Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian government is committed to implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in ways that deliver the best social, economic and environmental outcomes for the basin and its many industries and communities. Water is essential to our agricultural production and the associated wealth that it supports in regional communities and the nation. The Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016 provides more time for the basin jurisdictions to work together to maximise the benefits of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, a key element of the basin reforms. This will ensure that we get the reforms right. It will ensure the reforms are equitable and that they support the health of our valuable rivers, while also ensuring the community and industries that rely on the rivers flourish into the future.

In 2012, the Basin Plan set out sustainable diversion limits at both basin-wide and individual catchment scale. At the time, the sustainable diversion limits represented the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's best judgement of a triple bottom-line balance between healthy rivers and strong communities and a prosperous basin economy.

Before the Basin Plan was finalised, Basin water ministers requested that the Basin Plan include a mechanism to allow flexibility in setting the sustainable diversion limits in ways that further enhance social, economic and environmental outcomes. As a result, the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism was incorporated into the plan to enable the Basin-wide sustainable diversion limit for surface water of 10,873 gigalitres per year to be changed by up to five per cent.

These adjustments can be achieved through two types of measures: supply measures and efficiency measures. Supply measures are projects that enable environmental outcomes equivalent to those in the Basin Plan to be achieved using less environmental water. The bigger the supply contribution from the sustainable diversion limit adjustments, the smaller the remaining amount of water that needs to be recovered. Efficiency measures, on the other hand, are intended to enhance Basin Plan environmental outcomes through infrastructure projects that recover more environmental water without adverse socioeconomic impacts.

Basin states are looking at options for easing river bottlenecks that limit how much water can flow through the system at any one time, in order to achieve the Basin Plan environmental outcomes with less water. Basin state governments are continuing to work through the feasibility of these projects with landholders to ensure that any adverse third-party impacts can be avoided or otherwise mitigated to the satisfaction of landholders and communities. I was happy, recently, to travel to southern New South Wales and northern Victoria to examine some of these issues.

On 5 May 2016, Basin governments reached a major Basin Plan milestone by formally notifying the Murray-Darling Basin Authority of 36 supply and efficiency measures for consideration under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. The notified package is intended to improve the social, economic and environmental outcomes of the Basin Plan. The authority is now modelling the effect of these supply measures to determine how they will affect the sustainable diversion limits. While notification of this package of measures was a significant step, Basin governments think that more can be done. This bill will enable us to do that.

The bill amends the Basin Plan to allow states to notify a second package of sustainable diversion limit adjustment measures by 30 June 2017. This provides additional time for Basin jurisdictions to work up new projects that augment the first package of measures. In setting this timeframe, the Australian government is conscious that Basin governments are considering the potential for complementary measures, such as measures to control carp and boost native fish populations, to be considered under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. There is potential for significant environmental outcomes to be achieved through measures other than simply adding more water. Should Basin governments agree to proceed in this way, the timeframe set out in this bill will be sufficient for the development of such measures by Basin jurisdictions and for the subsequent assessment of these measures by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Of course, when undertaking reform as critical as the Basin Plan, timing is critical. The Basin Plan sustainable diversion limits are to come into effect from 1 July 2019. To achieve this, accredited water resource plans need to be in place, and remaining water recovery targets need to be met. These processes all take time, and certainty on the adjustment of sustainable diversion limits is required as early as possible. Therefore, while it is important to allow more time to get the most out of adjustment mechanisms, it is also imperative that Basin jurisdictions are afforded the time and certainty they need to complete their water resources plans by 2019.

For this reason, the bill requires that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority present its determination of a proposed sustainable diversion limit adjustment to the Commonwealth minister by 15 December 2017. A determination deadline of 15 December 2017 will ensure that the adjustment operates in sufficient time to provide certainty for those key processes that depend on a timely outcome from the adjustment mechanism. To meet this deadline, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will need to impose cut-off dates for project amendments well beforehand. However, the Australian government remains confident that all Basin jurisdictions will continue to work cooperatively, and with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, in securing the best possible outcome.

To ensure Basin jurisdictions are able to develop a suite of further projects by 30 June 2017, they must have certainty that the second notification will occur. This bill expedites the amendment process in sufficient time to provide this certainty. This bill continues the government's commitment to sensible and considered water reform. It strikes the appropriate balance between providing more time to deliver the best possible outcomes for the adjustment mechanism and, at the same time, achieving the best possible outcomes for Basin industries, for Basin communities and for healthy, working Basin rivers.

