Regional economic harm from buybacks
Opponents argued the bill's renewed reliance on water buybacks would take productive water away from irrigators, reduce food and fibre output, and damage local jobs, businesses and services in Basin communities.
Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers)
Current status
This bill became law on Dec 7th, 2023.
Policy area
Climate, energy & environment
What does this bill do?
The federal government must take all reasonable steps to recover 450 gigalitres of extra water for the environment in the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. by 31 December 2027.
Why was it introduced?
A 2021 independent review confirmed the extra 450 gigalitres of environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. would not be recovered by 30 June 2024 under the current program. The bill expands recovery options, including water purchases, removes barriers, and extends deadlines so the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. can be completed.
Broader context
The Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan had long promised an extra 450 gigalitres for the environment, but after years of delay and damaging drought impacts including the Darling River stopping, fish kills and threats to drinking water, the government said the target would not be met under existing settings. After striking an August 2023 deal with basin governments, it introduced this bill to reopen recovery options including buybacks, extend deadlines and add stronger accountability and Indigenous recognition, with Parliament passing it in late 2023.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that bringing back water buybacks and loosening earlier safeguards for the extra 450 gigalitres could strip water from irrigators, cut farm output, and hurt jobs, towns and local services across the Basin. That criticism was pressed mainly by Coalition and National Party MPs, who argued the bill broke the earlier Basin deal and weakened the socioeconomic protections attached to water recovery.
Who supported it?
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, some crossbench members.
Introduced in House 06 Sept 2023
Passed House 18 Oct 2023
Passed Senate 30 Nov 2023 Aye 33 No 26
Became law 07 Dec 2023
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 07 Dec 2023
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
92 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The federal government must take all reasonable steps to recover 450 gigalitres of extra water for the environment in the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. by 31 December 2027.
-
Before approving buyback programs for the 450 gigalitreA very large unit of water volume, used here to measure the environmental water target; 450 gigalitres is the extra amount the bill aims to recover. target, the Water MinisterThe federal minister responsible for water policy, who has to approve or oversee parts of the recovery program. must consider the social and economic effects on Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. communities.
-
Basin States that go over their water take limits must report on the steps they are taking under an action plan to fix the problem.
-
Reviews of the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. must now examine Indigenous interests in Basin water management and report on those issues.
-
The Water ActThe main Commonwealth law the bill changes to give effect to the Basin Plan and water recovery settings. now expressly says Basin water decisions must take Indigenous people's spiritual, cultural, environmental, social and economic interests into account.
Show source excerpts
-
The Minister must take all reasonable steps to increase the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres per year before the end of 31 December 2027.
Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) as-passed bill text -
(1) Before the Minister approves a program (however described) under which water access rights are proposed to be purchased for the purpose of increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres, the Minister must consider the social and economic impact of the program on communities in the Murray‑Darling Basin.
Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) as-passed bill text -
After the end of a water accounting period, a Basin State must, at the same time as it provides the Authority with a report under section 71 in relation to the period, provide the Authority and the Inspector‑General with a report that includes details of progress during the period in taking the proposed set of actions specified in an action plan provided by the Basin State as required by subsection 6.12(5) or 6.12C(5).
Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) as-passed bill text -
(4A) In reviewing the Basin Plan under subsection (1) or (2), the Authority must consider the following matters and report on them in the report prepared under paragraph (5)(a):
Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) as-passed bill text -
(fa) to ensure that the use and management of Basin water resources takes into account spiritual, cultural, environmental, social and economic matters relevant to Indigenous people, including in relation to their knowledge, values, uses, traditions and customs; and
Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) as-passed bill text
Context
Broader context for this bill
The Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan had long promised an extra 450 gigalitres for the environment, but after years of delay and damaging drought impacts including the Darling River stopping, fish kills and threats to drinking water, the government said the target would not be met under existing settings. After striking an August 2023 deal with basin governments, it introduced this bill to reopen recovery options including buybacks, extend deadlines and add stronger accountability and Indigenous recognition, with Parliament passing it in late 2023.
- 2012
Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. adds an extra 450GL environmental target
Parliamentarians described the 2012 Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan as setting a 2,750GL sustainable diversion limitThe legal cap on how much water can be taken from the Basin each year while still leaving enough for the environment. with an added 450GL target for environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. recovery.
Hansard ↗ - 2020
Darling River stops flowing and fish kills underline basin stress
MPs said that during the last drought the Darling River stopped flowing for more than 400 days, communities were desperate for water and millions of native fish died.
Hansard ↗ - Aug 2023
Commonwealth and basin governments strike a deal to complete the plan
Speakers said the Environment Minister reached an agreement with basin state and territory governments to deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan in full.
Hansard ↗ - 06 Sept 2023
Government introduces the Restoring Our Rivers bill
The government presented the bill as a way to deliver the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. in full and in line with the science after delays in recovering the promised water.
Hansard ↗ - 30 Nov 2023
Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed on the bill, clearing the way for expanded water recovery options, extended deadlines and new accountability measures.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 07 Dec 2023
Royal Assent makes the changes law
Royal Assent turned the bill into an Act, allowing the revised plan settings and new statutory obligations to take effect.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 06 Sept 2023
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 06 Sept 2023
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/11/2023) review 07 Sept 2023
Referred to Committee (07/09/2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/11/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesSecond reading debate 12 Sept 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 13 Sept 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 14 Sept 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 17 Oct 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 18 Oct 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House second reading agreed Aye 82 No 50 18 Oct 2023
Recorded vote: 82 to 50.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
House agreed to amendment packages 18 Oct 2023
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
House third reading agreed 18 Oct 2023
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
Introduced 19 Oct 2023
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 19 Oct 2023
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 27 Nov 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate second reading agreed 28 Nov 2023
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Committee of the Whole debate 28 Nov 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Committee of the Whole debate 29 Nov 2023
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate agreed to amendment packages 30 Nov 2023
The Senate agreed to amendment packages during committee consideration before the final bill-passage vote.
Committee of the Whole debate
Senate third reading agreed Aye 33 No 26 30 Nov 2023
Recorded vote: 33 to 26.
