Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the October 2022 budget contained an undisclosed amount intended for water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin, and that confirmation of the Government's intention to recommence buybacks has already had an impact on the water market;

(b) the country's largest water broker, Adelaide-based Waterfind, issued and then withdrew, an expression of interest for Commonwealth buybacks;

(c) water entitlement holders have withdrawn from the market to wait for the expected premium when the Government enters the market;

(d) a 2018 agreement reached by Australia's water ministers guarantees that positive, or neutral, socio-economic outcomes must be demonstrated for approval of any further recovery of Murray-Darling Basin environmental water;

(e) the Government is ignoring expert reports and is pursuing a timeline for completion of the Murray-Darling Basin plan and buybacks which will cause economic and social harm in Basin communities; and

(f) the Government is ignoring former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's stated position on the additional 450 gigalitres when she announced with the then Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, that it would only be recovered via water recovery projects that minimise the impact on communities, to ensure there is no social and economic downside for communities;

(2) acknowledges that Murray-Darling Basin communities have already done the heavy lifting on the recovery of water for the environment and any further recovery should be done in a manner that does not deliver more social and economic harm to those communities; and

(3) calls on the Government to extend the timeline for completion of the Murray-Darling Basin plan and work with Basin communities on projects to recover further water for the environment in a manner that has a neutral or positive socio-economic impact.

The Labor government's current approach to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan poses an existential crisis to what has been one of the great food bowls of Australia. Water buybacks are hanging over basin communities, including those in the Goulburn Valley, in my electorate, like the sword of Damocles. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has many flaws in planning and execution, but there has been a general acknowledgement that the ability to use some water for environmental purposes is a good thing. At huge economic and social cost, basin communities have had recovered—and that means taken away—over 2,000 gigalitres of our most vital and precious economic resource, water for irrigation.

When water leaves an area, so does the economy that that water creates. If a farmer sells a water licence back to the government, the farmer may well be compensated, but the milk or fruit that the farmer once grew grows no longer, and the employed in the supply chain that gets the product to the consumer is no longer employed, and our nation is poorer in so many ways. But, we have copped it. Two thousand gigalitres have already been lost to these basin communities. What next? There was a welcome addition to the plan that said that up to 650 gigalitres of this water could stay as productive irrigation licence, so long as equivalent savings could be found in environmental efficiency projects. Some of these projects have been delivered, to great positive effect, but the states need more time to develop and put together the rest.

Question 1 is: will federal Labor extend the time for these worthwhile environmental projects or just say, 'the computer says no,' and adhere slavishly to an artificial time line of 2024? Do they care about people and the environment or do they care about politics? Also, when Labor signed the plan into law, there was a political add on—450 gigalitres of extra water, on top of what has already been taken, could be taken from productive use and sent downstream. But there is an important caveat in that legislation. It can only be taken if it would have a 'neutral or improved socioeconomic outcomes' on the basin communities.

Some in this place have tried to argue that, as long as the water licence holder is paid, the socioeconomic impact is neutral. But to paraphrase a former Labor PM on another issue last week—because I have a brain—I understand that any further removal of water will have devastating effects on basin communities: economic destruction, significantly reduced production and damaged export markets. That's the exact opposite of socioeconomic neutrality. There is also strong evidence that trying to push this amount of extra water down the river system will have terrible environmental impacts.

People in the Goulburn Valley pose this question to me: 'Sam, we work so hard. We grow cheap, clean and healthy food for the nation. We've created export markets that benefit so many people, creating wealth and jobs. Why do they hate us so much? Why would they jeopardise our future by taking away more water when they know it would hurt us? They don't understand the environment here, they don't understand our economy, and they make no effort. Why won't they acknowledge that the deal was that extra water could be taken only if it didn't damage our communities? Why don't they understand that a deal is a deal?' That's not me talking; that's people in my electorate talking. I'm at a loss.