The Australian government is determined to implement the Basin Plan in a manner that ensures the social and economic wellbeing of our Basin communities while achieving environmental objectives. Farmers are the primary environmental stewards of the land, and no-one knows the creeks, rivers, wetlands and flood plains of the Basin better than those communities that call the Basin home. It is vital that we work with them to ensure the sustainable use of water resources into the future.

This is an issue that I have lived with all my life, having lived in the Basin all my life. It is vitally important that we understand that the people we talk to about these issues are not just the farmers who own the water licences but are also the towns and the townspeople who rely on an agricultural irrigation community and expect us to do the very best job. It is these people more than any other group who would be affected if we get this wrong, because these are the people who are not able to sell their assets and do not get the chance to move anywhere—they are just left with our problems if we get it wrong.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016. Today I would like to focus my remarks on the management of a central piece of water infrastructure in the Murray Darling Basin—specifically the management of the Hume Dam.

In Indi we follow a very clear process when addressing the issues of the electorate. When constituents raise issues, we make a commitment to represent their interests, to ask relevant questions, to raise issues in parliament and to provide an opportunity where it is appropriate to resolve issues at the local level. Today I would like to share with parliament an example of this process delivering practical and significant outcomes for landholders in the Murray Valley. I acknowledge the presence in the House today of my neighbour and colleague, the member for Farrer, and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

We had a problem with the Hume Dam and flooding. We were able to resolve it locally in a very satisfactory way, and I am delighted to acknowledge the work of the people who played a part in that. This year has been very wet in north-east Victoria. We have had significantly more rain than in an average year. In October this year, constituents who are landholders in the Murray Valley below the Hume weir came to me with a very clear message regarding their concerns about the management of the Hume Dam. They made a strong case. The effects of the water releases have been significant, and I have been deeply concerned about the long-term impact if the problems are not addressed.

It is important to note that I am not alone in receiving concerns from landholders. The member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, also received approaches from Murray River farmers and has acknowledged that there needs to be better communication, saying:

It is an MDBA decision, it's not a decision of government, but I think there is an information gap so I am committed to asking the MDBA … and then there can be a bit more understanding on both sides …

Landholders' concerns were twofold: firstly, that the communication to downstream landholders regarding dam releases from the management authority, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, was poor; and, secondly, that there was a fundamental flaw in management of the airspace of the dam, which means that storage of irrigation water comes at the cost of flood damage to farms and the environment. These concerns were echoed in the local media:

Lack of management of the Hume Dam has turned what could have been a constrained flood into a catastrophic one.

The fact there was not enough air-space is beyond belief.

Everything the basin authority has said has been proven wrong and the management from the authority is incompetent and inexperienced.

Mr Bill Tilley, the state member for Benambra, after observing sandbagging at Wodonga's Gateway Village, said:

I'm not necessarily confident the modelling has been good enough to inform the communities downstream from the Hume wall, particularly when you consider the inflows from the Kiewa River.

He added:

They've been slow to react to advice from state and local government authorities.

So there has been much local discussion about this particular issue.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority began increasing release from the Hume Dam in late August to retain some airspace in the dam, apparently releasing 34 per cent of the dam's capacity in three weeks. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised that flooding was inevitable; it was a natural phenomenon which could not be fully prevented by the dam. It added:

When conditions are very wet and Hume Dam is high—

as was the case—

the dam can store no more water and therefore has only limited impact on the passage of a flood. It's the rain that causes the flood, not the dam.

Minister Joyce acknowledges that management of the dam is a complex issue and that 'we can always be wise after the event,' adding:

It's hard to anticipate what sort of airspace you need when you really don't have a conclusive idea of exactly how much is going to fall in your catchment and how much is coming in.

Locals also know that the management of the dam is a complex issue. Andrew Reynolds, the acting head of river management at the time, admitted that his organisation had been caught out by the record amount of September inflow. But it is not an issue that can be addressed or fixed by a single authority or organisation.

It is for this very reason that I invited representatives from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—chair Neil Andrew and general manager David Dreverman—along with representatives from the Bureau of Meteorology and WaterNSW, to meet with me, representatives of the Murray River Action Group and landholders in my electorate at a roundtable meeting on Tuesday, 1 November, in Wodonga. For the very first time, those responsible for water management and information gathering were sitting around the same table with affected landholders in a facilitated and, dare I say, relatively orderly meeting. This meeting delivered what people were asking for, which was a chance to explain their concerns directly to, and hear the explanation from, the people making the decisions at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. But, more than that, it provided an opportunity for them to suggest how things could be improved.