The Senate passed the bill after completing amendment consideration.
Third reading agreed to
House agreed to Senate amendments 30 Nov 2023
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Passed both houses 30 Nov 2023
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
Assent 07 Dec 2023
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main case against the bill was that bringing back water buybacks and loosening earlier safeguards for the extra 450 gigalitres could strip water from irrigators, cut farm output, and hurt jobs, towns and local services across the Basin. That criticism was pressed mainly by Coalition and National Party MPs, who argued the bill broke the earlier Basin deal and weakened the socioeconomic protections attached to water recovery.
Criticism was substantial but came chiefly from the Coalition side of politics.
Removal of socioeconomic safeguards
Critics said the bill removed or weakened the socioeconomic test and other protections that were meant to stop environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. recovery causing net harm to regional communities.
Breaking the earlier Basin deal
Some opponents argued the bill abandoned the political and policy compromise behind the 2012 Basin arrangements by pushing the 450 gigalitreA very large unit of water volume, used here to measure the environmental water target; 450 gigalitres is the extra amount the bill aims to recover. target in a way they said went further than communities had been promised to accept.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed House passed the bill
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed
House passed the bill
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Carried Senate passed the bill
Passed 33 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Senate passed the bill
Party Aye / No
Labor 18 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 15
Greens 9 / 0
Unknown 3 / 5
Nationals 0 / 4
Independent 2 / 0
One Nation 0 / 2
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
Earlier bill-stage votes
Carried House cleared second reading
Passed 82 to 50. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
House cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 61 / 0
Unknown 13 / 21
Liberal Party 0 / 16
Nationals 0 / 11
Independent 6 / 2
Greens 1 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Carried House approves amended bill text
Passed 85 to 50. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
House approves amended bill text
Party Aye / No
Labor 62 / 0
Unknown 15 / 21
Liberal Party 0 / 17
Nationals 0 / 11
Independent 6 / 1
Greens 1 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Carried Senate cleared second reading
Passed 34 to 27. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Senate cleared second reading
Party Aye / No
Labor 19 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 16
Greens 10 / 0
Unknown 3 / 7
Nationals 0 / 3
Independent 1 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
One Nation 0 / 1
Amendments at a glance
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Defeated Reject Coalition basin reform alternative
Defeated 49 to 79. Support came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Reject Coalition basin reform alternative
The proposed change was not agreed.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 61
Unknown 21 / 10
Liberal Party 16 / 0
Nationals 11 / 0
Independent 1 / 7
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Carried Require annual water recovery reports
Passed 81 to 48. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Require annual water recovery reports
This strengthened transparency obligations on how the bill's water recovery targets would be tracked and reported to Parliament.
Party Aye / No
Labor 61 / 0
Unknown 11 / 21
Liberal Party 0 / 17
Nationals 0 / 10
Independent 7 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Katter's Australian Party 1 / 0
Carried Report on WESA socioeconomic impacts
Passed 81 to 48. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Report on WESA socioeconomic impacts
This added scrutiny of the social and economic mitigation measures attached to voluntary water recovery under the bill.
Party Aye / No
Labor 61 / 0
Unknown 12 / 20
Liberal Party 0 / 18
Nationals 0 / 10
Independent 7 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Carried Audit basin water accounting methods
Passed 82 to 48. Support came from Labor, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Audit basin water accounting methods
This expanded independent oversight of the water accounting used for reconciliation and the 450 GLA very large unit of water volume, used here to measure the environmental water target; 450 gigalitres is the extra amount the bill aims to recover. target.
Party Aye / No
Labor 62 / 0
Unknown 12 / 21
Liberal Party 0 / 18
Nationals 0 / 9
Independent 7 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Carried Clarify trust and evidential burden rules
Passed 80 to 49. Support came from Labor and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Clarify trust and evidential burden rules
These were technical clarifications to make the bill's enforcement and application provisions clearer.
Party Aye / No
Labor 62 / 0
Unknown 12 / 21
Liberal Party 0 / 16
Nationals 0 / 11
Independent 5 / 1
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Carried End debate on Senate changes
Passed 77 to 61. Support came from Labor, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
End debate on Senate changes
This forced a decision on the Senate's amendments rather than continuing debate.
Party Aye / No
Labor 64 / 0
Unknown 10 / 24
Liberal Party 0 / 19
Nationals 0 / 11
Independent 1 / 6
Greens 1 / 0
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Katter's Australian Party 1 / 0
Carried House accepts Senate water amendments
Passed 86 to 52. Support came from Labor, Greens, Centre Alliance, and Katter's Australian Party. Opposition came from Liberal Party and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
House accepts Senate water amendments
The proposed change was agreed.
Party Aye / No
Labor 64 / 0
Unknown 13 / 21
Liberal Party 0 / 19
Nationals 0 / 11
Independent 6 / 1
Greens 1 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Katter's Australian Party 1 / 0
Carried House accepted all Senate amendments
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried
House accepted all Senate amendments
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Carried Crossbench package: 5 amendments
Crossbench amendments require the Basin Plan and water resource plans to respond immediately and adaptively to climate change, broaden review and consultation for the Water for the Environment Special Account, and create annual progress reports on the 450 gigalitre target and related recovery measures.
Carried
Crossbench package: 5 amendments
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
- This would change the bill text to require the Basin Plan and water resource plans to provide immediate, urgent and adaptive responses to climate change, and to create a national standard
- This would change the bill text to broaden review and consultation requirements for the Water for the Environment Special Account and related Basin Plan audit powers
- This would change the bill text to require annual reports on progress towards the 450 gigalitre environmental water target and related recovery measures
Carried Government package: 31 amendments
Government amendments tighten the bill with technical and minor textual fixes, including aligning guideline publication to the correct statutory power and clarifying consultation with Basin States in preparing Basin Plan guidelines.
