Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuing my contribution to the debate on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Bill 2010 I will move on from supporting the move to streamline the consumer advice about water consumption of household appliances to a call for a similar rating system to apply to on-farm water use efficiency measures or, at least, for this government to understand how important it is that every irrigator has the support to introduce measures that will save water and increase productivity. It is vital that both those things occur. No farmer, who is of course a businessperson, is going to be able to invest in a reduction in water consumption if it is at the cost of his own capacity to earn an income or improve productivity.

Australian farmers, unlike most others in the developed economies, do not receive massive government subsidies to help them feed the nation. Australian farmers, along with their New Zealand counterparts, are some of the world’s most efficient and effective growers particularly of arid-zone cereals and also in horticulture, sheep and meat production, and dairy and fruit production.

Over the last 50 years there has been a revolution in the way water use efficiency has been the centre of irrigation farming thinking. There has been massive investment, particularly in my electorate in northern Victoria, in whole-farm planning: the introduction of reuse systems which capture every drop of rain as well as surface rainfall in order for it to be reused and pumped back up to the paddocks to be reused again and again; laser grading to facilitate that process; subsurface irrigation installed, particularly underrow crops; and new fast-watering techniques introduced, which require different technologies. Pressurised systems for horticulture and orchards are now commonplace. In fact, where they are not in place it is because the irrigator cannot afford to make the conversions. There is no longer an argument about the importance of pressurised systems for orchards and for some other crops such as tomatoes, for example.

The point about all of this is that at the moment the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has before it a guide to a plan it produced over the last two years which says that the way to find further savings of water for the environment is not primarily through encouraging water use efficiency, in particular from irrigators, but to buy back water from so-called willing sellers. This so-called buyback from willing sellers is non-strategic. It comes at a time when most farmers have just survived seven years of drought. Many fell by the wayside because of the financial pressures of not having sufficient water to continue agricultural production. At the end of those seven years of drought, we have had the worst floods on record. Just at the time when the financial pressures are too much for some of them to remain viable and just at the time when they have the lowest emotional resources to carry on, the Commonwealth government has just put into the marketplace another of these non-strategic water buyback tenders.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia, which is charged with the review and analysis of the Guide to the proposed basin plan, put in an interim set of recommendations 10 days or so ago. The chair of the committee, Mr Tony Windsor, has placed those recommendations before the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government. The first of those recommendations was to be more strategic in water buybacks. I am personally disappointed that, while that advice appeared to have been taken seriously and supported by the minister, we have had yet another announcement that the non-strategic role-on of water buybacks from so-called willing sellers is to continue as if there had been no recommendation at all.

Non-strategic buyback of water has nothing to do with water use efficiency, unfortunately. It is about financially stressed farmers bending to the will of their lenders and putting the last of their liquid assets—a bit of an ironic term—or their most easily disposed of asset, their water, on the market so they can pay back some of their borrowings. We do not have, unfortunately, sufficient investment from this government into on-farm water use efficiency, nor do we have sufficient investment into the irrigation systems themselves, some of which such as Goulburn-Murray Water are over a hundred years old in places and need to be smartened up in their own water use efficiency.

I am very concerned at a time when our farmers most need support to get back on their feet after, first, the drought and, now, devastating floods, that this is the time for the government to announce that there will be support for farmers to be able to improve their water use and as a consequence of that improve their productivity, putting them back on their feet financially for the future. In Northern Victoria, in my part of the Murray-Darling Basin—its southern parts—we have been acknowledged as having world’s best practice in tomato growing and in dairying, to name just two of our particular industry sectors. Both of those types of agricultural production were particularly hard hit by the floods. We have virtually had our tomato crops for this year wiped out—this is manufacturing tomato growing—and, tragically, that means that our multinational manufacturers of food product are reaching to imports to replace what was before locally produced tomato ingredient.

Unfortunately, that cannot be helped this year, but we are very, very concerned that it will become the habit of these manufacturers, as they find the dollar supports them and it is easy for them to reach to the overseas market for things such as tomato paste and diced tomatoes, when our own locally grown product was world’s best in quality. Indeed, the prices they were being paid meant that there was not much fat at all in the system for the growers. So we need that on-farm water use efficiency investment from the Commonwealth, as well as from the states. Having made that investment, I think it is more than in order to suggest that farms which can be shown to be most efficient in water use have a rating or a standard that is recognised by the consumer. We need to show that the product was produced in a way that was friendly to the environment, particularly in relation to water consumption. These sorts of improvements can be readily identified and measured.