The landholders of my region have years of experience and knowledge, and there is clearly an opportunity for them to provide practical, firsthand advice to the managing authorities to assist in their decision-making process. Very practical suggestions were put forward at the meeting. There was robust discussion, but having the right people together in the same room meant that we walked away with some very practical steps to finding a solution. There was a view held amongst local landholders that the advice from government agencies was, compared to previous years, lacking in regularity and detail, and landholders relied on their own experience to prepare.

I thank in particular WaterNSW and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for their commitment, in response to these concerns, to convene a working group to review the early warning system and identify some practical steps to ensure timely and accurate communication to all landholders. While it was clearly acknowledged that the provision of timely and accurate communication to landholders is an area that needs further development, I would like to recognise the excellent work done by Joe Davis and his team at the Hume weir. These people work around the clock to monitor conditions and provide advice, and, for that, I and the landholders downstream say thank you. We appreciate what you have done, we appreciate your dedication and we are grateful for the work you have done for us.

I would also like to thank Neil Andrew for committing to bring together the Basin Officials Committee and the Murray River Action Group, along—I hope—with the member for Farrer and me to ensure that asset protection, irrigation water, flood mitigation and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive when managing the amount of water in the Hume Dam. I appreciate that Mr Andrew points out that 'the dam was built for the purpose of irrigation'. He states:

Protecting irrigators' water is listed as a higher priority for the MDBA in running Lake Hume than preventing flood events downstream.

He also said that current regulations do not allow the water level to purposefully drop below 97 per cent when planning for rain. Further, he said:

… when water inflows no longer occur and water outflows are needed for irrigation demand, and the dam's not full when we're running into a drought, the authority will be in even more trouble.

We need to acknowledge that the rules that govern how airspace is managed have been in place for some time now, and I really think it is timely that we review these rules. It is these rules that are the basis of the controversy of the discussions: how much is too much before we let the water out, and how much do we need to let go at any one time? The decisions on these rules will rest with the committee representatives from the federal, Victorian, New South Wales, South Australian and Queensland governments. While I will not be an advocate at the meeting, I will be very pleased to be a facilitator to ensure that there is a win-win for irrigators, landholders and the environment.

I would like to say how proud I am to be in this House and to represent the interests of my community. I was very proud to facilitate this important meeting. I am proud of the outcomes of the meeting and that they will result in better communication between government agencies and landholders. I am very proud of my staff and am grateful to them for all the work that they do, with their commitment, their loyalty, their dedication and their organisational ability. I would particularly like to acknowledge Georgina Curtis, who is in the House today, and thank her for her work.

I am proud to be of practical service to my community. On that note, I would like to draw attention to the young people in the House. I understand you are from Yea, which is also part of my electorate. It is great to have you here. Welcome. I look forward to meeting with you after I have finished this speech. I am proud of the landholders in the Murray Basin, particularly the members of the Murray River Action Group—especially their executive, who work in a voluntary capacity and who do such good work. They are: Marie Dunn, Secretary; Richard Sargood, Chairman; Greg Lumby, Vice-President; and all their team. Thank you for your proactive, pragmatic and tenacious approach to resolving issues. I am grateful to and appreciate the work of the Murray-Darling Basin, WaterNSW, the Bureau of Meteorology and the members of all my community for their goodwill and tolerance in what was a very difficult time.

In conclusion, it is timely to review the rules that govern how airspace is allocated in the Hume Weir and how that water is used. I am optimistic about the future and about our ability to work in a cooperative fashion to resolve these issues in a timely way and in a manner which meets the long-term needs of the landholders, the irrigators, the people of Albury-Wodonga and the authorities that we work for.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016. This issue is hard. For members on both sides of the chamber, no-one should pretend that anything is easy when dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin. People on both sides of the chamber—and I include the minister at the table—have stepped up and made compromises that were hard and, in making those compromises, have fought very hard for their communities to get the best possible deal. But they also made sure that, in fighting for their communities, they did not continue the deadlock that had plagued Australia for more than a century—that is, in representing their communities, people were willing to see that no deal would be struck at all.

Both the minister at the table and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, who spoke earlier, are good examples, in fact, in that the plan in front of us and the legislation in front of us do not represent their ideal outcome. There is no-one who, from an environmental perspective, views the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that was enacted when I was minister for water as being the ideal outcome. In terms of my starting point when I was negotiating the plan up and down the basin, I would not view what we ended up with as the ideal, perfect outcome. But for more than a century we were a nation where there was no outcome. We needed to get to the point where, for the first time in the history of this country, we would treat the Murray-Darling river system as having a coordinated plan across the country.

