Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The national policy debate in respect of the Murray-Darling Basin started long before I became an elected member of parliament. In fact, it started well before any of us came into this chamber. It would be a grave mistake to see the current debate in isolation of the many which have come before it. In fact, what we are currently considering is but the latest in a long line of reforms, the vast majority of which have had negative consequences for the constituents of my Riverina electorate.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia has again looked at the water issue, has again conducted public hearings into this topic of paramount importance to this nation and has again come up with a report, Report into certain matters relating to the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan, containing four worthwhile recommendations. Our last report of May 2011, Of drought and flooding rains: inquiry into the impact of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, contained 21 well-considered recommendations, yet was largely ignored and unfortunately remains so by this government.

Members would be well advised to consider that much of the irrigated agriculture in my area was developed and enhanced as a direct result of government policy. From the building of irrigation canals to the encouragement of soldier settlers to turn their hands to growing food, to the recent speech of the Prime Minister encouraging Australia to enhance its position of food and fibre providers to the world—urging it to strengthen irrigation—successive governments have encouraged my constituents to believe that they had a positive future. It is an unfortunate fact that many Australians believe that the Snowy scheme was built to provide electricity. Whilst it is an unarguable fact that Snowy Hydro uses the assets of the scheme to support the Australian electricity network, it is also incorrect to say that electricity generation was the genesis of the Snowy scheme. On the contrary, it was built to divert water to the west—into the Murrumbidgee and the Murray—to enhance agricultural production.

Over the past several decades irrigated agriculture has been under the water use spotlight. Participants have in the main cooperated with government initiatives, both state and federal, to ensure the health of our basin. They have become more efficient with how they access and use water. They have taken steps to ensure that salinity does not claim their land. They have assisted recovery schemes to provide water to the rivers in their catchment and indeed further afield. Members should note the vast quantities of water retrieved from productive use of the Murrumbidgee which has been diverted to the Snowy. It is extremely important that this House acknowledges that irrigators and the communities they support do not oppose healthy reform; they support healthy rivers. Unlike many Australians, many of my constituents live on, rely on and work because of the rivers of the Murray-Darling basin. They have an inherent interest in the health of the system. To them it is not a philosophical discussion; it is their life. We should treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve, not as political playthings to attract a particular segment of the urban vote. I also support a healthy working river, as do my colleagues. It is my understanding and belief that all in this House do—as we should.

It was the coalition government which commenced the journey to the basin plan. It was this side of the House which provided substantial quantities of money to bring balance to the basin. When the basin plan comes before this House is just a few weeks, I urge all members to understand that the lives and livelihoods of good people are at stake. Indeed, the nation's ability to feed itself now and into the future is also very much at stake. Importantly, I ask all members to consider not only volumes of water, but how those volumes of water will be obtained. For it is here that the sides of this House divide. The coalition provided the pathway and the funding to replumb the Murray-Darling Basin. We provided the will and the means to obtain vast quantities of environmental water through infrastructure efficiency upgrades. We provided a total of $5.8 billion, a sum which, well spent, would have provided the balance between practical, environmental management and maintained economic and social productivity.

Instead, we have seen that fund raided time and again by a government hell-bent on appeasing its Green partners with a serious lack of concern for the long-term economic and social damage it is visiting not only on my constituency but upon every Australian. It was the nation that built our agricultural productivity in the basin, so an attack on it is an attack on the nation. It has raided the infrastructure fund to pay for projects in Tasmania and Western Australia. With due respect to my interstate colleagues, and acknowledgement of the great capacity of their constituents, those funds were meant for the Murray-Darling Basin. It has raided the infrastructure fund to pay the cost of the holdings of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Only a government completely blinded by the bright lights of Canberra could consider that infrastructure. Perhaps most insulting was the $65 million raid on the infrastructure fund to pay for the increased cost of the rightly maligned Murray-Darling Basin Authority, an entity which comprehensively failed in a public engagement but was rewarded with funds designed to make the transformation with which they were tasked. Only a government such as this could consider that a legitimate use of funds.

When the Murray-Darling Basin Plan comes before this House, I ask all members to be aware that it is not only the plan itself that matters; it is the plan to implement the plan. How will the water be obtained? Will it be achieved in the way the funds were intended, through replumbing rural Australia, through wise and efficient investment to maintain our social and economic assets? Or will it be through the simple, but long-term economic devastation of simply purchasing the heart of the nation. Finally, I am gratified that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, at my urgings, has decided to conduct a national food plan forum at Griffith, in the heart of the mighty Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, the area which produces $5 billion worth of agricultural exports, which helps this nation's balance of payments. Why the MIA was ignored in the first place remains a mystery. I commend this report to the House.

Debate adjourned.