Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to preserve the integrity of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

Ordinarily, at the end of an MPI, after question time, we get to the end of this debate and just move on to other legislation. Unusually, today, shortly after this MPI finishes, the parliament will have to vote on the exact issue that we will have been debating today. In the Senate, they will be dealing with a motion on whether there should be a judicial inquiry to deal with the allegations which appeared originally on the Four Corners program into water theft and corruption in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin system. If that motion is carried in the Senate, notwithstanding government members voting against it there, when that Senate resolution seeks concurrence every member of this House will have to vote on this issue today. So for those members who say one thing in their electorates in South Australia and a different thing when they come here to Canberra, there will be nowhere to hide in terms of people knowing whether they stand up for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its ethical implementation or whether they are willing to accept the rorts which we saw in that program.

That program made clear that what we saw in that program was not representative of most irrigation districts. I suspect it's not even representative of what happens in that particular district itself. What we saw was extraordinary. What we saw on the Four Corners program was not, as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources described it, like cattle-rustling. We saw a billion litres of water which was pumped down the rivers for the health of the basin—environmental water owned by the Commonwealth taxpayer—being pumped back into the dams of cotton farmers. That's not just ripping off the Australian taxpayer; that's ripping off every irrigator who does the right thing. Anyone who watched the Four Corners program would have seen irrigators themselves being outraged by the rorts that they were seeing.

There are members of parliament here from irrigation districts. They know how angry people were when they saw that program. They know how angry the law-abiding irrigators were when they saw those sorts of rorts. Those members will have to vote on this later today. Think of what sort of community we are talking about. This is the same part of north-western NSW where kids get locked up for shoplifting and where you've got an incarceration rate for young Aboriginal kids that's way off the charts. And yet you see people gloating about being able to potentially steal a billion litres of water.

When allegations like that are made, you need to have a thorough process to be able to get to the bottom of it, and the problem here is that neither a state process on its own nor a federal one is able to do it. The reason we support a judicial inquiry through the COAG process is that there is no other way of being able to get to the bottom of what's happened. New South Wales ICAC are dealing with these allegations, but the moment they hit federal officials there's nothing they can do, because they've only got jurisdiction in New South Wales.

I wrote to the Commonwealth Auditor-General. To their credit, the National Audit Office have decided to undertake an investigation into what's happening, but the moment they hit the state jurisdiction their powers will hit a wall. The minister when these allegations first came out said, 'It's just a matter for the states.' The whole reason we have as national law—mind you, the law itself that underpins the plan was introduced under the Howard government with the man who is now Prime Minister as water minister. Back then I thought we'd got over the threshold that the Murray-Darling Basin would be viewed as a national issue. You can't just say it's a state issue. It might not always happen when too much water gets pumped, but most of the time the water manages to flow across state boundaries. When it flows across state boundaries, people downstream have a right to know that the rules are being kept to. People in irrigation districts, in Victoria, in the southern basin, in New South Wales and in South Australia have a right to know the rules are being kept to.

After saying it was just a matter for the states, feeling a bit of pressure, the Deputy Prime Minister said, 'Well, maybe it's not just for the states, but I still don't want a serious inquiry,' so he got the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to look into it. But the problem with that inquiry is this: they cannot compel witnesses to appear. They cannot provide any immunity or protection for whistleblowers. They cannot subpoena documents. They don't have the powers to be able to get to the bottom of this, but a judicial inquiry through COAG can, and today we will vote on whether or not a judicial inquiry should take place. And be in no doubt: if this House votes no, it will be a decision for those members, particularly those in irrigation districts where people keep to the rules, that they want to turn a blind eye. I don't see how anybody can be proud of their irrigation district and be proud that their people keep to the rules and be willing to say that we're not going to vote for a serious investigation with the powers that we need to deal with the water theft on one of the instances. One of them is of a billion litres of water pumped straight out of the river after the taxpayer has been spending $13 billion to improve the health of the rivers.

We have had for some years now an opportunity for a genuine bipartisan approach to the Murray-Darling Basin. When we had the vote in this parliament, all the members of the Liberal Party voted with the members of the government and most of the members of the National Party voted with us. A couple of the independents, the Green Party and a couple of the National Party members voted against it. We had a massive majority of people committed to delivering a Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But be in no doubt: the plan rests on the integrity of the water market. If the integrity of the water market is not going to be defended by this parliament then it really doesn't matter how much water you set aside for environmental use if you then allow a situation where the environmental water gets pumped straight back up into cotton dams. It doesn't matter how much commitment you make to the good work of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the science-based approach and the improved consultation with communities on their work—consultation which is still not good enough, but it's improving. And the consultation is getting better. But what's the point in doing all of that if we're going to allow a situation where one state government gets rid of and guts so many of their compliance officers, doesn't allow their compliance officers to properly pursue investigations—in fact, gets rid of them immediately after they raise these allegations—and sees situations of a billion litres of water being pumped straight back into a cotton dam?

