Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

These amendments are both opposition and Greens amendments. The government’s position is not only hypocritical but it also stumps me. We are collectively, as a community and as a nation, spending a vast amount of money—and I must say that the Greens agree with spending that money—on buying back water so as to get to a situation where we get as much water as we can back into the system. We have invested over $3 billion in the past to buy back water. We are investing over $6 billion in infrastructure development and in restructuring to try to improve irrigation efficiency, all of which is focused on ensuring that water goes back into the system.

At a time when we are doing all that we can to return water to the Murray-Darling system—when we need every drop of water—Victoria, instead of contributing its share back into the system, seems to think it is acceptable to carve off 75 gigalitres. And that is the water that actually goes into the pipe to Melbourne; it does not include losses to the system through a failure to return water to the groundwater in the system. So in reality we are talking about way over 75 gigalitres. Collectively we somehow think it is okay that 75 gigalitres of water is put in a pipe and taken out of the system to feed Melbourne, which, as has been highlighted in the second reading debate today, chucks 400 gigalitres of water into the bay. It does not make sense.

I heard Senator Feeney in the chamber getting stuck into the opposition, and he did not leave out the Greens. He said I was talking about an additional 75 gigalitres, that it is really only water that is in the system anyway and that it is savings. Everybody else’s savings are going back into the system. The water that is being saved by efficiencies in Victoria should be going back into the Murray-Darling Basin system. The approach that says, ‘We will have efficiencies and, unlike everybody else, whose savings are going back into the system, we will take that water and send it to Victoria because they cannot get their act together in terms of water efficiency, water conservation, recycling and the use of the stormwater that is going out into the bay,’ does not make sense. All that water should be returned to the river.

When the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport was in Adelaide—and I see senators here who represent South Australia, including Senator Wong, on the other side of the chamber—we had a fair old whack at South Australia because Adelaide was not making enough effort to wean itself off the Murray. But at least it had started. While we have one Australian capital city trying to wean itself off, albeit a bit too slowly, we have Victoria trying to put itself right onto the Murray. It does not make sense. It is all very well for the Commonwealth to wash its hands, like Pontius Pilate, and say, ‘We assessed the route of the pipeline to Melbourne and we have put some conditions on that.’ What it did not assess was the impact of taking 75 gigalitres of water out of the basin and piping it down to Melbourne.

The Commonwealth also says, ‘We’re not paying for the pipeline.’ But the Commonwealth is going to pay Victoria a billion-dollar bribe so that it will sign on to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and the IGA. In effect, it is helping to pay for this water because it is paying Victoria a hell of a lot of money to get as yet unspecified returns. The figures that Victoria gave for the potential efficiency savings out of Food Bowl phase 2—because this is Food Bowl phase 1—are back-of-the-envelope calculations about how much water is going to be saved.

I feel I am in the twilight zone again because we are moving amendments with the opposition, which is what we did with the Safe Work Australia legislation. We are moving these amendments with the coalition because we do not believe it is appropriate that that amount of water be taken out of the system and piped down to Melbourne. Not only that, but it became obvious during the inquiry that if this water is to come out of the existing allocation to Victoria then that water will not always be available. Given the variable climate and drought scenarios that increasingly we are facing, this pipeline in fact could sometimes be dry. They are spending an awful lot of money to pipe 75 gigalitres—sometimes 75 gigalitres—of water down to Melbourne.

The Commonwealth has refused to engage with this other than on a very cursory level in terms of the conditions under the environment protection act and the route of the pipe. Not only that, but even before some of the conditions required by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, had been met—for example, an audit of any potential efficiencies carried out by Victoria—and despite the fact that the Victorian Auditor-General has already disputed the so-called water savings, the pipeline has been built. Communities and farmers are being arrested for trying to stop this stupid extraction of water from a system facing crisis. While everybody is trying their hardest to get water back into the river, Victoria is busily taking it out. The communities of the Murray-Darling Basin have an absolute right to be very angry that, while they are making sacrifices and finding savings, their hard work is being undermined by people in Melbourne sucking water out of the system.

We think it is appropriate to make these amendments to stop any new allocations of water from the basin because the basin cannot afford them anymore. The Greens later will be moving an amendment that also seeks to ensure that extraction of water from the basin is gradually further reduced. We know that it is going to take some time, but this amendment specifically deals with new extractions. We commend these amendments to the Senate. If Victoria will not make sensible decisions, it is abundantly clear that the Basin Plan needs to have provisions in place that do not allow further extractions. The Commonwealth needs to take leadership on this issue. There should be no further extractions outside of the basin. It is time to draw the line. In fact, it is way beyond that time; we may already be too late.