The government has made progress on deals to pass the Australian Building and Construction Commission, but accommodating Nick Xenophon’s concerns with the Murray-Darling Basin plan will still be critical to get it passed.
Senator David Leyonhjelm has reached an agreement with the government on the ABCC but says the government has not made a deal with Xenophon on water and if it did so it would lose his vote.
The Coalition needs the support of all three Nick Xenophon Team senators to pass its legislation through the Senate.
Xenophon told ABC AM his party was closer to a deal on the ABCC after a four-hour meeting with the employment minister, Michaelia Cash, on Sunday.
Xenophon is insisting on amendments including changes to the building code on security of payments to protect subcontractors’ pay and procurement rules that stipulate Australian-quality building materials.
“If these amendments are agreed to, it won’t be like the Howard-era ABCC, it will still have teeth, it will still be an effective watchdog but there will be safeguards in place,” he said.
Xenophon said the government had agreed “to a significant extent” but water policy still needed to be determined. He described it as “fundamental issue of trust” and said the government had to stick to the Murray-Darling Basin agreement of 2013.
On Friday Xenophon warned he wouldn’t deal with any government legislation until the water issue was sorted out, effectively holding the ABCC bill to ransom.
Xenophon wants 450 gigalitres of water returned to the Murray-Darling, which he says is required by the 2013 agreement. But the agriculture and water minister, Barnaby Joyce, has warned that would hurt states and communities in the eastern states.
Xenophon said it would “involve real political will amongst all the basin states to get on with it”.
“Barnaby, as fond as I am of him, his letter of 10 days ago did not help,” he said, and revealed he was now dealing directly with the prime minister on the issue.
Asked if adding more water would harm towns in New South Wales, Xenophon said it could come from savings cutting down on unnecessary wastage and evaporation.
Leyonhjelm has reached an agreement with the government on the ABCC that includes removing the reverse onus of proof for intent in coercion, discrimination and unlawful picketing claims. The government has also agreed to a further tradeoff to improve “freedom”, which Leyonhjelm will reveal on Monday.
Leyonhjelm, who represents New South Wales in the Senate, said on Saturday if the government caved to Xenophon on the water issue it would lose his vote.
Asked which took precedence, his deal to pass the ABCC or threat to block it if the government caved to Xenophon, Leyonhjelm told Guardian Australia on Monday: “I’m assured there is no deal on water – just continuation of the plan.”
Leyonhjelm disputed Xenophon’s characterisation of the Murray-Darling Basin plan, saying it only promised the extra 450 gigalitres on the condition there wouldn’t be harmful effects upstream and there was “no way” that would be met. Legislated limits on water buybacks were another obstacle, he said.
“Nobody has any interest in giving South Australian any more water. The three eastern basin states have incurred all the pain so far; South Australia has incurred no pain whatsoever.
“The government can’t guarantee the extra 450 gigalitres anyway, it needs the agreement of the other states.”
Labor’s leader in the Senate, Penny Wong, a former water minister, told Radio National it was “very important” the government stick to the Murray-Darling Basin plan, echoing a demand of all South Australian Labor MPs and senators last week.
Wong said the core problem was that Turnbull had handed the water portfolio to Joyce, who “seems to want to blow this [2013 deal] up for political gain upstream”.
“[Joyce] wrote a letter saying we can’t deliver it. Malcolm Turnbull wants everyone to think he didn’t mean it – the problem is we know he did.”
Asked about conditions on the plan that the 450 gigalitres would only be added if it didn’t have harmful social and economic effects upstream, Wong said that “every path you take has impacts”.
“During the drought we had salinity levels at the end of river which were extraordinarily high which could have compromised Adelaide’s water supply if they were not dealt with quickly enough.”
“There are social and economic impacts whatever way you look at it.”
Xenophon noted that if the Senate votes down the ABCC bill, the government may still pass it in a joint sitting although it would be “line ball” if it or an amended version would go through.