The parliament today makes a really simple decision. The Senate will go first and then it will come to us. This is not like we've got a little coalition just falling over the line in the Senate. It's not often you go all the way from Senator Bernardi to Senator Hanson-Young—that doesn't happen all that often—but the situation that we have is that everyone except the government members, and maybe a couple of others, will be saying that we need to have a proper inquiry with all the powers. It will come here and people will have to vote. If you care about the health of the rivers, if you care about the Lower Lakes, if you care about the Coorong, if you care about the health of the system, if you want to make sure that the next drought doesn't look like what the last one did, then you've got to make sure there's integrity to the water market. If you care about your irrigation districts, if you believe that the people in your irrigation districts are the ones who keep to the law, then you owe it to them to make sure there is compliance in northern NSW. If you believe what happened in northern NSW was done by a few people who aren't representative of the whole group, then have the sort of compliance for them that we have for shoplifters. We can't have a situation where this parliament will claim to be tough on crime unless the crime involves a wealthy irrigator; where we'll protect taxpayers' money unless it's a plebiscite; where we'll protect taxpayers' money unless it's water dedicated to this reform. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to end what was intractable for a century. We should not miss this opportunity, and we will vote today.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. The Australian government is committed to delivering the Basin Plan in full, on time and to achieve the best possible outcomes for basin communities. In fact, the Basin Plan is on track to do exactly that. This ability to deliver on time and in full was reaffirmed at the 9 August COAG meeting, when first ministers of basin states endorsed the implementation plan.

The plan provides a credible pathway towards securing the triple bottom line outcomes of the Basin Plan and paves the way for collaborative implementation by all basin governments. A key step in the Basin Plan implementation was taken in June this year, with all basin ministers agreeing the final package of sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism and projects, which is expected to fully offset the remaining water recovery gap in the southern basin. At the suggestion of the South Australian minister, Ernst & Young has been appointed to undertake an independent analysis on efficiency measure programs, consistent with the Basin Plan legal requirement to achieve neutral or improved socioeconomic outcomes. Ernst & Young will draw on an expert panel to assist with the analysis, and will report to basin water ministers by December this year. Progress has also been made on settling the Northern basin review, with basin water ministers agreeing in principle to implement new projects in June this year, including the protection of environmental flows. A significant step towards delivering the Basin Plan was also achieved with the accreditation of the Warrego water resources plan. This is the first of 36 water resource plans, to be delivered under the Basin Plan, which will ensure the long-term management of water resources to achieve the enduring bottom line outcomes that we desire.

The Australian government takes allegations of water theft and the water management of the Barwon-Darling Basin very seriously. Irrigators and communities all want to have confidence that the rules that govern water use in the Murray-Darling Basin are being followed. They also need to have confidence in the authorities that implement and administer the rules across the basin. It is vitally important to note that no allegations have been tested. They remain just that: allegations.

I welcome the action that has been taken by the New South Wales government to launch an independent investigation, led by Ken Matthews AO, into the allegations made on Four Cornersless than 24 hours after the Four Corners program was aired. Ken Matthews is a highly respected Commonwealth public servant and former chair and chief executive officer of the National Water Commission. Mr Matthews will be assisted by three expert investigators with experience in both police and ICAC investigations. Mr Matthews's team has been granted full access to departmental documents and systems and has been authorised by the secretary of the NSW Department of Industry to interview any departmental staff required. Submissions from the public will be invited to Mr Matthews's investigation, and a secure email address and phone number have been established for this purpose.

The allegations in the Four Corners report have also been referred to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, an organisation with extensive powers of investigation. I believe there is no member in this House who would consider the powers of the New South Wales ICAC as inadequate to investigate or intervene with regard to the Four Corners allegations. In particular, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the extensive coercive powers of ICAC. It has the powers of a standing royal commission. These include the power to compel the production of documents and other information, the power to compel a public authority or public official to provide information, the power to enter properties occupied by a public authority or public official to inspect and copy documents, the power to obtain search warrants for properties, the power to use surveillance devices and intercept phone calls and the power to compel witnesses to answer questions at compulsory private hearings and public authorities. The member for Watson and members opposite will be fully aware of the powers of ICAC. With some of their comrades, Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, having incurred the wrath of ICAC, they would be aware of ICAC's powers. It is entirely appropriate that the New South Wales government has launched these investigations into matters that directly relate to allegations of breaches of New South Wales state law. It is illogical to argue that state authorities are incapable of investigating and, if necessary, taking to prosecution any breaches of their own state laws. It is illogical.

Allegations of water theft and corruption in the administration of the Barwon-Darling is clearly such a case. In addition to investigations being undertaken in New South Wales specifically into the Barwon-Darling the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and assistant minister Ruston have jointly announced that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will conduct an independent basin-wide review into compliance with state based regulations governing water use.

