Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all know that the health of our rivers is deteriorating. We all accept that our rivers have been overallocated. Most of us accept that climate change is real and that we will need to get used to even less water in our rivers, and we all agree that something must be done. That is why federal Labor has consistently supported greater national leadership on water policy and water reform. Since the 1980s Labor has called for national leadership, and in government we legislated for a greater national role in water policy. It is for that reason that Labor supports the Water Bill 2007. It is not perfect, and more work has to be done, but it is a step in the right direction. The Water Bill is a step towards fixing some of the Murray-Darling Basin’s long-term problems. It gives the Commonwealth greater control over water planning for the basin and should help deliver greater water security. The Water Bill provides the framework to enforce the sustainable cap on diversions from the basin and puts in place a planning process to manage the basin into the future so that we can restore the system to health and secure the ongoing prosperity of the communities that rely on the system. Labor supports the bill because it provides greater Commonwealth leadership on water policy.

In December 2006 I circulated a discussion paper titled Protecting our precious natural environment and water supplies. This was the first Labor discussion paper under Kevin Rudd’s leadership. The core of Labor’s approach and the rationale of that discussion paper were to focus natural resource programs on national priorities, streamline decision making and make sure that it is water that flows rather than red tape. Over 2006, Labor made strong, consistent policy statements on climate change and water.

Of course, 2007 is an election year, and in January we saw the Prime Minister act desperately, after ignoring water issues and climate change for over a decade. It took an election year to get any response from the government about the water crisis. We know that in 2006 the Howard government undertook secret taxpayer funded opinion polling on climate change. We now know that the polling was provided to an advertising agency as part of the brief for the government’s taxpayer funded climate change facelift. The polling showed that 94 per cent of respondents agreed that the climate was changing and that the number of respondents who believed the government had the prime responsibility to act had almost doubled between 2003 and 2006. Of course, that was the time that the government changed its rhetoric on climate change. It is clear that the only thing the Prime Minister is concerned about is the changing political climate, not climate change itself. The government had to appear to be doing something, so they chose to appear to be doing something on water.

On 25 January the Prime Minister announced his $10 billion National Plan for Water Security. That was more a headline than a policy. Labor had been calling for greater national leadership on water policy from day one. Therefore, we provided in-principle bipartisan support for the Prime Minister’s plan. Of course, we raised concerns; many groups did. Farmers, irrigators, environment groups, state governments and commentators all raised concerns. Critics of the lack of detail emerged across the spectrum and included the National Farmers Federation and the irrigation industry. There was general consensus that the Prime Minister got the direction right in January, but the detail was sorely lacking. Indeed, it was a headline looking for a policy. There were no funding details, no time lines and no governance arrangements. There was no consultation with the states, the national water commissioners, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, the NFF, irrigators or environment groups. There was no proper scrutiny by the departments of Treasury or Finance. There was not even consideration by the cabinet. Since 25 January, I understand there have been more than 62 versions of the legislation. There have been reports of very different approaches to the legislation appearing in drafts and then disappearing just as quickly.

Throughout this period federal Labor have been constructive in our approach. We gave in-principle support to the national approach whilst recognising it was reasonable and indeed necessary and responsible for all stakeholders to scrutinise the National Plan for Water Security and to ensure the details were correct. After legislation was drafted and redrafted and many meetings were held, it is unfortunate that negotiations broke down between the Commonwealth and Victorian governments. It would have been better for the Commonwealth government to have worked constructively with the Victorian government to reach an agreement. Over June and July, we were indeed optimistic that the Commonwealth and Victoria would resolve their differences. That was certainly the public message coming out of discussions. For reasons best understood by the Prime Minister, it became politically convenient to establish a line of conflict between the Commonwealth and Victoria and force the issue.

But the blame game is not in the national interest; the blame game is a game for losers, and the price is paid by the Australian people, who deserve better. It is a lost opportunity that we have second or third best legislation for the Murray-Darling Basin because drafters were focused on making sure the legislation survives the High Court and less focused on the survival of the river system itself. Previous federal governments have cleared bigger hurdles than those faced by the minister and the Howard government. I listened closely to the second reading speech by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and noted with some surprise that the minister said:

This Water Bill is the first water reform program introduced into this parliament in 106 years.

No, minister, it is not. The legislation you have stewarded into the parliament has merit, but the bill is not the Commonwealth’s first water reform program. Indeed, as far back as 1915 the Commonwealth chaired the negotiations for the River Murray Waters Agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Modern national water reform began with the historic Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in June 1992, led by the Keating Labor government, and the landmark Murray-Darling Basin Act 1992. The other parties to the historic bipartisan Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in 1992 were the Fahey Liberal government in New South Wales, the Kennett Liberal government in Victoria, the Brown Liberal government in South Australia, the Goss Labor government in Queensland and the Follett Labor government in the ACT.

If one casts their mind back to the politics and issues of the late 1980s, one has to give credit to the Keating government and the state governments for the work that they did. There was a bipartisan agreement and things moved forward under the leadership of the federal Labor government. The major public debate over salinity in the basin really captured the public attention in the 1980s and the early 1990s. I remember that debate. There was a recognition that the river’s problems extended across state boundaries and that a national approach was needed. Out of discussions, the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was struck and the Murray-Darling Basin Act was passed. But, of course, the hard work did not just stop there. Rather than put the cue in the rack, work kept going and in 1994 the historic COAG agreement on national water reform was struck.

The current water debate can be traced back to the 1980s and 1990s when the Hawke and Keating governments put national water reform on the COAG agenda. After a very long gestation period, this provided the foundation for the 2004 National Water Initiative. I would like to table two documents: one is the COAG communique from February 1994 and the other is the COAG communique from July 2006. I seek leave to table those documents.

Leave granted.

There is a striking similarity between these two documents. The problems in the Murray-Darling Basin did not go away, but things certainly slowed down under the federal Liberal-National coalition government. There were 10 long years between the COAG agreement in 1994 and the National Water Initiative in 2004, which of course is why it is so extraordinary that the minister was prepared to argue that this was the first water reform from the Commonwealth in 106 years.

