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

State disputes about water in this country date right back to before Federation. Indeed, if one looks at some of the debates that occurred in 1898 before Federation, I understand that, in the last section of those debates, nearly a fifth of the time was spent debating the very water issue that we are debating today, and it was predominantly a debate between South Australia and the eastern states. As a result of that debate, we now have section 100 of the Constitution, which says:

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use—

and I stress the words 'reasonable use'—

of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

The words 'reasonable use' were included as a compromise at the time of those debates, and they now appear in the Constitution. The reality is that the disputes over water were never resolved. They continued ever since that time, and they continue today in this chamber.

In 2007, when I was elected to this place, the dominant issue for South Australians, in addition to climate change, was the state of the river Murray. I can well recall the photographs of the dying lakes not just in South Australia but right across the river stream into the eastern states as well. River communities were undoubtedly decimated, as were environmental assets. In fact, in South Australia, the Lower Lakes became mud and nothing else. Food production and livelihoods were also, in many cases, actually put to an end because people had to sell their farms in order to survive. Some went broke and others managed to hold on. In addition to that, businesses in all of those communities were struggling to survive, and many of them closed down.

I know all that not only because I actually have a lot of friends in those country towns but because, more importantly, when Labor was elected in 2007, we started looking at what we could or should be doing as a government to follow up from the 2007 Water Act that the Howard government had introduced to try to rectify these problems. Labor also then said, 'What's the next step from here?' In 2010, there was an inquiry commissioned by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia. That inquiry included 12 members of parliament: six government members and six non-government members. All of the non-government members came from regional communities across Australia, particularly those that had an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin system. The inquiry not only went to just about every community along the Murray River but, more importantly, also heard evidence from a whole range of experts with respect to what we should and should not be doing. The situation was dire.

In the end, the inquiry came up with 21 recommendations. There was no dissenting report on that inquiry, and the 21 recommendations are still there for all to see. And, quite frankly, from listening to debates in this place, nothing has changed. You could do the same inquiry and I suspect you would end up with the same recommendations. It was that inquiry that was the precursor to the 2012 legislation that then went through this parliament. Again, whilst there was some disagreement at times, ultimately all the parties that had an interest in the river Murray agreed to the 2012 legislation, including to the 450 gigalitres that South Australia had asked for.

With respect to the 2,750 gigalitres that was originally the amount that was meant to be returned to the Murray, even that figure, on the basis of the expert evidence that we heard throughout the inquiry, was considered to be the bottom-line figure. It wasn't the real figure that most experts suggested we should be returning. It was a bottom-line figure that was reached—again, as a compromise—to try and come to a deal with the eastern states. That is the basis for the legislation that the Basin Plan was built on and that this government is trying to now reinstate.

In 2018 the South Australian government, as a result of abuse of the system in the eastern states, where water was effectively being stolen, established a royal commission to look into the river Murray system. Sadly and disappointingly, the federal government did not participate in that royal commission. But the royal commission, headed by Bret Walker SC, nevertheless did its work. Now, I don't know how many members in this place have read that royal commission report, but I can say to members that I did. It is the best analysis of the problems with the river Murray system that I have ever read. It sums it up perfectly, after a year of inquiry and listening, again, to both growers and experts right along system. Richard Beasley, who was the lead counsel, has since then made several comments about the state of the basin and so on.

Instead of members coming into this place and just expressing a point of view, here we have an inquiry report from this parliament and a royal commission report of 700 pages, with its 44 recommendations—which I suspect very few people have ever even read—that should guide us with respect to how we manage the river Murray. The state Liberal government at the time also tried to brush off the royal commission report and push it to one side. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan had been neglected from the intent that it was meant to serve back in 2012, so much so that, when we had the drought along the Darling system in 2019, when we saw millions of fish dying in the water—this was outside South Australia, so it's got nothing to do with South Australia. But the river system was collapsing before the waters even got to South Australia, because of mismanagement. We had the Academy of Science prepare a report with respect to all of that. I suggest to members that perhaps they read the report from the Academy of Science because again it goes to the very heart of all the issues that we are trying to address right now.