Carried
Government package: 31 amendments
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
Defeated Call for social test on 450 GL
Defeated 29 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Call for social test on 450 GL
This would have made the Senate's second-reading position conditional on stronger community protections for further water recovery.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 17
Liberal Party 13 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
Unknown 7 / 2
Nationals 5 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
One Nation 2 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Defeated Question South East Flows accounting
Defeated 28 to 30. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Question South East Flows accounting
This was a failed attempt to stop or reshape the bill's expanded water recovery and environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. provisions.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 17
Liberal Party 13 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
Unknown 6 / 2
Nationals 5 / 0
One Nation 2 / 0
Independent 0 / 1
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0
Defeated Recognise First Peoples’ water rights
Defeated 14 to 32. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Recognise First Peoples’ water rights
This would have broadened the bill's approach to environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. recovery beyond direct buybacks alone.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 16
Greens 10 / 0
Unknown 1 / 6
Liberal Party 0 / 4
Nationals 0 / 3
Independent 2 / 0
One Nation 0 / 2
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
UAP 0 / 1
Carried Recognise Indigenous rights in basin reform
Passed 34 to 27. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Recognise Indigenous rights in basin reform
This would have strengthened Indigenous representation and rights in the bill's governance framework.
Party Aye / No
Labor 18 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 17
Greens 10 / 0
Unknown 3 / 6
Nationals 0 / 3
Independent 2 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
One Nation 0 / 1
Carried Reject bill's water recovery package
Passed 35 to 27. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Reject bill's water recovery package
This was a failed attempt to strip back the bill's core water recovery and market reform measures.
Party Aye / No
Labor 18 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 17
Greens 10 / 0
Unknown 4 / 6
Nationals 0 / 3
Independent 2 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
One Nation 0 / 1
Defeated Block buybacks and HEW changes
Defeated 29 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Block buybacks and HEW changes
This was another failed attempt to narrow the bill's expanded water recovery powers and related accounting changes.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 18
Liberal Party 16 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
Unknown 7 / 3
Nationals 3 / 0
Independent 0 / 2
One Nation 2 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
Defeated Fund complementary basin measures
Defeated 30 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Fund complementary basin measures
This would have broadened the bill's approach to environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. recovery beyond direct buybacks alone.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 18
Liberal Party 17 / 0
Greens 0 / 10
Unknown 6 / 3
Nationals 3 / 0
One Nation 2 / 0
Independent 1 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
Carried Strengthen Indigenous reporting and review
Passed 34 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Strengthen Indigenous reporting and review
This added ongoing reporting and review duties focused on First Nations involvement in Basin water management.
Party Aye / No
Labor 17 / 0
Liberal Party 0 / 17
Greens 10 / 0
Unknown 4 / 4
Nationals 0 / 3
Independent 2 / 0
One Nation 0 / 2
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
Defeated Recognise Indigenous rights and climate risks
Defeated 13 to 38. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Recognise Indigenous rights and climate risks
This would have embedded Indigenous consent and climate considerations more deeply into the Water ActThe main Commonwealth law the bill changes to give effect to the Basin Plan and water recovery settings. and Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work..
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 18
Liberal Party 0 / 11
Greens 9 / 0
Unknown 1 / 4
Nationals 0 / 3
Independent 2 / 0
One Nation 0 / 2
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
Carried Large Senate water amendment package carried
The Senate agreed on voices to a large package of Government, Greens and Independent amendments.
Carried
Large Senate water amendment package carried
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Carried Indigenous water-object amendments carried
The Senate agreed on voices to Government amendments inserting Indigenous matters into the Act’s objects and adjusting review and reporting requirements.
Carried
Indigenous water-object amendments carried
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Defeated Recognise Indigenous rights and climate risks in river reform
The Senate rejected Senator Thorpe's proposal on voices, which would have added Indigenous rights, participation, cultural connections, cultural flows and climate risk matters to the Water ActThe main Commonwealth law the bill changes to give effect to the Basin Plan and water recovery settings., Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. and review requirements.
Defeated
Recognise Indigenous rights and climate risks in river reform
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Carried Lift environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. recovery target
The Senate agreed on voices to Senator Hanson-Young's proposal, which would require the Minister to take all reasonable steps to add 450 gigalitres a year of environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. by 31 December 2027.
Carried
Lift environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption. recovery target
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Carried Use more water leasing alongside buybacks
The Senate agreed on voices to Senator Van's second-reading proposal, calling for more use of water leasing and other financial tools instead of relying only on buybacks.
Carried
Use more water leasing alongside buybacks
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 20 Government, 5 Australian Greens, 2 Independent, 2 Independent amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Tanya Plibersek
Plibersek supports the bill and says it is needed to get the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan back on track by removing barriers to water recovery and giving the program more time and flexibility.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
David Littleproud
Littleproud says the coalition will oppose the bill because it breaks the 2012 basin deal, removes protections for regional communities, and relies on buybacks that he says will damage local economies and food production.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Helen Haines
Haines supports the bill overall, saying it is needed to get the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. back on track, extend SDLAMA process that lets Basin States offset water recovery by completing approved projects that improve river outcomes in other ways. deadlines, strengthen accountability and broaden the tools available to restore river health.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Supports
Rebekha Sharkie
Sharkie supports the bill and says it is needed to get the full 450 gigalitres back into the Murray-Darling system for the environment.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
22 speakers · 25 contributions · 22 support
Labor
22 speakers · 25 contributions · 22 support
-
Matt Burnell Burnell supports the bill and says it should restore and strengthen the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan after years of neglect.
“This bill does all of those things.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tanya Plibersek ★ 2 contributions Plibersek supports the bill and says it is needed to get the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan back on track by removing barriers to water recovery and giving the program more time and flexibility.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tanya Plibersek on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill and says it is needed to get the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan back on track by removing barriers to water recovery and giving the program more time and flexibility. She argues the changes are reasonable and necessary to finish the job after years of coalition delay.
“This bill is needed to reset the time lines, to improve the rules that have strangled water recovery, and to offer a new path to delivering the Basin Plan in full.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Plibersek supports the bill and says it is another step toward delivering the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. in full. She argues it adds more time, options, money and accountability, and highlights transparency and enforcement amendments as important improvements.