I also do not think it is fair of the minister to overlook the National Water Initiative and the National Water Commission Bill 2004. That legislation established the National Water Commission and the $2 billion Australian Water Fund. It was major legislation at the time for the coalition government. But, of course, we know that, up until very recently and just three years after it was founded, less than half of the $2 billion was actually committed to much-needed water projects. More recently, Labor have been critical that in the May budget just one-half of one per cent of the $10 billion water plan, just $53 million, was allocated for the coming financial year. A mere $15 million was allocated in 2007-08 to deal with the issue of overallocation. The Commonwealth government should be purchasing overallocated water entitlements, and as the Prime Minister, on 25 January, said:

We could muddle through as has occurred in the past, but frankly, that gets us nowhere. Without decisive action we face the worst of both worlds.

Common sense tells you that, given the immediate water crisis, funding should be front-end loaded; economic sense tells you that it will cost less to deal with the overallocation of water entitlements sooner rather than later. Labor have noted on many occasions our concern with the lack of funding details for the government’s water announcements. Again, with this bill, I am surprised there is neither any new detail on appropriations nor more details on how the funding announced in the budget will be put into programs.

The head of the Treasury, Ken Henry, the senior economic adviser to the government, has expressed serious reservations about government policy development in relation to water and climate change. Treasury was excluded from the development of the 25 January $10 billion National Plan for Water Security, and it appears the Water Bill and programs flowing from it are being kept well and truly away from the Treasury. The lack of funding for programs and the lack of detail for spending show a serious weakness in the Prime Minister’s water plan, and that the government is not really ready to take the urgent action that is required to address the water crisis. Labor believe that the water reform process must continue so that we properly fix the overallocation of water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to ensure harmony between environment and consumptive use and help address the impact of drought and climate change on water supply.

I think something quite interesting has been revealed by the debate over how to resolve the overallocation of water. It is clear that the real division over water policy in Australia is between the reformers on one side and the blockers in the National Party on the other. The National Party are the handbrake on national water reform. There is a conflict between the national interest and the interests of the National Party. The coalition, by definition, has been incapable of resolving this conflict. Following the script written by narrow sectional interests, the blockers in the National Party have continually undermined the $10 billion water plan.

Since the announcement in January, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile; the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran; the member for Maranoa; and Senator Barnaby Joyce have all publicly undermined the plan. National Party members oppose the plan to address water overallocation and they are resolute that buying back water entitlements should only be done as a last resort. This directly contradicts the Prime Minister’s commitment made on 25 January, when he said:

We are prepared to invest up to $3 billion in buying back water entitlements and assisting irrigators in the unviable or inefficient parts of schemes to exit the industry.

The dismal failure of the tender program for water efficiency, which closed on 14 February, highlights the failure of the National Party’s approach. From a budget of up to $200 million, just $765,000 was spent—less than one per cent. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources stated on 19 June 2006 that the government ‘would not be seeking to acquire more than 200 gigalitres’. Did the tender acquire 100 gigalitres, 50 gigalitres, 10 gigalitres or even one gigalitre? No, it did not. The program acquired just 454 megalitres, or 0.2 per cent of its objective. One wonders why they even bothered. They hardly troubled the scorers. More money was spent on administration than on purchasing water. The government refused to acknowledge that the program was a failure. Perhaps that is because the minister for agriculture is really opposed to dealing in any way with overallocated water entitlements. The National Party are at the core of the water problem, and they are also at the core of the Howard government.

Climate change will directly affect water supply, temperature and the frequency of extreme weather events, and there is no question that all areas of Australia will be particularly affected. For Australia, the key climate change impacts on water supply, on our cities and on agriculture will be less rainfall and increased evaporation. Water problems will intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia.

For Labor, water supply issues and climate change are two sides of the same coin. Without a strategy for climate change, you do not really have a strategy for water. As a nation we must take action on water and climate change every year, not just in election years. We will not get climate change solutions from a government full of climate change sceptics—as we saw from the four government members in yesterday’s report—or climate change deniers. No wonder the head of Treasury, Ken Henry, has expressed serious reservations about government policy development on water and climate change.

Labor believes that the Commonwealth’s water bill is a step towards fixing some of the Murray-Darling Basin’s long-term problems. It is critical that all levels of government work together in the national interest. The Commonwealth’s method has been to implement a basin-wide approach to managing the basin. Labor agrees with this. Under the bill, the Commonwealth will establish a new, expert Murray-Darling Basin Authority to develop and oversee the implementation of a basin plan for water management. The plan will include: a new sustainable cap on extractions of surface and groundwater in the MDB, a salinity and water quality plan, an environmental watering plan and trading rules. The bill sets out processes for accrediting the catchment level water plans prepared by basin states under their existing legislation to ensure that the outcomes of the basin plan are achieved.

I note that the Commonwealth approach is to honour its commitment to existing catchment level water plans for the life of those plans and related instruments, many of which do not expire for several years. Labor supports that approach. We must improve water security and planning while at the same time helping water users to adapt to less water and climate change. Of course, it is possible that the long-term average sustainable water diversion limit or cap for the water resource plan will have to be reduced. That means that there will be compulsory water entitlement reductions under clause 77 of this bill, but it is an open question as to how this will be different from compulsory acquisition. Under clause 77 of the bill, when that cap is reduced it appears that the water entitlement holder may receive compensation for that reduction. Clause 77 sets out the way in which the liability for that compensation will be distributed. I note that clause 255 of the legislation does not authorise the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements. But doesn’t clause 77 do just that? Clause 77 sets up a mechanism for paying out irrigators for a legislative reduction in their water entitlement. It appears to me that that is a distinction without a real difference.

The bill will establish a Commonwealth environmental water holder to manage environmental outcomes for the new water holdings purchased by the Commonwealth under the new funding programs of the national plan. Through the Bureau of Meteorology, the level and quality of information on water will improve. This will help our understanding and our ability to manage water resources on a sustainable basis.

Labor is concerned that, because of the haste to develop and pass legislation in an election year, the Water Bill 2007 represents a second-best solution on national water reform. That has been agreed by the government, including by the minister. The representative of the Victorian Farmers Federation said the following at the Senate hearing last Friday:

We have some concerns about the creation of the bureaucracy under this bill. We have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. We still have the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. We have two ministerial councils, a community consultative council and an officials committee.

He continued:

There is the National Water Commission. I am concerned that, at the end of the day, somebody pays for all that bureaucracy and it may well be irrigators who wear a fair bit of that cost.

