Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all senators for their contributions to this debate. I want to make a number of points in the time remaining. The first is that we, on this side of the chamber, regard the Water Amendment Bill 2008 as a much needed and long overdue reform. It is a reform that will put the basin on the right footing to face the challenges ahead. It has taken a long time for Australia to get to this point. Some 93 years ago, in 1915, the basin states—New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia—and the Commonwealth signed the River Murray Waters Agreement and established the River Murray Commission. This later became the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, and the resulting governance model required the agreement of all basin jurisdictions before anything could be done by the commission.

These arrangements for decision making about basin water management have remained largely unchanged to this day, and the reality is that the overallocation of water resources that we know exists today, combined with record low inflows and the onset of climate change, were not envisaged at the time that this River Murray Waters Agreement was signed. The final report for the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, which I launched yesterday, is a stark reminder of why we need to act, a stark reminder of the risks and challenges that this basin faces. But it has taken until 2008 for a government to be able to strike the agreement with the basin states that is now before this Senate. So, to those senators who are critical of this, I say they must understand from where it is that we have come and what it is we are seeking to achieve at this time—because the reforms in this bill, which is before the chamber, are needed to ensure that the communities of the Murray-Darling Basin, and the governments which are responsible for that basin, are able to meet these challenges. Those challenges, as identified in the CSIRO study which I launched, are substantial.

The reforms in the bill are needed to ensure the viability of the basin’s water-dependent industries. They are needed to ensure vibrant and productive communities and to ensure the sustainability of the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin. The reforms in the bill reflect a new era of cooperation and collaboration between the Murray-Darling Basin governments for basin-wide water resource management. For the first time in history we are recognising, as Senator Heffernan said, that rivers run across state borders, and we are seeking to manage the basin on this basis. This has followed on from an important series of negotiations between the then new Labor government and the basin states. Senators will recall that the first major step was in March 2008. Some four months after being elected, we achieved a memorandum of understanding on Murray-Darling Basin reform signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland and the Chief Minister of the ACT. And, as we said we would, we achieved an intergovernmental agreement at the subsequent COAG meeting—also signed by first ministers—which grounds the legislation before the parliament today.

It is important to pause and recollect that this has never actually been achieved by any previous federal government in the nation’s history. An arrangement to manage the Murray-Darling Basin was promised by Prime Minister Howard in, I think, January 2007, but it was never delivered. The reforms which are before the chamber have only been possible because basin states have been willing to refer powers to the Commonwealth under the Constitution. This, again, was not achieved by past governments. It was something that I think the current Leader of the Opposition, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Turnbull, wanted but was never successful in delivering.

The bill before the chamber establishes a single body to manage the basin and transfers the current powers and functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It also enables the Basin Plan, which the authority is charged with developing, to provide arrangements for critical human water needs as well as the strengthening of the ACCC by extending the application of the water market rules and water charge rules.

What has occurred to enable the government to bring legislation into this place is that we have seen bills referring power to the Commonwealth, consistent with the intergovernmental agreement to which I have referred, having passed the New South Wales, Queensland and South Australian parliaments. The same legislation has passed the legislative assembly in Victoria and is to be debated in the legislative council on 2 December. Upon passage of the legislation through that chamber, all referrals will be in place to enable the Commonwealth government to assume the referred powers. I wish to record the acknowledgement and thanks of this side of the chamber to the governments and the parliaments of the basin states for acting promptly in addressing the referral of their powers. We look forward to the finalisation of the referral by the Victorian parliament.

What more does this bill do? This bill delivers on our election commitment. Before the election, we said a range of things in relation to water, and we are delivering on them. This delivers on our election commitment to bring the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission together as a single body. The bill ensures that there will be a single body for overseeing the water resource planning in the Murray-Darling Basin, an authority that will be an independent expert agency established by the Commonwealth with the powers and functions necessary to ensure that the basin’s water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way—again, something that  has never occurred before.

A key role for the independent expert authority is the preparation of a whole-of-basin plan in the context of clear accountability to the Commonwealth minister. While the ministerial council of basin governments will provide advice on the plan to ensure it is the best possible plan, ultimately the decision in relation to the plan under the bill rests with the Commonwealth minister. The government’s intention is that the first Basin Plan will be finalised in early 2011.

The Basin Plan enables the national interest to be put first by providing new sustainable diversion limits on water use, taking account of future climate change and addressing a legacy of past overallocation in the basin. For the first time ever, we will have enforceable, scientifically informed limits on the amount of water that can be taken out of our rivers and groundwater systems across the basin. It is extremely important (a) that the science is, for the first time, actually going to drive the sustainable diversion limits; and (b) that the authority’s approach will reflect the recognition by this government—which, unfortunately, is not shared by those on the other side of the chamber—that we have to confront the future of climate change and the challenge of climate change not only as a nation but also in the particular context of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is also important that we recognise the legacy of overallocation. This government is prepared to work with the community to deal with that legacy.