“As we approach the vote on this key piece of legislation, this should be a good day for our parliament and country. With the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 we're taking another step in fulfilling our promise to the Australian people to deliver the Basin Plan in full. That's what this bill does. It offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability. With these changes, we are opening up the full suite of water recovery options. We'll be able to invest in on-farm water infrastructure, in land and water purchases and in other novel water recovery mechanisms where it's sensible to do so. We'll be able to count recovery above bridging the gap targets towards the 450 gigalitre target, and we'll be able to purchase water from willing sellers where it's needed to deliver the plan.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Tim Ayres Tim Ayres supports the bill and says it is needed to reset the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan timelines, loosen rules blocking water recovery, and finish delivering the plan in full.
“This bill is needed to reset the timelines, to loosen the rules that are strangling water recovery, and to offer a new path to delivering the plan in full.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Louise Miller-Frost Louise Miller-Frost supports the bill and urges the House to pass it because she says it is needed to rescue and fully deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan.
“All I can do is urge my colleagues in this place and the other to support this bill. Remember why a healthy Murray-Darling Basin is so important, why we need the plan to be delivered in full. If you support agriculture, then I urge you to support agriculture downstream as well. If you support rural communities, then I urge you to support the communities downstream as well, including those that are dependent on drinking water from the Murray, even though they are hundreds of kilometres away on the York and Eyre peninsulas. If you support the environment, then I urge you to support the downstream environment, including the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and the Murray mouth. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is about a healthy and sustainable system for all, from the top of the catchment all the way down to my friend Sally at the Murray mouth. This plan is needed. I commend the bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Kate Thwaites Kate Thwaites supports the bill and says it is needed to rescue and deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan in full.
“I'm very pleased to be supporting this legislation. It is very important to our country.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
David Smith Smith supports the bill and says it is needed to finish the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan by giving governments more time, flexibility, funding and stronger water-market rules after the previous government slowed delivery.
“If we are to pass the Murray-Darling on to future generations in better health, we must finish what we started. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 makes sensible and practical amendments to the Water Act 2007 and consequential amendments to the Basin Plan 2012 so we can get on with the job and finish what we started. We're extending Basin Plan time lines to achieve water recovery targets and time lines for the states to deliver water infrastructure projects that keep more water in productive use. We're removing overly restrictive rules so we can recover the 450 gigalitres of water for enhanced environmental outcomes, and we're getting rid of the cap on voluntary water purchases. These changes are necessary to deliver on the agreement struck between Murray-Darling Basin water ministers to provide long asked-for certainty to basin stakeholders.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Meryl Swanson Swanson supports the bill and says it is needed to restore the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. by using water fairly, avoiding waste, and backing food security and future farming.
“This is why I am in favour of this bill, and I do commend it to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tony Zappia Tony Zappia supports the bill and says it restores the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan to a sustainable setting, including the 450 gigalitres and stronger water-market integrity.
“With those comments, can I say this legislation simply restores what this parliament and the nation—because the state premiers agreed to it in 2012—back to what it should be, and that is a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is sustainable.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jerome Laxale Laxale strongly supports the bill and says it is needed to get the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan back on track by restoring water recovery, giving states more time to finish infrastructure projects, and tightening water market oversight.
“Given how vital water is for our country, communities, ecosystems, farms and planet, I am proud to speak in favour of this Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Karen Grogan Grogan supports the bill and says it is the result of a negotiated balance that will help finish the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work., provide more time and accountability, and protect the river while giving farmers and communities more certainty.
“This bill will provide more time and options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure and voluntary buybacks; more accountability; and more money to deliver the remaining water and support communities. And there is also a suite of measures to bring integrity and transparency to the water market. Labor and the Greens have worked together to identify ways to strengthen the legislation, both through our work at the committee inquiry and also through negotiations with the minister. These amendments provide further rigour and protections, are well supported and will start us on the pathway of mending what has occurred in terms of Indigenous water access and water rights, which I think are a critical part of how we move forward. And it will provide better protections and more transparency.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Steve Georganas 2 contributions Georganas strongly supports the bill, saying it is needed to restore the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan, deliver the 450 gigalitres for environmental flows and give farmers, communities and the environment more certainty.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Steve Georganas on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Georganas supports the bill, saying the river needs the 450 gigalitres returned to make the Murray sustainable and protect riverside communities from future drought damage.
“The reality is that, if we don't get the 450 gigalitres flowing back into the River Murray so we can have a sustainable river, there will be no industries in years to come.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Georganas strongly supports the bill, saying it is needed to restore the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan, deliver the 450 gigalitres for environmental flows and give farmers, communities and the environment more certainty. He argues the previous government delayed action for years, so this bill is a necessary correction and a lifeline for the basin.
“This bill offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability, not more restrictions, as we saw from the other side. It's a lifeline for the basin.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Jana Stewart Jana Stewart supports the bill and says it is needed to finish the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan, recover the remaining water for the environment, and fix weak water-market rules.
“The bill amends the Water Act, Basin Plan and Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to implement recommendations made by the ACCC. The bill introduces a framework to create an enforceable, mandatory code for water market intermediaries. It provides the ACCC with increased information-gathering powers to facilitate transparency. It introduces civil penalties for market manipulation and doubles the penalty for insider trading. It will allow the ACCC, as the code and conduct regulator, to monitor water prices and investigate misconduct allegations. The bill acknowledges First Nations peoples' connection, history and water needs, and provides an additional $100 million in funding for the Aboriginal Water Entitlement Program. It also introduces mandatory reporting to demonstrate how environmental water holders have considered First Nations values and uses, and how they have involved First Nations peoples in environmental water decisions. These proposed amendments offer us a path forward from a decade of sabotage and negligence towards the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and to this end I commend this bill to the Senate.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Daniel Mulino Mulino supports the bill and says it is a major step forward for the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan because it gives the states more time and funding while strengthening water trading rules and accountability.
“This bill is an important step towards getting us back on track in delivering the very important Murray Darling Basin Plan, and I'm very pleased to support the passage of this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Susan Templeman Templeman supports the bill and says it is a rescue package for the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. that will give governments more time, more delivery options and more accountability to finish restoring water to the system.
