Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (13:15): I oppose the Water Management Amendment (Intergovernmental Agreements) Bill 2025, introduced by the good member for Barwon. I do so with a heavy heart because I understand what the bill seeks to do, which is enhance parliamentary scrutiny of intergovernmental agreements. Transparency is a commendable goal, especially when it comes to intergovernmental agreements, which are usually between State and Federal governments. It is important to have transparency across all three levels of government, and my learned colleague the Minister for Local Government spoke about the need for transparency in local government during question time, which I support. But we need to consider the real-world impacts of this proposal on the State's ability to meet its existing commitments and obligations, particularly when it comes to the Basin Plan.
Transparency is important; it is the best form of disinfectant. But we need to seriously consider any potential consequences, including unintended consequences, that may result from this proposal. The Murray‑Darling Basin has a direct and profound impact on our communities, environment and economy. It is our most important river system, and we have seen what happens when it goes wrong. We have seen fish kills, drought and downstream salinity. It is important to keep the entire length of the Murray-Darling Basin healthy for its communities and the national economy. While there is a need for transparency—and I once again commend the member for Barwon for his work—there may be unintended consequences, as I mentioned.
The bill proposes that all draft intergovernmental agreements be tabled in Parliament for 15 sitting days before they can be signed. But that risks creating delays that could undermine our ability to implement the critical projects and access the vital funding that our communities rely on. While all three levels of government—of all persuasions—have a reputation for moving rather slowly, there are times when we can and do move quickly. If the bill affects the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, then we must seriously consider whether it is the best course possible. In short, timeliness matters. I consider timeliness every time I contribute to debate in the House. Whether we are reconnecting rivers, delivering environmental outcomes or supporting regional infrastructure, delays in finalising agreements can have real-world consequences not only for timelines but also for public trust that we can deliver, together with other governments, for the communities we represent. Procedural delays in Parliament could put funding and the related outcomes at risk.
This bill might capture all agreements that concern the basin, not just those focused on water management. This is the bit I am deeply concerned about. Those could include routine funding arrangements and operational matters that form part of regular intergovernmental business. Applying the same level of scrutiny to every agreement, regardless of scale or complexity, creates an unnecessary administrative burden. This Government is laser-focused on ensuring that we cut red tape and reduce the administrative burden where possible. We saw that yesterday with the reforms proposed by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces in the planning sector. We saw what happens when we have layer upon layer of administrative burden, with checks and balances and different pathways, and these people having to check and then those people having to check. If we can bring all that together and streamline it, we can have good outcomes for the community. That was at the front of my mind when I decided to not support the bill.
It is important we strike a balance. Of course, we must be transparent, but we must also be practical. "Practical transparency" is one of the biggest slogans in this Government. I hear the Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and members in their communities talking about balanced transparency. It is one of our mottos. So our legislative processes must remain agile and responsive, especially when we are dealing with major national reform programs like the Basin Plan. As I said earlier, it is critical, not just to our State and our communities but the nation as a whole, that we make sure the Murray-Darling Basin has healthy flows so that we do not see again some of the horrible sights such as fish kills, salinity and drought. It is not good, and we want to do what we can, working with the Federal Government, to ensure that we never see those repeat.
For these reasons, I do not support this bill. I acknowledge its intent, but the risk of delays, the breadth of its scope and the potential disruption to critical water reform work are too great. I urge members to carefully consider the consequences of this proposal. Our priority must be to continue delivering for basin communities. That is why the amendment to refer the bill to the Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development is the most sensible way forward. Some esteemed members of this House are on that committee, and they speak to me regularly about their trips around regional New South Wales and the important lessons they learn. I know that, in their hands, a review of the bill is the best way forward. I hope this means we can ensure that we can act with accountability and agility in our mission for practical transparency.
