Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To date, the Labor government has spent millions of dollars buying a range of things, from paper to dust, and not necessarily water that will actually reach the Murray itself. Real water purchases have not been bought in strategic areas and little attention has been paid to buying water in the area where the water is actually needed for the environment. DEWHA has unfortunately not treated growers well. Growers who are distressed, growers who are in extreme financial difficulty and growers who have offered their water for sale have often been treated very badly by DEWHA. They have waited months for contracts and often have not been treated with common courtesy. Farmers will sell to third parties because of the attitudes and delays they have faced when dealing with Commonwealth officials.

No-one has costed the impacts on the Australian economy or those regional economies. Where are the regional cost-benefit analyses? We should be seeing those and having access to those. What are the broader regional cost-benefit implications? What are the costs for these communities and the areas? What will it do to Australian food and fibre production and what will the multiplier effects be, even of the purchase price of water, and how will those losses be carried forward? Will they continue for decades? The government has unfortunately not focused, as we have heard frequently, on infrastructure upgrades and retooling of irrigation schemes.

Applications are due by 27 November—next week. The parliament should be aware of those time lines for the approval of this important scheme given the chronic delays in the buyback program administered by the same officials. The combination of on-farm water use efficiencies and water buybacks is a critical part of what is needed in this system.

A flow-on issue from this legislation is the issue of food security—and it ties in with the regional cost-benefit analyses—ensuring, through the farmers and growers of this region, that people in cities and regional centres actually have access to food that is grown by Australians. As I said, the issue of food security is one that unfortunately does not receive the attention that it should. It is about self-sustainability and food security. It is a very serious issue and it is something that certainly does not receive the attention that it should, as you can see through this process.

On Monday the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts released the tender for the Carbon Register. Applicants have only six weeks to respond and must have an international carbon register partner. This will severely limit responses to the tender because of the unrealistic time frame and the international partner provision. Why is the time frame so constricted? There has to be an implication in that one. Is it accurate that to fund an increase in the buyback from $1.5 billion to $3 billion there will be a corresponding decrease of $1.5 billion directed to on-farm efficiencies? By default, will farmers therefore be actually paying for their own water buybacks?

Which agency analysed the social impacts of water buybacks on regional communities? That is what we have not seen. There has been no regional cost-benefit analyses, no multiplying of the effect that this is going to have. Which agency analysed the social impacts of these water buybacks on the regional communities prior to the actual water purchases and what were the projected impacts that were identified in that process? I would really like to know.

The Labor government should not repeat the devolution experience of the Owens Valley in the Californian irrigation area. As we all know, the Owens River was the source of rich farming in the valley with experimental irrigation, orchards, fruit and grain. The US Reclamation Service proposed careful studies preparatory to some dams and a control system to ensure irrigation and water security to the whole district. People enthusiastically welcomed the idea and actually gave up some of their rights to advance the study, only to find new interest altered the future of their lands and water. This saw water from the first 375-kilometre gravity-fed aqueduct, believed to be for irrigated agriculture, acquired by the government and directed to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power owned 90 per cent of the water property rights in the Owens Valley and agriculture in the valley was effectively dead, ending the development of the Owens Valley as a farming community. Farms went dry, farmers had no choice but to leave, and Los Angeles County bought up the property.

A second 220-kilometre aqueduct in 1970 diverted more surface water, as well as groundwater, which affected groundwater to such an extent that natural vegetation died as well. Groundwater pumping continued at a higher rate than the aquifer could recharge, with the long-term trend of desertification of the Owens Valley and falling water tables. Owens Valley, which was once a thriving agriculture and food producing area, became desolate with empty farmhouses, dusty fields and a succession of ‘ghost towns’. I have really serious concerns that some of our communities will be similarly affected.

We all know—and we have heard about this from the member for Murray—about the enormous benefit of what a number of farmers are doing for biodiversity management, environmental management and food security. They manage the soil. They are some of the most progressive farmers with some of the most sustainable practices in the world. They do produce excellent food and fibre, the quality of which is almost incomparable. They are extremely sound environmental managers and they provide that continuous environmental management. I note that one of the major problems in the Owens Valley was the monopoly position of the single buyer and the fact that farmers were forced out directly or by default. This brings into question the weak bargaining position that farmers find themselves in, which we have heard about here in this chamber today in relation to our farmers in the Murray-Darling area.

We also have not heard about the efficiencies that are possible through town water schemes. We do not hear about that through this process. We only hear about water buybacks from farmers. We really need effective stimulus spending and we do need both on- and off-farm developments to address Australia’s water security issues. This parliament should have had access to the regional cost-benefit analyses of the effects of water buybacks on regional communities and centres. As we all know, or should know, food security is a critical issue for Australians. Thank you.

See this speech in context