The Murray-Darling river system is a very unusual system, in terms of the fundamentals of what we are dealing with. We are talking about one-seventh of our continent. We are talking about an extraordinarily large river system which reaches across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and even the ACT. Where we are standing now, we are in fact within the basin. But it is much more than one-seventh of our agricultural output.

The debates that began in Australia, on whether the river system was being used effectively and whether the water that was being pulled out of the system in some states was having an impact on other states, were originally part of the Federation debates to determine whether or not we would, in fact, become a country. This issue was on the agenda then. It was viewed then not as an agricultural issue or an environmental issue but as a navigation issue. They were not able to get the barges far enough up the Murray River in South Australia when they went through periods of drought because of water that was being pulled out further up. So this issue has been live for a very long time.

It was always about the best political outcome. If you said: 'Okay. In terms of the politics, what's the best outcome for each state? What's the best outcome for each electorate?' the best outcome politically was always going to be for everybody to say, 'I'm not giving an inch,' defend the line for whatever was right for their community and leave Australia with this issue unresolved. The politics of that allowed people to be involved in a tough negotiation in which they did not give ground and did not get a national plan for more than a century. What then happened, though, in 1991 was a new negotiator came to the table. In 1991, the river decided to negotiate back, and it proved that it was less compromising than any politician. The blue-green algae outbreak went for 1,000 kilometres. At this point, the river effectively sent a message that unless you become serious about fixing this, it does not matter whether you care about the river for environmental purposes, for social purposes, for critical human use or for agricultural purposes; unless you fix this, the river is not going to allow any of it to work. That is the message that a blue-green algae outbreak sent out for 1,000 kilometres.

The Keating government responded in 1994 by brokering the first COAG agreement. That set the principles back in '94 on which all the reform that we are talking about today was subsequently based. That COAG agreement said that there would be pricing of water, there would be trading of water and to reserve some volumes of water for the environment. That fundamental concept of adopting a market approach to an environmental and agricultural irrigation problem was quite radical. Globally, now, that concept has been adopted in many parts of the world. Even China, with respect to the Yellow River, now have a form of water trading community by community, not landowner by landowner. This concept where you allow there to be market system to help inform some of these decisions is an example that Australia has set for the world. The Keating government, in getting to that point of the COAG agreement, formed the underpinnings of what would later become the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but we still had a long way to go.

On this particular policy issue I do have to pay tribute to the work that was done under the Howard government; it would be dishonest not to. It was the big environmental reform in the final term of the Howard government—my first term in this place. It was also the first term of the now Prime Minister, who at that time was the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. He introduced the Water Act and he introduced what then became the legislative framework for the plan. So the intergovernmental framework was established by the Keating government, the legislative framework was established by the Howard government, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was advanced during the period of the Rudd government when Senator Wong was the Minister for Climate Change and Water, and concluded in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan under the Gillard government when I was the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

That plan effectively dealt with the issue in this way. If we start with some of the problems that we are dealing with: the Murray-Darling Basin, while it is one of the biggest river systems in the world, has two characteristics that make it quite different to any other major river system in the world. The first is that it is particularly dry, and the second is that it is particularly flat. In other major river systems—if you look at the Amazon or something like that—you will see water surging. Whereas in parts of the Murray-Darling and in particular in parts of the Darling, you will find parts of that river system where the water flows, except in times of flood, can be extraordinarily modest. In terms of how flat it is think of this: go to the Macquarie Marshes, right in the north of the Murray-Darling system. This is a system that flows all the way out to sea. Right at the top end of this system, you are only 142 metres above sea level. Where the Darling meets the River Murray, you are only 35 metres above sea level. This is an extraordinarily flat system. In terms of any of the water management that is done, when you are dealing with areas where the topography is particularly flat, it means that any flooding event will be different. If you have a steep system, the topography will mean that floods and major water events, when they occur, are more likely to mimic what had happened previously. When you have a very flat system these events will behave differently on every occasion. The Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for Sport at the table, from her own electorate of Farrer, would know all too well—aside from environmental water use, when there is a natural flood—how different each flood can be.