You come up here with a spirit of goodwill and wanting to work together to achieve for our nation. But when you see the sort of attitude that is being driven by the Minister for the Environment and Water, threatening entire regions and industries, and therefore people, it is really, really hard. The government needs to re-evaluate its entire approach to the rolling out of the final stages of this reform.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Nicholls regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I'm from South Australia as, I note, are you, Deputy Speaker Sharkie. We are at the bottom of the Murray-Darling system, and while the Murray does not flow through Boothby, it is important to Boothby residents and more broadly to all South Australians. The River Murray is the lifeblood of the state, providing essential water for irrigation, industry, domestic and recreational use and our precious wetlands and floodplains. The Murray provides up to 80 per cent of Adelaide's domestic water supply, and it's essential to the important environmental wetlands of Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and the Coorong. It provides irrigation to much of South Australia's horticultural, viticultural and vegetable crop production through the Riverland and Lower Murray regions.

The key to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is that it requires all states—upstream and downstream—to work together for the betterment of the entire system to ensure the health of this important river system. I understand that this water supply is important upstream, but it is also vitally important downstream. As the mover of this motion notes, when water leaves an environment, communities suffer. That is what South Australia is facing.

The Albanese government is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, because not to deliver the plan is simply not an option. The CSIRO tells us that water flows in the basin are predicted to reduce by 30 per cent by 2050. While we may have had a series of very wet years recently, let us have no doubt that the overall trend is not a healthy one, particularly for South Australia

During last year's election campaign, I was proud to stand with Senator Penny Wong; the then shadow minister for the environment, Terri Butler; and the current Premier and Deputy Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas and Susan Close, to commit to delivering the 450 gigalitres promised to South Australia. It was an issue raised with me constantly on the campaign trail, right up there with the environment generally and climate change. South Australians care, and the health of the Murray-Darling Basin could not be more important.

More than 2.3 million Australians call the basin home, and in South Australia and the area I represent, many thousands more rely on the river system for a whole host of reasons. It produces a whopping $22 billion a year in agricultural production. It is not only essential to feed Australian households but a huge export to the rest of the world. The basin is also worth $11 billion in tourism annually. And it's an environmental marvel. It supports more than 120 waterbird species and 50 native fish species and contains 16 internationally recognised protected wetlands. The impact of a dying basin doesn't bear thinking about economically, environmentally or socially.

When it comes to Murray-Darling Basin policy those opposite are true to form. The fact is they sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan put in place by the previous Labor government. They didn't want the plan delivered, so they didn't. Indeed, the Murray Darling Basin Plan is one of those issues that splits the coalition right down the middle. On one side, you have the Nationals from the eastern states. Basically, they pretend that the parts of the plan they don't like, which just happen to be the parts that are good for South Australia, are optional. Shadow water minister Perin Davey called the 450-gigalitre target an upper limit, suggesting only 62 gigalitres of water was needed for South Australia. In June last year, Senator McKenzie told the Senate the additional 450 gigalitres promised to South Australia was never guaranteed, and on 1 August, she tweeted, 'The 450 gigalitres is off the table.' This is while some of my fellow representatives from South Australia who represent the Liberal Party do their best to look serious and say that the coalition is committed to delivering the plan that we need in South Australia. Who are we to believe? We don't know where they stand on delivering the 450 gigalitres for South Australia, but we know where the Albanese government stands.

As with so many other policy areas, this government is getting to work cleaning up the mess left by those opposite. This government is funding infrastructure projects. We're buying water and accrediting state water resource plans so they can be properly policed. We are cracking down on cowboys in the water market, investing in updated science and working with First Nations people—whose knowledge of the system has been ignored for too long.

We have already delivered more water towards the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water than the coalition did in nine years. We shouldn't have to convince those opposite of the importance of the plan, but it appears we do. At its heart it's about fairly sharing water in the river system. (Time expired)

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

EPROUD (—) (): Can I firstly acknowledge the motion put by the member for Nicholls—the genuine intent about the unnecessary trauma that this new government is placing on basin communities and the uncertainty that they've brought into the Murray-Darling Basin and to those communities that, as the member for Nicholls quite clearly articulated, have taken the pain.

