Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

This legislation arises because of the Turnbull government's incompetence and lack of commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin water plan. Coalition members have never been enthusiastic supporters of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and it was only ever achieved because of the leadership and hard work of the member for Watson in 2012. It has always been my concern that a future coalition government would gradually scale back the plan, or drag out the implementation of it, particularly the environmental returns and the additional 450 gigalitres of water that was to be allocated at the request of South Australia. My concerns have proven to be justified. That was particularly the case when former Leader of The Nationals and member for New England was given ministerial responsibility for water and for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He had no interest in delivering the Basin Plan, and that became abundantly clear from the outset.

South Australian Labor MPs and senators flagged our concerns at the time that the member for New England was appointed the relevant minister. We anticipated that he would not support the plan as it was proposed by the member for Watson when it was implemented. South Australians never expected a fair Murray-Darling Basin deal from the coalition government, but nor did South Australians expect the level of mismanagement and incompetence that has brought us to this legislation. The only reason this legislation is before parliament is the Turnbull government's incompetence, and, quite frankly, the Turnbull government's indifference to the plan.

When the Four Corners program alleged water theft in New South Wales, the Turnbull government refused to back a judicial inquiry. That would have been the only inquiry that would have got to the bottom of what was really going on with respect to water theft across the basin. It seems the government didn't want the truth about the water theft to be revealed. The Four Corners program claims proved to be correct and subsequently, I understand, charges have been laid against several irrigators. Even worse, however, the New South Wales Ombudsman issued a damning report against Water New South Wales. How water theft could occur without being noticed by Water New South Wales is beyond comprehension. But, even worse, Water New South Wales wrongly claimed to have issued 105 penalty infringement notices and to have initiated 12 prosecutions between July 2017 and November 2017, when in fact, I understand, no such actions had ever been taken. Whatever water theft has taken place, we will very likely never know the full extent of it.

The mismanagement is not limited to water theft alone. There are also allegations that, under the watch of the former minister, water purchases were made by the Commonwealth at above-market prices or for water that can never be delivered or even measured. These are serious allegations that involve tens of millions of dollars. An article written by Anne Davies and published in The Guardian on 2 March 2018 reports on those allegations:

One of Australia's largest cotton companies, Eastern Australia Agriculture (EAA), sold water rights to the federal government in July last year for $79m and then booked a $52m gain on the sale.

The deal, which was done without tender, will raise questions about whether the government paid over the odds for the water in southern Queensland.

Details of the water buyback were released to the Senate … The documents included valuations by Colliers International, which were used by the Department of Agriculture to price the water from EAA. But unlike an earlier release of documents, the valuations were heavily redacted.

In one unredacted comment, Colliers warned "there is no true market" for overland flows—the type of water rights the federal government was proposing to purchase—and that "trading was limited to sales only to the commonwealth". It warned valuing this sort of water was "very complex" because sellers were likely to seek compensation for associated structures used to harvest the water.

…   …   …

The documents also raise the question about whether Colliers, the valuer, had a potential conflict of interest. Twelve months before, in September 2015, it had been retained to sell EAA's two huge properties in Queensland—Kia-ora and Clyde.

EAA is a private company, which is controlled by a number of investment funds including a large Hong Kong fund, Pacific Alliance, via a Cayman Islands registered company.

…   …   …

The deal for $79m was signed in July last year, allowing EAA to report a large uplift in the value of its water rights. It booked a $52m gain on the water rights sold and a $40m uplift in the value of its water licences.

…   …   …

A senior water researcher at the Australia Institute, Maryanne Slattery, said the average price paid for water licences in the Lower Balonne between 2011/12 and 2016/17 was $1,500 per megalitre and the maximum paid in that period was $2,200 for two trades.

The government paid $2,745 per megalitre.

…   …   …

The Guardian reported last year on the sale of water by Tandou … There are questions about the reliability of the water rights purchased for $78m because of extractions further upstream. The Guardian also revealed the government relied on a valuation provided by the NSW government and ignored its own valuation.

