The Australian Greens expressed disappointment that the Water Amendment Bill 2015 will now pass the Senate with the combined support of Labor and the Coalition.

The Bill sets an arbitrary cap 1,500 gigalitres of water the government can buy back from irrigators in order to ensure environmental flows.

"This Bill is all about Environment Minister Greg Hunt caving in to hardline Nationals. It's a bill all about politics, not good policy," Australian Greens spokesperson for water, Senator Rhiannon said.

Greens water spokesperson Senator Lee Rhiannon has warned the Abbott-Truss government from using the stocktake of irrigation projects to justify winding up plans for retrieving water to ensure river health across the Murray Darling Basin.

"This stocktake looks like a ploy by Water Minister Bob Baldwin to justify the government's long term aim to allow big irrigators to retain water that should go back to the ailing river system," Senator Rhiannon said.

Senator RHIANNON: In just sticking with the Commonwealth environmental water, is the government now favouring recovering water through subsidising irrigation upgrades?

Senator Birmingham: This government has always preferred investment in irrigation and infrastructure efficiency as the preferred means to recover water licences to go into the CEWO, whilst minimising social and economic impact, or at least providing some beneficial social and economic impacts.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (10:45): The Greens do not support the amendments in the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014. The amendments do not improve the situation. We need to remember that this legislation is about removing the National Water Commission and that once the legislation has gone through that body is gone. The amendments that we now have before us to the Productivity Commission are not a saviour in any way at all, and that is what we need to be focusing on in this aspect of the debate.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:51): I move:

Senator RHIANNON: Did somebody from the National Water Commission join a delegation of water managers from Australia to India in January of this year?

Mr McLoughlin : Yes. That was me.

Senator RHIANNON: That is wonderful. I understand that the official DFAT documents gave considerable coverage of the National Water Commission and its role in the water management success story in Australia. Is that how you would describe it?

Senator RHIANNON: I wanted to clarify some of the processes associated with the Living Murray and the Water for Rivers projects as supply measures. I understand that the Living Murray projects were already completed and operational, and that their environmental objectives were set prior to the Basin Plan. So I was wondering, how is it claimed that the environmental outcomes of these projects-the ones set prior to the Basin Plan-are additional. I am trying to understand how they are additional to the 2,750 gigalitres environmental base line.

Greens Senator and water spokesperson Lee Rhiannon will be in Gloucester today to support community protests over AGL's plan to frack for coal seam gas in the region.

"This is a high risk project which should never have been approved," said Senator Rhiannon.

"AGL is putting the communities' health and water at risk all for the sake of increasing exports. This is not a fair deal, especially for the people who have to live next to the wells.

MEDIA RELEASE
2 June 2014

Coalition infrastructure plan puts Murray Darling Basin at risk

NSW Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon has said the Federal Government's strategy to further cut water buybacks will put the Murray Darling Basin Plan at risk.

"The move away from water buybacks to the less reliable and more costly program of infrastructure investment is a high risk strategy," said Senator Rhiannon.

Tonight I will speak on two projects. They are separated by thousands of kilometres, but both highlight the problems of a one-sided view of the economy-that is, that mining and power production take precedence over all else. Time and again, we see large companies that propose dangerous projects claim they will benefit the local community, but, meanwhile, they walk all over those communities. These companies often ignore local industries as their activities damage the diversity of local economies and the local environment.