Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to briefly speak on the committee's report titled Of drought and flooding rains. I say from the outset that I agree with other members who have already spoken, that this was a bipartisan committee report. I believe that all members of the committee genuinely worked together in good spirit to try to find solutions which would be acceptable to people right across the Murray-Darling Basin area. In particular I acknowledge the work of the chairperson, the member for New England, and also the deputy chairperson, the member for Braddon, who spoke earlier today. Both of them played a leadership role in ensuring that the committee went about its work methodically and in a very measured way. I thank them for that leadership.

This was an important committee inquiry. It was important because, as everyone in this House would know and as people in most parts of Australia know, the management of the Murray-Darling Basin waters has become a critical issue for the future of this country. It is a matter that has caused grief for over 100 years, ever since 1915, I believe, when the first River Murray Waters Agreement was struck. There have been ongoing negotiations, discussions and disputes along the entire lengths of both the Murray River and the Darling River. It is a matter that, particularly in the period of the long drought we had beginning in the late 1990s through to 2006-07, caused a lot of grief to communities throughout the basin. I suspect it is because of the drought that we have come to the point that we are at today, where we are trying to find sustainable solutions for the ongoing management of the waters in the basin.

The committee's work was initiated by the guide that was put out by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. There has been a lot of criticism of the guide. This was the guide to a plan that would ultimately be presented to the government. Whilst the criticism may well be justified, I say from the outset that it is my view that the guide served an incredibly useful purpose. It triggered the most intensive scrutiny of the Murray-Darling Basin to date that I am aware of—scrutiny by government departments, right across federal, state and local government jurisdictions; scrutiny by irrigators, environmentalists and basin communities in each of the catchments throughout the basin. For the first time ever, the views of every interest sector were put on the table and, in doing so, flaws in previously held views and beliefs were exposed and far more accurate assessments resulted.

The guide also highlighted a lack of communication and coordination by all the sectors that had responsibility for river water management. Additionally, many previously held beliefs or assumptions were seriously challenged by credible analysts or people with lifelong hands-on experience and understanding of the basin. In essence, the guide exposed just how badly the basin waters had been managed until more recent years when the drought made the situation critical and good management of waters by government authorities and irrigators began to take place.

The reforms implemented during the drought will have lasting positive benefits that will serve the basin communities well into the future and, importantly, serve the communities well in the event of another long drought. What is also clear is that the river system no longer operates as a natural system. Lochs and weirs which were originally installed between 1922 and 1935 and the barrages built around 1914 have changed the nature of the Murray-Darling Basin river system. Since the lochs and barrages were installed, the system has been regulated to the point that an unnatural river system has been created. From the evidence presented, much of the science on which decisions were based has been questioned. Estimates made about evaporation losses, seepage and extractions are just that—estimates—and may be considerably underestimated or overestimated. The problem is that these estimates are then relied upon for other calculations that in turn magnify the possible errors. Indeed, the system is complex. The relationship between the 23 catchments is not clear—for example, reducing extractions from one catchment does not necessarily add an equal amount of water in another catchment area. What is indisputable, however, is that since the mid-sixties extraction rates have increased. Extractions have increased by 100 per cent since the early 1960s from around 6,000 gigalitres then to about 12,000 gigalitres today. In New South Wales, extractions have increased by 100 per cent from about 3,000 gigalitres around 1960 to 6,000 gigalitres today. In Victoria, extractions have also increased by about 100 per cent from about 2,000 gigalitres in the 1960s to around 4,000 gigalitres today. And Queensland, where there was little water extracted in 1960, today draws some 600 or 700 gigalitres. Interestingly, in South Australia licences were capped in 1969 and extractions have hardly changed since that time.

The volume and impact of diversions is also not well quantified or understood because since the 1960s the diversion of waters away from rivers into dams has impacted on inflows into the Murray-Darling system. Returning water to the system is critical to its sustainability. How that is achieved is dependent on who you speak to because there have been a number of proposals and options put on the table by communities right across the basin. Of course, the volume of water that needs to be returned depends on annual rainfall and, in turn, inflows. In high rainfall years current extraction rates are sustainable; in low rainfall years that is not the case. Complicating the issue is that inflows vary between catchment valleys, and nor do inflows in one valley necessarily flow on to the next, as I have said earlier. Therefore, extractions are best managed on a valley-by-valley basis.