The Australian National Audit Office is also undertaking an audit into the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in monitoring and payment arrangements under National Partnership Agreements. In view of the extensive reviews and investigations underway, there is no justification for the Commonwealth to initiate a judicial review or royal commission. A judicial review or royal commission would likely take from nine to 12 months, cost millions of dollars and require the cooperation of the New South Wales government and, potentially, other basin states.

I would like to put into context the scale of the allegations being made in the context of the wider Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I can inform the House that the Murray-Darling Basin long-term annual inflows are some 32,553 gigalitres. Average annual flows at the barrages are some 7,218 gigalitres. Total licensed extraction from the Barwon-Darling system, prior to the introduction of the cap in 2006, was 534 gigalitres. The Barwon-Darling basin—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should listen; you might learn something. The Barwon-Darling Basin diversion limit is some 198 gigalitres, and the total local water recovery required under the Basin Plan 2012 is six gigalitres. The total Commonwealth and state water recovery in the Barwon-Darling, as at 30 June 2017, is 32.6 gigalitres; the Barwon-Darling current take for consumptive use is 165.4 gigalitres; and the Barwon-Darling unregulated access A-class licences are 10 gigalitres—10 gigalitres out of a total flow of 32,553 gigalitres. So we can say that the allegations raised in Four Corners relate only to the A-class licences in the Barwon-Darling, which account for some 10 gigalitres out of a total of 32,000 gigalitres.

We on this side of the House understand the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to all the people of the basin states. We understand that water and access to water is the lifeblood of basin communities, both economically and socially and environmentally. We understand that the success of the plan and water holders' rights are dependent on the enforcement of that plan. The investigations already underway are an appropriate response to the allegations that have been aired on Four Corners. I certainly commend the calibre of Mr Matthews and his team in resolving this issue. It's vitally important that any issue of water threat be appropriately investigated. The New South Wales government is acting appropriately, the federal government has acted appropriately, and I certainly believe that it has been a totally appropriate response.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was hard to follow the previous speaker's arguments in his speech, but what I think he was saying was this is not a big deal. Stealing water from the Murray-Darling that was meant to go to the environment, that the taxpayer paid for but that instead was allegedly stolen to go to irrigators is not a big deal! It's only a small issue! It's a side issue! Well, I have news for the previous speaker: this is a serious issue. On this side of the House, we take this seriously: ruining confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan that the member for Watson worked so hard in delivering, working hard with stakeholders and with people all around this country to deliver a once-in-a-century agreement. It is very important for South Australia and very important for confidence. To say that alleged illegal activity is not a big thing is outrageous.

But we shouldn't be surprised, because this has been the attitude of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not in this chamber. When confronted by these serious allegations, he first said, 'Look, this isn't a big issue; it's just a localised issue.' Of course, we know that two nights later he went to the pub, and the truth came out. He said about the Four Corners report:

A couple of nights ago on Four Corners, you know what that's all about? It’s about them trying to take more water off you, trying to create a calamity.

That is the attitude and that is the truth of what this Deputy Prime Minister thinks—the Deputy Prime Minister that is in charge of the Water portfolio. He sees the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the alleged theft of water as part of that plan as just a conspiracy theory to take water off irrigators.

Quite frankly, we know that this Deputy Prime Minister cannot be trusted with the Water portfolio. I've had that view for some time. When he did the dirty deal for Malcolm Turnbull to become Prime Minister, Barnaby demanded Water.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kingston will refer to members by their total.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. When the dirty deal was done between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to take the Water portfolio and ensure that it went out of the Environment and into Agriculture, I was deeply concerned. Some people felt I might have been overreacting and that indeed the Deputy Prime Minister might make a good water minister.

Late last year, we got our first sign that he wanted to walk away from the plan. In fact, in a letter to the minister for the environment and water, the South Australian minister, he made it very, very clear that he did not believe that the extra 450 gigalitres that were to be delivered on top of the plan would ever be delivered. Did he have any discussion with his state colleagues? No. Did he discuss this with the parliament? No. No, this is his own belief that we could not deliver the plan. So that was our first indication that this Deputy Prime Minister was walking away from the plan.

Of course, we also heard in the pub what his true intention was in getting hold of the water portfolio. His true intention was, 'We have taken water,' and I assume that is the National Party, 'to put it back into agriculture so we look after you.' There you go, in his own words, he does not care about restoring the Murray-Darling river to health.

