Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is no secret in this House that I have major concerns about the way in which the water buyback is taking place and the impact on the communities that I represent across the Riverina as well as communities across Australia. In putting this motion forward I want to present to the House the issues that I believe are confronting the people I represent. I could turn to no better demonstration than that which came from a group of young people who are agriculturalists and who met with Senator Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, last Thursday. Alistair Watt, Drew Braithwaite, Sam Gaston, Gavin Dal Broi and Kristian Bonetti came to Canberra from my electorate to meet with the minister to outline the issues. I am going to quote extensively and verbatim from something that adequately and succinctly presents the concerns that I have, and I am beholden to one of those young men, Sam Gaston, who put it together:

Drought conditions currently having a severe impact on the people that live and work in rural communities. The drought cycle will end. When the drought cycle does end, will water for food production be available on a level to sustain both farm based and town based business?

Main focus on the impact of Government funded water buyback has focused on the farming unit and the environment. What thought has been given to the families and businesses based in rural communities that will be impacted by this policy?

…            …            …

Once the drought ends, is there a future for people like me—

wrote Mr Gaston—

to stay in regional Australia working for agriculture based businesses? Are there opportunities for career development and the ability to make a positive impact on regional communities? The answer to these questions is yes, provided water availability for irrigation is maintained at sustainable levels.

What opportunities are available?

1. World class businesses still based in regional areas. Extensive infrastructure still in place. Currently underutilised due to drought conditions. All that is required is water to produce raw material. Skilled people required to operate these businesses when water is available.

2. Drought has forced major improvement in business efficiencies for those businesses that continue to survive in the current environment. These businesses will reap the rewards of these efficiencies when conditions improve.

3. Regional business will require access to competent and loyal workforce, however will this workforce be available?

Sam asks the question:

Why live in regional communities

1. Family base

2. Community base

3. Food Production—a matter of national security

4. Lifestyle

5. Agribusiness employment opportunities

He looks at:

Impact of permanent removal of water on businesses and communities based in irrigation areas

Loss of food production capacity to feed Australia and surrounding countries reliant on Australian food production, e.g. Pacific nations

Loss of skill staff from regional areas

Inability to attract skill staff to regional areas

Reduced investment from business due to supply risk

Massive cost of writing off redundant infrastructure

Negative impact on the family unit

Significant impact on regional communities both financially and socially.

In summary, Sam says:

Will my children have the opportunity to live and work in regional Australia if they so desire? Will my children grow up to enjoy a stable and healthy environment? I believe through a structured and equitable approach to water management the answer to both question can be Yes …

Sam believes:

Water is a strategic asset. When it rains and water becomes available for agricultural use, we have an obligation to ensure that we have in place the infrastructure, human resources and the regional communities to resume food production for Australia and the surrounding nations.

These young men who travelled to Canberra to wait all day to meet with the minister are the future of our nation, the future of agriculture, and they deserve a say. I could not have put forward the issues of the need for community impact statements—as outlined in my motion—any better than Sam did. The problem that I see adding to this is that, whilst the CSIRO work on catchments has been completed, we are two years away from a plan and work has still not been done to determine a sustainable yield for each catchment. How is the government going to manage the water to get the best outcome? (Time expired)

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

I do not question for a moment the sincerity of the member for Riverina in bringing this motion before the House, but I certainly question her motives in doing so, given that right now the Water Amendment Bill 2008 is being debated in this parliament. There was debate about it earlier today. It has been debated in the Senate, where her colleagues can raise the issues that she wants to raise. Furthermore, it was only recently debated in the House, where the honourable member did make a contribution and was able to raise all of these very issues.

For probably 100 years or so communities along the entire length of the Murray, whether they are in New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia, have come to depend on and grow as a result of the Murray River system. We have not only seen farming communities growing, whether it was through agriculture or horticulture, but we have also seen industries grow along the river system as a result of communities establishing there. Furthermore, we have seen communities grow in areas outside of the Murray-Darling Basin because of water from the Murray. I use as an example one of the key regions in my home state of South Australia, generally referred to as the Iron Triangle—the area of Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla. For years, those three major regional towns have relied on the River Murray for their water supply, through the Morgan-Whyalla pipeline. It is very clear that the River Murray system is important to those people who directly rely on it to grow their crops and to the communities that the member for Riverina represents, but the River Murray system is important to so many Australians in so many parts of Australia.