Last week the Australia Institute raised questions about another buyback in Queensland, which involved a $17m purchase of 10,611 megalitres of water in the Warrego valley in March 2017.

Joyce paid more than twice that paid by Labor when in government, a purchase he had criticised because little of the Warrego—just 6%—flows through to the Darling.

These are murky deals, overseen by the member for New England when he was the water minister, which I believe the Australian National Audit Office should investigate.

It appears that the New South Wales government is now attempting to legitimise the capture, storage and ownership of overland water by issuing new licences to landowners who have been taking overland water from the basin for free. Two immediate concerns arise from that proposition. Firstly, any water taken out of the basin ultimately diminishes the amount of water that flows downstream. I know that those who support the New South Wales proposition will argue that this water was never really accounted for and that it makes no difference to the amount of water that flows into the river system. Environmentalists dispute that, and so do I. Whatever water falls in the basin to some extent ultimately flows back into the river system, whether it be underground or above ground, and in any event, acts as important environmental water for the wetlands and other environmental assets already within the basin. To simply say that this water is not relevant, shouldn't be counted and therefore does not matter to the health of the basin system is absolute nonsense. The fact that it already happens with apparently no control adds to my concerns. The issuing of licences, which in turn will have a monetary value, will trigger a rush of landowners to claim additional overland water rights.

Secondly, unlike other licences, where the amount of water taken is easier to manage, the measuring and regulation of overland water is near impossible to do. When a system becomes too complicated, regulatory measures are inevitably ineffective. In the future we will see further disputes about how much water was taken, whether the person or landowner who took it had the right to do so, and what impact it has on downstream farmers. I understand that, as a result of those propositions, downstream farmers are already expressing concerns about what water may ultimately flow to them.

Parliament should not waver from its commitment to delivery of the basin plan in full as proposed in 2012. The livelihood and security of over two million Australians depend on that basin plan. I understand that around 35 separate projects have been identified that can deliver the water savings that in turn can then be returned to the river to achieve the ultimate 2,750 litres we'll be looking at and subsequently the additional 450 gigalitres. I accept and understand that it will take some time to implement those projects, because they require the expenditure of funds and the carrying out of considerable works, but there is a proposition that those works will deliver the plan as it was intended. Labor supports that pathway, but if the water savings cannot be made then other alternatives will have to be considered. No Murray-Darling Basin community will ever be spared if the basin is not sustainable. What is required with respect to management of the basin is common sense and fairness to all, regardless of which part of the basin they live in.

For South Australia, being at the end of the river system, delivery of a sustainable basin plan is absolutely critical. Since Federation, South Australia has been negotiating with upstream states for a basin plan that provides some water security. In 1969, then South Australian Premier Steele Hall publicly debated with then opposition leader Don Dunstan the merits of establishing the Chowilla Dam just north of Renmark in South Australia for the purpose of securing South Australia's water supplies. That was almost half a century ago. Premier Hall's preference was the construction of the Dartmouth Dam in eastern Victoria. The Dartmouth Dam was subsequently constructed but didn't secure South Australia's water supplies. South Australia today still faces uncertainty because, being at the end of the stream, it relies on water flowing across the border, and that water will flow across the border only if the plan is implemented in full. If it's not then we will be in the situation where we were a decade ago, where no water whatsoever was flowing out of the mouth of the river system into the sea.

The basin plan was agreed to in 2012 after a gruelling process—a process which included a committee of this parliament, which worked for six months. Indeed, I was a member of that committee. We travelled around the basin and met with communities right throughout it in order to try to reach some consensus. Finally, that report came back to parliament and the minister acted on it with the legislation that was ultimately agreed to by this parliament.

It was a gruesome process, but we achieved a plan. That plan must now be implemented, and it should not be undermined in any way, because it is the plan that remains our best hope of long-term sustainability for all basin communities. We accept that the basin communities are an important part of the nation's economy. We accept that so many communities depend on a sustainable plan. We accept that so many families rely on a sustainable basin plan, but we also accept that we have national environmental assets that also rely on a sustainable basin plan. That's why it's important that we remain committed to the plan, and why Labor has agreed to support this legislation.

See this speech in context