Labor wants water, not red tape, to flow in the Murray-Darling Basin. The overlapping and unclear decision-making structures are a symptom of a rushed piece of legislation in an election year. Labor deplores the government’s failure to consult in good faith with state governments and other stakeholders over the bill and, most importantly, the related intergovernmental agreement. A key element of the national plan remains for basin states and the ACT to sign an intergovernmental agreement committing them to refer powers for an eventual basin-wide management structure and to work cooperatively to implement all aspects of the Commonwealth’s Water Bill. The development of the IGA is critical to the effectiveness of the basin plan.

Labor is very concerned that the IGA was not provided to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill and that it has not been given to state governments, to stakeholders in the basin or to members of the House of Representatives who are expected to vote on this bill. The yet-to-be-released IGA will govern federal and state relations, guide investment and ensure water plans function properly. I agree with the National Farmers Federation statement last week:

The principal outcomes of the Prime Minister’s National Plan for Water Security cannot be effectively delivered unless Federal and State Governments can agree on the strings attached to federal funding.

Federal Labor is worried that, as a result of unilateral changes foreshadowed by the Howard government regarding the operation of the IGA, the effectiveness of the basin plan and future water management in the basin may be unnecessarily affected.

While the bill is a step forward, there is confusion and doubts about several key issues. Why do we have both a Murray-Darling Basin Authority and a Murray-Darling Basin Commission? How will compulsory water entitlement reductions under section 77 work, and how are they different from compulsory acquisition? When will the government circulate the all important intergovernmental agreement? What will the risk sharing arrangements be with the states, and why should the states carry more risk than was agreed to with the Prime Minister in early July? Those issues of risk sharing and compensation have been major issues raised by the New South Wales and Queensland governments. Premier Iemma has written to the Prime Minister suggesting that he honour the agreement that was given by some of the state governments early on to this national plan. It would appear that this bill is written deliberately to place pressure on all of the states to sign up to the original referral of powers; otherwise, funding will be held back. It is not an appropriate way to punish states that were prepared to refer their powers and engage in a truly national plan, which Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and the ACT were prepared to do. The other concern is: why are the water needs of towns and cities in the basin and the other downstream consequences of water planning not dealt with in the bill?

I am proud that, when Kevin Rudd talks about a national water plan, he talks about a water plan for all Australians. In order to promote sustainable water use, Australia needs clear targets and benchmarks for environmental performance. Water in Australia is overallocated, undervalued and misdirected. The National Water Initiative must be the foundation of water policy implementation. This is the case for the Murray-Darling and it is also the case for the rest of Australia. Water for urban areas, where 18 million Australians live, must be high on the Commonwealth government’s agenda. Australia needs a national perspective on water issues. Labor support the bill, but we see a whole lot more that needs to be done. There is a critical role for the Commonwealth in developing urban infrastructure, which includes urban water supplies.

Past Commonwealth governments were critical in delivering water infrastructure through pipes and sewerage to our outer suburbs. It is time to renew the Commonwealth’s engagement in our cities. Australians want real solutions to our water crisis. We need this legislation for the Murray-Darling Basin, but we need to develop it further and we also need a national urban water strategy which is comprehensive and supports major infrastructure and individual household measures.

Labor has a plan for major new projects, a plan to fix existing infrastructure such as leaky pipes, and a plan for households. We must ensure security of water supply for all Australians regardless of whether they live in our rural and regional communities or our towns and cities. Labor has a 30 per cent waste water recycling target by 2015. We will provide the support and investment to help achieve that target. Tackling the nation’s water shortages is all about securing Australia’s economic future and prosperity. Across Australia in rural and urban areas water has been overallocated, undervalued and misdirected. This bill is a positive step towards addressing part of the national water problem, but more needs to be done.

I will conclude with a reflection on the bill and the national water policy debate. It is just over two years since I was appointed shadow minister for water in June 2005. This was an innovative appointment given that, at the time, I had no-one to shadow as there was no minister for water. A journalist questioned the decision and declared it a strange appointment. The journalist asked me, ‘Why do you need a federal spokesperson for water? Isn’t that a state government responsibility?’ Two years on it is incomprehensible that any government in the future will not have a minister for water sitting in the cabinet room, and any opposition will not have a shadow minister for water.

The rise to prominence of water as a national political issue has been aided by human activity on two fronts. On the negative side, human activity has significantly contributed to climate change. On the positive side, human intellectual activity will provide the policy response and solutions as we more forward. Nature itself has been reminding us of its innate power. Climate change has reminded all of us, with the exception of the sceptics in the Howard government, that we survive by the grace of nature and that our very short lived presence on earth is minuscule compared with the power of our natural resources and, in particular, water. When water is in trouble, we are all in trouble. Our absolute dependence on fresh water to survive should never be taken for granted. This is important legislation before this parliament.

Labor, in spite of some of the reservations that we have had since the announcement on 25 January, have been constructive and will continue to be so during the conduct of this debate in the House of Representatives and the Senate. But we are concerned about the continuing issues which remain outstanding. We are concerned with the haste in which this bill has been finalised and the haste of its public debate, where it was introduced into the parliament only last week and will be voted on in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That truncated process has allowed very limited input from the public and from community interests. Of course the government would argue that because an election is around the corner there is a need to do this quickly; I would argue that it should not have taken an election year to have legislation such as this before the House. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes that modern national water reform began with the Murray Darling Basin Act in 1992 and the historic COAG Agreement on water reform in 1994 led by the Keating Labor Government;

(2)

regrets that, despite clear warning signals about the health of the river system, it has taken 13 more years to see the next stage of Commonwealth action to address the problems of the Murray Darling Basin,

(3)

is concerned that the legislation before the House represents a second best solution on national water reform;

(4)

deplores the Government’s failure to consult in good faith with State Governments and other stakeholders over the Water Bill 2007 and the related Intergovernmental Agreement;

(5)

believes the water reform process must continue so we properly fix the over-allocation of water licences in the Murray Darling Basin, ensure harmony between the environment and consumptive use, and help address the impact of drought and climate change on water supply;

(6)

notes that climate change will have a significant impact on water supply generally and the health of the Murray Darling Basin in particular;

(7)

notes that the CSIRO will provide an important report in late 2007 on the hydrology of the Basin and what the sustainable extraction levels are for the Basin; and

(8)

notes that the following is needed for national water reform:

(a)

a cooperative and constructive approach with State Governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure;

(b)

full implementation of the National Water Initiative principles agreed to in 2004;

