Dalton and Pavey's water transparency bills go head-to-head in parliament

A bill introduced by NSW Water Minister Melinda Pavey to improve water ownership transparency passed through the Lower House on Wednesday.

But during the debate some members of the Labor and Greens parties labelled it "far lesser version" of the water transparency bill introduced last year by Shooters, Fishers, Farmers MP Helen Dalton.

Related reading

Ms Pavey's bill, Constitution Amendment (Water Accountability and Transparency) was introduced earlier this month and called for Members of Parliament to declare their water interests and lodge their water trading activity every 14 days.

The bill was similar to one introduced by Murray MP, Ms Dalton, in October last year, which also called for MPs to declare water interests.

After Ms Dalton's bill was introduced, debate on it was delayed and it eventually lapsed with parliament suspended for for a period because of COVID-19.

Ms Pavey said her bill was aimed at improving transparency and removing damaging conspiracy theories that cause angst in regional communities.

"This bill will address anger about water ownership and decision making in our communities, caused by miss-truths and conspiracy theories," Ms Pavey said.

"For too long, the Shooters have been peddling conspiracy theories about NSW Nationals being great water barons, acting in secrecy for our own benefit - our communities deserve better."

However, Ms Dalton has dubbed Ms Pavey's bill, "watered-down," as unlike hers it did not call for a public register of all individuals and corporations who own water.

Labor MP, Clayton Barr, spoke in the debate and questioned why the Nationals MP had introduced her bill.

"The government have been shamed and embarrassed into bringing this bill into the House," Mr Barr said.

"We could have had this bill about transparency for water ownership a long, long time ago and we haven't.

"I want to recognise and thank the new Member for Murray for her persistence on this issue and for bringing this to the House."

Fellow Labor MP Kate Washington said the government's bill "was a far lesser version of the Dalton bill, lacking in both style and substance."

"But, nevertheless a proposition we won't be opposing because we all welcome every step towards transparency," Ms Washington said.

Greens MP Tamara Smith said they supported any increased transparency around water licences and trading in NSW.

"We know there is a private members bill that goes much further in terms of moving towards a public register of disclosures, that is a model we are really pushing for.

"Capturing a handful of MPs in terms of water trading or pecuniary interests in water is going to do nothing about the corporations trading."

Ms Dalton moved for two amendments to Pavey's bill in parliament on Wednesday, firstly that the bill be retrospective, forcing politicians to declare water interests held in the last five years, and secondly, that MP's must also declare their spouses' water interests.

The amendments were voted down 45 to 42, with all Nationals and Liberals MPs voting against it.

Ms Dalton said the NSW government had spent six months blocking and delaying her water bill.

"It would have been dead easy for an MP to sell their water in that time," Ms Dalton said.

"This bill means absolutely nothing if it's not retrospective.

"The oldest trick in the book for politicians is to hide their assets in their partners' name."

The Dalton bill was reintroduced to parliament on Thursday and an almost exact copy was introduced to the Upper House by Ms Dalton's SFF colleague Mark Banasiak earlier this year.

During Ms Dalton's second reading speech she said while she was glad to have finally forced the government's hand, Minister Pavey's watered down bill falls a long way short of what is needed.

"It only covers 135 State MPs among the thousands of groups that own our water," Ms Dalton said.

"While it's vital for all politicians to declare their water ownership, the public also deserve to know about political donors, politicians spouses, foreign companies and Sydney traders who own our most valuable resource."

Ms Dalton's bill is not likely to be set for debate in the Lower House until late-July to September.

Additionally, on Tuesday both Pavey and Dalton's water bills were referred to the Upper House Portfolio Committee No 4-Industry for inquiry and report.

Therefore, while both bills can be progress through the Lower House, they cannot be debated in the Upper House until the inquiry has been conducted.