Let me give a lesson to the member for Boothby—who I appreciate is new to this place and might only be talking off the Labor Party talking points—of the history of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the history of what the coalition was able to achieve. I can say that with authority as a former water minister. Can I tell you—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Maranoa please stop? Members, the member for Maranoa has a right to be heard in silence.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me give a history lesson. While this was the Labor Party's Murray-Darling Basin Plan, when I became the water minister I took an opportunity to reach out for some bipartisanship with the member for Watson. I'm on the record in Hansard for acknowledging the constructive way that we worked together, because we delivered the northern basin review and we delivered the sustainable diversion limits. When we talk about the fact that we have tried to tear this apart and tear away at the stakeholders of this, let me tell you that the other great achievement that the coalition was able to put in place when I was water minister was an agreement on the additional 450 neutrality and social economic tests.

Let me give those opposite more history, which is that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is 2,750 gigalitres. We have recovered 80 per cent of that. All that the basin communities are asking for is the certainty to allow the infrastructure projects to deliver that water back to the environment through infrastructure and not through water buybacks. That is the plan which Labor put in place. That is the plan which I respected, as the water minister, and made sure that we worked with the states to ensure they were able to be given the time to deliver that water back to the environment through infrastructure, not through buybacks.

Let me tell you, buybacks rip away communities. It's not the farmers you have to worry about. They put the money in their pocket and they go away. It's the communities that are left there to support them—it's the machinery dealer, it's the local pump shop, it's the local cafe and it's the local hairdresser. They are the real human toll of what this plan would be, particularly if this government will not give certainty to the states around allowing them an extension of time to finish those efficiency programs. They haven't been able to do that because of this little thing called COVID. Those opposite might have forgotten about that, but the states are asking for an extension of time to be able to deliver that water back to the environment without ripping the heart out of its local communities. Let me say about Labor's talking points that we don't believe and we haven't achieved anything. I'm proud of my record as water minister. I delivered more than any other water minister in this country. I delivered the northern basin review, the SDLs and the neutrality test, which on that plan is an additional 450 gigalitres.

The plan is 2,750. The 450—which was Labor's plan and they put it in place—came with a caveat of social and economic neutrality. Now what they're saying is that they want to walk away from that for political expedience. Yes, this is complicated, and people in Adelaide probably don't understand the technicalities of this, but the human toll is real. The human toll sits in Shepparton. It sits all the way up into Moree and into my part of the world. Let me give you an example of the human toll on the communities. A 68-year-old man in Dirranbandi, a town that used to have a population of over 1,500 people but went down to about 600 people, was the butcher. That was his superannuation. As soon as this came—and it ripped the guts out of Dirranbandi—this man's business, which was his superannuation, was gone. I held him in my arms as he cried and talked about his future and whether he had a future at all. That is the human toll when people want to play politics and take away the certainty that I had with the member for Watson.

All of a sudden there's a new environment minister from Sydney who doesn't want to play by the same rules and the same intent that we have. The pain that we have taken across these communities and what we have done should be respected. Do not add this trauma. These communities do not deserve that. They have taken the pain. It is time now for some common sense to take hold, to continue on the pathway that we set to preserve these communities and to live up to what this mob, this government, when they implemented this plan, asked to be implemented. Live to those principles. That's all we're saying. The 450 should have a social and economic neutrality test. If they can't provide it, we should wipe it out. That's the simple way in which we should address this. This is bigger than what these politicians on that side are trying to run over basin communities. (Time expired)

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to be standing here today in this chamber with my South Australian colleagues to speak against the motion moved by the member for Nicholls. The Murray-Darling Basin is of critical importance to the state of South Australia, so it's little wonder why the member for Boothby, the member for Makin and the member for Adelaide are here. I can even see the member for Barker in the Chamber too. If he does speak on this motion, it's indeed my hope that he attempts to resist the coalition partners and stand up for his home state, because that's what we are here to do today. We're here to stand up for the Murray-Darling Basin. We're here to stand up for cooperative federalism. There will be no ifs, ands or buts about this. We're here to stand up for South Australia.