(c)

fixing of the over-allocation of water licences once and for all, and the establishment of coherent, streamlined rules which ensure the problem of over-allocation never recurs;

(d)

recognition that economic instruments including water trading are necessary to address the fact that water has been over-allocated, undervalued and misdirected;

(e)

proper consultation with key stakeholders in the Murray Darling Basin, including all water users, farmers, water scientists, environment groups and the broader community to ensure the adoption and consistent use of efficient agricultural practices;

(f)

returning sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray Darling Basin to ensure the long term health of all rivers, wetlands and all connected groundwater systems in the Basin and, as a result, ensure the health of the communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers; and

(g)

measures to ensure industrial and urban water users adapt to maximise water efficiency”.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Water Bill 2007 is a very important piece of legislation. It goes to the very core of our national purpose and—I do not think it would be too strong to say—of our national existence. It is highlighted by the circumstances of our climate at this time, and I think there is no better time for it to be introduced into the parliament. I am sure we would all wish that it could have been expedited over a shorter time, but no doubt many of us are aware of the reasons that it has not been able to come to the parliament until this point.

In some pre-emptory discussion, before I come to the content of the bill, I will make some overall statements and address some of the member for Grayndler’s comments. He mentioned the hastiness in which it has come to the parliament and the lack of public debate and deplored the government’s failure to honour this approach. I think the people of Australia would have a very different view, remembering that the Prime Minister brought the National Plan for Water Security before the Australian people on 25 January 2007. The circumstances of the states, particularly Victoria, are well known to the Australian people. It is not my purpose to revisit them here, but I think they are well known. I pay due respect to the Keating government for the COAG initiative of 1992 leading up to 1994. That was an important national initiative; the great pity is that we have not moved more rapidly.

We can talk about climate change at great length, and I am sure we will—and we already have—in this place, around the nation and around the world. Suffice to say for my purpose, being much more of the practical ilk, I will talk in terms of a severe drought and not get caught up in the politics of climate change, because there are much more pressing issues.

I was raised in one of the driest areas of this country. The closest part of the Murray River to my home is some 400 kilometres away by road. But nevertheless the Murray-Darling system is a vital part of South Australia’s existence. To go to the electorate’s specific issues, the pipeline from Morgan supplies water to Yorke Peninsula and now to Eyre Peninsula, since the building of the new pipeline from Iron Knob to Kimba. Water from Kimba, I understand, can gravitate to Ceduna and Penong, well to the west, some 350 kilometres from Kimba. So the Murray River, even at this very severe time, is being asked to do more and more.

Some of the statistics from the second reading speech of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources are quite remarkable. There has been something like a fivefold increase in demand on the Murray-Darling system in the last 70 or 80 years. It is a huge increase, so we should not be too surprised that we are here discussing this today. For all the politics of it, there is this wonderful piece from Alfred Deakin, when, in 1886, while he was Chief Secretary in the Victorian government—and I am sure the irony of that will not be lost on the House—he introduced, quoting from the minister’s speech, ‘innovative and, in the minds of many, radical reforms to water management in that state’. I quote Alfred Deakin:

The water legislation of this country, fortunately for us, has proceeded upon one line of continuous and consistent development … The present proposals of the Government—

Remember that this was in 1886—

however large they may appear at first sight, are after all, only the necessary consequence of what has gone before …

There is nothing new in history.

I turn to the bill itself. The Water Bill 2007 gives effect to a number of key elements of the Commonwealth government’s $10.05 billion National Plan for Water Security, announced, as I said earlier, by the Prime Minister on 25 January 2007. It will enable water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin to be managed in the national interest, optimising environmental, economic and social outcomes. Its key elements include an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the functions and powers, including enforcement powers, needed to ensure that basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way. There are a whole lot of subpieces of that general intent, and I do not propose to go through all of them in the discussion today except to touch on the environmental watering plan, a Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to manage the Commonwealth’s environmental water inside and outside the basin, the role of the ACCC for pricing issues and a much increased role for the Bureau of Meteorology.

The new arrangements bring greater certainty for water users. They will give effect on the ground via accredited state plans. This means that the nature of existing water entitlements is not affected by the bill, and nor are existing state water shares. The legislation locks in the government’s commitment to respect existing water resource plans, most of which do not expire until 2014. The substantial funding of $10.05 billion available through the program will have a positive impact on regional communities by reconfiguring irrigation infrastructure so as to use water more efficiently and productively. Time permitting, I will mention the general financial breakdown, which is well known to the House and well known to many throughout Australia.

With regard to the timing for the new arrangements, it is anticipated that the new authority will commence operations in early 2008 and that the basin plan will be completed within two years of the authority’s establishment. It will complement the National Water Initiative, which was a very important initiative of this government. We should not lose sight of that, because that has been very much part of this parliament, being a pre-election promise in 2004. The community water grants—the larger-picture allocation of capital—are water improvement initiatives that are already very much happening on the ground throughout Australia. I am sure there is not a member of parliament who would not have many electors who are very pleased with this government’s National Water Initiative.

There will be discussion—in fact, it came up in the speech of the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler—that, somehow or other, this legislation is a second-best option. There is no way that that charge can be levelled. There can always be improvements; you could make that judgement about any piece of legislation. But, with regard to the national interest, this is very much at the cutting edge of what we need and have to do in water through much of Australia. I make the point that, should Victoria change its mind in the future, it could go somewhat further. Time permitting, I will come to that in more detail later.

The government has not reneged on its commitment to the states that there will be no net increase in costs as a result of the national plan. I will not go into the individual details but simply say that the Commonwealth has put an enormous effort in. I think that, if you go behind the scenes, strip away the politics and try to overlook the fact that there is a federal election not many weeks away, the states—that is, apart from Victoria—which have traditionally had responsibility for water in the evolution of our federation, will acknowledge that this legislation is vital to our national interest and an excellent model for water management in the Murray-Darling Basin in the years ahead.

The constitutional basis for the legislation, of course, comes up in this debate, and the Commonwealth has made its position clear. It believes it has the appropriate authority and that a constitutional challenge, should there be one, is something that will be dealt with at the time. All I need to say is that the Commonwealth is confident of its position.