Again, in our part of the world, farmers have themselves invested literally billions of dollars in these measures. In the past they have received some support to help do things, such as whole farm plans and reuse systems. This was in order to try successfully to manage to stop groundwater accessions, which of course led to salinity problems in the past. We are now concerned that some of this water will be lying on parts of my electorate for another 12 months, and all these floodwaters could again exacerbate the groundwater salinity levels. We need, right now, some Commonwealth investment to make sure that irrigation systems on farms are repaired as a consequence of the floods destroying them and that we have, instead of the quick and dirty buyback of water from financially stressed farmers, the government understanding of the problems of water price distortion in the markets and an understanding that water buyback does not lead to more efficient production.

Instead, the government should focus on the billions of dollars that the coalition had put in place for this investment and put at least $5 billion into on-farm water use efficiency measures. The dividends will be absolutely magnificent. The country’s food security will be improved. We will have the farmers able to continue to manage the environment as they want to. The jobs that spin off from agricultural production will be there and will be multiplied. There is a win-win in every way that you look at the investment in on-farm water use efficiency.

I commend this bill, which began by making sure that labelling of domestic appliances that are water users is as efficient and transparent as it can be and helps consumers make the right choices about purchasing things like dishwashers, washing machines and so on. But I suggest this government also look at water use efficiency standards, assessments and labelling in relation to on-farm water use efficiency measures. I think that will serve the nation very well.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Bill 2010. This bill is about conserving our most precious resource, which is water, by redefining the way we provide information to consumers about water efficiency or various plumbing products. By passing the bill, we can reduce confusion and empower consumers. We can provide greater certainty for industry and ultimately we can promote the adoption of effective water use to assist with our water conservation efforts.

The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme, established by the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005, aims to promote the use of water-saving technologies by requiring specific products be labelled to indicate and assess their water efficiency. As with energy-rating labels on electrical appliances, a six-star rating system is used to demonstrate the performance of the product, with six being the most water or energy efficient. This is a simple concept designed to empower consumers to select a product on the basis of its efficiency.

Since its introduction in 2005, and since it became mandatory in July 2006, there has been significant evidence suggesting that the scheme positively influences preferences. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities determines which products must comply with the scheme, and some of the products which are currently covered include showers, toilets, urinals, taps, dishwashing machines and clothes washing machines.

In addition to meeting the requirements of this scheme, these products are subject to the WaterMark certification scheme, which operates under state and territory plumbing regulations. As the WaterMark certificate is concerned with protecting the water supply by ensuring the products are fit for use, it is only required for products to be legally installed. On the contrary, the WELS registration and labelling is required before a product can be sold. This creates an anomaly, as consumers unwittingly purchase WELS plumbing products which are legally available but not legally able to be installed.

Furthermore, some consumers may misinterpret the WELS label as an endorsement of the product by the government that it is fit for us. It is this situation that has led the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Heritage to recommend, in its 2007 report, Managing the flow: regulating plumbing product quality, that the WaterMark certification be made a prerequisite of the compliance with the WELS scheme. If this bill is passed it will do just that.

The proposed amendments will introduce a general provision enabling the minister to include additional plumbing requirements, such as those established by the states and territories, and, from time to time, requirements for registration under the WELS scheme. Naturally, the minister will retain the right to remove any additional requirements should they be no longer appropriate. Once the bill is enacted, the WaterMark certification can be made a prerequisite for all WELS scheme registered plumbing products by ministerial determination.

There is strong support for the introduction of a general provision of this kind within the industry. It will create greater certainty for both consumers and plumbers and ultimately it will mean more water conservation. This government is preparing Australia for a future with less water as a result of climate change and as a result of drought. Water is one of our most precious resources. As a member from South Australia I know that acutely. We must do everything in our power to secure our supplies for future generations. We need to act now not only to protect and restore the environment but also to secure the health of our rivers so that all Australians can continue to enjoy this vital resource well into the future.

