I thank the member for Barwon for introducing the Water Management Amendment (Intergovernmental Agreements) Bill 2025. Whilst the Government is not able to support the bill, it has prompted a valuable conversation around transparency, accountability and regional representation in the management of water resources across the State, especially as it relates to the Murray-Darling Basin, which holds immense environmental, cultural and economic significance to New South Wales. It is clear that all members in this place recognise how deeply water policy affects the lives, livelihoods and futures of people across New South Wales, especially those who reside in the Murray‑Darling Basin and depend on fair and sustainable access to this finite resource.
The bill seeks to strengthen parliamentary oversight of intergovernmental agreements by requiring the tabling of all draft intergovernmental agreements about matters concerning the Murray-Darling Basin in both Houses of Parliament for 15 sitting days before they can be finalised. At its heart, this bill is about transparency—and I acknowledge the good member for focusing on that—a principle this Government takes very seriously. The Government agrees with the intent behind the bill: to give members—and, by extension, their communities—greater visibility into agreements that impact the decisions made about water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly where those decisions are made between governments and can have long-term implications. The Government also understands the frustration that many communities have felt about decisions that seem distant or complex, or that have been made without meaningful consultation or under the veil of secrecy. The Government and I respect the member for Barwon for giving a voice to that frustration.
After careful consideration, the Government does not support the passage of this bill. The goals it seeks to achieve can be met through other means without introducing legislation that may inadvertently undermine the outcomes it intends to promote. Firstly, the bill has a very broad scope. As drafted, it may apply to any agreement that relates to the Murray-Darling Basin, not just those specifically about water management. That could include agreements on infrastructure, health, energy or education, creating significant uncertainty across government. The bill also fails to distinguish between high-level, binding material instruments and routine operational or funding arrangements. In its current form, it captures all types of intergovernmental agreements, including head agreements, technical government business that New South Wales conducts with the Commonwealth and/or other States, and funding agreements.
In practice, this could inundate Parliament with documents that may not require such exhaustive scrutiny. Secondly, the requirement to table draft agreements in both Houses of Parliament for 15 sitting days before they can be entered into creates delays to entering into intergovernmental agreements, which can also delay the flow of funding and the commencement of vital projects. This requirement applies to all agreements, without regard to scale or import. The bill may also apply to amendments to agreements. A small, routine agreement or a minor, technical amendment to an existing agreement requiring tabling should not bear the same time frames as a major head agreement. Furthermore, mandating tabling and waiting procedures could undermine cooperative frameworks.
The bill's threshold is arbitrary. Fifteen sitting days could translate to months under some sitting patterns. Many of these agreements, especially those that secure Commonwealth investment into New South Wales, are time sensitive. Even short delays could have real consequences for communities awaiting infrastructure, environmental programs or economic support. Australia's water management is increasingly dynamic due to factors such as droughts, floods and infrastructure needs. There may be instances where nimble intergovernmental responses are required. Binding the State to the bill's time frame would impede timely cooperation and weaken New South Wales' negotiating position with Commonwealth and State partners. Additionally, the bill does not provide any clarity around how those agreements might be assessed, debated or resolved once they are tabled. As such, while the bill aims to increase scrutiny, it introduces procedural uncertainty and delivery risks.
Finally, there are valid concerns about confidentiality in the bill. Confidentiality is a fundamental aspect of intergovernmental negotiations, and sensitive information must be protected to ensure that discussions remain focused and productive. Tabling draft agreements in Parliament before all parties have agreed risks exposing confidential details about funding, infrastructure and policy positions that are critical to maintain to ensure respectful and constructive negotiations. Furthermore, politicisation of those agreements could ensue, as prolonged scrutiny periods provide ample opportunity for informal pressure to block or alter intergovernmental agreements before they are agreed upon.
This scenario could lead to a fragmented approach, where decisions are influenced by political interests, rather than the merits of the agreements themselves. We must look to safeguard the integrity of our decision-making processes by preserving the confidentiality of intergovernmental negotiations. It is worth noting that signed intergovernmental agreements are already published once finalised. In addition, stakeholders are consulted through existing processes, whether led by New South Wales or the Commonwealth, particularly for significant agreements involving regional impacts.
Despite those concerns, I will be clear that the Government supports the principles that the bill embodies. It agrees that decisions made about water management in the Murray-Darling Basin through head intergovernmental agreements should be open to dialogue with members of Parliament, especially when they affect large parts of regional New South Wales. This Government is not fearful of scrutiny. On the contrary, it champions transparency in water reform and actively fosters constructive interjurisdictional partnerships. The Government believes there are better ways to support these principles through non-legislative mechanisms that preserve trust, protect confidentiality and allow for timely and effective government action. That is why the Government is open to working with the member for Barwon—and with the crossbench more broadly—on developing practical ways to provide members of Parliament with greater visibility of major intergovernmental agreements.
That kind of collaborative, flexible mechanism can achieve what the bill seeks to achieve: greater transparency, stronger accountability and better outcomes for our communities. This is a constructive and well‑intentioned discussion. I again thank the member for Barwon for bringing the bill and for raising an issue that deserves serious consideration. While the Government cannot support the bill, it remains committed to improving transparency and confidence in the way intergovernmental agreements are developed and finalised. We want to see a system in which members are better informed, communities feel more included, and the State is still able to deliver on its commitments, attract investment and support water reform where it is needed most.