There are a number of issues which have been raised in the context of the debate. I will turn to some of those now, although I note that they primarily relate to amendments which have been moved, so no doubt the chamber will deal with them in the context of the committee stage. For example, the issue of variability in averages has been raised by previous speakers and also in the Senate inquiry report on the bill. I make the point that the term ‘long-term average sustainable diversion limit’ is used in the bill. This was intended to provide a useful metric for levels of diversions in various parts of the basin and for the basin as a whole. The use of this term does not, however, suggest nor necessitate the management of basin water resources through averages, either in terms of planning or in terms of compliance. The bill will also allow markets to operate much more effectively in allocating water between competing uses, improving water use efficiency and delivering water to its highest value uses. Under its current terms, the bill provides a range of amendments in relation to the role and powers of the ACCC.

To be frank, the inconsistency and, at times, hypocrisy of some of the arguments put by the opposition over time on water has been quite extraordinary. I turn first to the Sugarloaf Pipeline and I make this point on timing: the Food Bowl Modernisation Project and the diversion of the 75 gigalitres of water to Melbourne for Melbourne’s drinking water supplies were announced about two months before the passage of the Water Act, but did Mr Turnbull put into that act the amendments that he brought forward and that the opposition are now proposing? Did he criticise in the parliament and put forward amendments in relation to Premier Bracks’s already announced project? He did not.

Of course, the opposition have now seized upon this. It was not an issue when they were in government. They did not run on it in government. They did not put it into their legislation but they want to put it on the table in this chamber—frankly and, I suggest, quite patently—to play some political games. I also make the point that the opposition have completely failed to acknowledge the stringent guidelines that Minister Garrett, in his approval under the EPBC Act, has placed on this project and that confirm that Melbourne only receives a share of water that is saved through the project, and that independent audited reports of water savings must be undertaken. It is a condition also that savings allocated to the Living Murray or Water for Rivers programs may not be allocated for Melbourne. Water designated as an environmental sieve must be maintained. In other words, we will protect environmental water.

It is an interesting point. We can have a long discussion with various opposition senators from various states who say, ‘You shouldn’t be taking water out of the basin.’ I have a summary in front of me, which I am happy to go through with senators from the other side, in relation to every state where such infrastructure occurs, where water is diverted outside of the basin. Senator Bernardi is looking at me. He would be aware, for example, that Tailem Bend to Keith is one of them. If the opposition is going to be consistent, are they saying that all of those should also be put out to pasture? They will not say that, because they want to pick on one project for political purposes, a project, let’s remember, that the Liberals in Victoria have conceded that they will use the water from. I do not think that anybody who looks too closely at what the opposition is doing could come to anything other than a  reasonable determination that the opposition is playing politics here.

I note that a number of coalition senators have raised the issue of the time frame; it was certainly raised in the context of the Senate inquiry. A number of senators were critical of the honouring of the state water-sharing plans. That appears to be a change in their position. I look forward to seeing whether or not what was flagged in the coalition’s comments about the bill is actually reflected in their amendments, because Mr Turnbull committed to honouring existing state water plans when he introduced the bill into the House of Representatives in August 2007. Mr Turnbull stated that the bill will honour existing state water plans, and that comment was made in the full knowledge that Victoria’s current state water plans generally expire at 2019. So I look forward to listening to the views of opposition senators on that point, because it is very clear that some of what has been said by opposition senators on the issue of state water shares directly contradicts the position of their leader when he was the minister introducing this bill. We look forward to their consideration of these issues.

On some issues in relation to communities and structural adjustment, I will deal with the specific amendments rather than responding when summing up. Despite some of the criticisms that have been made in this chamber and externally, the government has actually committed more money to investment in infrastructure and irrigation than it has to purchases. On this side of the chamber, we do believe that the best way of assisting communities to meet the challenge of climate change and reduced water availability is to invest in those communities so as to enable greater efficiencies.

Senator Fisher made some comments about critical human needs. The definition of critical human needs has been the subject of extensive and detailed discussion with the states, so this is an issue where the opposition needs to be aware that the states have a very keen interest. Of course, this legislation stands or falls on the existence of the state referral powers in their current form. I think that Senator Fisher said, ‘We can live with drinking water but we can’t live with the definition that talks about prohibitively high social, economic or national security costs.’ One of the examples given to me in relation to the second part of the definition is to enable water to be supplied in those circumstances to an ammunitions factory, and there are obviously security implications with that. OneSteel at Whyalla is another example of an operation which at this stage also sources water from the Murray, so there are very significant economic and social considerations. I do want to make the point in more detail that critical needs are something that South Australians in particular, one would have thought, understand the importance of, given that those of us who are from Adelaide and the communities on that side of the border do rely primarily on the River Murray for our drinking water. So giving priority to critical human needs is a fairly self-evident need.

Senator Xenophon made a number of comments, and I am happy to deal with those again in the committee stage and more generally if he wishes. He made the point that people are being rewarded for bad behaviour. I have made the point that in the context of the Murray-Darling, no-one in any of the basin states is perfect. Criticisms can be made of water management decisions probably in every part of the basin. There would certainly be different opinions. We in this government think that we have to get beyond the sort of finger-pointing and blame-shifting that has bedevilled water policy, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, for too long. In our view, it really is not constructive to simply go through a litany of perceived past wrongs, which obviously some people have one opinion on while others have another. What we have to do is get on with the job, and that is what the government is doing.

I also make the point that Senator Xenophon seeks for the government to go beyond this legislation, and he talks about the views of John Williams. I know John; he is an extremely impressive constitutional lawyer. But I do want to make this point—