This government has been getting on with the job of conserving our water resources. Since coming to office this government has introduced significant initiatives to ensure that securing our water supplies is our top priority. It has introduced a number of initiatives aimed at restoring the balance in the Murray-Darling Basin, which has one of our most valuable river systems and our nation’s food bowl.

The government has looked at initiatives, including water buybacks. I was disappointed to hear the member for Murray criticise this so acutely in her report. We know that the opposition have been quite flippant when it comes to water buybacks. In the election period we saw the Leader of the Opposition come to South Australia and say that he would implement the Murray-Darling Basin report immediately. In fact, I think he indicated that he would implement it in full two weeks after the election. We have seen an enormous backflip from the opposition. They are now scrapping the water buybacks. The Leader of the Opposition has clearly given every South Australian who actually believed the commitment he made when he came to South Australia a slap in the face. It is disappointing.

This government is getting on with the job by having water buybacks, investing in water-saving infrastructure, having the independent authority come up with a plan and working through the parliament to ensure we have a Murray-Darling River system for the future. The member for Murray in her statement missed the point that a river that is dying, that has salt problems and that is destroyed is of no use to anyone. It is of no use to the farmers, the environment or the people who rely on the river for water. It is of no use to anyone. I hope the member for Murray considers that when she goes around opposing water buybacks.

The government is also working in a whole range of other areas. In my electorate there has been significant investment in how we use water in a better way. I was very pleased that this government provided the Onkaparinga Council with $34.5 million for Waterproofing the South stage 1. This program looks at how we can recycle water to irrigate the McLaren Vale region, our parks and gardens and a range of different areas. This program has been going very well. We recycle the sewage water from the Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant and that fresh water is used for a whole lot of different purposes, including watering gardens on private properties and the like. That has been a very successful project.

I am also pleased that this government has backed up its commitment by investing $14.97 million for stormwater harvesting in the Onkaparinga River. This is a joint project of the City of Onkaparinga, the state government and the federal government. It looks at how we can harvest stormwater and not just let it go into the sea, which causes its own problems when it comes to the local ecology. It looks at how we can capture that water and reuse it on parks, gardens and the like. This is really important because the city of Adelaide relies, especially in years of drought, on water from the River Murray. The more we conserve water, whether it is rainwater or recycled water, the less our pull will be on the River Murray.

I commend the City of Onkaparinga for doing a great job in this area. The wonderful McLaren Vale agricultural region, which provides a huge amount of wonderful wine, is starting to insure itself against drought by using recycled water and stormwater. It is a visionary project. It is preparing the city and the suburbs for less water in the future. I commend that program.

The government has also recognised significantly that individuals can play a big role in conserving water. It has been fantastic to see families and residents in my local community taking up the rebates offered by the government that subsidise the installation of water tanks and greywater systems. We recognise that these small changes to household water use can make a big difference when put together. I want to particularly commend a couple of the surf-lifesaving clubs in my area, which have successfully obtained money under the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative: the Aldinga Bay Surf Lifesaving Club and the South Port Surf Life Saving Club. They have installed rainwater tanks and other water efficiency measures.

Surf-lifesaving might not seem to be too connected to the environment but the lifesavers who are on the beach every day see what happens when stormwater goes out into the sea and a lot of debris is washed up on the beach. The surf-lifesaving clubs are acutely aware of the impact that stormwater can have on their beaches. They have been very keen to take up these water initiatives. I know there is a focus in surf-lifesaving clubs in my area to be very ecofriendly, so they are taking up these initiatives to make an impact.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Southport Surf Life Saving Club, which won the cleanest beach in Australia competition. They do a great job down there. They get schoolchildren coming in to help with cleaning up the beach and really making this a wonderful destination. So if you have not been to Southport Surf Lifesaving Club, or Port Noarlunga South as it is sometimes known, come on down; it is a beautiful place to come. But they are doing their bit for water efficiency.

There are a number of other initiatives in my electorate, including the Woodcroft Green Precinct at the combined library and neighbourhood centre. This is a very exciting initiative which is incorporating best practice design features in water conservation, water recycling, and a whole range of areas. But they are not just doing that for the community centre that is being used there; they are putting it on as a demonstration hub so that families and individuals can come in, have a look at what they are doing and get some ideas and take them back home. This is a very exciting project. The Commonwealth has contributed $750,000 to this. Again, the council is contributing money to it. I am looking forward to the opening of the Woodcroft Green Precinct in the coming months. I certainly think it is another exciting project.

