Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Some of our most precious environmental assets, the nation’s food bowl, and many strong and proud rural communities are all relying on a deeply unhealthy river system. The key challenge before the parliament is for this to be the term in which action is taken across the Murray-Darling Basin to restore the system to health. We need to do this in a way which delivers three core outcomes:

• healthy rivers
• strong communities and
• food production.

These priorities do not need to be in competition with each other. Sensible reform will find a way to provide all three. For generations Australia compromised these aims by managing the Murray-Darling Basin as though the rivers would respect state boundaries. Australia pretended that each state could manage its part of the system on the basis that the water in the basin disproportionately existed for that state alone. This led to poor management of our environmental assets and over-allocation of the resource. We saw magnificent Ramsar wetland sites compromised and threatened.

We saw parts of the river made unusable for food production through algal blooms and acid sulfate soils. In the Lower Lakes we saw the mouth of the Murray close for nearly a decade and the number of dairy farms fall from 23 to three. During the long years of drought we saw entire communities survive by running their equity down to the brink and beyond while irrigation authorities would talk of zero allocations. It is important we manage the next drought differently to the last one.

A CSIRO 2008 report notes that impacts of climate change on water availability in the basin by 2030 are uncertain; however, a decline in surface water availability across the entire MDB is more likely than an increase. According to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, a decline in the south of the MDB is more likely than in the north. A wet climate scenario there would be an increase of nine per cent; unfortunately, the more likely scenario is for drier conditions—with a possible reduction in water availability of 27 per cent.

Regardless of these projections, the health of the basin speaks for itself on the need for reform. In recent months many communities have felt the optimism which comes with the breaking of drought. Those who draw their income from the health of the river system have seen an opportunity to start moving back in front financially. Those who draw their inspiration and confidence from the health of the river system have seen the signs that the rain may have come just in time for some truly sensitive ecological communities.

In the Macquarie Marshes a combination of good rain and water buybacks has returned much needed water to this precious wetland. The change has been welcomed by local graziers because it has also restored the carrying capacity of the surrounding land. Downstream, the mouth of the Murray is flowing naturally for the first time since 2002 and locals talk about how you can see the light in people’s eyes again because there is water in the Lower Lakes.

These are treasures of our natural heritage valued by Australians because as a nation we all know the beauty of our landscape is inseparable from how we view ourselves. It is enjoyed by locals and tourists, and cared for by paid rangers and officers and by Landcare volunteers. These are places which simply matter because of what they are—well before any calculation of their economic value.

In irrigation communities across the country like St George, Bourke, Dubbo, Menindee, Griffith, Shepparton, Mildura, Echuca, Renmark and Murray Bridge the river is woven into the lives and psyches of the proud communities whose histories are etched into our nation’s story, and part of the lives of any Australian who likes to eat. The farmers in these areas need to be acknowledged for their role as producers but also for their commitment to good environmental management. Those who work the land see the need to care for it every day.

It has been against this background that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority delivered its guide to the draft or proposed plan 18 days ago. Following the release of the guide there has been a wave of strong reactions across the country:

• some people have passionately locked in behind the guide as a pathway to restoring the health of the basin;
• others have passionately argued implementation of the figures suggested in the guide would devastate their industry or their town;
• some who had always argued the need for an independent authority have returned without blinking to the interstate rivalries of old; and
• some have sought to question the political consensus which was forged in the Water Act.

There are a number of pieces of misinformation which have also gained currency since the launch of the guide. There has been an argument that the guide to the draft of a plan released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority represents government policy. It does not. There is a belief in many communities that the government will forcibly acquire water from people. We will not. There is a belief that the plan, whatever it ends up being at the end of next year, will not take account of the good work already done in many communities. It will.

The status of the guide needs to be made clear. As I stated, it does not represent government policy. It does not even represent recommendations to government from the MDBA. The guide has been produced independently by the MDBA as a document for consultation in advance of the statutory consultation which takes place next year. Public consultations for the guide will run until mid-November. There are over 12 months to run in this consultation before I as minister am presented with the plan at the end of next year.

The MDBA has announced it will commission work on the socioeconomic impacts of possible sustainable diversion limits, and this work is scheduled to be completed in March 2011. The authority will then release its proposed Basin Plan. Sixteen weeks of consultation is required following the release. The authority then presents a final plan to the ministerial council, which includes representatives from each of the basin states, for consideration. I as minister can ask the authority to reconsider issues but once I have signed off on the final plan it is tabled in parliament where it may be disallowed by either house.

If the political consensus which emerged following the Water Act is allowed to collapse then we will be left with the possibility of the final Basin Plan being disallowed. This would abandon environmental assets, destroy certainty for towns and irrigators, see a return to the state versus state rivalries which cultivated the problem in the first place and obliterate the chance to deliver long-term certainty for a healthy river, strong communities, and food production.