In the time left, I will talk about stakeholder consultation. The Basin Community Committee members will be appointed on the basis of expertise. The committee will consist of a chair and up to 16 other members. The committee must include at least one authority member and at least eight individuals who are representatives of one or more water users. ‘Water user’ means a person who is engaged in irrigated agriculture, is engaged in environmental water management, uses water for industrial purposes or uses stock and domestic water.

With respect to this groundbreaking water security plan, part of the $10 billion will be allocated as follows: $3 billion to address overallocation; and $3.55 billion for the improvement of off-farm distribution efficiencies for each state as they sign the intergovernmental agreement on water. I understand it poses a real implementation challenge for Victoria. I know there has been some rethinking on the matter by those who do not want to miss the boat on this very important part of the plan—the off-farm distribution efficiencies.

I know from personal and practical experience the remarkable difference that such efficiencies have made in a specific part of Victoria that I am very familiar with, where they went from an open channel system to pipes and reticulation from the river to the various storage systems that have been established over the last 20 or 30 years. So this is not new; this has been happening for some time, but it makes a huge difference. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that this is a vital part of the plan.

An amount of $450 million—a very large amount—is allocated for water information, and $617 million for on-farm investments in irrigation efficiency. So we have off-farm and on-farm measures which bring the figure for the farm-specific part of the plan to over $4 billion. There is also $70 million for ‘hot spots assessment’—to identify where water losses are occurring in irrigation infrastructure across Australia.

In terms of national importance, this matter has been discussed for many decades. Even during my time in the parliament, some people from my own state have been advocating for this measure. The current Minister for Ageing, Mr Pyne, has been an advocate for many years for such a national response to the water issue. I applaud him for his tenacity in raising the issue from the perspective of my own state.

I come from an area where, throughout my life, we have just about always had too little water. For much of Australia, that is not the case. Most of Australia has always taken this resource for granted. The opportunities that come from this great drought and the difficulties with water availability are obvious. The timeliness of this legislation is very apparent. This government should be remembered as the government that actually implemented this measure. Previous Labor governments can be given credit for attempting, through the COAG agreements, to introduce this type of major national initiative, but the implementation of it was always going to be the tough part.

I thank the minister, and I congratulate the Prime Minister, because our national wellbeing is obviously very reliant upon this measure. I cannot think of a better way of investing $10 billion, for our long-term future and for our children’s future, than by this legislation, which will ensure our national water security.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I relish the opportunity to speak in this second reading debate on the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. The Murray-Darling Basin is at the economic heart of Australia. Its environment is central to the health and productivity of the nation. As Paul Keating, our former Prime Minister, said on 21 December 1992:

The Murray-Darling is Australia’s greatest river system, a basic source of our wealth, a real and symbolic artery of the nation’s economic health, and a place where Australian legends were born. Nowhere is the link between the Australian environment, the Australian economy and Australian culture better described.

As the records of Charles Sturt’s early voyages through the Murray-Darling show, it is a river system that has been literally transformed—often, regrettably, to the detriment of its health—over a century or more.

The Murray-Darling Basin occupies 14 per cent of Australia’s total area and is the nation’s main food source, producing some 40 per cent of the value of our agriculture and with a population approaching three million people. It contains Australia’s longest rivers and many of our most important wetlands, as well as some of our most precious but threatened flora and fauna.

Unfortunately, the Murray-Darling Basin is under severe threat from a range of factors and impacts. Water extractions have increased fivefold from the 1920s to the present. We are taking, and have taken, a lot of water out of the system. Invasive weeds and pests, as well as salinity, are also significant threats. Finally, there is the impact of climate change. In 2006, just 1,317 billion litres flowed naturally into the Murray system—almost 25 per cent less than the previous minimum of 1,740 billion litres in 1902, the final year of the famous Federation drought.

Last Friday, in his evidence to the Senate environment committee inquiry into the water legislation, one of Australia’s leading water experts, Professor Peter Cullen, said he feared inflows into the Murray-Darling system have dropped by 40 per cent compared to long-term averages. Professor Cullen went on to warn that the Murray-Darling system needs to adapt to the long-term impacts of climate change—that is, to a drier climate over the basin, and a hotter climate as well.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its 2007 fourth assessment report, found that annual stream flow into the basin is likely to fall 10 to 25 per cent by 2050 and 16 to 48 per cent by 2100. These are significant predicted falls. Report after report has identified climate change as a genuine threat to the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, but still, as of now, we do not have a thorough climate change adaptation plan for the basin. In fact, a recent report of the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council called for priority to be given to developing an adaptation plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. Yet it is has not happened.

When it comes to the state of the environment there is no question that the rivers, the wetlands and the other precious environmental resources of the basin and other areas are now experiencing extreme stress. The 2006 State of the environment report tells us:

Overall, the state of the inland waters environment in the southern and eastern part of Australia is not very healthy. Significant areas of major inland and coastal catchments are degraded (including vegetation, aquatic habitats and water quality), the pressure on water resources continues to be high, and many indicators show that aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity are degraded across large areas of the continent.

The truth is that the government’s much vaunted Living Murray Initiative has virtually gone nowhere. To be a healthy, working river, the Murray River needs 1,500 gigalitres more water per year, in the view of an expert review panel appointed in 2001. But to date all we have seen is an approval to purchase 20 gigalitres.

The government’s failings in other areas of environmental policy have also been adversely impacting on the basin. For instance, the government has no national wetlands program. The government’s support for the stressed Ramsar wetlands, which it has international obligations to protect, has been minimal. In fact, the 2006 State of the environment report and the annual measures of Australia’s progress reports from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that on nearly all the measures of Australia’s environmental health we are going backwards.

The State of the environment report confirms that Australia continues to lose ground in protecting our natural environment. Greenhouse emissions are set to rise by some 27 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020; Australia has lost 56 per cent of its vegetation in river systems and wetlands; and, critically, the last five years have witnessed lower than average rainfall over eastern Australia. In the west, which is a long way from the Murray-Darling Basin but is experiencing the same kinds of stresses and pressures, Perth’s water supply catchment is yielding 50 per cent less water than in the years before the mid-1970s.

The 2006 Measures of Australia’s progress report indicates that Australia’s biodiversity has declined in the past decade, and that is very worrying and very troubling. It shows that the number of terrestrial bird and mammal species listed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable rose by 41 per cent between 1995 and 2005, that in 2000 about 5.7 million hectares were assessed as having a high potential to develop dryland salinity, and that in 2000 about one-quarter of Australia’s surface water management areas were close to, or had exceeded, sustainable extraction limits.