So the nature of the reform and the fundamental thing that the reform tries to do is to say, 'We will never return the Murray-Darling to a completely 100 per cent natural system.' Some people might advocate for that, but it is never going to happen. But what we want to make sure of is that we have a healthy working basin. There are sites that are viewed as the particularly sensitive environmental sites—and the rivers themselves are part of that, but there is a series of wetlands around the system that have critical environmental purpose as well—and sometimes the health of those sites will need to be managed deliberately. The way it gets managed deliberately is with water that used to be all allocated for irrigation purposes and that over time has increasingly been designated to the Office of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. This is the key to the reforms: the Environmental Water Holder then becomes responsible for initiating particular flood events or water events that are required to keep the health of the basin going.

The environmental health of the basin has a different requirement to what irrigators want. This is why some of the flexibility of the plan was put there quite deliberately. If you are an irrigator, then by definition you want the guarantees of water to be as regular as possible, but the environment will have, and ecologically is required to have, a cycle of drought years and good years. The challenge that we have had is that because of overallocation that was occurring in particular irrigation districts the environmental sites were not getting the good years. When it was meant to be a normal sort of year the environmental impact was in fact mimicking a drought year, so that by the time the drought years came along you had the system in such a state that environmentally it was as though it had already experienced a number of drought years before the drought itself arrived.

The key question was: how much water is required to keep the basin in a state of good health? On this one some people will argue 'the science says' and quote a magic number. On this issue, the truth is that there has never been and can never be certainty as to what exactly the perfect number of gigalitres required for maintaining the health of the basin should be or must be. But what we can know is the environmental benchmarks that we need to keep to to monitor whether or not the health of the basin is being maintained and, in some cases, restored and, similarly, to make sure that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has enough water for those outcomes to be able to be met.

One of the things that came out of consultation when this plan was put together—and this is why this bill is before us now—came out of a cross-party inquiry with some unanimous recommendations that was led by the then member for New England, Tony Windsor. It was a great use of a House of Reps inquiry, and it brought people together across the chamber. That inquiry wanted to find ways—where we could—of maximising the same environmental outcome while minimising the buyback direct from irrigators. Be in no doubt that buyback, when it occurs, occurs on a purely voluntary basis. It has not occurred through any form of compulsory acquisition. That is from the perspective of the individual irrigator.

From the perspective of the communities that rely on the water, they will often say, 'It still impacts on us even if some individual irrigator who is the owner of the water has made that decision.' They wanted to find a way for that to be counted in the plan. So where we ended up was to say that the first 2,100 gigalitres would have to be obtained as real water that was held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. You had to get to the environmental impact of 2,750 gigalitres, but, in relation to the 650 gigalitres in the middle, if the states could come forward with better ways of managing water that would deliver the same environmental outcome as the actual held water, that could be done in place of buyback.

A lot of people argued that we should not agree to this as a Commonwealth. It is a significantly more expensive way of doing things, with a significant impost on the taxpayer, but it delivers the same environmental outcome and a much better outcome for those irrigation communities. Often these things intersect, and to put people in different groups is not really right, because lots of people care about both. If your perspective is purely environmental, you get the same outcome; if your perspective is purely the communities, you get a better outcome. The test was always: would the states, who are in charge of bringing forward these projects, come up with projects that were good enough to meet the same environmental standards and mean that there were 650 gigalitres that did not need to be acquired through buyback methods? Whether the states will come forward with projects that are good enough is not yet known. This legislation sets a new deadline for the states to come forward with these projects and then sets a final deadline that was not previously there, which is a deadline on the authority, effectively, to say that certain projects are approved or not approved, and we then have the consequences.

As the states are putting together these projects, I want to make clear on behalf of the opposition that the opposition is absolutely willing to make sure that up to the 650 gigalitres can be delivered as an alternative path to buyback, but it must deliver the same environmental outcomes. If the states come back with projects that do not meet the environmental outcomes that are contained within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the Labor Party has no interest at all in lowering the environmental standards that are contained within the plan. The only option for the states is to come up with projects that meet the environmental benchmarks of the plan. If they do so, there is 650 gigalitres that does not need to be otherwise acquired.

For the states to do that, there will be compromises that they will need to make. Some of these projects will be hard; some of these projects will be expensive. But the only options, if the states do not come up with projects that are good enough, are either further buyback or the powers that revert to the Commonwealth under the Water Act if the plan is not met. I suspect the states do not want either of those two outcomes, but some states may be wondering whether, if their projects do not come up to scratch, they will get away with the parliament agreeing to lowering the environmental standards in the plan. I want to make clear on behalf of the opposition that the answer to that question is no. There will be no lowering of the standards contained within the plan. There is no need for further buyback beyond what is in the plan for this portion of the 650 gigalitres. There is no need for the Commonwealth to exert the powers over the states that are contained within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But those things remain the case only if the states put forward projects that meet the benchmarks. So I urge the states to do so.