What this Deputy Prime Minister forgets is that downstream it is not just South Australian residents in Adelaide that rely on the Murray, it is irrigating communities down in South Australia as well. If I could give some advice to the Deputy Prime Minister: there is a reason why the National Party is floundering in South Australia, and there is a reason why, when National Party members are elected to the state parliament, they join a Labor cabinet. That is because the federal National Party doesn't care about South Australia. They don't care about the Adelaide residents, they don't care about the environment of South Australia and they certainly don't care about the irrigators of South Australia. If they did, they would stick to the plan—a plan that took a lot of hard effort. The member for Watson does recognise the former Prime Minister John Howard but I want to recognise the member for Watson, who did the hard yards to deliver this plan. We will not stand by while the Deputy Prime Minister tries to walk away from this plan. It is too important. (Time expired)

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

In amongst the towering hysteria from the opposition spokesperson for water, the member for Kingston, in listening to this broadcast one would be forgiven for asking: where is it all coming from? What's happened? Have there been some extraordinary systemic developments in the corridors of power in Canberra?

There has actually been one Four Corners program. I do not blame Four Corners, because they are the media and they do what they do—as we know. What I do blame is the Labor Party, because they are no friends of rural Australia. They are no friends of the farmer and they are no friends of the irrigator. I have to start with one positive for the member for Watson: their limp defence of irrigators. What about your irrigation communities?

Mr Keogh interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Burt is warned!

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

But we know you don't care and that you never cared. We remember when you came into our irrigation communities in 2009, outside the Murray Darling Basin Plan, and you launched the biggest buyback. You talk about northern New South Wales: what about Toorallie Station? What about the extraordinary amount of Commonwealth money that was spent there? I suggest you go and have a look. What will you see? Nothing. Feral animals, no fences, irrigation communities who once depended on that water and local government areas with families and communities completely let down by the actions of previous Labor governments.

I want to make it very clear that where something has been done wrong, it should be corrected. No question. The Deputy Prime Minister said that; every one of my colleagues would say that. Every one of my colleagues would acknowledge that if you break the rules you pay the penalty. But the federal government doesn't run the rivers in New South Wales. We don't do the measuring. We don't do the metering. What about the constitution? Constitutional responsibility has five governments sitting around the table at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council because the states have not given their responsibility to the Commonwealth. We do not control what they do. We work with them in partnership.

This is a political stunt based on a Four Corners program. Nobody on this side of the House has forgotten how Four Corners closed down the pastoral industry in northern Australia and broke the hearts of so many. No-one has forgotten that. I'm not blaming Four Corners, I'm blaming the Labor Party, because it was Julia Gillard, a previous Labor Prime Minister, who took that action. And the member for Watson is not out there in the basin talking to our communities—the member for Murray, the member for Mallee or any of us. He is not talking to us. What he is doing, is that he is sitting in his office. He is making statements like, 'The entire reform is in jeopardy; it's a game changer'. He has even launched on his web site an e-petition: 'Save the Murray-Darling Basin Plan'!

I know he is an intelligent person and I know that he actually realises this has nothing to do with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It's on foot, it's underway and it's happening. This has to do with the possible breaking of rules in a local irrigation system in New South Wales, entirely controlled by the state of New South Wales, with an entirely appropriate response by the New South Wales minister within 24 hours. But what is Labor doing? They are sitting there creating political scares. They never leave their electorates or this building to try and represent rural Australia. It's a shame. A party that claims its roots are under the Dig Tree in Barcaldine and in the shearing sheds of Western Queensland, a party that once said it had a connection with the rural heart, soul and spirit of this country, has completely lost it. What you really need to do, member for Watson, is step out of inner Sydney and come and talk to the irrigators I represent—which you once used to do. They didn't think you are a bad fellow; they thought you were a lot better than your predecessor. But they will not forgive you for what you did. And they also recognise the truth in what we are seeing here right now—that you have confected motions in the Senate, hysteria in the House and a whole lot of nonsense around one program of untested allegations which will be sorted out, confirmed and evaluated, which has had all the appropriate action taken.

If you cared about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, you would give some confidence to that plan today. You would give some confidence to the irrigators that we represent and say to them that we understand that the plan is in all our interests, so we're here doing the hard yards; we're out there working. Reform is difficult. We've got those states around the table. We've got the ministerial council to agree to the sustainable diversion limit projects. We're moving to the next stage. There's really good valuable work done. In one of the remarks that one of your members made you could have noted that, you could have recognised that; and you could have supported farmers, rural Australia and irrigated agriculture, which contributes $15 billion to this country every year. A third of all the agricultural production in Australia is from irrigated agriculture. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me put the importance of this issue in context. The Murray-Darling Basin sustains over two million Australians. It accounts for 14 per cent of Australia's landmass, nearly 20 per cent of our agricultural land, and a third of the nation's food supply. It contains about 40 per cent of all-Australian farms and 65 per cent of all irrigated farms. It's home to over 30,000 wetlands and around 50 Indigenous nations and their burial grounds. That's how important it is. It has all been put at risk by a handful of greedy irrigators and a minister who is not committed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and never was.

South Australians flagged their concerns about the future of the Basin Plan the day the Deputy Prime Minister was handed the water portfolio. Their fears have been validated not only by the Deputy Prime Minister's comments at Shepparton but also because he walked away from the additional 450 gigalitres intended for the Murray-Darling Basin and committed to by this side of politics.

