Mrs SALLY QUINNELL (Camden) (12:51): I oppose the Water Management Amendment (Transfer of Water) Bill 2023. I will outline certain aspects of the bill and why I oppose it. The purpose of the bill is to restrict the transfer of water access licences to the Commonwealth or the State, unless certain conditions are met. First, requiring that the Minister for Water not register a transfer of an access licence to the Commonwealth or the State; or a Minister, public servant, agent, public authority, agency or subsidiary of the Commonwealth or the State without there first being an assessment undertaken that demonstrates the transfer causes neutral or positive socio-economic impacts. Secondly, that the assessment of socio-economic impacts must have regard to the following criteria:
(a) production output levels,
(b) employment levels and diversity,
(c) individual and business incomes,
(d) costs of carrying on businesses,
(e) changes to working conditions, including hours worked and health and safety conditions,
(f) psychological wellbeing levels, including in relation to stress, happiness, security, family harmony and the ability to undertake leisure activities,
(g) access to, and the level of provision of, social services.
My time in this place has been relatively short, and I am very aware that our situation in Camden is, unlike the Murray electorate, often a situation of too much water. However, from talking to my colleagues and watching this House over time, I have nothing but respect for how the member for Murray continually fights for the people in her community. Her concern for her community and her seeking to ensure that the recovery of environmental water does not negatively impact on the water security of regional communities and their ability to have a strong economy is paramount in her thinking and advocacy. I acknowledge, publicly on record, that the member is a genuine and passionate advocate for her community.
Unfortunately, the current drafting of the bill is impractical and may generate more problems than it will solve. The bill may prohibit farmers and other water users to freely sell their water licences and overall restrict legitimate water-trading purposes. It will also add layers of bureaucracy and lengthy assessments that will cost significant time and money. We know that people are crying out for us to reduce the layers of bureaucracy and lengthy assessments so that they can get things in a timely manner.
Some have claimed that the bill is similar to the moratorium that the Victorian Government imposed on buybacks and therefore would bring New South Wales in line with Victoria; however, that is not correct. By not agreeing to the recent agreement with the Commonwealth on delivering the Basin Plan, the Victorian Government has not avoided buybacks happening in its State. Like Victoria, we have been clear in New South Wales that we do not support buybacks. Unlike members opposite, we welcome the opportunity to have a seat at the table with our Federal counterparts. We would like to prioritise having constructive and robust conversations with the Commonwealth and other basin States because that is how we will deliver the results that we need. Those conversations mean that policies can be meaningful and constructive to better the outcomes for everyone in New South Wales and across the country.
We have put our energy into prioritising investment in infrastructure projects that recover water for the environment and deliver good basin plan outcomes. We have projects like off-farm water efficiency projects that enable water users to upgrade their infrastructure. The Government will continue to listen to and strongly advocate for farmers, irrigators and other water users to minimise the social and economic impacts of water buybacks in New South Wales communities and the water market.
The bill seeks to amend the Water Management Act 2000 to prevent the Minister for Water from registering a transfer in the access register under the Act unless an assessment has been undertaken. Unfortunately, we need to oppose the bill because it has some drafting shortcomings that may create a potential constitutional dispute. As we have said, there are some issues with making sure that we are working with the Commonwealth Government to get a solution that works across the board. It poses significant implementation challenges and is a regulatory burden. The idea is to make sure that we have a regulatory framework that makes life easier, not harder, for the people of New South Wales. The bill will also apply indiscriminately across New South Wales, including to coastal and metropolitan areas. When we look at the bills that are introduced in the House, it is important to recognise that this bill will affect the whole of New South Wales. It removes options from agricultural and water dependent businesses which could cause those businesses stress. It will cost them time and money to apply for a transfer through this new bureaucracy that involves lengthy assessments, which could be very devastating for them.
The bill could ultimately lead to a forced reduction in water allocations in New South Wales if water recovery cannot be completed. The longer I am in this place the more I realise that every issue that we face is a lot more complex than it first appears. It is certainly much more complex than it appears in the media. Often the topics we discuss in this Chamber have unforeseen flow-on effects—excuse the pun. The bill could have some flow-on effects. While I commend the intent behind the bill and I understand where the member is coming from, the bill has some unintended consequences that are problematic and may be impactful to the people of New South Wales. Therefore, I oppose the Water Management Amendment (Transfer of Water) Bill. While some excellent ideas are contained in the bill, unfortunately it has some drafting issues which will have unintended consequences, and other users—agricultural and water-dependent businesses—that need access to that water would be adversely affected. The idea that there are ongoing problems with the bill is the reason I oppose it. However, I commend the member for Murray for bringing the bill before the House and allowing us to debate it.