Given that that is the case, I, representing my community, am just as concerned as the member for Riverina about the current state of the Murray-Darling system. I have been concerned about it for several years and in fact I have been speaking about it for probably the last six or seven years—not in this place but prior to coming into this place, as Mayor of the City of Salisbury. One of the issues that I was prepared to tackle at a local level was the issue of water. I did what was possible from within the capacity that we had—and that was to implement the wetlands systems in the city of Salisbury. I would respectfully suggest that they are world-leading wetlands as a result of the work that we did there.

The point I make about this whole matter is that, because there is so much reliance on the River Murray by so many communities across Australia, it is important, it is fundamental, that the whole Murray-Darling be managed with one plan. That is exactly what the Rudd government has attempted to do with its $12.9 billion water plan. I have taken the trouble to read the assessment of the plan in this document, Australia’s working rivers, prepared by ACIL Tasman, which analyses the plan pretty well. On my reading of this document, it confirms what I have always believed, and that is that not only do you have to manage the plan in a very coordinated and strategic way, bearing in mind that the Murray-Darling Basin affects all of Australia, but you have to manage it in a way that in the long term is sustainable—and that is exactly what the Rudd government’s plan is proposing to do. It has to be sustainable.

I just want to comment briefly on the comments made by the member for Riverina when she was quoting the young person. I too commend that young person for being prepared to speak up on this matter. In particular, I want to pick up on her comments about when the drought cycle will end and what we will be able to do—and she went on. I am not so convinced that the drought cycle will end, and I am not so convinced that it is just a drought cycle. My understanding is that it is part of long-term and permanent weather changes that we are seeing. As a result of that, it is not just a matter of a temporary fix and then going back to doing things the way we did in years gone by. This is an important issue, and because it is an important issue the Rudd Labor government has committed $12.9 billion to try to implement a sustainable, long-term plan for Australia’s water needs.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the motion put forward—in particular real assessment of the scientific data. The global water cycle atlas based on the IPCC fourth assessment report climate models by Lim and Roderick was published this year, using the same dataset for precipitation models as used by the fourth IPCC report. In the 39 models examined, the Australian average precipitation from 1970 to 1990 varied from—get this—190.6 millimetres to 1,059.1 millimetres per year. The observed annual precipitation for Australia over the 20th century falls in the range of 400 to 500 per year. Hence there were large differences between model simulated precipitation and observations.

Of the 39 model runs examined for the A1B scenario, 24 showed increases in Australian precipitation to the end of the 21st century while 15 showed decreases. The overall average across all model runs was for a small increase in Australian annual precipitation of eight millimetres per year by the end of the 21st century. Within that average, some models predict a drop in annual precipitation of as much as 100 millimetres per year—notably CSIRO—while others predict increases of the same order. Note that CSIRO is one of the most pessimistic models in terms of future rainfall predictions. Guess which model the Garnaut report relied on.

Much discussion of the Murray-Darling Basin relates to inflows. This is fair enough in terms of examining what is important, which is water in the system, but allows blame to be attributed to climate change. This is baloney, as can be seen by the Bureau of Meteorology rainfall charts, where it can clearly be seen that rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin is normal. The reasons for reduced run-off are more plantations in the top of the catchments, catchment-wide drainage management plans put in place in the 1980s and 1990s to lower water tables and more efficient water use resulting in less leakage.

Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC coordinating lead author, stated in a Nature blog in June 2007:

I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments …

Since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action. In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all, and there never have been. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess. This is from an IPCC coordinating lead author, remember. Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

There is neither an El Nino nor a Pacific decadal oscillation that replicates the recent past. Moreover, the starting climate in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate, owing to errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialised. The current projection method cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. So much for the science being settled; we now have bad policy based on bad science. The solution to the Murray-Darling Basin problem will only result if the correct question is asked as to the causes of the problem. At present, green ideology is inhibiting the correct definition of the problem, and the Murray-Darling will continue to suffer as a result. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table these documents.