The Basin Plan was agreed on in 2012 and was intended to end 100 years of bickering among the individual states. The importance of the Basin Plan came to a head in 2008 after a decade of drought which highlighted the environmental, social and economic risks to Australia if the basin continued to be mismanaged. Those risks include whole communities being destroyed, farming families going broke, families being torn apart and, sadly, even lives being lost.

As a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia that inquired into the Basin Plan at the end of the drought, I saw firsthand the devastation and heard the personal hardship stories as the committee travelled across the basin. In just the last two weeks, I was in the basin area talking to farmers about their needs. The committee's report was largely adopted. The member for Watson, who sits here today and spoke earlier, brought all of the parties together, after 100 years. Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, the ACT and the federal government all came together to sign off on a plan; finally, there was a plan. But what was exposed by the Four Corners program were both allegations of serious criminal activity and either complicity in those activities or incompetence on the part of the government of the day in New South Wales or of government officials.

Basin water, during a time of water shortage, sells for around $3,000 a megalitre. You can work out for yourself just how much is stolen when a gigalitre of water is taken. It is big dollars. Even worse, what matters is that the downstream farmers are the ones who will be hit the hardest, because, when there is less water in the river system, their allocations are lowered, so their productivity is lowered, their income is lowered and their livelihood is threatened.

The response by the Deputy Prime Minister that the New South Wales authorities and National Audit Office are investigating the matter is grossly inadequate, as the member for Watson has, quite rightly, pointed out. Each of the six parties to the Basin Plan has a stake in the basin, and the basin waters in New South Wales do not belong just to New South Wales. That's why a national judicial inquiry should be held. Only then will Australians know the full extent of the mismanagement of the basin and know about the people that should be held to account for that mismanagement and perhaps the alleged theft.

For South Australians, at a time when the state is bracing itself for the closure of Holden, a threat to the future livelihood of the Riverland growers because the Basin Plan is being undermined is the last thing South Australia needs. Of the four states, South Australia takes the least amount of water from the Murray, but the little that is taken is used very, very productively. Any attempt by this government to sweep away allegations of water theft will only add to the accusations that the Turnbull government is not committed to the Basin Plan, as the minister is not committed to it.

And why is the minister not in the chamber today to defend what are very serious allegations? He is not in the House today to defend them because, quite frankly, he has never been committed to this plan. As we heard from the minister who spoke on his behalf, it seems that the feeble excuse is that it was only a drop in the bucket—or words to that effect—and therefore it doesn't matter. If that's the approach that this government takes to the serious matter of theft, then God help the people of Australia. This is a serious matter, and only a judicial inquiry will get to the bottom of it.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I'm now the member for Broad! So I've got a seat named after me. This discussion has been motivated by a Four Corners program. Let's just reflect on that, because there was once a government that had a kneejerk reaction to a Four Corners program. I was the leader of the Victorian Farmers Federation at the time, and I remember talking to agriculture minister Joe Ludwig, who, I think, wrongly got blamed. He was hung out to dry by Gillard, the Prime Minister at the time. So we are not going to have a kneejerk reaction to a Four Corners program. The first thing we can take from this discussion is that that is the difference that separates us from them. We are making decisions to govern the country; they are reacting to TV stories. That said, we need to think through the water issues.

I do have some sympathy for the member for Watson, the Manager of Opposition Business. I know: our love is united! But I watched you have to clean up the mess made by the worst water minister Australia ever saw, and that was Penny Wong—the worst water minister Australia ever saw. She destroyed confidence, she smashed the—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to members of this House and the other one by their correct titles.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Penny Wong destroyed the viability of our irrigation bodies and she ripped up irrigation agriculture. It has taken us five years to restore confidence. As VFF President I listened to the then environment and water minister—now the Manager of Opposition Business—copping all the flak. In some regards, he took a lot of heat out of the debate, and I commend him for that. He had to sit on his hands and listen to the venting of anger about the terrible management by the water minister before him. But I've got to say he probably sat on his hands a little bit too long; there are a few things I would have liked to have seen you deliver.

But they were delivered by Barnaby Joyce, who was shadow water minister and then became Minister for Agriculture in the new government. He delivered $103 million of irrigation infrastructure to give confidence back to the irrigators in my patch. He delivered tax deductibility status for people who wanted on-farm irrigation—so, drip tape irrigation. With Andrew Robb, he delivered the free trade agreements, and they also put a cap of 1,500 gigalitres of maximum buyback. We put confidence back into water, so I refuse to get lectured from the other side of the parliament about how to manage water. We have done stuff that actually has to happen.

There are things that need to take place. We have to have confidence in the irrigation industry. We have to have confidence in the environmental management. We have to have confidence in the community. Without those things, you cannot encourage people to put modern irrigation on their own farm. If they think their water's going to be taken away, they're not going to put new infrastructure in.

