Water Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill undoes several water law changes that the previous government passed in 2014 but which had not yet taken effect. It puts ecologically sustainable development principles back into the purpose of the Water Act 2000, removes 'water development options' that would have given large infrastructure proponents an early exclusive claim over water, and removes the ability to declare 'designated watercourses' where a water licence would not be needed. It also fixes a 2005 technical mistake in setting up the Lower Herbert Water Management Authority and confirms that existing river improvement trusts continue to operate.
Who it affects
Farmers, irrigators, mining and petroleum companies, water infrastructure developers, environmental groups and communities in the Great Barrier Reef catchment and the Lower Herbert region around Ingham are most directly affected, as are members of Queensland's river improvement trusts.
Key changes
- Ecologically sustainable development principles are restored to the purpose of the Water Act 2000, and 'responsible and productive management' is replaced with 'sustainable management' throughout
- The 'water development option' scheme is scrapped, so proponents of large water projects can no longer lock in exclusive early access to water without public consultation
- The ability to declare 'designated watercourses' where water can be taken without a licence is removed
- The 2005 amalgamation of four north Queensland drainage boards into the Lower Herbert Water Management Authority is validated, along with all the Authority's actions since then
- For underground water cumulative management areas that straddle a mining or gas tenure, the chief executive can now decide whether the tenure, or only part of it, is inside the area
- Existing river improvement trusts and ministerial appointments to them are confirmed as continuing from 19 December 2014
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee10 Nov 2015View Hansard
Referred to Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee
The Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee examined the bill but could not reach a majority decision on whether it should be passed. Government members supported the bill's omission of water development option provisions (an election commitment for Saving the Great Barrier Reef), while non-government members opposed the removal. The committee unanimously recommended the Department of Natural Resources and Mines continue investigating alternatives for securing water for large-scale projects while considering community impacts.
Key findings (5)
- The committee was divided on the bill's key provision to remove water development option provisions from the Water Reform and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2014
- The bill reinstated principles of ecologically sustainable development in the Water Act 2000, which was supported by peak agriculture, mining, environmental and community groups
- Stakeholders supported the removal of the chief executive's power to declare designated watercourses, citing concerns about transparency and potential overallocation of water resources
- The bill introduced less costly notification options for water licence applicants and provisions for cumulative management areas
- The committee was satisfied that the bill included provisions to fulfil Queensland's commitments under the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Department of Natural Resources and Mines continues to investigate alternatives for securing water for large-scale projects while taking into account the impact on communities.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading9 Nov 2016View Hansard
▸13 members spoke3 support10 oppose
As Minister for State Development and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, moved the second reading and defended the bill's reinstatement of ecologically sustainable development principles in the Water Act, the removal of water development options, and omission of designated watercourse provisions to deliver on government election commitments and protect the Great Barrier Reef.
“The bill and amendments during consideration in detail together provide a fair and balanced framework that delivers on all fronts—for the economy, for the community and for the environment.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill as shadow minister, arguing it reinstates a restrictive ecologically sustainable development purpose in the Water Act to satisfy the Greens and removes the water development option which is essential for large-scale water infrastructure projects in regional and northern Queensland.
“The LNP opposition opposes this bill strongly because it only seeks to turn back the clock to the circumstances that water users found themselves in under the Water Act before the LNP's 2014 reforms in respect of the primary purpose of the act and the inability to secure large volumes of water resources for greenfield irrigated agriculture projects.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing it is more about satisfying the Greens than reforming the Water Act and endorses the 2014 LNP reforms instead of removing the water development option.
“This bill as introduced by Labor is more about satisfying the Greens than actually putting science before politics and constructively working on much needed reforms to the Water Act.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Supported the bill as necessary to align the WROLA Act with Palaszczuk government policy, including restoring ecologically sustainable development principles and removing water development options to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
“Like the Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, the Water Legislation Amendment Bill is good for the environment and good for agriculture in Queensland.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill, characterising it as ideological and captured by green interests, and used the debate to criticise Labor's historical water management in the Redlands area.