Part of the problem in maintaining consensus on these issues has been uncertainty in the community and around the parliament about whether the Water Act does in fact demand the plan adopt a triple bottom line approach of taking into account environmental, social and economic impacts of reform. The MDBA has been reported as saying that the act requires a focus on environmental issues first, with limited attention to social and economic factors. For this reason I sought legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor to determine whether the interpretations referred to publicly by the MDBA matched the requirements of the act. I also stated here in the House that following receipt of the advice I would make it public. This morning I received the advice. It was made available to the opposition, Greens and Independents earlier today and I now table the advice. Broadly, the advice outlines that the Water Act:

• gives effect to relevant international agreements,
• provides for the establishment of environmentally sustainable limits on the quantities of water that may be taken from basin water resources,
• provides for the use of the basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes,
• improves water security for all uses, and
• subject to the environmentally sustainable limits, maximises the net economic returns to the Australian community.

Much has been made of the international agreements which underpin the Water Act and it has been suggested that these agreements prevent socioeconomic factors being taken into account. In fact, these agreements themselves recognise the need to consider these factors.

The act specifically states that in giving effect to those agreements, the plan should promote the use and management of the basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes. It is clear from this advice that environmental, economic and social considerations are central to the Water Act and that the Basin Plan can appropriately take these into account. I do not offer the advice as a criticism of the MDBA. What is important now is how the MDBA now responds to this legal advice.

I trust the issuing of the advice provides a level of confidence to members of parliament that it is possible to provide sensible and lasting reform of the Murray-Darling Basin within the current structure of the Water Act. Such reform needs to look at a suite of measures. Investment in all forms of water infrastructure needs to take place. This includes centralised irrigation infrastructure, on-farm infrastructure and works, and measures to more efficiently and effectively manage our environmental assets. The purchase of water allocations through the market will need to continue and this must only be from those who have chosen to put all or part of their allocation onto the water market. Where possible, with the leadership of the various irrigation authorities, strategic projects of rationalisation to avoid stranded assets and better target limited water supplies must be encouraged.

Reform is never easy. With the Murray-Darling Basin, failure to reform is even harder on basin communities. As each drought breaks, Australians know another is always on the way. I do not know how long we will be waiting for the next drought but I do not want it to look anything like the last drought. The leadership of the member for New England on the House of Representatives inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on regional Australia will help inform the parliament of the challenges facing basin communities. These will vary from catchment to catchment, from town to town. Understanding these different impacts is essential.

While the government only purchases from those who put all or part of a water allocation on the market, those who work in the town are never willing sellers. When someone sells all of their water allocation there is no guarantee that the irrigator or the money which has been paid will remain in the community. These issues cannot be glossed over. That is why the regional impact is so important. It also explains why every extra efficiency in water use and every productivity improvement derived from research and development directly helps all members of the community.

The work I have referred to today will be complemented by a strong engagement from the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Ultimately, there will need to be confidence within the parliament for the final plan. I believe this confidence is possible, and indeed justified, if we keep the focus of providing healthy rivers, strong communities and food production. This is the very focus which the legal advice says is reflected in the Water Act.

Anything less will leave us no better than those who mismanaged the basin to the brink of its health. This parliament can cooperate and build a consensus which has always eluded the Murray-Darling Basin. It is a consensus which the environment needs, which communities need and which farm businesses need. The basin has shown over the last decade it is an uncompromising negotiator. Our job is to recognise the need for reform, and then to reform so that the challenges we face are not simply passed on in increasing severity to the generations which will follow.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Groom to speak for 12 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Groom speaking in reply to the minister’s statement for a period not exceeding 12 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for the opportunity to respond to his statement and also for the receipt of the legal advice, which clears up one aspect of Labor’s botched basin plan process. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the minister, under the Water Act, can produce an outcome that delivers the triple bottom line approach. It remains unclear why Labor got this wrong in the first place and why they took six months to develop a water policy, 18 months to establish the authority and 36 months to commission a proper analysis of the socioeconomic effects on the basin—an analysis that was delivered by ABARE the morning that the guide was released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Why has it taken three years for Labor to commission this advice? This is what the coalition believed all along—that the act initially passed by the Howard government did provide an effective balance between economic, social and environmental issues.

The mishandling of this policy area by the government has produced enormous angst, enormous upset and enormous fear in the communities that I represent and in the communities that run all the way down to the basin’s mouth at Lake Alexandrina. The failure to deliver the promised water-saving infrastructure projects has only heightened community concern that most of the required water will come from buybacks. The failure to engage communities in the strategic process for buybacks has only heightened fears that the buybacks will continue to add to the stranded assets that already exist in irrigation plans and will occur in a way that maximises instead of minimises the pain to both rural producers and their communities.