Confidence means there has to be integrity in metering. Confidence means there has to be monitoring of metering—they must be working. Confidence means that there has to be prosecution for those who aren't upholding their obligations under the law. The law does have a level of compliance around it. The New South Wales compliance regime is strict. There is currently an investigation, which I think is the appropriate current investigation, which is answerable to COAG, to come up with the conclusions about whether their regulation regime is being carried out.

But I am very reluctant to sit here as a local member and listen to the rhetoric from that side and think that I could support a judicial inquiry into this—because this is the bill that you're going to try and put to us, and then this is the thing you're going to try and roll out in our own media to say that we haven't done it. The reason for that—

Mr Burke interjecting—

A good political game, I get it. But the reason for that is that the one thing that people must have at the moment is a confidence that the government has got this under control, that the COAG is working, that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan allows investment in agriculture and has a cap on water and that the water is not going to all be taken to downstream users in South Australia. So it disappoints me that many of your speakers on this debate are only South Australians.

There must be some more things done on the water market, which I think need to be addressed. We do need to remove speculators out of the water market. You must have a legitimate reason. In my mind, if you want to buy water, you must have a legitimate use for it. I think you should have to nominate an extraction point for when you purchase temporary water. I think that, at the heart of the basin, we should have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority sitting in Wentworth, where the Murray and Darling join, so that irrigators stand next to river operators while they watch their children play sport.

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

Yes, South Australians have spoken on this side because we know how important this issue is. As South Australian MPs we understand full well the importance and seriousness of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is astonishing to sit here as a South Australian—and there are other South Australians on the other side of the House who will be judged on this issue. We saw the Murray Mouth only a few years ago—and the Murray Mouth is not far from Adelaide; it's only an hour's drive; I have relatives there, and I travel there regularly—and you could see dry sand, no water, dead fish and the environment crumbling before your eyes. That is what the sights were a few years ago when we had the drought. To hear the other side try and wash this away, say it's not a big issue and talk about this being a minor issue is astonishing.

As we heard the member for Watson say earlier, the integrity of the water market is essential to ensure that this plan works. The integrity of the water market is the No.1 issue that is of concern, because if you have no integrity in that water market—as we saw in the allegations on Four Corners, where water is being pumped up, taken out of the system and pumped further up—then the whole thing collapses. We need to get to the bottom of this, and the only way to do it is through a judicial inquiry.

It's okay for the government to hold a royal commission into unions for political reasons—and that's all it was—but not for such an important issue, which is not even a political issue! It goes across political divides. This is about the integrity of the river, the environment and the assurance that our fruit growers, people and industries on the river have enough water to survive. We are taking water out from one end and pumping it into the other end. The other end will do okay, but what happens to the people in South Australia, like those in the Riverland, where we depend on their grapes, on their fruit—on a whole bunch of things that we export?

What happens to the fisheries further down the river? What happens to those people? If there is no integrity—

Mr Pasin interjecting—

The member for Barker may want to interject, but his community in the Riverland is dependent on a water market that is integral to them. They need to know, having given up water years ago when there were buybacks, that the integrity of this is 100 per cent, and the way to do it is through this judicial inquiry.

We're located at the end of the river system and therefore very heavily affected. We all cheered when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed to by the basin governments in 2012, led by my colleague the then water and environment minister, the member for Watson. The plan ensured delivery of the environmental equivalent of returning those gigalitres to the basin. What we see now is a minister for water who not that long ago said that he did not agree with the 450 gigalitres going to the environment. This was an integral part of this Basin Plan. It was absolutely integral to it so that we have water when we have tough times, when we have droughts—and droughts will come again. That 450 gigalitres is integral to ensure that we keep the sustainability of the river going. It's not rocket science; it's pretty simple. So to have members try to wipe their hands of this and say, 'It's a state issue; we're not interested,' or leave it up to the states is so wrong.

In fact, even other countries are looking to copy the strategy that we have used on this plan. For example, in the United States, California, which has been facing its worst drought, has praised our measures and policies. It has praised the broad community involvement across the sectors and the clear, credible communication about the drought and the reasoning for the response that maximises public participation and support as much as possible. That means that people will have their say and they all agree.

Therefore, when we hear stories like the one we heard on Four Corners, where people are making allegations that the water was coming out and being pumped further up for cotton, it absolutely is unfair on everyone else that lives on that river or depends on that river for their livelihood and their industries from there downwards. South Australia certainly is at that bottom end.

I have to say that the way to fix it, if you really care about it and really are interested in ensuring that we have water integrity in this country, is through a judicial inquiry. Every member, as the member for Watson said, will have the opportunity in the coming days to vote on that. (Time expired)

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The grandstanding on this issue has been herculean. The very people who killed river communities by going through industrial-size buybacks are the people that now want to lecture us about the health of river communities. Buybacks kill communities, and you know it.