It seldom surprises me that the contemporary National Party finds supporting South Australia to be an alien concept. The National Party has not had an elected official in federal or state parliament in South Australia since 2010, and even then the member in question served out the end of her parliamentary career as a minister in a Labor state government—a Minister for the River Murray and Minister for Water Security no less. Nowadays it's akin to putting the proverbial fox in the henhouse—it is, of course, in the state of New South Wales, formerly of the one and only 'Pork Barilaro'. Those days are now behind us. Like many, on Saturday I will be looking at the TV sets to see whether we will bear witness to the formation of a Minns state government in New South Wales—a state government that could join together with the state governments led by Peter Malinauskas and Daniel Andrews and get the plan back on track.

Getting the plan back on track is something sorely needed after years of inaction and sabotage, whether that be by the federal government at the time, a state government or a bad actor along the river system. Those opposite, particularly the Nationals, criticise a plan using the slogan that it put the environment above people. They do so by referencing the environment as some abstract concept malevolently trying to push irrigators along the river out of business. I find this such an astounding hyperbolic way, not to mention an inaccurate way, to describe what the plan are trying to protect and safeguard. Are we not also part of our environments? It is neither a shock nor a surprise to hear those opposite believe the environment is something worth existing in any meaningful way along the basin. Their record on the environment and climate is pretty self-evident, but this time it really is an exercise in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

The environment is 120 different species of waterbird, 50 native fish species, 16 internationally renowned protected wetlands. The environment is $11 billion of revenue through tourism to the regions around the basin each year. Those opposite really would throw the baby out with the bath water without a pause for thought of the quality of the water in that bath at the time. To that end, the environment means that the 2.3 million people who call their own little patch along the Murray-Darling Basin home can have access to clean drinking water. You would not think we would be fighting over whether all Australians deserve clean drinking water, but I guess with those opposite we have hit a new normal that I am still not quite desensitised to yet.

This is why the Albanese Labor government is here to ensure the primacy of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan over whatever the Liberal Party had to sell off to keep the wheels on their top-secret coalition agreement with the Nationals over the course of the past nine years whilst they were in government. I hope the days of hostage diplomacy with the plan are now over. Threatening to walk away from the plan entirely if their demands are not met is a very short-term way of thinking. The member for Watson put forward a very succinct form of reasoning as to why cooperation was key with the basin at the time when he was the water minister in the Gillard government. He noted that for decades policymakers had allowed the Murray-Darling Basin to be governed as though rivers wouldn't respect state boundaries. This rings a great deal of truth, as, no matter what side of the basin you're on, inaction to save it will catch up to us all eventually. It is something we should avoid at all costs.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Murray-Darling Basin is home to 2.6 million people, who rely on the river to generate economic activity, provide local jobs and produce about 40 per cent of Australia's food and fibre. It generates $22 billion of agricultural output every year, which multiplies to around $80 billion up and down the supply chain. This water is vital for basin communities, for their local economies and for our national food security. By taking this water out of productive use, the Labor government is destroying jobs in our regions and adding to cost-of-living pressures for all Australians.

Let's be clear: Labor's policy will result in higher prices for fresh fruit and vegetables. Less water available for production means higher prices for what water remains on the market, and lower production means higher prices in our shops. It beggars belief that, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, Labor would seek to implement policies to effectively place an environmental tax on basic food production. Let's be clear: that's what this policy is, an attack on fruit, nuts, wine grapes, vegetables, rice, cotton, dairy and sugar grown in the food bowl of our nation. When those of us on this side of the chamber were in government, we vowed never to use buybacks to recover environmental water, investing instead in initiatives to improve water-use efficiency and deliver environmental outcomes for the basin with infrastructure projects. It was a win-win. We were maintaining production levels while recovering water for the environment.