The failure to ensure that the MDBA undertook a thorough socioeconomic analysis before releasing the guide has only added to the fears that social impacts will not be considered. The failure of the minister to front up in basin communities for two weeks has further added to that concern and to the concern that the government not only is not listening but will not listen in the future.

The failure of the government to seek legal advice at the first moment the MDBA chair raised the matter with the minister, apparently at their first meeting, only perpetuated the concerns and myths that the act was flawed. We welcome this advice today as a first step to easing the fears about this reform process and as a first step to providing some—not a lot, but some—confidence that the reform process may be back on track.

This is an important reform which the coalition were proud to start and we do not want the Labor Party to totally bungle it. We want to see the plan successfully implemented. We have cleared up the legal issues which clouded the water debate over the last few weeks. What we need to do now is clear up what exactly the Gillard government’s plan is for the Murray-Darling Basin. What is their plan? Two million people who live in the basin have an immediate and vital interest in what that plan may be—and, dare I say, all 22 million Australians want to see something done to fix the Murray-Darling Basin. We hope the government and the MDBA will respond to the advice they have received today in a way that ensures the original objectives of the triple bottom line—that is, an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable basin—are achieved.

From the outset, this government’s handling of the Murray-Darling Basin has been a shambles. It is little wonder that the plan is running late, with the release of the guide delayed three times—and still it is underdone. Labor released the guide proposing the extent of cuts without providing any analysis of how those cuts may be achieved with the least possible impact. Labor’s bungling is adding to uncertainty about the future of the entire reform agenda and threatening the health of both the river and the rural communities that live there. The MDBA’s chair admits that the guide is lacking and that the socioeconomic impacts need more work.

I attended the meeting in Dalby on Friday where the MDBA chair and other people involved in this guide attempted to answer farmers’ questions. I have to say no questions were answered in a way that provided any certainty, any security or even any understanding of what the guide set out to do. How can anyone—farmers, particularly, with a practical nature and a good understanding of how this all works—have any confidence in a guide that says there will be only 800 job losses? There are individual communities in my electorate and in the member for Maranoa’s electorate where hundreds of job losses can be identified—from machinery dealers right through to coffee shops—because everyone is affected when water is taken out of a community. How can people have confidence that this plan that the Labor Party is formulating behind closed doors without consultation will not just decimate rural and regional towns? Last week we found out that ABARE and the Bureau of Rural Sciences provided the authority with its final report only on the morning that the guide was released. What sort of incorporation into the guide could possibly have come from that?

The other thing that concerns the coalition is the confusion and contradiction we are seeing from the opposite side. One moment the government, according to the Prime Minister, will do whatever it takes to implement the MDBA’s plan. The next moment we have the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who is sitting opposite me in the chamber, saying that the MDBA is an independent authority and the government will not interfere in its deliberations. And the minister for regional affairs says it is up to the government to produce the plan. This all says just one thing: this is a mess. It is so typical of everything that this government does. It is a mess that is causing an incredible amount of heartache in the rural communities that we represent. We on this side of the House who grew up in those communities—who understand the importance of water, who understand the stewardship that we have—are seeing more uncertainty, more concern by those communities that their futures are anything but secure.

May I conclude by saying that the coalition started this process of reform with a 10-point, $10 billion plan, which Labor and the Gillard government have strayed widely from. The coalition had a good plan which would return the river to health, primarily by investing in river communities to ensure they are able to produce more food with less water. Everyone understands that water has to be returned to the environment, but not at the cost of farmers in that community and not at the cost of Australia feeding its own population and producing very essential export dollars.

We foreshadowed the problems that have now engulfed the Gillard government and we called for a full socioeconomic study of the impacts of the basin reform. We outlined a plan that would get greater water-saving infrastructure projects back on track. We proposed more funding for community adjustment and established a fund to identify and kick-start new projects for sustainable water use. Labor has botched the efforts of the Murray-Darling reform, and that will hurt basin communities. Only the coalition have the insight and commitment to deliver the difficult reform in a way that does not cause panic and deferral at every turn. Australians deserve a plan that gets the balance right between the environment, the community and jobs.

The question marks over the assumptions made in the guide, especially on the number of jobs that would be lost, require a full and, most importantly, independent review. I do not have any problems with the MDBA. They do the job that is set. The task is set for them by the government, but they are involved in the outcome. They cannot be independent in their review of the socioeconomic impacts because it will affect what they have in front of them. There needs to be a fully independent body, separate to the MDBA, and that is why we are proposing the Productivity Commission. That will ensure that the answers are right, without prejudice and done in such a way that everyone—the government, the opposition and the rural communities who will be most affected by this—can have the confidence that the answers are right. If the government are serious about engaging Australians in real consultations, they will support the referral of this, as affected communities deserve to know what these proposals mean for their towns, their communities, their farms, their lives and their future.