Leave not granted.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Riverina for her motion to allow us to talk about the water situation in Australia. I have been doing a bit more research on the drought situation and the availability of water in Australia. Australia has always been a dry continent. The water distribution has moved somewhat over the centuries, but the amount of water that has fallen on the continent has not changed greatly. The earliest discussion on this was by George Woodroffe Goyder, a government surveyor in South Australia. His explorations, surveys and reports, which stated that the north of South Australia had some excellent pastoral lands and were not just arid sands and saline deserts, attracted pastoralists to the area. Soon he was asked by the government to travel north once more to value pastoral properties and fix new rentals, as many pastoralists were making substantial profits. As early as 1858, Goyder became involved in the selection and survey of government towns. But he soon questioned the wisdom of establishing townships in pastoral areas. By the 1860s, the government was laying out towns in agricultural areas, and it was here that Goyder’s ideas were followed and town design changed.

When pastoralists complained during the severe drought of 1863-66, Goyder went north to reassess their properties. The first eighteen valuations carried out by Goyder were published in the Adelaide Express in September 1864. His line of travel, which amounted to nearly 5,000 kilometres on horseback, marked off the line of drought and became known as Goyder’s line of rainfall. He drew a line indicating the limit of the rainfall, which coincided with the southern boundary of saltbush country. It separated lands suitable for agriculture from those fit for pastoral use only. It also marked areas of reliable and unreliable annual rainfall. When agricultural land became scarce, combined with good seasons and crops during the early 1870s and the expected income of land sales, the government was persuaded to disregard the line and allow farmers to buy land north of the line—a mistake that had long-term implications. So it is not that we do not know that Australia has marked ups and downs in its water availability; it is that some have chosen to ignore it over time, and this has been a prime factor in water being wasted or hoarded in different areas, or degraded in others, and land being overfarmed in some of the driest areas in the continent.

So, while I agree with the sentiments encapsulated in the member for Riverina’s motion, I think we have to start doing the calculations to understand what exactly the problem is. We need to revisit the methods of Goyder. We can do that much more easily now because we have satellite imaging and photogrammetry—rather than riding a horse around, but the principle should be the same. We need to farm smarter and understand the cycles that exist and how they can be adapted by using the natural cycles. With that intelligence, we can understand what crops need for maximum growth. I also came across a book entitled Water, wit and wisdom by Colin Austin, an engineer who made his fortune working in plastics but sold up and, using his curiosity of water flows through soil and with a healthy disdain for bureaucrats and politics, came up with some very plausible solutions to water shortages in Australia. These solutions involved using the natural consistencies of soils, and understanding how water flows through them, saturation levels and how to get rid of the inevitable salt that is part of the irrigation cycle. His ideas are well worth looking at, and I commend them to you. For too long we have worked on the basis that we have a lot of land and, once a bit is exhausted, we can move to another bit. This may have looked okay when we had a population in the thousands but, when we got to the millions, it did not work. We need to help communities understand land better, learn how to farm smarter and really keep in mind that we are a dry continent and that climatic changes will probably mean more extreme weather events. (Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Riverina for this opportunity to speak on the very important matters concerning the electorate of Farrer as they relate to water availability in the Murray and the future of the rural communities that mean so much to those of us who represent them in this place. During the course of the current debate about climate change and water, it is interesting how many things become received wisdom in our capital cities and, indeed, across a lot of Australia. We cannot grow rice, we cannot grow cotton, the future projections are all bleak and there will be the same small amount of water in the catchments now for the rest of civilisation. More water must be returned to the Murray and must be returned urgently. Governments must act et cetera, et cetera. I have always worried that by saying something often enough it becomes the truth to those who do not understand it and even to some of those who should know better.

The report by the CSIRO Water availability in the Murray is part of the Water for a Healthy Country national research flagship. The CSIRO has received about $12 million to produce this report. It contains various scenarios for, I think, 18 catchments within the Murray-Darling Basin. When it was released recently, particularly the reports on the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys, the reaction was of great uncertainty and great confusion. But when I looked more deeply into the report, I found that what was being reported in the media was one of the scenarios that the CSIRO had presented in these reports. In fact, what they have done is come up with four possibilities: one based on historical climate; one based on recent climate, 1997 to 2006; one based on the best estimate of climate change by 2030—so that is a prediction or a model; and a fourth scenario based on likely future development with likely future climate change. I think we can discard that fourth one because there are too many variables. What was reported was the most severe of these three remaining possibilities, and that was based on recent climate—1997 to 2006. Whatever side of the argument you are on you probably do not think that the last few years of rainfall in the southern Murray-Darling Basin are typical or will remain so, so it is disingenuous, to say the least—and downright fraudulent, at best—for this to become the received wisdom. What this particular scenario homes in on is that average surface water availability would reduce by 30 per cent, diversions by 18 per cent and end-of-system flow by 46 per cent, which would be enormously worrying to anybody who read it.