I should flag, because I do not want anyone to think that I am misrepresenting the government's position, that I have had nothing from the government that would in any way imply that they want to lower the environmental standards of the plan. I just want the states to be absolutely, clearly on notice and I want state water ministers, when they are going to their treasurers asking for money to pay for these projects, to be fully armed with the knowledge that there is no interest in lowering the environmental standards that are contained within the plan.

In terms of the amount of buyback that that would then mean is required, on the latest information available, of the 2,100 gigalitres that has to be held water, 1,984 gigalitres are already held. There are only 115 gigalitres left to go. That is really close. There is an extraordinary opportunity for the states now, if they want to avoid further buyback and avoid the Commonwealth powers being activated, to put forward good-quality plans. We will then see the money that was put in place for the additional 450 gigalitres up, which was all to be added through improved on-farm infrastructure projects, where the Commonwealth government has been getting very good value for money and where improvements in technology continue to make this a very good outcome for irrigation communities. That money, which was voted by the parliament to be appropriated, all remains available to make sure that the full environmental impact of the 3,200 gigalitres is achieved and that the additional 450 gigalitres that comes towards the end of this entire process also occurs not with additional buyback but through the Commonwealth acquiring additional water, while irrigators have their on-farm infrastructure improved.

I want to pay tribute to a former Victorian state Minister for Water, from the other side of politics, Peter Walsh. There would not have been bipartisan agreement on this issue were it not for the concept of the 650 gigalitres that we are talking about now, with states finding ways to be able to better manage water and as a result being able to meet the environmental objectives without the Commonwealth having to hold that extra 650 gigalitres. It is a good outcome for communities, it is a sane outcome for the environment and it would not have been possible without the constructive and professional policy work that was done by Peter Walsh.

I should also pay tribute at this point to a giant of the river Murray, in particular, and of reform, who is no longer with us. Henry Jones was a great South Australian. One of the great events that many members of parliament attended during the entire negotiation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was when Henry as a professional fisherman brought a tinnie to Parliament House and, out there on the lawn, served us a barbecue of a series of different species that had been caught in the Murray. I asked Henry to be my guest at the National Press Club the day that I announced the plan had been signed into law. He was not well enough to be there at my table that day, and died quite shortly after. But I have no doubt we would still be facing the deadlock that plagued Australia for a century, were it not for the good work of Henry Jones. I send my best wishes to his family.

This all takes us to the situation where the government has brought forward legislation that shows that the bipartisan agreement which has characterised this issue for a long time now continues to hold. The only thing that could place the Commonwealth in any sort of a difficult situation would be if the states failed to come through on their part of the bargain. But I think I have made the position of the Labor Party crystal clear—that we are not for moving, and it is the states' obligation to come up with projects for 650 gigalitres or more that create better ways of managing the water.

I think Hattah Lakes is a good example to provide to the House of the things you can do to manage water and the simple sorts of things that have been done. Hattah Lakes is a beautiful environmental site. I have kayaked there, where you weave your way through the river red gums. But you need a massive amount of water to get an over-bank flow to reach Hattah Lakes. However, when water has been directly piped there, you have been able to get the same environmental outcome by using much less water. Similarly, there are a series of issues around what are called river rules, which go into a level of complexity which fascinates me alone probably, in this room—maybe also a couple of the departmental advisers. So I will not visit those upon the House! But, with the river rules, there are a series of things that can be done that make a fundamental difference to the efficiency with which water is managed.

At this point, for where we are, I want to pay tribute to everyone who has been involved so far. Difficult compromises were made, but we have ended up with something that does one thing that Australia had been incapable of for a century, and that says, 'We have a pathway to ensure that we have a healthy working basin in the Murray-Darling.' I pay tribute to the departmental officials of the Commonwealth and the states for the incredibly complex technical work that has been done for a very long time, and I have no doubt that the service they provided when I was minister is a service they continue to offer to the minister of the day.

We must not miss this opportunity. I am not naive, and I know that bipartisan support on any policy issue is a perilous thing. For those within this chamber who feel that, in their seats, they have made difficult compromises, please understand that there are many people in this chamber who may have a different interest in their electorate and who have a sense that they have made compromises too.

