Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I suspect you ask too much of Senator Johnston. He is here to tell us why the government is not going to support the motion; I suspect he is not here to tell us the detail of the plan that we would like to know, because only the inquiry would achieve that.

We are concerned with this lack of detail and that, under pressure from the National Party, the Prime Minister’s plan to deal with water overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin and to buy back water entitlements will be diverted or diluted. On Sunday, 28 January Mr Turnbull said:

There might be an area where you buy out the farms, close down a channel because it’s inefficient.

Mr Turnbull is now meekly saying that buying water entitlements would only be a last resort. There is no doubt that overallocation of water licences is a primary source of the current water crisis. If we are to believe the evidence that has been given at estimates, the Department of the Environment and Water Resources is going to establish a view as to what the appropriate cap is for each of the 22 catchments and some of those catchments will have water allocations that exceed this cap. What does one do when that occurs? If you have a cap, that implies you are not going to allow water beyond that amount to be used by those entitled to draw water from the catchment. What do we do? Clearly the government has to find some way to maximise the opportunity to deal with the overallocation of water entitlements, whether it be in some voluntary buyback scheme, entering the market or some other measure.

Those issues certainly have not been clearly addressed by the government. There is a bit of ebbing and flowing by the government on the question of the buying back of water. There are concerns within organisations like the National Farmers Federation about just how that will work and the impact on their constituent members who have water entitlements. Some in this place have asserted views about which industries should be using water and which should not. I have made it pretty plain that from Labor’s point of view it is not a matter of picking which crop farmers grow but it is a matter of managing the water that is available. Labor will not be saying that a particular commodity cannot be irrigated. We believe that ultimately the market will decide that based on the value of water over time. But it is critical that water is returned to the Murray-Darling, and it is also critical that the $10 billion that the Prime Minister announced is used widely and in an accountable fashion.

There is nothing unreasonable in the proposition that this matter be referred to this committee for inquiry. The government might say, ‘You can ask all the questions you like at estimates.’ Certainly, some of these questions can be asked at the estimates hearings, but estimates is not the place where organisations such as the National Farmers Federation or the New South Wales Irrigators Council, the state or territory governments or private individuals can put a view and have that tested by the parliament. An inquiry such as this would be such a vehicle.

This attitude is in absolute contrast to the way members opposite have been keen to establish an inquiry into the building of the Traveston Dam in Queensland—in the context of this, a minor project; although very important to south-east Queensland—but, as I understand it, will not countenance an inquiry into what the government claims will be one of the most important water projects this government has seen. Frankly, by voting against this the government will be showing a great lack of faith in its own project. But we will vote for it.