The science around volumes of water that should be returned to the system is also not clear. Not surprisingly, we have had figures mooted of anywhere between 3,000 and 7,600 gigalitres of water that should be returned to the system. Figures are also based on average inflows. Again, not only do average inflows vary across the basin but, importantly, average inflows are of very little value or of very little use unless all the water is able to be stored. Since that is not possible, extraction rates will need to be closely monitored on a year-by-year basis across each of the catchments. The alternative is to impose ultraconservative extraction reductions and that would unnecessarily constrain productivity and cause hardship to basin communities. The use of adjustable allocations, as has been the case in recent years, is likely to be necessary into the future. The use of allocations could be used to further regulate the system on a year-by-year basis with relatively little impact on agricultural communities and food production.

For the basin to remain sustainable we must have a healthy river system. If the rivers die the basin communities will also die. Now that the reform process has begun, we must see it through and we must get it right. In fact, it is my view that Australians are counting on us to do that. We must commit to what is required and not fall into a false sense of security because of the recent rains. With a growing world population, any reduction in food production should also be of concern. The Murray-Darling Basin is not only Australia's food bowl but offers huge potential for growth. A growing world population will need to be fed and the Murray-Darling Basin presents Australia with substantial economic opportunities. We should not dismiss those opportunities. As a member of the committee I have seen examples, as we moved through communities, of that occurring today, where on-farm efficiency is producing greater volumes of produce by using lesser amounts of water. It is that kind of innovation that we should be supporting, encouraging and investing in.

One of the important issues relating to all of the committee's work was to try to come up with a proposal and recommendations that would be embraced firstly by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and then by the government. The committee worked through the inquiry in a very intense way. In fact, I am not aware that any committee has worked as intensely as this committee—certainly not in my time in this parliament. We did so because we set ourselves a deadline to try and report by the middle of this year. The authority has now extended its reporting time frame out by several months, and it will be interesting to see just what the authority reports to the government.

It was interesting, though, and relevant to the point I am making, that one of the very clear messages reflected in most of the communities we went to was that there was a sense of urgency about resolving a plan for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and that uncertainty within the basin communities as to what would be in the plan was contributing to insecurity within the plan. So it is my view that the sooner the authority reports, the sooner there is a plan on the table, the better it will be for communities throughout the basin because they will have certainty, and with that certainty they will be able to manage their future operations. I certainly do not want to see the good work of this committee—which to some extent you could say was rushed, but it was rushed for good reason—now left sitting for months on end whilst others report back to the government.

I want to briefly talk about the situation with respect to South Australia, because South Australia has some unique issues. I said earlier that South Australia capped its issuing of licences in the 1960s. Effectively no new licences have been issued since then, and the amount of water that has been extracted from the system has remained pretty stable. In addition there has been a huge amount of investment in irrigation systems in the Riverland of South Australia. South Australia did not cause the overuse, nor was it responsible for any mismanagement of the Murray-Darling Basin waters. South Australia will also draw on very little of the federal government's $12.9 billion water-funding allocation.

One of the issues that was clearly raised was the management of the Lower Lakes, and that was raised more by communities in the eastern states. I accept that the management of the Lower Lakes is a contentious issue. There is, again, a divergence of views about how they should best be managed. I do not accept, however, that the Lower Lakes are the cause of all the problems with respect to water allocations upstream. I do not accept the argument that the system could be managed simply by tearing down the barrages at the Lower Lakes or something similar. The reality is, as I said earlier, that the whole system is no longer a natural system, and since the installation of the locks between, I think, 1922 and 1935 the whole system has dramatically changed.

There was a submission, however, from Mr Ian Mott, which talked about connecting the southern lagoon of the Coorong directly to the sea. It is a submission that I believe has merit and ought to be looked at. I also believe that for South Australia the issue is not so much how much water is returned to the river system but rather how much water crosses the South Australian border and ultimately reaches the Murray mouth. That is the real question for South Australians. Quite frankly, I wait with interest to see what the authority recommends in that respect.

This is a matter that I have spoken about in this parliament on other occasions. I will continue to do so and I am sure I will speak on the matter again when the authority's report is presented. In the last few seconds left, I not only thank the members of the committee whom I worked with in the preparation of this report—the member for New England is in the chamber this morning, as are the member for Riverina, the member for Barker and the member for Braddon—for the cooperative way that we worked together but also particularly thank the staff who supported the committee in what we did, every step of the way, and who organised the inquiry for us.

See this speech in context