When I was first elected, one of the first things that happened following the election in 2004 was that I heard the first speech of the member for Adelaide, who is in the chamber now, which referred to growing up and sitting along the river Murray. Back then, none of us really expected we would get to the point that we have reached now. The health of the basin on a permanent ongoing basis is in front of us, it is possible and we can deliver it. I simply ask the government to continue to hold its nerve, and I ask the states to deliver on the agreement that had previously been reached so that the plan that was put into law in 2012 can continue to deliver, in Australia, with a healthy working basin.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this bill representing most of the New South Wales' Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers that have been affected both by the Basin Plan and the recent floods. I appreciate the comments of the shadow minister who has responsibility for water in this place. My electorate liked him a lot more than his predecessor and appreciated their opportunity to engage with him. However, they would be very frustrated today to listen to a conversation that talks about environmental targets and environmental responsibility, even though I fully subscribe to that and we all do in the area that I represent. But environmental standards are a complicated issue to come to terms with when you are standing knee-deep in a mosquito-ridden swamp pulling your half-dead sheep out, your crops are ruined and your livelihood is under threat, and then you realise that this is effectively a flood that is not nature but is made by man or, indeed, by releases from the Hume Dam.

I am simplifying what is a complicated issue, and I understand that, but I want to reflect that frustration here in the House today. Everyone I have spoken to along the Murray River in my electorate—they have been very badly affected by these recent floods—have said that they do understand that they live and farm on a flood plain and what that actually means, but I would like to quote one landholder Rob Locke who manages properties along the Lower River Road just west of Tocumwal. He said:

We are trying to work with government and its agencies to explain to them that the situation we are seeing now is very likely to occur more often under the flow targets of the Basin Plan. The first wave of flooding was roughly equivalent to the flows modelled by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in the development of the Basin Plan.

For people to consider that the situation I described—the incursion of floods and the awful result it has on families and farms—is actually what they should expect under an operational Basin Plan is pretty terrifying. As he said:

When Mother Nature brings flood events there is nothing we can do, but when human management of the system leads to damaging flood events it is unacceptable.

He went on to say that it is a shame that locals who understand water management and river systems are not consulted more by the decision makers. We know that in this instance the decision maker is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

I appreciate the efforts the authority is making to engage more with the communities, but, at this stage, it is not working very well. The confidence that I often talk about has been the indicator and the restoration of confidence in the authority would be an enormous sign to everyone that the Basin Plan is working. You cannot be the architect of these things from outside the basin, ignoring the pain that is produced and visited on landholders and farms, and then, in some way, say that their views, their confidence and their involvement is secondary, because it is not. It should be primary, and that is what we are not seeing. As John Lolicato, who I know well down there, says, this is tearing the social fabric of communities apart.

The floods we have seen have affected different parts of the river Murray differently. I convened a meeting on 31 October, attended by Neil Andrew, chair of the authority, David Dreverman, who supervises river management and all of the affected landholders from pretty much the Hume Dam to Yarrawonga section of the river. It is a complicated coordination effort, and it has failed. I have to say that because we cannot stand here and say, 'Oh well, everyone is doing their best.' Of course everyone is doing their best! We are all doing our best too, but the result is, as one comment was made, when somebody rang the SES panicking because their farm was going to be flooded, the SES said, 'Well, we don't even know when those gates are open. Nobody tells us.' And the Bureau of Meteorology forecasts are general and in advance, there is no real-life website where you can go in and say, 'Okay, this is the river height now. This is the expected river height in the next three hours'—because this is how quickly floods move—'What am I going to do about it?'

We know that the people who live and farm on these flood plains are pretty smart at working out water levels and the damage that is done to their property. Their constant refrain was that the water rose so quickly and with so little warning—that the releases from Lake Hume were very slow and then went to very fast very quickly. A diagram of that looks like an exaggerated zigzag. Someone at the meeting that I convened made a very simple point: why couldn't you average out those highs and lows? You would release the same amount of water. It would not be an issue of not releasing the water, and there is a whole separate debate about when you start to release the water and when you start to make air space in a dam. If you release it early, it is not attached to anyone's entitlement and therefore it might effectively reduce an irrigator's entitlement downstream. I know that is a delicate balancing act and that water is effectively owned by people, including the environment. In this case I am pleased that no environmental water caused any floods.