The truth is that these statistics show clearly that the state of Australia’s natural environment has worsened considerably over the last 11 years. That is the legacy of the Howard government’s period in office—a dismal legacy of degradation and decline. Overlaying all of this is the government’s failure to comprehensively tackle climate change. A government that was serious about climate change would have developed a plan to substantially cut Australia’s greenhouse pollution, and it would have prepared Australia for the dramatic impact of climate change. A government that was serious about climate change would have developed a climate change adaptation plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. This has not happened. Notwithstanding the statements—sometimes, I have to say, the boasts—of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources on the record of the Howard government, the fact is that there is virtually no track record on climate change and a poor track record on natural resource management.

I take the opportunity to address for a moment or two natural resource management. I note that in 2004-05 the Australian National Audit Office reported on the administration of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. This was an instance of the Audit Office examining closely where these key environment programs were going and how much progress, if indeed any, had been made. The Audit Office found that the $700 million program had been characterised by ‘delays that have had flow-on effects for all stages of program implementation’. So the necessary urgency that needed to accompany the delivery of these programs has simply been lacking.

The 2006 State of the environment report to which I referred earlier also found serious shortcomings in the Natural Heritage Trust. In particular, the adoption of indicators by regional bodies funded by the NHT has proved problematic, with a lack of data and the appropriate indicators that are so necessary. The Audit Office found that projects funded from the first round of the NHT, from 1996-97 to 2001-02, were at too small a scale to have much impact and few projects have impacted on sustainable agricultural production. Notwithstanding the very good efforts of people in the community to apply themselves to the business of delivering programs which will see a significant improvement in the conservation and management of our national resources, very few of the projects actually impacted on sustainable agricultural production.

The State of the environment report also expressed concerns about whether enough funds were being invested on the underlying causes of biodiversity decline, particularly in priority areas such as excluding invasive species and reversing the impacts of past land clearing. The message from this Audit Office report was clear—that is, the Howard government has not been taking the focused and measurable action that is required to restore Australia’s environment to health.

In his Senate committee evidence last week Professor Cullen identified two specific things that need to be done in helping the Murray-Darling Basin adapt to a dry climate. The first is to accelerate implementation of the National Water Initiative. The second is to improve governance of the Murray-Darling Basin. Labor has been calling for the accelerated implementation of the National Water Initiative for some time and, with regard to the governance of the Murray-Darling Basin, Labor supports the need for greater Commonwealth leadership in water policy, and consequently supports the Water Bill.

However, while supporting this bill, we are concerned that little practical action is being undertaken by the government. In the May budget just one-half of one per cent of the $10 billion national water plan money—just $53 million—was allocated in the coming financial year. A mere $15 million was provided to deal with overallocation in 2007-2008. These sums are insufficient to deal with a problem of this magnitude.

In relation to the Water Bill itself—as has been noted already by the member for Grayndler and I am sure will be noted by other members on this side of the House—this began essentially as a reaction to the very high levels of concern that the Australian community had about the impacts of drought both on the environment and particularly on the Murray-Darling Basin itself and the long-running problems that were occurring in the basin in terms of water, water health and access to water for communities. It was an exercise essentially in its initial gestation conducted on the back of an envelope, where Treasury and the cabinet seemed to be completely out of the loop, notwithstanding that it ultimately represented the most significant legislative intervention in the Murray-Darling Basin and is of major significance to the environment of the basin. It needs to be put on the record that this was a poll-driven response to a significant policy area, not a policy-driven response that came about because of a commitment that this government had to reform the basin. It is a matter of regret that on such an important issue we now have groundbreaking legislation being rushed through in such haste.

The government has failed to consult in good faith with state governments and other stakeholders—and I understand that state governments and key stakeholders, including the National Farmers Federation, were not even provided with a copy of the final bill before it was tabled in the House. That is a contemptuous approach to bringing legislation of this magnitude into the parliament. We have waited 13 years to get to this point, and now the government is ramming the legislation through in a week.

National water reform—let us put it clearly—has been a long time coming. It has taken a long time for the Commonwealth to start to address the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin, despite clear warning signals about the health of the river system from scientists, river users, communities and others for many years. National water reform began with the historic bipartisan Council of Australian Governments agreement of 1994. The water reform framework proposed an integrated approach to address environmental degradation of river systems, including strategies such as allocation of water to the environment, ecological sustainability of new developments, institutional reform, protection of groundwater and so on. This was a bipartisan agreement with support from all Australian governments, including the Fahey Liberal government in NSW, the Kennett government in Victoria, the Brown government in South Australia, the Goss government in Queensland and the Follett government in the ACT. In 1994, COAG agreed that:

... action needs to be taken to arrest widespread natural resource degradation in all jurisdictions occasioned, in part, by water use and that a package of measures is required to address the economic, environmental and social implications of future water reform.

Thirteen years later you have to say there is still widespread natural resource degradation in all jurisdictions.

There are some useful environmental features in the Water Bill 2007, but more work is needed to enhance the protection of the environment and the environmental features of the basin, especially in the face of the increasing impacts of climate change. It is our view that the bill is a second-best solution for national water reform. I note that the Prime Minister in his keynote speech of 25 January outlined the national water plan and stated:

... water acquired by efficiency measures or direct purchase can both provide greater security for water users in dry years and provide substantially greater environmental flows in later years.

So a key test of the Water Bill will be the extent to which it delivers substantially greater environmental flows.

The bill requires the basin plan to give effect to relevant international agreements, and this provision is welcomed by Labor. However, given the track record of the government in meeting its obligations under various international environment agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change and in supporting the effective management of Ramsar wetlands, one has to be sceptical as to the level of real commitment that will come from this government. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the definition of ‘environmental assets’ of the basin which are to be protected and restored under the ‘environmental watering plan’ includes Ramsar wetlands.

Professor Cullen observed last Friday that in relation to climate change scenarios we are likely to see step-by-step drying out of the basin, occasionally interrupted by higher rainfall events. In these circumstances we have to help the natural systems of the basin achieve greater resilience. Australia’s native fish, for example, can survive long-term drought conditions by sheltering in riverbed pools or refuges, but in order to identify thresholds and refuges the best available science is required to build the resilience of the system, and the bill should refer to the need to use the best available science in determining the sustainable diversion limit. Determining the sustainable diversion limit is a critical element of the Water Bill as a consequence, and I am concerned that provisions in the bill for determining the sustainable diversion limit do not seem to take account of the need to protect the environment in low-flow years.