“This is basically a rescue package for the Murray-Darling Basin. I think we've heard from people all around this chamber who have communities affected that it's really important for those communities. Whether they are down at the Adelaide end of those communities or up around Menindee and right through, these are crucial waterways. What this legislation does is give every government involved more time to deliver the remaining water based on expert advice. We like the science, and we will listen to the experts. It also gives more options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks—that is voluntary water buybacks. There's also more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water buybacks have flow-on impacts—a consequence for those communities. This legislation also ensures more accountability from Murray-Darling Basin governments on delivering the remaining water on time. Transparency is not something that has been a highlight of this project over the last decade. Our federal funding will be contingent on achieving water recovery targets within deadlines, to hold people to account.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Anne Stanley Stanley supports the bill and says it is needed to fully implement the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work., recover the remaining environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption., and restore transparency and integrity in water markets.
“This bill makes sensible and practical amendments to the Water Act 2007 and consequential amendments to the Basin Plan 2012. The purpose of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is to amend the Water Act and the Basin Plan to implement the Basin Plan in full, including recovering the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water. We are also implementing the recommendations of the Water market reform: final roadmap report to restore transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets. This fulfils an election commitment to work with basin governments and stakeholders for the delivery of water commitments in the Murray-Darling Basin.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Alicia Payne Alicia Payne says Labor strongly supports the bill because it will help deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan, recover environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption., and improve accountability and flexibility in how the basin is managed.
“Our government is committed to the Murray Darling Basin plan. This government is committed to restoring our rivers. This government is committed to protecting the Australian environment and leaving it in a better state than when we came to government. Our government is committed to strong action on climate change, and this bill is part of that. If you filter out the hysteria from those opposite about what this bill does, you will see it's simple. It will deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which they agreed to in full, including the recovery of 450 gigalitres of environmental water, which was promised under their government but not even attempted to be achieved. This bill acts to protect, repair and manage our environment so that it grows stronger.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Amanda Rishworth Amanda Rishworth says Labor strongly supports the bill because it will get the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. plan back on track and make the water recovery rules more workable.
“Our 'restoring our rivers' bill will make sensible and practical amendments to the Water Act 2007 and the consequential amendments to the Basin Plan in 2012, so we can get back to the job of fixing this river system. We will implement the plan in full and finish what we started.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Fiona Phillips Fiona Phillips supports the bill and says it is needed to rescue and fully deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan.
“That's why I'm happy to support this bill, which I know is a welcome relief to constituents who have raised this issue with me. I'm really proud that our government recently announced that we had reached an agreement with basin governments to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, including 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. This legislation will rescue the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and we know that, just like for my communities, this legislation is really important for basin communities and for every Australian who cares about the environment.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Lisa Chesters 2 contributions Lisa Chesters supports the bill and says it is a sensible, urgent reform to restore river flows, improve water infrastructure, and give governments more time and accountability to deliver the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work..
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Lisa Chesters on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Lisa Chesters supports the bill and says it is a sensible, urgent reform to restore river flows, improve water infrastructure, and give governments more time and accountability to deliver the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work.. She argues it is needed to protect agriculture, communities, First Nations interests, and the environment as climate change makes dry conditions worse.
“This plan is a start, but, as I said, because of the impact of climate change, because we are going to dry sooner, it is in the best interests of all of the Murray-Darling Basin communities and their representatives to back in this plan.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Chesters supports the bill and says more time, more options and more funding are needed to deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. plan. She urges the Victorian government to work with the Commonwealth on modernising water infrastructure and returning the water required to the Murray.
“I also am here to say that I really hope my Labor colleagues in the Victorian government are listening and get on board with the plan. The reason I say that is there is a lot of opportunity for us to actually work together. The fact is that we need more time to deliver the plan. We need more options on how we can return the water required to the Murray. There is more funding on the table. This is where I strongly urge the Victorian government to pick up the phone and start working with us.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
Marielle Smith Smith supports the bill and says it is needed to get the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan back on track, restore the promised 450 gigalitres and improve accountability.
“This is why it is so imperative that this bill passes. We need to implement the Basin Plan in full. That includes recovering the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water the basin needs. This is the only way we're going to get there.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Andrew Leigh Leigh supports the bill, saying it gives the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan more time, more options, more money and more accountability after years of coalition delay.
“This bill offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability, and it comes after a decade of sabotage and delay from those opposite. Upon coming to office, the coalition waged an insidious war against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They tied up projects in impossible rules so they couldn't deliver water savings, they blocked water recovery programs and they tried to cut the final recovery targets. Over nine years, of the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, guess how many they delivered? Two—just two gigalitres. On that trajectory, they would have eventually delivered the 450 gigalitres by about the year 4000. That is how much they undermined the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There were resources there to help deliver the 450 gigalitre target in the Water for the Environment Special Account. But there is still some $1.3 billion in that account unspent.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Kristy McBain McBain supports the bill and says it is needed to deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan in full, return 450 gigalitres to the environment, and restore transparency and accountability after years of delay.
“The changes will see 450 gigalitres of water returned to the environment and reinstate transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
19 speakers · 20 contributions · 18 oppose · 1 mixed
Coalition
19 speakers · 20 contributions · 18 oppose · 1 mixed
-
David Littleproud ★ Littleproud says the coalition will oppose the bill because it breaks the 2012 basin deal, removes protections for regional communities, and relies on buybacks that he says will damage local economies and food production.
“I can say categorically that in no way, shape or form could the coalition support this bill, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. This is a breach of faith with Murray-Darling Basin communities and it is a breach of faith with this parliament. This legislation was brought in under the previous Labor government in 2012, when the member for Watson was the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. What they are doing is tearing down the very legislation that they put in place and opening up basin communities to the trauma that they faced in 2012. These communities had stoically moved on and were prepared to accept their lot to be able to say that that was the end of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But, in one of the nastiest and most callous pieces of legislation, this government wants to reopen the trauma for communities right up and down the basin.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Keith Pitt Keith Pitt opposes the bill and says Labor's 450 gigalitreA very large unit of water volume, used here to measure the environmental water target; 450 gigalitres is the extra amount the bill aims to recover. buyback approach will not improve the Murray mouth but will instead strip water entitlements from irrigators and damage regional communities.