But the best estimate of climate change—which, again, is based on a model—is by the CSIRO’s admission less severe than the recent past. Average surface water availability will be reduced by nine per cent, diversions by two per cent and end-of-system flow by 17 per cent. That is far more manageable. People who talk about this stuff do not realise that there are farmers and communities that are balanced on a knife’s edge at the moment, particularly for general security users with three zero allocations in a row. They listen to this stuff and believe that doom and gloom is all that awaits them. It is irresponsible. I ask the CSIRO to talk up the positives in its reports and to allocate some of the generous funding that it receives from government and partnerships towards the sustainable communities part of its charter.

We need the science and we need the science to be accurate but, when we are talking about this level of scenario based modelling, I wonder whether there might be other opportunities for us to pursue practical outcomes for rural communities rather than to let this hang in the air as something taking away the hope for our future. There is no question that the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys are struggling at the moment, but people can cope if there is a message of hope. I think it is very important that those like the CSIRO are part of delivering that message of hope.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regrettably, it seems to me that the member for Farrer, like the member for Riverina earlier, is simply in denial about the present state of the Murray-Darling Basin. I do not wish to talk about future projections; let us talk about what is happening now. If you look at the Coorong now, the measurements of water birds and the like there have declined dramatically over the course of the last couple of decades. There were 40,000 curlew sandpipers; more recently, there are 2,000. Other species have experienced similar declines. The picture for the Murray-Darling Basin is loss of river red gums, rising salinity and frequent algal blooms in a river system whose mouth is kept open by dredging at the mouth of the Murray.

This is not a question of projection; this is a question of the present state of the Murray-Darling. It is the present state of the Murray-Darling under the watch of those opposite. The member for Riverina is a good person, decently motivated, but the political party of which she is a member stands condemned for presiding over the trashing of the Murray-Darling Basin. If you look at the Coorong, the Macquarie Marshes or other parts of the Murray-Darling, you see that this is a river system which they have represented. I heard the member for Calare saying in the parliament today that all of the 17 electorates around the Murray-Darling Basin are held by coalition members. I am sure he is right about that, but it is a sad commentary on their representation of this area that they have managed to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and are now in a state of denial about the present health of the Murray-Darling and the need for action to be taken.

Having presided over this inaction, they are bereft of solutions. If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, consultation is the last refuge of the policy-bereft. The member for Riverina’s resolution calls for consultation because, frankly, the opposition have nothing else and, having nothing else, they stand in the way of the government’s attempts to solve the problems which the opposition have created. Each time you look at Labor’s endeavours to solve the water issues—whether it is the purchase of Toorale Station, the pipeline in Victoria or the desalination plant to bring water to Melbourne—the opposition runs interference on those proposals. They have nothing of their own to respond with, but nevertheless they run interference on Labor’s solutions. In relation to the issue of climate change, we still have the member for Farrer and others out there wanting to say, ‘Let’s look on the bright side,’ and ‘The CSIRO should talk it up.’ What the CSIRO owes—and, indeed, is delivering—to this country is a clear statement of the likely water availability for farmers and communities with an interest in this issue. I had the opportunity to hear evidence from the CSIRO this morning. I am quite familiar with their understanding and knowledge of the health of the Murray-Darling.

I commend the work of Dr Arlene Buchan and Amy Hankinson from the Australian Conservation Foundation, who have been working on a targeted land and water reform package which would help reverse the decline in the condition of rivers and wetlands, improve the profitability of agriculture and boost the confidence of rural communities of the Murray-Darling Basin. They have brought forward a targeted approach to land and water reform which I think would benefit the Murray-Darling Basin by securing water entitlements with a reliability that would provide secure environmental flows to restore system health.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.