Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before or after the announcement, member for Mayo? Those were the days of benign despotism in the Liberal Party. We know that John Howard put this framework to the people of Australia, to the parliament, and it was all about fixing the Murray-Darling Basin. Many South Australians took that very seriously indeed—because we are affected by it, because we are at the end of the river, and everybody knows we have to live with the consequences of what goes on.

The National Water Commission, created by the Howard government in 2004, provides independent assessment on the progress of governments on water reform; audits the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; assesses the performance of basin states in implementing milestones under the National Partnership on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin; plays a role in the assessment of carbon farming initiatives; and publishes water market reports and national performance reports on metropolitan and regional water agencies. Those are important things for government, for the public and, in particular, for my state of South Australia—and everybody knows it. People regard it as important, and this has been a big issue in South Australia for a long time. I have seen some of the benefits for the Murray-Darling. In places like the City of Salisbury, Playford and in the Gawler River we have undertaken big projects to take the pressure off the River Murray.

There is a tendency amongst governments and, indeed, the community to take the foot off the accelerator a bit when it rains, to say she'll be right. But I heard a news report the other day about South Australian dam capacity this year. It is meant to be 55 per cent and it is more like 44 per cent at the moment because the rain is falling at different places. You do not need much to go wrong in Australia in terms of rainfall for there to be serious problems.

The Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May this year said 'Parched New South Wales seeks help as National Water Commission axed'. You have Premier Baird writing to Queensland, Deputy Speaker Vasta's state, basically begging about the situation in Broken Hill, where they are down to four per cent of their reserves. This is a major town in New South Wales. Broken Hill is a great city, a great home of the Labor movement, and they have to ask the Queenslanders for water. It is a very concerning thing when we have the National Water Commission being axed. The people of Broken Hill are in a dire situation and they have been in that situation for quite some time.

And what does the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists say? John Williams from the Wentworth Group said, 'This is the very time we should be building on water reform.' That gives you some idea of how the public sees things, how expert groups see things.

The National Farmers' Federation in their submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee wrote to Senator Ruston. They said:

I am writing in response to the call for submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 (herein the Bill). While the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) was disappointed to see the National Water Commission (NWC) abolished, the Government’s commitment to continuing many of the NWC’s key roles is welcomed.

The National Farmers' Federation generally do not criticise the government, so that is about as close as they get, but in this letter they reiterate their desire to make sure that the Productivity Commission actually does the role of the National Water Commission. Here is an idea: rather than tasking the Productivity Commission with doing it, why don't we just keep the National Water Commission? That would be the sensible thing to do.

We know the submission from the National Water Commission by the Hon. Karlene Maywald, who does know something about the River Murray. She makes some very good points about the commissioners and says:

Commissioners strongly support the continuation of independent oversight and public accountability of governments and government-owned enterprises beyond the life of the NWC. Strengths of the NWC have been that it reports to all Australian governments and to COAG, its Commissioners were nominated by all states and territories as well as the Commonwealth for their specific expertise, and it provided a skills-based national perspective not driven by shorter term interests.

So this is a government commission that underwrites the national interest in an area we know has been plagued by the states' interests, by sectional interests and by personal interests. It is sad because it is a great river and we all have some attachment to it.

I have been to places like Mildura. My first girlfriend—my first real girlfriend!—was from Mildura, and I know it is where the member for Mayo is from. I remember going up to Mildura in the 1990s, and people were going crazy developing underutilised water licences. They would buy the block next door for the water licence and they would exploit that water licence. They would say to you, 'We're going to do this because we know we won't be able to do it five, 10 years down the track.' The states are given water of value through the Hilmer reforms, and perhaps not one of the best effects was that it set off a bit of a gold rush in places like Mildura, sadly. I think we had some exploitation of water licences that previously lay dormant.

So we have to be a bit concerned about this government making a $20 million saving. I am surprised that a South Australian minister like Senator Birmingham would fall for this save, because we know what will happen: the old state interests will come back into play and they will aim in the short term to manipulate river flows for their own interests. What we need is a national approach, and that is why we had the National Water Commission.

Stuart Khan is quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald on 26 November last year:

"Simon Birmingham's assertion that 'the purpose of the NWC has been fulfilled' is akin to saying 'water management in Australia is fixed and there's nothing more to do'," Dr Khan said. "This is a patently ridiculous assertion ... and the looming east coast drought will make that clear for all."

We certainly hope we do not suffer drought, but you only have to look at some of the bureau forecasts to know that it is a possibility. If South Australia experiences drought and if South Australia experiences difficulty then they will look at this decision of the government, and it will be one more broken promise by this government.

We know the Australian Conservation Foundation in their overview to the Senate committee said:

To abolish the National Water Commission (NWC) and give responsibility of water management to the Productivity Commission would be a short-sighted and backward step, particularly in the absence of substantial changes to the mandate and operation of the Productivity Commission. It would likely result in another wave of conflicts over water due to the absence of what all sides regard as a well-respected expert independent body.

The ACF rightly points out that we will go back to South Australia pointing upstream, New South Wales pointing downstream and upstream and Queenslanders doing what they please, being at the head of the river.

See this speech in context