Given the trajectory of Labor's water policy, I'm extremely concerned for communities in Barker and the southern basin. Should Labor push ahead with the additional 450 gig from the southern basin and scrap the neutrality test, the loss of 450 gigs from irrigators could lead to more than $500 million in lost agricultural production each year. This is regional jobs we're talking about. It's the difference between seeing Aussie oranges on the supermarket shelves or Californian ones; avocados from Australia or from Mexico. Labor seems hellbent on pursuing an ideological crusade, and it's at the expense of local jobs, local communities and the next generation of irrigators and farmers, who will be priced out of the industry, all the while pushing us into food insecurity. Shame on you!

We've heard a bit from South Australians on the other side in this debate—at one point, in an interjection, all South Australians, but not this one. This one represents the river communities. With the exception of Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie, who represents a small portion of the Murray in South Australia, I represent it. I'm here to tell you that the 450 gigs will not come at zero cost to South Australians. What is the South Australian contribution to the 450 gigs? It's 38¼ gigs. That's just over 10½ per cent of our whole allocation, or, if I want to put it simply, in particular for the member for Spence, who lives at Goolwa: it's the whole of the Renmark irrigation district. He spoke about the Premier of South Australia, who, during the floods, had a penchant to want to visit Renmark. He'd fly up, he'd stand on a levy, he'd shake the hands of a couple of locals and then he'd make an announcement about some grandiose support program which was never delivered. Imagine all of Renmark turned to wasteland.

Of course, it won't happen just in Renmark; it will be spread all along the river corridor. It will mean the infrastructure we use to pump water around our communities, whether it's the Central Irrigation Trust, Renmark Irrigation Trust or the other trusts, will become more and more expensive, and less and less viable. It will mean we'll see, as we saw in previous times, the Swiss cheese effect, where you had productive block, non-productive block, non-productive block, productive block. It will see packing houses close because, unless you're at economies of scale, they just can't operate. Before the member for Makin gets up and says this is about South Australia—and brother I'm with you—have a think about the people in Renmark. Have a think about the people in Loxton. Have a think about the people in Berri. They can't all do what the member for Spence did and leave a river community in Mildura and get a cushy job with the union. Some of them are tied to their land, they have paid capital, they own those properties, it is their superannuation, and you want to pull the rug from under them. Shame on those opposite. Let's achieve this plan in full. Lets do it by providing an extension of time, let's do it in a way that recovers the water for the environment but doesn't do in the farmers in the process. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Nicholls is continuing the campaign initiated by his predecessor in this place to try and do away with the 450 gigalitres of additional water that was agreed to at the time the plan was put in place. I don't criticise him for that. He is stating what he believes his community wants and he has every right to do that. But I also noticed that, along with his National Party colleagues, there was an attempt to effectively do away with the whole plan in the last parliament that was not supported by the Liberal members of the government at the time. It never got up because they did not have the numbers.

Putting that aside, I was part of the committee that went through all the Murray-Darling Basin communities back in 2010 and 2011 which looked at the issues they were confronted with after a decade of drought and at how we could best resolve those issues and secure water for the future. The plan came into effect in 2012 after literally 100 years of bickering between the states. Yes, it did not meet all objectives of all states but it was put together in the best interests of all the states. I say to the member for Nicholls: the 450 gigalitres of additional water that was agreed to at the time, which came up to 3,200 gigalitres, was still in total less than what most of the scientists were saying should be returned to the river system. Nevertheless, that was what we settled on.

The reality is that plan did not rely on emotions and misinformation. It actually relied on the best scientific advice available to the committee at the time. We also took into account future changes relating to climate change, where I understand the CSIRO is saying that, by the 2050, there will be about a 30 per cent deduction of inflows into the river. So if we want security for those communities, we need to plan in advance, because long-term sustainability is going to bring individual and community security right throughout the Basin. I say to the member for Nicholls: I also, like the member for Maranoa, heard first-hand from farmers who, yes, were in tears. I don't dispute that at all, but they were in tears right across the Basin communities. I saw towns that had literally been destroyed because of the lack of water. I don't want to see that again either, and the only way we can guarantee that's not going to happen is to have a secure Murray-Darling Basin that is actually sustainable into the future. Because if it is not sustainable, it's a greater threat, not just to individual communities where water is being sold but to communities right across the Basin itself.