“The 450 gigalitres is now going to be brought about through different means—one, in particular, being uncapped buybacks. You now have this perverse position where those opposite, the Labor government, are suggesting that they will spend, potentially, hundreds of millions of dollars on water infrastructure with big irrigators, and this is the right way to go about the plan because you get new infrastructure and, as a by-product, you get water recovery through efficiencies. That is the right away. But those organisations can then sell that recovered water to the Commonwealth as part of this entitlement. Double dipping—that just doesn't even describe it. What a ludicrous proposition: the taxpayer will pay for upgraded infrastructure for the company to then be able to sell back water to the Commonwealth. They win both ways—what an incredible outcome. The only people that lose are those that live in these communities because, in perpetuity, they will have lost this water allocation, this water entitlement, that drives their economy. It actually grows food—food for the country, which we desperately need.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Anne Ruston Anne Ruston opposes the bill unless it is amended, saying she supports delivering the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan in full but cannot back a version that lifts the cap on buybacks or removes protections for river communities.
“But I cannot support this bill unamended, despite the fact that I absolutely am committed to the delivery of the plan in full. The reason I cannot support this bill unamended is because a very, very important component was built into this act that meant there needed to be no socioeconomic detriment delivered to river communities in the achievement of the outcomes.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sussan Ley Ley opposes the bill and says the Coalition will fight it because it rewrites the bipartisan Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. at the expense of regional communities, farmers and irrigators.
“That's not good enough and we're going to fight back on this. We expect people to get angry. We expect people to get very angry, because when I talk to my communities they are genuinely bewildered by what this means.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Nola Marino Marino opposes the bill because she says its revived buyback programA government program that purchases water entitlements from holders so the water can be used for environmental purposes instead. will hurt irrigation communities, strand assets and damage food production.
“Concerning, however, are matters subject to regulation and not actually detailed in the bill itself. The government's track record of a lack of consultation means that people are rightly nervous about what the government will do with these regulations. There is a genuine need for more time to meet the requirements of this plan. Murray-Darling Basin communities should not be the ongoing victims of arbitrary deadlines. Meeting planned goals is important, but so is the wellbeing of local communities, the wider Australian public and the people—the farmers themselves. They actually matter. The reintroduction of buybacks from willing sellers is a cause of deep concern. Unmanaged buybacks create the risk, as I said, of stranded irrigation assets, assets in some cases that may have recently been maintained or built with millions of dollars of Commonwealth and state funding support. It needs to be seriously considered. Most of the use occurs in the three large southern valleys of the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Goulburn-Broken rivers, made possible by the many wonderful large dams that facilitate the regulated releases of water downstream and divert them into those irrigation canal systems. So I am very concerned about what the government is proposing here. Anyone who doesn't understand the value of irrigated agriculture, where the food is produced in Australia and the impacts on the people who actually matter is of great concern to me.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Gerard Rennick Rennick opposes the bill, arguing it would take water away from farmers, waste money, and damage primary production for little environmental gain.
“The absurdity of this legislation is that it is completely ineffectual. Not only is it ineffectual through evaporation; it's going to destroy our very food bowl.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Anne Webster Webster opposes the bill and says it will hurt food and fibre production, regional communities, and irrigated agriculture because it scraps the socioeconomic neutrality safeguard and expands water buybacks.
“The risk with the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is that we will see our food and fibre production in Australia depleted and our overall value in horticulture and agriculture depleted. It is our regional communities that will be suffering. This is an awful bill. The key point about this bill is the fact that we do not have a socioeconomic neutrality test still in place.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Rowan Ramsey Ramsey opposes the bill because he says it removes the safeguard that buybacks should deliver neutral or positive socioeconomic outcomes, and that could hollow out Riverland communities.
“Now the kicker in this legislation is not that it's being taken out to a longer time line—that's a good thing in itself because we're seeing that these reforms are difficult—but that the legislation is throwing away the safeguard. I restate that safeguard: dependent on neutral or positive socioeconomic outcomes. The legislation as it stands would allow the minister to buy up water licences wherever she sees fit. In fact, I'm not sure that she would not be able to do compulsory acquisition of water licences.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
James Stevens James Stevens opposes the bill, saying it breaks the government’s promise to deliver the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. Plan on time and risks diverting water away from South Australia.
“But what this bill does to my home state and my home city is walk away from an election promise to deliver the plan on time, walk away from the guarantee of giving us 450 gigalitres of environmental water and potentially put irrigation communities like the Riverland in a situation where they lose 40 gigalitres of water and all that lost production from our economy in South Australia. I certainly will not be supporting this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Michael McCormack McCormack opposes the bill, saying it would force harmful water buybacks and extra river recovery targets that would damage regional communities and irrigation economies.
“I know how important it is to them, and I know how much this will affect them if this plan goes through unaltered in this place and over there in the Senate because, quite frankly, some of those country communities will just have to close their doors.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tony Pasin Tony Pasin opposes the bill because he says water recovery should only happen in a socioeconomically neutral way, not through buybacks that he argues will damage regional communities and irrigators in his electorate.
“My personal position, and this is why I am opposed to the bill, is that we should only do this if we can recover this in a socioeconomically neutral way. There are programs like 3IP, where farmers were offered capital in return for the water savings that capital delivered. If I can deliver water to an orange grove in a more efficient way and save water by using that technology, and that cost can be borne by the Commonwealth, then in return the Commonwealth can have the water saving. That's how you deal with this challenge in a way that doesn't kill communities.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
David Gillespie Gillespie opposes the bill and says the coalition cannot support it because he считает it badly designed, not properly consulted on, and likely to expand buybacks in ways that hurt Basin communities and irrigated agriculture.
“I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, which unfortunately the coalition cannot support. It is a very badly designed bill, masking a misunderstanding of the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Mark Coulton Mark Coulton says the National Party member opposes the bill and will vote against it because it removes the safeguards on the extra 450 gigalitres and he believes it will harm irrigation communities, jobs, and regional production in the basin.