What I will say is this. There's something I haven't said before, but I'll say it here. I don't often come to these things, but I'll concede that I, and indeed this nation, are the beneficiaries of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement that the member for Watson negotiated, and he deserves credit for it.

Like so many in the nation, I was appalled at the very serious allegations of theft and corruption in New South Wales raised by the program. But my background was in the criminal law, and an allegation is just that: an allegation. I'm adamant that these allegations must be fully investigated and resolved as quickly as possible, to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. But what we haven't heard in here yet is that there are currently four investigations and inquiries underway. The first is the New South Wales independent review led by Ken Matthews, announced on 26 July. I trust those opposite aren't casting any aspersions on Ken Matthews. The second is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's review of compliance with the state-based regulations governing water use, announced by the Prime Minister on 30 July. The third is the Australian National Audit Office review into the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources' efforts in monitoring water use in New South Wales. And the fourth is referral to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, ICAC. The last of those has powers similar to a standing royal commission. We have seen premiers resign and former ministers jailed as a result of ICAC's activities. Nevertheless, should all these investigations failed to satisfactorily resolve the allegations, I'll be on the front line calling for more action.

Before I get off the topic about ICAC, as I'm from South Australia could I just point out that the New South Wales ICAC isn't like Jay Weatherill's version of an ICAC, where the investigations and the hearings are held in secret. The New South Wales ICAC will be an open and transparent process, and I congratulate it for that.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingston has had her turn.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll go back to what I started with: the herculean grandstanding. I take my lead from very serious people in the Riverland. Take, for example, Gavin McMahon, who not only runs the Central Irrigation Trust but is also chair of the National Irrigators Council—he lives right down the bottom end of the river—and Chris Byrne, who heads up Riverland Wine. Do you know what they're saying to me? They've gone to print on this, as well. They're urging caution against the sort of hysterical overreaction we've seen from Labor. I'll add in others—Xenophon—who have said as much, noting that the Murray-Darling Basin is working and that we need to allow these authorities to undertake their investigations.

If those who live in Adelaide were so seriously concerned about the river, particularly those in the Labor Party, they'd help me with some things. They'd help me by building an interconnector between lakes Albert and Alexandrina.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

No, I'm sorry, Jay Weatherill has to put the infrastructure request to us

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingston is warned.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's Ian Hunter who's running a million miles an hour. Before there's any feigned concern for the fishermen in the Coorong, why don't we get Jay to allow us to undertake a sustainable cull of the New Zealand fur seals that are driving these people to consider suicide. That's the point we're at.

There are plenty of people who want to talk about ripping another 450 gigalitres out of the Riverland, indeed, out of the basin. That means 32 gigalitres from the Riverland. You come with me and tell the people of Renmark their whole irrigation district can go. The final comment goes to the member for O'Connor, who made this point to me as we walked into the chamber: do you know what the people of the Riverland—because I've told him before—are really scared about? They're scared that there's plenty of water. They just can't afford to pump it because of what the South Australian government has done to electricity prices. That's what they're scared about. That's what keeps them up at night. Shame on you! (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It took a drought and the imminent collapse of a national river system to force us to put aside our parochial state interests to create the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—a national plan; a national agreement. My parliamentary colleague Senator Nick Xenophon—in particular, but also others—is right, when he says that if there is any evidence of a state trying to sabotage this intergovernmental agreement and we fail to act decisively then it is an attack on what our federation stands for.

Back in November last year, when there was a suggestion of cuts to the environmental flows, there was such community anger that the Nick Xenophon Team had to stand up for downstream communities. We successfully advocated for measures that elevated the Basin Plan to the level of the Prime Minister and first ministers at COAG and then put the plan through the forensic scrutiny of Senate estimates. This was designed to provide additional transparency to ensure the Basin Plan would be delivered as promised. Although this was a step in the right direction, it is now clear that the level of transparency achieved through Senate estimates is simply not enough. We are convinced that the only way that the outcomes of the Basin Plan can be ensured is for the state and federal governments to open the books—the accounting and the modelling—for all to see. Only then will the Australian public, and particularly the communities along the river, have confidence in their governments that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be truly delivered on time and in full.

The National Water Commission was originally given the mandate of being an independent auditor of Murray-Darling Basin water accounting and standards. The function of the commission was diminished and folded into the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. These water accounting and standard auditing functions, as they relate to the Basin Plan must once again be placed in the hands of an independent agency that sits outside of the control of the department and, indeed, the federal minister. Such independence must be accompanied by annual audits of expenditure of public funds and annual independent reviews of the Basin Plan progress.