The provisions in the bill for environmental watering plans do require the setting of targets. But you cannot have targets without time lines. You need targets, time lines and milestones. I am concerned that there appears to be a lack of clear provision in the bill to regulate, for example, flood plain harvesting and associated land use and other activity causing overextraction. We know this is a major problem in the Darling Basin, where the Darling River is in a worse state than the Murray River.

Finally, there is a critical need to ensure that there are adequate flows right through the system to the Murray River mouth and to the internationally significant Coorong. The Murray-Darling Basin has reached a parlous state, and, because of climate change, its prospects for the future are grave. After 11 long years, the Howard government has not taken its national environmental responsibilities seriously. It has frittered away billions of dollars in unfocused small projects and has neglected national environmental priorities such as the state of our unique biodiversity and sensitive wetlands.

Added to this, the Howard government has ignored climate change. Yesterday, the government revealed its true colours with four government MPs outing themselves, along with previous government ministers, as climate change sceptics. We say again to the Australia public: a Howard government full of climate change sceptics cannot deliver climate change solutions. If you do not have a plan to tackle climate change, you do not have a plan to address Australia’s water crisis. It is as simple as that.

The condition of the Murray-Darling is critical. This Water Bill is a start but much more needs to be done. Labor has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed for real national water reform—in particular, a cooperative and constructive approach with state governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure, full implementation of the National Water Initiative principles that were agreed to in 2004, and returning sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure the long-term health of all rivers, wetlands and connected groundwater systems in the basin. As a result, the health of communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers will increase as well.

The Murray-Darling Basin is at the heart of our nation. It is central to our economic, environmental and cultural future, and we are committed to the task of achieving the vision of a healthier Murray-Darling Basin. (Time expired)

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Water Bill 2007, which is the most far-reaching legislation we have seen in the area of the Murray-Darling Basin for over 100 years. Since Federation, the allocation of water resources has been a matter for the state governments. This is something that has not served the Murray-Darling system well. What we now see is a river where allocations are reduced and salinity has increased. This has highlighted the need for the $10 billion national plan for water security. While it is disappointing that Victoria is not prepared to refer its powers, there are a number of things in this bill that will be quite far reaching in setting a sustainable basin-wide cap on both surface water and groundwater use, and also in having a basin-wide environmental watering plan. These will be an enormous step forward compared with the status quo. Also, there will be more consistent market regulation and much better information from the Bureau of Meteorology.

I remain hopeful that Victoria will one day change its mind. For the last six months Victoria has refused to refer its power, which would have allowed the Commonwealth to have an operational role in directing the flows within the southern Murray-Darling Basin. I think that that would be an improvement for water security. I speak as someone who represents an electorate in Adelaide. The concern of people in Adelaide is related to the future security of their water supply. Depending on the year, between 30 per cent and 80 per cent of our water supply comes from the River Murray. The rest comes from the reservoirs. The fact that we have had two droughts in the last five years highlights the need to have a plan for future water security. In Adelaide, no reservoirs have been built in the last 40 years. The city has grown enormously during that period. I support the first steps that are being made to look at having a desalination plant for Adelaide as well. Everyone knows we have now gone through two severe droughts. It is important to plan for the future so that we will have security for our water supply into the future.

One of the things that I am very pleased to see in the bill is that South Australia’s existing share for the River Murray system is unchanged. That will continue to be determined under the Murray-Darling Basin agreement. That is very important to people in South Australia. What I find in talking to people—and there is no doubt that over the last year or two people were very engaged on the whole issue of water—is that they are not interested in who is responsible or in shifting blame. They want to have the issue resolved. They do not care who runs the Murray-Darling Basin; they care about the future health of the Murray.

For over 100 years the Murray-Darling Basin has been managed as four separate entities. If we had an unlimited water resource in the Murray, maybe it could be managed in this way. Unfortunately, it is not an unlimited resource and the recent droughts have highlighted the way that this resource has been mismanaged. Continuing to manage it through four separate entities is clearly not sustainable. Having had four states competing for this resource over 100 years has left it in a critical condition. You cannot have four states, one territory and a Commonwealth government all running the Murray-Darling Basin. The management of the Murray-Darling Basin needs a new direction. That is why the Howard government proposed the national plan for the Murray-Darling Basin.

The National Plan for Water Security—a $10 billion, 10-point plan—was released by the Prime Minister on 25 January 2007. This is the plan that Victoria refused to sign up to. It is a lifeline to a dying river system. This plan would see the Murray-Darling Basin Commission reconstitute as a Commonwealth body, reporting to the federal minister for the environment. Functions would be carried out in consultation with all basin governments and the community to set caps on the use of both surface water and groundwater and to ensure that the caps are not breached. Of the $10 billion, almost $6 billion would be committed to modernising irrigation infrastructure, both on- and off-farm, to save water and increase efficiency of water use. Due to years of competing state interests, another $3 billion has been put aside to go towards addressing the overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin. Assistance would be provided to help relocate non-viable or inefficient irrigators. The lifeline required a referral of state powers to the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, we saw Victoria’s interests getting in the way of the national interest and the greater good of the Murray-Darling Basin.

The New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and ACT governments understood that the current arrangements for the management of the Murray-Darling Basin had not been effective, and they embraced this proposal. Victoria, on the other hand, has not and insists on a special deal with separate Victoria-specific arrangements. The Australian government does not accept Victoria’s arguments for a special deal, which would undermine a basin-wide approach and perpetuate a fragmented management system for the Murray-Darling Basin. After almost seven months of negotiations to no avail, to avoid further delays in the rollout of this important reform the government has introduced this legislation, using its constitutional powers to ensure a whole-of-basin approach.

The Water Bill gives effect to a number of key elements of the $10 billion Plan for Water Security. The bill will enable water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin to be managed in the national interest, optimising environmental, economic and social outcomes. There is an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority, with the functions and powers, including enforcement powers, needed to ensure that basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way. Water trading rules, such as basin-wide caps, water quality and salinity targets and environmental water provisions will be managed by the Australian government under this proposal. Setting a sustainable basin-wide cap on both surface water and groundwater use and having a basin-wide environmental watering plan are enormous steps forward compared with the status quo. These reforms will be strongly supported by more consistent market regulation and through improved information from the Bureau of Meteorology.

