, members of the water unit and members of my staff visited a number of areas in the State. I thank them for the professional way in which they coped with a difficult job.

    It would be remiss of me if I did not mention Zoe De Saram from my office, who lived and breathed this legislation over the last few weeks and worked with all the people to whom I referred earlier. No doubt her dedication is one of the reasons why all these amendments were dealt with so expeditiously in the upper House. One of the comments made by the honourable member for Tamworth was that this legislation would present the Government with a challenge. I think the honourable member said that the legislation would be harsh and unfriendly. This has been a difficult process for us as parliamentarians but the real and difficult challenge will be the implementation of the legislation, the drafting of regulations, how they will be interpreted, how they will be implemented, and what impact they will have on different groups.

    I only hope that the same level of goodwill that has applied to the legislation so far will apply then. The Government will do its best to expedite the implementation of the legislation. I thank everyone for their complimentary comments. In recent days an outbreak of goodwill seems to have spread throughout the Chamber. I think it has been a positive process. I thank honourable members in both Houses who spoke in debate on this bill. A lot of pressure was placed on a number of people, particularly Parliamentary Counsel and Hansard. Everyone is appreciative of the work that they did, drafting and redrafting amendments and interpreting and recording debate which took about four days. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

    Motion agreed to.

    Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.

    Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

    Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

         Contact us | Job opportunities | RSS feeds | Site help
Copyright & conditions of use | Privacy | Authorised user login