The reality is that the Murray-Darling Basin is far too important to mismanage. Three million Australians rely on its water, and products from it go right throughout Australia. Forty per cent of Australia's agricultural land is within the basin. There are 2.3 million people who actually live within the basin. Then there is something like $11 billion of tourism spending and a billion dollars of recreational fishing that are all attributed to the Murray-Darling Basin area.

On top of that—and this is important—there are 30,000 wetlands, 16 of which are World Heritage or Ramsar listed wetlands.

There has also been for years now the loss of animal and plant species that were threatened because of the droughts and because of the overuse of the River Murray waters. The reality is that overallocations did take place. They took place predominantly in the 1980s and 1990s in the eastern states. Those overallocations have to be brought back—that is, the water has to be brought back—because the reality is you cannot take more water out of a system than what flows into it. It's as simple as that. And if you do not return that water then the whole system ultimately dies.

People talk about the Lower Lakes. All too often, I hear people talking about the Lower Lakes as if that is the only draw on water. The Lower Lakes is one part of the system, and it is only one part of the system. In 2007, both the two major lakes, Albert and Alexandrina, were drying up and the fish were dying. The Coorong was so salty that fish simply couldn't survive within it and we had to have dredges every day trying to open up the Murray mouth in order to get some fresh seawater into the system.

The truth of the matter is that, when Labor lost office in 2013, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was abandoned. That is the reality of it. Members opposite can deny it all they like. In fact, we had attempts by National Party members in this place only in recent years to actually try and dismantle the Murray-Darling Basin system. Fortunately, those attempts failed. But the reality is that the commitment to the plan by the last coalition government was simply nonexistent.

The reality is also this: if the system dies, it will not just be South Australians that miss out on water; it will be everyone, right throughout the basin. So having a healthy system is for the benefit of everyone in this country. This legislation tries to do that. It tries to do that by listening to the expert advice of the scientists that we have engaged along the way for the last couple of decades, by listening to the expert advice of people who live along the system and by trying to reach a manageable Murray-Darling Basin system that everybody can live within.

With respect to this legislation, yes, it restores the commitment to the plan and, yes, it restores the 450 gigalitres of additional water that was added to the restoration of the river, but it also does a lot more than that. It actually ensures that the water market itself has some integrity. Quite frankly, that has been one of the problems with the system. Not only is the water market something that personally I have had very little confidence in; the truth of the matter is that even the water market was abused. We saw when they were in government the coalition members were pretty choosy about who they allowed sales to take place for. There was some water sold under the buyback system, but have a close look at who sold it and who bought it.

The legislation also extends the time frame under which we hope to restore the waters to the system—again, giving everyone time to get the system under control. I do accept the arguments put by those opposite that communities will be affected. But, for those communities, there has been additional money put aside to try and help them recover from the impacts that the water buybacks might have on them.

I say this with respect to even the water itself. Members talk about irrigators going broke and not being able to provide for the rest of the nation and exports and the like when water is taken away from them. The water that comes into South Australia does not come in at the Lower Lakes end; it comes in at the border with Victoria. It services the whole South Australian Riverland region. The South Australian Riverland region produces 30 per cent of Australia's wine crops in addition to so many other horticultural products. It's a key part of South Australia's agricultural production. If the River Murray system is not restored, it'll be all of those growers who'll also miss out. I say this as someone who has spoken with some of those growers and spoken with a person who not only was a grower there but was given the job of assisting other growers with how to survive during the drought period. It is important for those people in South Australia's Riverland to ensure that this plan is put into effect and that the river is sustainable, because if it's not they also lose out.

The last point I'll make about the water buybacks is simply this: water trading is already allowed to happen. The truth is, once water trading has been introduced, it's not up to the government to decide who sells and who buys water. It is a free market. Anybody can do that. If willing sellers want to sell their water—either because they have invested in irrigation efficiency measures and have a surplus amount of water or because they have changed their crops and have a surplus amount of water—they should be allowed to do so. That will not affect those communities. That is a choice they make because they no longer need the water. If by some chance they simply want to get out of agriculture because they've reached the retirement age, again, it's their water. It's their right, just like it is for anyone else who owns property in this country, to buy and sell whenever they choose. With those comments, can I say this legislation simply restores what this parliament and the nation—because the state premiers agreed to it in 2012—back to what it should be, and that is a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is sustainable.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context