“We want to make sure that everyone gets a fair share of the river, in a way that's practical. This is a political move. The minister has no skin in the game. And we need to vote against this terrible legislation.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sam Birrell Birrell says the opposition will not support the bill because it revives buybacks and removes the socioeconomic test, which he argues will damage basin communities, irrigators and local production.
“This legislation does not understand what it will do both to the environment and to society. This is a real tragedy. People in my electorate are calling this the Alamo. They're saying that this is it. They're saying this is an existential crisis. This is really serious stuff. I've got a fruit cannery called SPC in my electorate. They got going in 1918. I've had old war diggers telling me what they went through when they were serving in World War II, Korea or Vietnam. The greatest moments of their life were when they got their ration pack and pulled out a tin of SPC peaches, because it was from home, it was from Australia and it was healthy food. They've been doing this for so long. If you go into a supermarket now there's the SPC product. I always try to buy the SPC product. It's so important. But next to it there is the Chinese snack pack. God knows what environmental impact, economic impact or socio-economic impact that has had. Do we want our peaches and our kids' food to come from this country or do we want to bring it in from China? I just ask you that. It's not a scare campaign. That's what will happen if damaging legislation like this goes through, and I oppose it fundamentally.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Perin Davey Perin Davey opposes the bill and says she will move a second reading amendment and further amendments because it will hurt Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. communities and small regional industries.
“So I will be moving a second reading amendment, and I have a series of amendments which I will be proposing through committee of the whole, because I haven't given up. I have to fight, for the sake of the communities in which I live, and the communities that produce 40 per cent of Australia's food and fibre, and the dairy processors, the rice millers, the winemakers and all of those industries in the Murray-Darling Basin. I have to fight until the last minute. I have to throw everything I can at this, to try and take some of the rough edges off this bill which I fear is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for a lot of our small communities in the Murray-Darling Basin.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Barnaby Joyce 2 contributions Barnaby Joyce opposes the bill, arguing it will hurt rural communities by taking water away from irrigators and driving up the cost of running schemes.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Barnaby Joyce on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Barnaby Joyce opposes the bill, arguing it will hurt rural communities by taking water away from irrigators and driving up the cost of running schemes. He says the government is sacrificing food production and regional livelihoods for misguided basin policy.
“What we have seen, all through this, is that the Labor Party, the government—hand in glove with the Greens—has managed to create a complete affliction on the lives of people in rural areas. This Murray-Darling Basin change is going to be massively problematic—not so much for the people who get the money, but for the people who are left behind. If you keep taking irrigators away from an irrigation scheme, then the cost to run the scheme remains with the few who stay. It's like having a high-rise building: if you've only got a few tenants, how do they pay the strata fees? If you've only got a few people in an irrigation scheme, how do they maintain the scheme?”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Barnaby Joyce opposes the bill because he says it would take water from the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. and damage regional towns, businesses and services. He argues the government is abandoning the socioeconomic detriment safeguard that was meant to protect those communities.
“But the 450, as stated by the Australian Labor Party, was premised on a socioeconomic detriment test. Now, that is a premise of what you are now removing. So I can only say: you care nothing about socioeconomic detriment in regional areas, because your own actions are deriding that principle.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗ -
James McGrath McGrath says the coalition will oppose the bill because it strips away protections for regional communities, especially in south-west Queensland.
“This bill is a kick in the guts, and that's why we should oppose it.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
David Van Van says he has worked to improve the bill and thinks it can be made better, but he still sees it as a limited and imperfect step toward restoring the rivers.
“I agree with some of Senator Canavan's remarks about our ability to do more to enable our environment to recover and thrive with the rivers flowing, but this bill doesn't quite do that. I've had a very good interaction with the office of the Minister for the Environment and Water, Ms Plibersek, to try and find ways to improve this bill. There are many ways in which this bill could be improved, and I think we've been able to achieve some of them. Hopefully, we can get further on that, but given the time frame that this bill has in which to pass and its limitations, there is only so much that can be done in this round, but it doesn't mean that the bill can't be improved further.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
6 speakers · 5 support · 1 mixed
Greens
6 speakers · 5 support · 1 mixed
-
Sarah Hanson-Young Hanson-Young backs the bill and says the Greens secured it as a critical lifeline for the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen., delivering more environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption., tighter accountability and stronger First Nations recognition.
“That is why the Greens have today secured a critical lifeline for the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a significant win for the environment and river communities to stop our rivers running dry.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
David Shoebridge Shoebridge says the Greens will vote for the bill because it delivers real environmental waterWater kept or returned to rivers, wetlands and floodplains to support ecosystems rather than being used for irrigation or other consumption., closes loopholes and adds transparency and First Nations recognition, even though he says it does not do everything needed.
“This has been a hard negotiation. We've heard a lot of lies from a couple of big corporate vested interests in the farming community willing to sell out their rivers, towns, sell out the mum-and-dad farmers, sell out First Nations people for a short-term profit and, thankfully, they're being stared down and we're now going to have a bill that the Greens can vote for. I do want to credit the hard work, the consistency, the belief in the river and the belief we can do something good that's been shown by Senator Hanson-Young in this. I commend her for her work, and let's get this legislated.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Barbara Pocock Barbara Pocock says the Greens support the bill as amended because it restores water to the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen., strengthens accountability, and better protects South Australian communities, First Nations water needs, and river health.
“This bill is, with our Greens amendments, a critical lifeline—a guarantee in law of greater flows of water down the river, especially for South Australia. It's a breakthrough agreement. It's a landmark. It has the promise to rescue our river from the broken promises of the Liberal and National parties. We are long overdue for an independent audit. Our river has suffered from greed, from overextraction and from failing to take account of climate change.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Janet Rice Rice says the Greens strongly support the bill because it locks in more water for the Murray-Darling, adds an independent audit to curb rorts, and recognises First Nations water rights.
“I'm very hopeful that after a serious independent audit, some of those projects will go ahead, and the Victorian government will change its mind and realise that by signing up for this plan, they will benefit from some money potentially going into those projects. Congratulations again to Senator Hanson-Young and to the Labor Party for giving us a good news story. So much of the news in this place, so much of what we are doing, leads you to be despairing. Working together like this to get good outcomes gives me hope. It gives me hope that, when we look objectively and sensibly at the environmental needs of our planet, we can work together and get good outcomes. I'm really pleased to be speaking in support of this bill today.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Dorinda Cox Cox supports the bill because the Greens secured changes that improve environmental flows, transparency and funding for First Nations water rights.