But lastly, and critically, nothing less than a judicial inquiry with all the powers of a royal commission is needed to resolve the allegations of widespread rorting of water entitlements, water meter tampering, collusion of public servants, obstruction of water enforcement investigations, and alleged secret deals between government and large irrigators. This is theft. These are allegations that a billion litres of water that belongs to our nation, paid for by taxpayers, has been stolen. The communities in my own electorate at the very end of the river Murray feel angry and betrayed. Communities along the entire length of the River Murray have the right to ask: what is happening to our water? And they deserve an honest response. They have yet to receive that response. We need genuine transparency and accountability, so that if anyone is stealing from the Basin Plan, we can have the confidence they will be properly addressed. South Australian state Liberal parties are outraged and support the call for a full judicial inquiry. However, the silence from the South Australian federal Liberal colleagues of theirs has been deafening.

We have just heard from the member for Barker—the other South Australian in this chamber that should be representing local communities along the River Murray in South Australia—that he is appalled by the allegations and yet he does not support a judicial inquiry. How can that be? Again today, the member for Barker talked about long-nosed fur seals in the Coorong, which he did yesterday—interrupting me in my speech about the Coorong—but he refuses to say that he believes this should go to an inquiry with royal commission powers. How must South Australians at Waikerie, at Loxton, in the Coorong, at Mannum and at Murray Bridge feel to hear that their federal member will not support a judicial review? They must feel abandoned by their federal member and by their federal government. The people from Mayo and from the neighbouring electorate of Barker and elsewhere stop me in the streets and say, 'Please fight for the river. Do not give up on a judicial inquiry. Do not give up on us.' And we won't, because water rights in the river Murray can be traded but the river itself belongs to all Australians.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's very clear in water policy within the Murray-Darling Basin that it's the Labor Party that have absolutely no credibility in this issue. When we are trying to find a balance between environmental outcomes and productive agriculture, it's the Labor Party that have no understanding of the balance. It's the Labor Party that have been unable to identify what are the environmental outcomes that they want to achieve? It's the Labor Party and their leadership that have said: we need an amount of water; we do not care where the water comes from; we just need an amount of water.

Some of the environmental outcomes that are listed in the plan are things those opposite like. They want to keep the Murray mouth open, which is something that is totally unnatural—naturally closed up and opened up and closed up and opened up with the rainfall.

Mr Burke interjecting—

You come into my patch. Those opposite also want to keep Alexandrina and Albert fresh and other places. They are totally unnatural objectives that are in their environmental outcomes. Come into my patch and explain to the irrigators that have lost thousands of gigalitres. You are not welcome back, by the way, Mr Burke. The member for Watson is not welcome back.

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

You just told me to come back. Are you arguing with me?

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would love you to come in. I was also at the hotel in Shepparton last week when the Deputy Prime Minister was there. Unfortunately the ABC report just happened to miss the first part of his address to the crowd, where he said that if you are stealing anything, you need to be dealt with by the full force of the law. He said that whether you're stealing sheep or you're stealing cattle, whether you're stealing petrol in drive-aways or you're stealing water, you need to be dealt with appropriately. But unfortunately the reporters just happened to leave that little bit out, and they happened to concentrate on the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to talk to the people about the quantum of water that we're actually dealing with here. As Minister Hartsuyker put this together, it's 32,000 gigalitres in the entire basin. There is 32,000 gigalitres in the entire basin; 7,000 actually rush over the barrages out to sea. We're talking about class A water in the Barwon area of 10 gigs. We're talking about allegations of less than one half of one gig.

We don't know whether those allegations are true or not, but here are the Labor Party grandstanding to their hearts' desire, and they're accusing us of having a lack of integrity. This is one of the greatest witch-hunts of all time. There is no integrity in the Labor Party when it comes to trying to find an accurate balance of environmental water and productive agricultural water. It simply doesn't come into the equation—don't worry!

Here we are being lectured about water in the Murray-Darling Basin by a member whose electorate is in the centre of Sydney. Everyone else in the basin who wants to talk about water comes from South Australia. They themselves are not prepared to give up one more drop of water. To them, to deliver 450 gigalitres of up water for this last-minute deal that was put into the Murray-Darling Basin—if it can be proven that there's not going to be any social or economic detriment to the communities or to the individuals; if you can prove all that. The Minister for Water and the River Murray from South Australia knows that he cannot deliver any more water. His issues are no different to those of the people in my electorate, and they know that they cannot deliver any. They're the ones that have sacrificed all the water so far. They're the ones that have made the sacrifices. The irrigators and whole communities have made the sacrifices so far to make the Murray-Darling Basin Plan get to the stage where it is nearly complete.

I think Senator Leyonhjelm had a good line. He had a fantastic description of South Australian members of parliament. To think that there's another 450 gigalitres of water just sitting out there that can be flushed down the river without any serious detriment, personal hardship or community hardship, you've got to be living somewhere like Sydney or Adelaide. I just want to make sure that there is ample confidence that the independent regulators of the basin are going to be doing their job. They're already prosecuting hundreds of people for suspected breaches, and they will continue to do that work.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has concluded.