The issue of when you make those releases, whether over a three-week or a three-month period, is vital. What we saw, as I said, was a graph that made these quite exaggerated waves; if that were simply evened out, the same result would be the same. My question to the landholders was: would you prefer if that were the case? And they said, 'Absolutely.' There was an alternative view put by the MDBA: that you would still end up with the same amount of water hanging around for the same amount of time. The response to that was, 'But you wouldn't get the peak of flooding and so you wouldn't have the flooding spread out to as many locations.' For example, the caravan park at Corowa and the River Deck Cafe at Albury were underwater. Small businesses had to walk away, because they did not have the information they needed to make the business decisions that they rely on for their income.

I come back to my main point: it is not good enough; it has to be sorted out. We have to do better in coordinating what is effectively a fairly substantial line-up of agencies. There is WaterNSW, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the SES, landholders, local government and probably more, because it is very much a local issue in the town. If this happens again, and I am sure it will, we need to make that coordination so that people are aware of what water releases are coming. They need some input by saying, for example, 'Perhaps we would like them to be more gradual over a longer period of time, rather than sudden with little warning.'

There is much work to be done to keep the Basin Plan healthy, both in terms of the commitment of landholders and the operational results for the environment. I agree that we need this to be a bipartisan exercise. We also need to be constantly aware that local people are bearing most of the pain. While there are people who have an interest in what goes on in my electorate but do not actually live there and while I am happy to hear their thoughts and respect their passion for environmental flows and healthy rivers—and I want those things too—we are not consulting our local communities enough. We are not giving them enough buy in; we are not allowing them to be part of the resolution of what is an incredibly difficult issue. We cannot accept a situation where we have Basin Plan targets, even if they are aspirational, of 18 megalitres a day at the South Australian border and 48 megalitres a day in these floods, which caused untold damage between the Hume Weir and the border. I know there is also an opportunity for water to come down from the Menindee Lakes. It looks fine from the South Australian border, and I agree with my colleagues in South Australia that we have to keep the river healthy from the South Australian border to the sea—absolutely, no question. But, if in getting the water, we do not have a sophisticated enough model that is capable of predicting how much damage will be caused—on this occasion, caused naturally in part, but in part by the man-made releases from the weir.

If we have to cause that sort of damage on the way down, what are we really doing? We are not doing a lot of good. I have had conversations with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, David Papps—an extremely good guy and I am not speaking on his behalf—but I think he feels some of this frustration. As the manager of the biggest water holder, which is the Commonwealth, he needs some flexibility and some ability to have some say in when and how the water is released. If communities lose confidence, that will be reflected in responses at the Ministerial Council. We want everybody to continue to sit around that table and continue to talk constructively and to stay with this. Events like the flooding that I have described have the real possibility of fracturing that confidence, and that would not be a good thing.

We know that the water buybacks that were initiated by the previous Labor government did a lot of damage. There was about $2.2 billion in buybacks spent by previous governments in poorly targeted ways. We have spent over $1 billion in investing in on-farm infrastructure. So we, the coalition, have put enormous dollars into generating the infrastructure on-farm and in system. It might, for example, be inside the Murrumbidgee irrigation system or Murray irrigation that we realise efficiencies in the system and therefore give farmers every opportunity to run their businesses successfully. That makes it all the more important that the water, which is the key to their survival and their livelihood, be available at the right price, at the right time and that their farming operations are not compromised.

The Liberal and National Parties believe irrigation not only feeds the nation but feeds the world. The contribution that our irrigated agriculture regions make to the prosperity of this nation is enormous—it cannot be understated. My constituents feel a sense of great frustration that the rest of Australia does not appreciate their contribution. A lot of the dialogue about agriculture is about dryland farming which, of course, is just as important, but irrigated agriculture is overlooked in a way that it should not be.

I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has given me the opportunity to speak on the bill and to sum up the discussion. I recognise by the way his intense interest in this issue—his visits to my electorate, the conversations he has had with my communities, for which they are very grateful, and his understanding of everything that I have said.

Water is a precious resource, and the Basin Plan sets out the processes for coordinated and sustainable management of our most important river system, the Murray-Darling Basin. It also sets out long-term average sustainable diversion limits, SDLs, and includes an adjustment mechanism to amend those limits by up to five per cent. The adjustment mechanism provides for the amendment of SDLs based through either supply measure projects that deliver Basin Plan environmental outcomes with less environmental water, or efficiency measure projects that recover more environmental water in ways that deliver neutral or beneficial social and economic outcomes. That is very smart, because of the 23 indicators of catchment health, only one is flow. There is a lot more we can do to make catchments healthy than just look at removing water and allocating it elsewhere. So we will continue to work in partnership with the basin state governments and industry and community stakeholders to deliver balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin. I thank the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.