I note members opposite criticise the water buybacks. I did not hear a word of criticism when tens of millions of dollars of water buybacks went to people who were associated with members opposite—I'm sure members opposite know who I'm referring to—and there was not a peep about that. Can I also say in response to one of the issues raised by member for Maranoa about investing in infrastructure projects: my understanding is that the minister has already put that to the states on two occasions and not a single infrastructure project has been put on the table for her to consider. Because if it was, I'm sure she would have done that. So we go back to water buybacks, with water buybacks being the only mechanism left when you know that after nine years you haven't achieved the objective you are looking for. We still have more work to do.

I feel for the people in the Murray-Darling Basin. I also acknowledge its agricultural and tourism value to the nation. I also understand that farmers have put a lot of money into their farms. I get that. Can I say to the members opposite: I have a lot of relatives who are actually in that situation, and I understand that very well, but I also understand that it's in everybody's interest to ensure that we have a sustainable basin into the future. We're seeing that that is not the case right now, even with the fish deaths that are occurring right now and, similarly, what happened four years ago. Again, it's all about bad management of the Murray River system. I'm not particularly criticising anyone, but that's why we need a sustainable Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

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

I think it's time for a bit of history revision in this place. I want to remind the members present that I actually voted for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan when it came through in 2012. I'll take the member for Makin up on his point that the 450 gigalitres of up-water was not part of the plan that was passed; it was a separate deal that was done by the Gillard government leading up to the 2013 election to help marginal seat holders in South Australia. I'm not here to attack South Australia, but it's important that we understand the history of what goes on. I supported the plan—I have always supported the plan—but the 450 gigs was not part of the scientific rigour of the plan. It was a political decision with a figure plucked out of the air to help marginal seat holders leading up to an election. I think it's important that we get that part of the history right.

With regard to the impact of buybacks, the member for Makin mentioned the fish deaths. The Parkes electorate is a third of the Murray-Darling Basin. I am the member in this place who represents more of the basin than anyone else. I was in Menindee five weeks ago in the middle of the flood. Now we have the fish deaths. To try and somehow obtusely link those fish deaths to buybacks or the Basin Plan is ridiculous. The reason the fish are dying out there now is because of the flood. The water has returned from the floodplain, bringing lots of organic material. An unseasonably hot couple of days has caused this organic material to deoxygenate the water, and the fish have died because over the last couple of years the river has been at such a high level that they have bred up to a very high number. This is a natural phenomenon, and no amount of political conversation could've stopped those fish from dying. I might remind people, too: when the fish died last time, in the drought, they died in the deepest waterhole in the Parkes electorate. You could ride a pushbike down the Gwydir, the Namoi, the Macquarie or the Macintyre. They were bone dry!

One thing that's been frustrating through the worst drought that we've had is this misconception that somehow the river went dry because of mismanagement. The river went dry because it stopped raining! The idea that we have a plan that's going to turn the ephemeral nature of the northern basin that I represent into Europe is ridiculous. What we've seen with the drought and with the flood is that Mother Nature is still well and truly in command, and what we're doing with the plan is tinkering around the edges.

In my electorate I have seen indiscriminate buybacks. When Senator Wong purchased water from the Twynam Pastoral Company, from Collymongle Station, the town of Collarenebri lost its major employer and 100 jobs. The cotton gin was dismantled and sold to somewhere else. The town of Warren lost a big proportion of its industry. We saw businesses close down and those towns suffer. When Senator Wong purchased Toorale Station at Bourke, the Bourke Shire lost 10 per cent of its rateable income. Those jobs that were supposed to flow from tourism or other things afterwards just did not happen. Those communities are shuddering and waiting for the next round of buybacks.

