Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I will not take much time from the Main Committee or from my colleague the member for Riverina, who was on the Standing Committee on Regional Australia with me, as were you Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore. It was an excellent group of colleagues from right across the political spectrum, who were intimately involved with the basin because it affects their communities. It was a very constructive and positive exercise, and there was a contribution from everyone. To have arrived at a consensus on what is nothing short of a very contentious environment for this report speaks volumes for the character and quality of the people on the committee. I am very honoured and privileged to have served with them. The chair, Tony Windsor, did a fantastic job; I was very pleased to be his deputy chair.

The report of which we are taking consideration, Of drought and flooding rainsan excellent title if I say so myself—is the result of the committee's inquiry into the impact of the guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—I will come to it in a moment. What is really worth reiterating for the record is the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin to Australia. That will point towards why people were and are significantly affected by the earlier draft plan and why they reacted as they did in many ways. This reaction to the basin plan has contributed to lessons that have been learnt on the absolute importance of the intermix between communities, the product of those communities and the environment. It has contributed to the appreciation that one without the others has very serious consequences for this nation, not just for the happiness and wellbeing of communities, but also, very importantly, for the gross domestic product of this nation. For example, the gross value of agricultural production as determined between 2008 and 2009 was $42 billion, or two per cent of GDP—32 per cent of this contributed $14.6 billion to the basin economy itself. The gross regional product of the basin was approximately $59 billion, or about eight per cent of Australia's GDP.

The basin itself is home to some 2.1 million people, and a further 1.3 million people depend on its water supply. That is a significant proportion of Australia's population and, most significantly, of the productive capacity of the region in terms of its primary industry—of its growing, processing and further value adding. For instance, 90 per cent of Australia's cotton is grown in the area, 56 per cent of its grapes, 42 per cent of its nuts, and 32 per cent of the nation's dairy produce. The vast majority of the land use in the basin—84 per cent—is dedicated to agriculture yet the majority of the population live in urban centres. The basin covers something like one million square kilometres of south-east Australia and contains 23 river valleys. That gives you some idea of the extent of the geography, the importance of the economic impact and the significance of the social impact in the context of the inquiry. I have to say that the inquiry's essential terms of reference were to look at the triple bottom line in terms of the draft plan—that is, the environment, the society and its communities, and the economic impact.

Our travels were vast. I have to acknowledge the member for Riverina; I think he attended every meeting in every river valley. He did a fantastic job and it speaks volumes for his dedication and willingness to arrive at some form of solution. I congratulate him, as I congratulate you, Deputy Speaker Livermore, for the extensive contribution that you made.

We saw very disturbing pictures on the television of people burning books; I hate seeing the burning of books. It conjures up terrible things. But that expressed an absolute anger in communities who felt that they were not listened to. I do not need to tell you, colleagues, that one of the major criticisms that is directed at us—sometimes pretty unfairly—and at bureaucracies and agencies is that we go about processes and do not really listen actively and try to take on board what people are saying. Although what they are saying might not fit the current economic modelling and whatever, we need to listen to people who have an extensive anchorage in the community and who know about the issues that they are dealing with

Wherever we went in the basin we found that people wanted a basin plan. They wanted it to work. They wanted it to be comprehensive. They wanted certainty, both for their communities and for their environment. So, for instance, we had Matt Linnegar of the National Farmers Federation expressing a view—it is on page 441 of our report—'Do we need a basin plan as such? …Yes, we do, but not the one that was delivered in the guide.' I think that that was a common message that came from the communities where we went.

This inquiry did listen. Not everything in this report meets the absolute wishes of my government nor, indeed, I reckon, the wishes of some of the policy makers on the other side. But we did listen, and our recommendations were crafted on what we heard by listening—not just to people who may have disregarded the guide or did not want to know about it but to people who were intimately involved in their communities, knew their areas and knew the relationship between the river, their communities and what they produced there. This inquiry listened to those people and crafted the recommendations in the report based on what we regarded as the commonsense logic and rationale of the comments that were made to us. I do not think I am being unfair in summing it up as such.

It is great to have here the member for Makin, who was another significant contributor to this committee, particularly with his insights into South Australia. So I thank him very much for his commentary.

The report manifests what we heard and gives recommendations based on that. I know that we are going to have controversy over some of our recommendations in regard to governance but what we are really trying to achieve with our recommendations about governance is the ability to significantly monitor the data that is available so that it can be used in a way that it is relevant—it is not lost in bureaucracy and people can make decisions based on firm and confirmed data. One of the other major recommendations of this report is a re-engagement of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority with its stakeholders, and that includes not just the communities but also the state governments involved. One of the major criticisms received from the state governments was that in actual fact their contribution and their data were either interpreted in strange ways which they were not able to get an intelligible response to or ignored.

I am pleased to say that this report has received a positive response both from the communities we visited and also our own government. But also, and importantly, the Murray-Darling Authority itself has gone through a major restructuring, particularly under its chair, Craig Knowles. I note both with pleasure and interest that the authority, although it has extended its report—and I know that creates angst amongst communities, because they are still not sure of the certainty that they require—has had a much more consultative process and that the stakeholders themselves, particularly state governments, are having much more of an input in this. I congratulate everyone involved on the committee. I congratulate the authority for now taking on board many of the things recommended here and certainly the sentiment of this report. Thank you.

See this speech in context