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

My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. What is the government’s approach to restoring environmental flows to the Murray-Darling Basin and what has been the response to these measures?

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

I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. It is the case that hot and dry conditions have kept Murray inflows at historic lows and, regrettably, there is a low likelihood of significant improvement over the next few months. It is the case that the CSIRO, in its whole-of-basin sustainable yields report, did show that the Murray-Darling Basin and its environment will bear the brunt of future likely impacts of climate change and continuing weather patterns in south-eastern Australia, which see hotter conditions and drier conditions as a whole. The government have been consistent and decisive about what is needed to address this issue, and it is a serious issue. The government are investing $3.1 billion in purchasing water entitlements and some $5.8 billion in modernising irrigation infrastructure. We have purchased water from rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin for the first time ever and brought forward half a billion dollars to accelerate our water purchase program.

We have secured a historic referral of powers from the states and passed legislation to deliver the first ever basin-wide plan in 2011. We are committed to projects worth $3.7 billion across the basin to improve water efficiency in irrigation and recently provided $5.6 million for on-farm water efficiency pilot projects and some $2 million from the Healthy Headwaters Program for on-farm irrigation technology. In difficult times, the government is getting on with this delivery.

I am asked by the member: what has the response been to these measures? I have to say that the response has been pretty confusing, because the coalition has had 12 different positions on the issue of Murray-Darling Basin water. Let us count the 12 positions. They like counting things out over there, so let us count them. Position 1 was the member for Flinders supporting the government’s buyback. He said, on 29 April 2008:

We are pleased that … they’re involved in the buyback..

Position 2 was on the same day when, at a doorstop, he said:

The buyback won’t help at all. It won’t help the Murray. It can’t help the Murray unless you make the efficiencies.

Then, in position 3, he said in a media release that the buybacks are extreme, mentioning:

Penny Wong’s plans to rip the heart out of country Australia through her extreme farm buy-out plans.

To add to the confusion, other opposition members who have a different view on what water policy should be have weighed in. The member for Calare said:

Minister Wong’s announcement of a $50 million water buyback is politics not policy.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

But then the member for Sturt, who is interjecting across the chamber—and I am happy to quote him back to himself—said:

There should have been a billion dollars being spent on returning environmental flows in the Murray-Darling Basin.

But the problem for the member for Sturt was that he had not spoken about this policy position of the coalition to the member for Murray, who says that we should be restricting the buyback. She said in a press release:

Minister Wong should conduct the buyback only on overallocated streams.

The member for Mayo chimed in. On 891 ABC Adelaide on 10 October, he said: ‘Speed up the buyback. We need to hasten these plans. We need to get the buyback happening more quickly’. Then, of course, we had the memorable contribution from the member for Bradfield, when he was asked on 31 July 2008 if he would consider compulsory acquisition. He said:

Well I think that’s the kind of thing that needs to be considered in different parts of the basin.

This brings me to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition had the view—and it was a different view from that of the member for Bradfield—that they should not consider compulsory acquisition. He said earlier:

… our plan is based on no acquisitions of water being other than from willing sellers.

Now we get to position 10. As Parliamentary Secretary for Water, he said that the buyback was suddenly necessary:

It is increasingly difficult to see how the Living Murray initiative can be met without the purchase of water for the environment by governments.

Then we come to position No. 11. As shadow Treasurer last year, he said, ‘Buy less water’. He said:

Senator Wong is allocating more money for water buybacks than we would have allocated.

Finally, we come to position No. 12. As opposition leader this year, he said, ‘Buy more water’. He said:

… and we believe there is—then that water should be bought in order to preserve the health of the lower part of the system.

If … temporary water … can be acquired … to keep those lakes alive, then that should be done …

This is a very serious issue and it needs a consistent public policy position. The public policy wanders around the coalition tactics group like a lonely white cloud because they are concerned with other things. That is the great problem here: the delivery of a meaningful, consistent and decisive program to deal with the significant issues that are faced in the Murray-Darling Basin is something this government is committed to, but the inconsistency of 12 different positions that have been held by the coalition shows that they simply are not up to the task.