We have seen some great success in modernisation and efficiency measures. Indeed, the Macquarie Valley is a classic example, a modernisation project, lining the channels, shrinking back the irrigation system, putting some of the farmers onto stock and domestic water only. It took a big effort by that community and those farmers to do it, but it is now paying off, and they have much more reliability.

I'll finish off by saying that the farmers in my electorate are growing more food and fibre per megalitre of water than anywhere else in the world. The reason they grow cotton is that to grow it in an ephemeral system you can't have permanent plantings in the northern basin. Quite frankly, I am sick of my farmers being demonised as some sort of evil people with regard to management of this plan. (Time expired)

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

I too rise to speak on this very important motion. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has always been about managing and sharing water fairly so that the basin can sustain future generations. What we mean by that is that it has environmental flows, so everyone along the water can benefit—farmers, growers, people who live in cities that depend on the River Murray for drinking water, as we do in Adelaide at times, as well as the environment. Ask any South Australian—and you yourself would know, Madam Deputy Speaker—and they'll tell you exactly why this motion on the Murray Darling Basin Plan is important.

We haven't forgotten the millennium drought. Those of us from South Australia all remember it. I remember going up to the Goolwa lakes, at the River Murray mouth, and you could basically walk across it at one point in time, because the flows had diminished. We haven't forgotten that millennium drought, which devastated communities all along the river, and more so in South Australia. It also devastated industries and the environment. That was from about 2001 to 2009, and it is what led to the plan's coming into effect in 2012. We knew action had to be taken, for the benefit of growers, farmers, industries—for everyone—because without the sustainability of the river there would be no industry, no farms and absolutely no environmental flows

So, we know that the Murray mouth almost closed in 2002. As I said, I remember seeing it myself, seeing the lakes at Goolwa, where there were areas where you could actually walk across, and you could see dead fish. We certainly haven't forgotten the way it was. At the time, when we came into government we negotiated the Murray- Darling Plan and we basically put it into place, but at the time many in this place sabotaged the plan, or they weren't interested in the plan. That's a real pity, because that plan was for the benefit of everyone along the river. As I said—I'll go back to it—it was for the benefit of the farmers, the growers, the environmentalists, the environment, the people who rely on the River Murray, because without an environmental flow there will be no river.

There's no doubt that many in this place still don't want to see this plan delivered. One of the main components of the plan is to return an additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water to the end of the river in South Australia. This was based on scientific evidence. It wasn't just a figure that was pulled out of the air. It wasn't a figure that was just made up. This was scientific evidence. It was the amount of water that was required to ensure the long-term survival of the wetlands and ecology of the river downstream. If the river is not connected to the sea downstream, so that you have environmental flows taking place, the results are potentially catastrophic. Over the last decade environmental water has made a significant difference in keeping the Murray River flowing continuously all the way to the Coorong. Without this additional environmental water there would have been no flow to the Coorong for three of the last eight years. Can you imagine three of the last eight years without having flows coming through that Coorong?

So, keeping the connection open is important, and it's also helped to flush more than three million tonnes of salt out to sea. That's salt in the River Murray, which cannot be good for the growers, for the farmers et cetera. So it's been essential for maintaining water quality in the basin, which is better for those people at the bottom end of the river who can still produce their products, grow their fruit and other products, as we've seen in the riverland. But, of course, I've got to say that, of the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water that was promised, only two were delivered in the coalition's government over that last nine to 10 years—two gigalitres out of the 450. We know that some people are calling the target an upper limit. Well, what is the limit? If that is the upper limit, what's the limit?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have 30 second.

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

We know that this government, the Albanese government, is determined to deliver the plan in full for future generations. We understand how important a healthy river system is for the entire country. More than 2.3 million Australians live along the basin. The basin is home to more than 40 of Australia's First Nations peoples. The Murray-Darling produces $22 billion in agricultural production a year and generates $11 billion in tourism for the Australian economy annually. (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.