I oppose the Water Management Amendment (Intergovernmental Agreements) Bill 2025 introduced by the member for Barwon. I had the pleasure of serving with the member on the Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development, which he chairs. He has a deep passion in this area. I also understand, having participated in several days of hearings on water management, the depth of feeling in the community for change to happen in this space. I acknowledge and appreciate the intent behind the bill and the sentiment within the broader community.
Intergovernmental agreements, by their nature, often require agility. Whether in terms of responding to a national emergency, delivery infrastructure programs or negotiating funding agreements, governments at Federal and State levels must be able to act swiftly and collaboratively. Intergovernmental agreements are built on mutual understanding and cooperation. The release of sensitive information—even if New South Wales does not consider it sensitive—could breed uncertainty and hesitation among our partners. We must preserve the integrity of those negotiations to ensure that our collective efforts remain focused on achieving sustainable water management outcomes.
I acknowledge the intent behind the bill to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and transparency. I also speak to a broader issue that has not yet been fully explored, which is the precedent that the bill could set. It proposes that all draft intergovernmental agreements about matters concerning the Murray-Darling Basin be tabled in Parliament for 15 sitting days before being finalised. On the surface, that seems like a reasonable measure. But we must consider what it means for the broader framework of intergovernmental cooperation and machinery of government itself. Mandating the tabling of draft intergovernmental agreements before they have been agreed to risks setting a precedent that could extend well beyond water policy, as it opens the door to similar legislative requirements for other intergovernmental agreements, including those covering health, infrastructure, education and disaster response.
The practical consequence is that we risk turning what are now flexible, good-faith negotiations into processes bound by rigid procedural timelines, creating the very real potential for delay, disruption and political tension at a time when decisiveness is needed most. I imagine that is not in keeping with the intention and the sentiment of the member's bill. New South Wales would be disadvantaged in its negotiations with other jurisdictions, leaving our communities worse off. That theme came through in the hearings that I was involved in as part of the Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development. We want to make sure that communities in New South Wales are advantaged and in the best place to negotiate with other States or even the Federal Government.
As I mentioned, the agreements require agility in the range of responses that are required. Embedding parliamentary tabling requirements at the draft stage, especially with fixed timelines and strict processes required, could severely restrict that capacity, with potentially disastrous outcomes. I want to be clear that parliamentary oversight is important. However, a balance needs to be struck. Oversight should not come at the cost of effective governance or at the expense of our ability to respond to urgent and evolving challenges. We must be cautious not to legislate processes in a way that unintentionally undermines outcomes rather than working towards the intention at the heart of the bill.
The health of the Murray-Darling Basin has a direct and profound impact on our communities, our environment and our economy. That is not just the communities along the Murray-Darling Basin but all communities across New South Wales, because the economic and environmental health of the basin has an impact across New South Wales. That came across clearly when speaking to many stakeholders, residents, Aboriginal land councils, chambers of commerce and local governments during the public hearings held as part of the committee's inquiry. New South Wales plays a central role in shaping and delivering the commitments made under the Murray‑Darling Basin Plan. They are complex, time-sensitive undertakings that often involve extensive collaboration with the Commonwealth and other basin jurisdictions.
Stakeholders have different views and perspectives as to what should happen and when it should happen. I would hate for the timeline and the changes in the bill to be a source of political tension and to be used for political pointscoring between those stakeholders. I know the member for Barwon appreciates that as well. For those reasons, I cannot support the bill. I note the amendment of the member for Cootamundra that the bill be referred to the Committee on Investment, Industry and Regional Development. I believe the Government will support that. Consideration of the bill is in line with the work the committee is currently undertaking. With that, I conclude my comments. I look forward to considering the bill as part of our broader work on the committee. I thank the member for Barwon for his interest, advocacy and deep knowledge and respect for the role of the basin in our State's environment and economy.