“The Greens have significantly improved this bill, and it's a win for the Murray. It's a win for First Nations water rights in this country. There's still a long way to go before First Nations connections and rights to water are upheld in the same regard as our connection and our rights to land are, but I believe this is a step in the right direction.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Adam Bandt Bandt says the Greens will support the bill's passage in the House, but only because they are willing to keep working on it; he says they cannot back its current form because it gives no guarantee that the promised water will be delivered to South Australia and the environment.
“The Greens are willing to work with the government to improve this bill, but, as it stands, the bill provides no guarantees that water will be delivered for South Australia and for the environment. As such, although the Greens will support the passage of the bill here, we can't support the bill in its current form and reserve our final position in the Senate.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 oppose
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 oppose
-
Malcolm Roberts Roberts says One Nation will oppose the bill because he считает it will drive water buybacks, hurt farming and regional communities, and raise food prices without fixing the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen.'s deeper problems.
“The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 isn't a plan to improve the health of our rivers and lakes; it's an open declaration of war on farming and rural communities, ideology driving a political and social war to the exclusion of decency and common sense. Making farming harder will reduce the supply of fresh fruit and drive up prices at a time when inflation is already out of hand.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
4 speakers · 4 support
Minor parties and independents
4 speakers · 4 support
-
Helen Haines ★ Haines supports the bill overall, saying it is needed to get the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work. back on track, extend SDLAMA process that lets Basin States offset water recovery by completing approved projects that improve river outcomes in other ways. deadlines, strengthen accountability and broaden the tools available to restore river health.
“As for my position on this bill, I support the extension of the deadlines for delivering the SDLAM projects. I want to see these projects have a another chance to deliver promised environmental gains for the basin. But we must be realistic on where projects still won't meet the extended deadline, and I support the expansion of the powers of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance to pursue accountability. I note that only three per cent of the 450-gigalitre target for additional water for the environment has been sourced, and that changes are needed to deliver the full amount. I support broadening the scope of measures that can be used to meet this target, noting that water purchases should be seen as a last resort. I acknowledge the removal of the cap on Commonwealth water purchase. This is highly contested by the irrigated agriculture communities, and I stress the importance of supporting impacted communities with transition funds. I therefore support enlarging the scope of measures that can be funded by the Water for the Environment Special Account.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Rebekha Sharkie ★ Sharkie supports the bill and says it is needed to get the full 450 gigalitres back into the Murray-Darling system for the environment.
“I would ask all South Australian members and senators to support the legislation. If you vote against this, you can never say that you truly care about South Australia or that you care about the River Murray. The only way, I think, we can get that 450 gigalitres back into the river for the environment is to support this legislation.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Zoe Daniel Zoe Daniel says she will support the bill, but only as a starting point, because she wants stronger climate provisions, a firmer 450 gigalitreA very large unit of water volume, used here to measure the environmental water target; 450 gigalitres is the extra amount the bill aims to recover. target, and better accountability on review timing and New South Wales compliance.
“On balance, I will support it because it's a good start. But I note that that's all it is.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Kylea Tink Kylea Tink supports the bill as a necessary step to restore the Murray-Darling BasinThe river system the bill is focused on, covering several states and the main area where the extra water recovery is meant to happen. and fully implement the Basin PlanThe legal plan that sets how much water can be taken from the Basin and how water recovery and river rules are meant to work., but says it is only a small start and does not go far enough on climate impacts and First Nations water justice.
“This legislation is a small step on the long pathway to restoring the Murray-Darling. Far more must be done to ensure that sufficient environmental water is available in the basin in order to build resilience to the human induced climate change that we know will further strain this already damaged ecosystem.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Act title
- Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act 2023
- Act number
- Act No. 111, 2023
- Became law
- 07 Dec 2023
- Takes effect
-
- Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table 07 Dec 2023
- Schedule 1 08 Dec 2023
- Schedule 2 08 Dec 2023
- Schedule 3, Part 1 A day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence before 1 Jul 2025, they commence on that day.
- Schedule 3, Part 2 A day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence before 1 Jul 2026, they commence on that day.
- Schedule 3, Part 3 A day to be fixed by Proclamation. A Proclamation must not specify a day that occurs before the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 5. However, if the provisions do not commence before 1 Jul 2026, they commence on that day. If the provisions covered by table item 5 commence on the same day as the provisions covered by this table item, the provisions covered by this table item commence immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 5.
- Schedule 3, Part 4 01 July 2024
- Schedule 4, Part 1 01 July 2024
- Schedule 4, Part 2 01 July 2024
- Schedule 4, Part 3 At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 5.
- Schedule 5 08 Dec 2023
- Schedule 6, Part 1 At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 4.
- Schedule 6, Part 2 At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 5.
- Schedule 6, Part 3 01 July 2024
- Registered
- 08 Dec 2023
- Administered by
- Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
- Final law metadata was collected from the APH progress table; commencement rows were parsed from the bill text.
- Status
- Act -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- House of Representatives
- 06 Sept 2023
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 06 Sept 2023
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 12 Sept 2023
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 13 Sept 2023
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 14 Sept 2023
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 17 Oct 2023
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 18 Oct 2023
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 18 Oct 2023
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 82 to 50.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 18 Oct 2023
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
- 18 Oct 2023
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 19 Oct 2023
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 19 Oct 2023
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 27 Nov 2023
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 28 Nov 2023
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 28 Nov 2023
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 29 Nov 2023
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 30 Nov 2023
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The Senate agreed to amendment packages during committee consideration before the final bill-passage vote.
- 30 Nov 2023
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 26.
Third reading agreed
The Senate passed the bill after completing amendment consideration.
- 30 Nov 2023
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
- 30 Nov 2023
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
- 07 Dec 2023
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (10/11/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (7 Sept 2023): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (10 Nov 2023)
APH bill page notes