Under the Commonwealth’s powers we can achieve the majority of the outcomes that were being negotiated under a referral of powers model. Unfortunately, the proposal will not include jurisdiction over river operations, as I said before, because Victoria has declined to refer its powers on this issue. This is a great pity as a lot of water could be saved by coordinating a national approach to river operations. In addition to the national plan that was announced in January, on 30 July 2007 the Prime Minister announced that a further $3.55 billion will be provided for the improvement of off-farm irrigation systems, river operations and storage programs. It will be available to the states that agree to sign an intergovernmental agreement. If Victoria does not participate, it will miss out on that investment.

I was very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition was unable to get the Victorian Premier to sign up to this deal. We were led a long way along the path by the previous Victorian Premier. It looks like the current Victorian Premier has taken the same approach. If there were ever an example of where we could see a leader of the Labor Party acting in the national interest, it would have been in intervening to get the Victorian Premier to put the interest of the Murray-Darling Basin first and the interest of Australia’s water security ahead of Victoria’s interest. A lot of factors have led to this situation, but the important thing is that we take this action to improve the Murray-Darling Basin.

This Water Bill, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill, the setting up of the Future Fund and the Higher Education Endowment Fund that will be introduced into parliament soon are all examples of how this government is planning for the future in the areas of higher education, water security and protecting children. The Water Bill also provides an example of the government’s commitment to addressing the impact of climate change. Not only do we need to play our part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions—and over the last 10 years the Australian government has spent $3.4 billion in this area, with a whole range of initiatives like the global initiative on forest and climate—but we also need to prepare for a warmer and drier climate, particularly in south-east Australia. One of the features of the Australian climate is that we have an extremely variable rainfall. The old line from Dorothea Mackellar about droughts and flooding rains is very apt for Australia. We have had two particularly severe droughts over the last five years. The important thing is that we pass this bill so that we have more certainty in the allocation of water and more security for our water supply in the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on the Water Bill 2007 because of the significance of this issue, to indicate that, whilst we support this bill, we believe it does not go far enough and to try to give some assistance to this government as to where it needs to go from here. Water is the lifeblood of any nation, and you, Mr Speaker, in your electorate would fully understand that. The vastness of our nation and its system of governance demands that we have a national approach to not just reviving our scarce water resources but also sustaining them into the future. Despite the challenge that this government has had with the worst drought in recorded history in this country, and the significance of that, it has only been within the last 12 months that this government has become slightly serious about addressing the problems of water, its supply and its sustainability. It has never understood the problem and it has never sought to address it properly and in a lasting way. Only now, belatedly in its term of office, does the government begin to deal with it. Like on so many other issues, this government has been behind the eight ball. Whether it is the question of climate change, of connecting our nation with fast speed broadband or of water, what has really been the hallmark of this government’s period in office is the fact that it has squandered the opportunity presented to it. This nation is going through its longest most prosperous run in economic history, the basis for which was laid by a Labor government. This government has squandered the opportunity to invest in and secure the future for this nation.

The second reading speech of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources is very instructive. In the final paragraph of the speech he says:

This Water Bill is the first water reform program introduced into this parliament in 106 years.

It of course is not. It certainly is the first thing that they have done in their 11 years of office, but let me remind the House of what Labor did in relation to water when it was in office over the previous 13 years. It was Labor that led the way with the historic partnership between governments and the community with the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in 1987. That agreement was revised in negotiations involving me, as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy at the time. There was a new agreement in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin and new legislation—an act of parliament was introduced and passed in 1993.

At the time, Queensland was not a full member of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or of the initiative or of the agreement. It became so in 1996, but Labor, during the operation of that agreement, ensured that Queensland was always involved in the deliberations of the council. They were in 1987, 1992 and 1993. It was Labor that also, as a result of the agreement, established the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. It was Labor at the federal level that established Landcare in 1989—the greatest grassroots-led movement in the world to address natural resource management and land degradation, and it involved, in partnership, community activist groups in identifying the opportunities and their solutions. Of course, it was an agreement that was supported by the National Farmers Federation and the environmental movement—the member for Kingsford Smith was involved at the time. Labor was able to bring all of those groups together and develop a grassroots-led movement to come to grips with solutions.

It was also Labor in 1992 that negotiated the first ever national drought policy. I happened to be the primary industries minister at the time, and I undertook those negotiations. I had to negotiate with hostile state governments. With the exception of Queensland, not one of them was a Labor government. Yet, just as with Landcare, we were able to overcome the difficulties and negotiate a lasting agreement with the other side of politics. That is not the hallmark of this government when it comes to this water policy. It has botched the negotiations, and I will come to that a little later.

It was Labor that introduced national drought policy, and it was also Labor that drove national water reform commitments in the historic bipartisan 1994 COAG accord on water, its allocation and its sustainability. That was the Labor way. Again, I was involved in that COAG meeting. Again, it was Labor having to negotiate with Liberal state governments. We were sitting at the table with the Fahey Liberal government, the Brown Liberal government in South Australia and the Kennett Liberal government in Victoria. We had the Goss government, and the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Chief of Staff to the then Premier Goss, was also involved in those COAG negotiations. And we had Rosemary Follett and the Labor government here in the ACT. But Labor understands what it means to negotiate with the other side of politics. We actually believe in bipartisanship and carry it out. This government mouths the words, but it cannot give effect to them.

I go through that to indicate the fact that, when the minister—and he is not in here at the moment—says that this is the first real effort at water resources management by a federal government in 106 years, he is wrong. Labor not only showed the way when we were in office; we continued it in opposition. I remind the House of this, because I was Leader of the Opposition at the time: I proposed in this chamber in my budget speech in reply the establishment of Riverbank—you might remember it—to be a bank for the purposes of investing in the infrastructure of this nation to save water and to take those savings and put them back into environmental flows. We also proposed the environmental flow trust, which was to be an independent body for the purposes of taking from Riverbank the savings and putting them back into environmental flows. That was a Labor initiative in 2003. We proposed bipartisan support at the time, Prime Minister. We proposed that to you to pick up, and you ignored it. Just imagine how much further down the track we could have been today if that initiative had been embraced. They talk bipartisanship but they do not mean it; it is only Labor that has been committed to this process and only Labor that will deliver.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.