“Only the LNP had a plan to ensure that all Queenslanders would benefit from responsible water management and that there was an appropriate balance in water management in terms of balancing the economic, social and environmental issues.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill's reinstatement of ecologically sustainable development principles and removal of the water development option, arguing the Labor Party is beholden to extreme Greens.
“I cannot support the Water Legislation Amendment Bill because of the change away from the intent of the bill that the member for Hinchinbrook put in place in 2014 and the removal of the water development options.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing that the reinstatement of ESD and exclusion of the water development option are the most serious losses for agriculture and regional Queensland and will stymie new large-scale irrigation projects.
“The most serious loss for agriculture and regional Queensland is the exclusion of the water development option, which removes the pathway for the assessment and approval of a greenfield irrigated agriculture project within the Water Act.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing removal of the water development option will kill the Rookwood Weir project and minimise benefits from the federal Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Fund.
“By removing the development option, the bill kills the Rookwood Weir dead. That is where the relevance is. We will not be able to attract the funding and if by some miracle we did, the development could not be approved.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing its reinstatement of ecologically sustainable development and removal of the water development option will place more importance on ecological outcomes over community and economic outcomes.
“The Labor-Greens bill will reinstate the restrictive ESD purpose and place more importance on ecological outcomes rather than community and economic outcomes.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing it is ideological and removes fair consideration of community and economic outcomes for large-scale water projects, citing Labor's Traveston Dam debacle.
“To me, the bill is ideological in its outlook and, as such, removes fair consideration of community and economic outcomes for large-scale water projects.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Supported the bill as realising the government's election commitments to reinstate ecologically sustainable development principles and remove water development options to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
“With the amendments flagged by the Minister for State Development and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines and the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, these bills will ensure that we get the balance right for Queensland.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Criticised the consultation process and the removal of water development options, noting the committee could not reach consensus and submitters like QFF raised concerns.
“QFF stated that the water development option had been taken off the table completely which they considered to not be a good decision.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing the return of ecologically sustainable development principles and removal of water development options is a kick in the guts for rural and regional Queensland development.
“We see with the introduction of this bill the return of ecologically sustainable development principles which is a big kick in the guts for rural and regional Queensland development. We have also seen the removal of the water development options.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
▸In Detail9 Nov 2016View Hansard
Government amendments to clause 8 to validate past taking of, and interfering with, underground water by holders of particular mineral development licences and mining leases, correcting an administrative error in an operational policy that had been applied between 2003 and 2012 to exempt certain mines from water licensing for dewatering
KAP amendments to omit clauses 11, 12 and 14 which replace 'responsible and productive' with 'sustainable' and reinstate ecologically sustainable development principles
KAP amendments to clause 15 (amendments Nos 4 to 8) to retain the water development option framework introduced by the WROLA Act
Government amendment to clause 18 to correct a cross-referencing error so that water plans amended under transitional provisions still require Governor in Council approval
Government amendment to clause 19 to replace 'statutory water resource plan' with 'water plan' in the dictionary definition
KAP amendment to clause 19 to omit the definition inserting principles of ecologically sustainable development
New clause inserted after clause 19 to amend schedule 2 by omitting the entry for Water Resource (Whitsunday) Plan 2010
Opposed the bill at Consideration in Detail, moving amendments to retain the 'responsible and productive' wording and the water development option, arguing the word 'sustainable' is code for blocking development in the north.
“Water development options were a very helpful tool in trying to establish irrigation development, particularly in the north... This is where the rubber hits the road in terms of irrigation development.”— 2016-11-09View Hansard
Referenced Entities
Legislation
Organisations
Programs & Schemes
Places
Roles & Offices
Sectors Affected
Classified using AGIFT/ANZSIC Australian government standards