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

I've been an optimistic sort of guy since I've come to this place, and I've tried to share that around as much as I can. But I do have to report that today is a very depressing day for my electorate of Nicholls. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan legislation that was presented this morning has sent a lot of fear and shock through my community, and there's concern about the main economic driver of my entire community, which is irrigation water.

Just to go back a little bit, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was supported by all sides of government. I think most right-minded people agree with the concept of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in that you take some water away from irrigation licence and you have it there for the Commonwealth to give to people who'll be able to use it for environmental purposes. So far, well over 2,000 gigalitres has been taken away from irrigation licence. That has damaged the economy in basin communities, and it has damaged people's ability to farm. But it has been done in good faith to try to get some better environmental outcomes. The way that the then Labor Party started to do it, which was just to buy it wholesale from farmers, caused incredible distress and economic damage around basin communities. So the coalition came up with a better way of doing it, called 'on-farm irrigation efficiency'. That's where, instead of just selling the water, the farmer gives the water to the government for money, which the farmer must then use for an irrigation upgrade, whether it be a centre pivot, improved flood irrigation or the industry I used to work in, which was drip irrigation, using Israeli technology to get the most efficient use. That was a better way of getting water back.

The plan had an extra component called 'the 450 gigalitre upwater'. That was a deal done with South Australia at the last minute to say that South Australia could have some extra water, 450 gigalitres, which is huge. It equates to the annual irrigation of 50,000 to 75,000 hectares of orchard. Crucially, that 450 gigalitres involved a caveat that it could not be taken if it would be socioeconomically damaging to basin communities. It had to be socioeconomically positive or neutral. That was a very important and very well understood part of that extra 450 gigalitres. My understanding of the word and the term 'socioeconomic' means it relates to the society and the economy. Taking that water away damages my society in the electorate of Nicholls and damages the economy in the electorate of Nicholls. Each megalitre of that water is used to grow something that we should be proud of, whether it's apples, pears, peaches or dairy products, and it is so valuable because, when those things are grown, people get employed—not just the farmer who grows the produce but the people who are involved in getting that produce to market and processing the produce. It could be turning milk into cheese, which is done in so many factories across my electorate. It includes people who transport that produce around Australia and, indeed, to the Port of Melbourne so it can go to be enjoyed, be purchased and earn great money for Australia from South-East Asian nations. All of this has an amazing value. We talk about the cost of water, but we don't talk about the value of what it produces. There's that side of it, the socioeconomic impact. I think that the new legislation disregarding the socioeconomic impact test is a retrograde step, and, as I said, it's having a profound, depressing effect on my electorate and my community.

But there's another problem with it: trying to push that much water down the river system—particularly whatever proportion might come from the Eildon Weir, through the Goulburn, through the Barmah Choke and down the Murray towards South Australia—would have a negative environmental impact, because the river would have to run too high at the wrong time of the year and damage the bank. I've been told this by scientists and people at the catchment management authority who are responsible for trying to improve the vegetation along the bank. So, in so many ways, this is such a damaging piece of legislation, and those who have proposed it should be ashamed. (Time expired)