There are a number of very exciting projects happening in my local area, all focused on conserving water and ensuring that we are as efficient as possible with this very important resource. Certainly this bill is a very important bill. It is part of the government’s agenda in ensuring that we take the issue of using our water in the most efficient possible way very seriously. I commend the bill to the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Bill 2010 and the Commonwealth’s efforts in increasing consumers’ opportunities to make informed choices about household products to help minimise the water that is used by our households.

We have had energy ratings on appliances for many years and I am sure that we all agree on the merits of such a scheme. We also have had the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme, giving us a similar insight into the merits of one appliance over another with regard to water consumption. The bill before us simply enacts recommendations put to the government for the more efficient and effective functioning of this scheme in giving the minister the ability to make determinations on additional plumbing requirements, such as those established by the states and territories who regulate the plumbing industry.

Since the WELS scheme was introduced in 2005, there has been evidence, I understand, that consumers are taking note of the water efficiency advice contained in the product labelling and making their consumer choices with this in mind, and that is a good thing. We have seen a substantial shift over recent years in the deployment of systems that reduce the need for water. New systems have been popping up in public and private washrooms alike. Rainwater harvesting systems have made a very large impression on the public and also businesses who build their custom offices or showrooms. People have become much more water wise on a residential level, a commercial level and in other areas of our public lives. This is all, clearly, a very good thing and a motif that I hope the opposition would support.

I welcome the further development and uptake of initiatives such as the WELS scheme and our rainwater-harvesting scheme, in particular as they apply to households and other premises within South Australia. South Australian residents—residents of Adelaide and beyond—have been doing their bit for water conservation over several years, just as we continue to do today and will continue to do into the future.

Historically, Adelaide has sourced most of its potable water from the River Murray. Through the early years of this century, it was sourcing over half of the 200-plus gigalitres per year we consumed to keep the city going as it then was. In more recent years, through the drought, we have consumed much less. But the Murray has continued to be the lifeblood of Adelaide. We strive, as we have striven over the years, to reduce the volume of water we use and consume. We try to pare back our water consumption—be it by five gigalitres, 10 gigalitres, 20 gigalitres or more from our historic levels of consumption.

A city like Adelaide with a population of well over one million people has striven to cut its consumption and its drain on the River Murray by 20-odd per cent. More than one million people are cutting back to save 30 gigalitres a year—year after year after year. And I am glad that we have been able to do this because the 30 gigalitres that Adelaide residents bend over backwards to save helps sustain the river system. Sadly, our river system within South Australia needs almost 2,000 gigalitres of water more than has typically flown down the Murray in the past few years. In this context, Adelaide’s consumption of 140 gigalitres per year and our 30 gigalitres of saving might not seem like much, but the effort we make in Adelaide is very substantial as a proportion of the water we have taken in the past.

While Adelaide’s one million people and businesses use 140 odd gigalitres, the Goulburn region uses up to 1,700 gigalitres per year, the Murrumbidgee region uses up to 2,600 gigalitres per year, so the draw on the River Murray itself, upstream from Wentworth, is up to 3½ thousand gigalitres per year. Adelaide residents know what it means to save water. We know what it means to cut our consumption, to have some of our trees die, our gardens die, our parklands die. We have made these cuts in the past and we know how much it hurts. And so I find it a bit of a stretch when we read from the Basin Plan community consultation minutes that some commentators argue that the sustainability of the River Murray and the basin generally would be improved if Adelaide simply installed more rainwater tanks and took less water from the Murray. The numbers I have already given show, I believe, how marginal a volume Adelaide takes in comparison to some other regions. When people raise their voices against the prospect of there being reductions in the total water taken out of the river system for other than critical human need purposes, I suggest they remember that they are not the only regions that are affected by variability in water availability.

I also suggest they remember that any reductions in the maximum draw on water through the buy-back scheme will be totally voluntary. Only those who wish to sell and engage in the sale of their license will have their rights affected. Only those who have decided themselves to take up offers to sell their water licenses have had their water licenses affected by the increase in environmental water. This has been the case over the past few years, as it will be the case in the future. It is their choice and it is entirely up to them. The fact of the matter is—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.