Division
Sharman Stone The National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015 is, as far as I am concerned, a no-brainer. We are not going to abolish all the functions that the commission once had. We are simply sending them across to other agencies, like the Productivity Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology and ABARES. We are saying that what it used to do was important but we do not need to have a stand-alone entity to undertake the monitoring of Australia's progress on water reform. So I think it is a good move. If it saves us $21 million over the forward estimates, that is a good thing. If it saves us a few extra bits of regulation, red tape, that is to be applauded. I therefore want to move beyond this contest about whether or not we should have abolished the National Water Commission to talk about the significance of water itself: why we didn't simply put an axe through this agency and walk away; why we in fact retasked other important agencies to do the work. Before getting to that point, I want to correct a few things that a previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, said. I know she is new to Bendigo. She is my neighbour in the electorate next door. I am very pleased that she is now engaging with this water issue. She has been north beyond Bendigo and has visited my irrigators. I applaud her for doing that. She quoted Kagomi as saying that their biggest problem was the management of water in the system and therefore they want to keep the National Water Commission. No. I have to make that clear. Kagomi's report—which I too have a copy of, and I have spoken at length to their MD—makes the point that they no longer have enough access to water in the Goulburn-Murray Water's system, which is part of the Murray-Darling Basin. Their access is now very much restricted, given half of the water has been removed from the irrigation system. The price of the water in the temporary market is often beyond what their tomato growers can pay. That is the No. 1 issue for this company, wh
House of Representatives, 2015-05-26. affirmative: ayes 78, noes 49.
Question
Sharman Stone The National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015 is, as far as I am concerned, a no-brainer. We are not going to abolish all the functions that the commission once had. We are simply sending them across to other agencies, like the Productivity Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology and ABARES. We are saying that what it used to do was important but we do not need to have a stand-alone entity to undertake the monitoring of Australia's progress on water reform. So I think it is a good move. If it saves us $21 million over the forward estimates, that is a good thing. If it saves us a few extra bits of regulation, red tape, that is to be applauded. I therefore want to move beyond this contest about whether or not we should have abolished the National Water Commission to talk about the significance of water itself: why we didn't simply put an axe through this agency and walk away; why we in fact retasked other important agencies to do the work. Before getting to that point, I want to correct a few things that a previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, said. I know she is new to Bendigo. She is my neighbour in the electorate next door. I am very pleased that she is now engaging with this water issue. She has been north beyond Bendigo and has visited my irrigators. I applaud her for doing that. She quoted Kagomi as saying that their biggest problem was the management of water in the system and therefore they want to keep the National Water Commission. No. I have to make that clear. Kagomi's report—which I too have a copy of, and I have spoken at length to their MD—makes the point that they no longer have enough access to water in the Goulburn-Murray Water's system, which is part of the Murray-Darling Basin. Their access is now very much restricted, given half of the water has been removed from the irrigation system. The price of the water in the temporary market is often beyond what their tomato growers can pay. That is the No. 1 issue for this company, wh
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.