David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance concerning the Murray-Darling Basin reform process.

The first point to make about the speeches of senators opposite is that they share the characteristics of most of their other attacks on the record of the Labor government. First, they assume that history began in December 2007 and that none of these problems existed before that date. Second, they seek to ignore and conceal their own record in government. Third, they ignore all external circumstances—including, in this case, climate change. Fourth, they make demagogic appeals to affected communities, while ignoring the wider national interest.

The crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin is a crisis we inherited from the previous government, just as they inherited it. In fact, we inherited it from every federal and state government of the past 100 years. It is a crisis that results from the chronic unwillingness of previous governments over many decades to face up to facts and to take the necessary steps to secure the future of the basin, its environment and its people. Failure to face up to facts is a hallmark of this opposition.

The root cause of the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin is the fact that for decades we have been taking more water out of the river system than rainfall has been putting into it. The opposition is not willing to face the fact that many of the water use practices in the basin are simply unsustainable. It is not willing to tell the truth about that to its own supporters in the region. It was not willing to do so when it was in government and it is certainly not willing to do so now. Nor is the opposition willing to face the fact that climate change is worsening the situation in the basin and will continue to do so. Although we are currently having some welcome respite from drought in the eastern states, all climate experts agree that the long-term trend is for this region to become hotter and drier. Since this opposition refuses to accept the science on climate change, it is not surprising to find that they refuse to accept facts about the long-term climactic future of the basin.

As we read in the Age this morning, water use in the basin has increased by an extraordinary 500 per cent over the past 80 years. As we read in the Financial Review just last week, new research by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology shows that there is a long-term trend to lower rainfall and higher temperatures in south-eastern Australia linked to atmospheric changes caused by global warming. The consequences of these two trends should be obvious to all. Over the past decade the amount of water available in the basin has declined by 40 per cent compared to the long-term average. The current system of water usage is simply not sustainable. It is not sustainable for the environment but it is also not sustainable for the region’s primary producers—the people whom senators opposite claim to represent. To give but one example: in the Lower Lakes of South Australia some years ago there were some 23 dairy operations; today, as a result of a sustained drought and upstream overuse, that number has fallen to three. This should tell us that the current system of water usage in the basin, the system that has been in place for many decades, is simply not working and must change. This fact should be obvious to all, but it seems to not be obvious to the opposition, which always prefers the short-term political grandstanding to serious policy work.

To be fair, there have been some people in the coalition willing to face the facts about climate change, water use and the cumulative effect on the Murray-Darling Basin. Former Senator Robert Hill, who was environment minister in the Howard government, warned in December 1999 of ‘an impending disaster of almost biblical proportions’. He said:

As a South Australian, I don’t believe that I’m being melodramatic when I say this: if we continue to strangle our river, we will inevitably strangle our state.

But of course Senator Hill’s efforts to do something about overuse of water were vetoed by the National Party. The then Nationals leader Tim Fischer campaigned against any restriction on water use in the basin with the slogan ‘Zap the cap’. Some members of the Nationals, however, were willing to face facts, at least in the past, about unsustainable water use. In August 2007, former Nationals leader John Anderson said:

I think we need to sober up a little and recognise the reality that a great deal of the hysteria surrounding water at the moment stems from the fact that there is a shortage of water, which has nothing to do with any government, which is beyond the control of any government and which is, frankly, outside the purview of any of we mere mortals to greatly influence.

But, alas, such common sense can no longer be found in the contemporary National Party.

This government is willing to face facts on the situation in the Murray-Darling Basin. This government is willing to take the necessary decisions in the interests of both the environment and the communities that live in the basin. By returning the Murray-Darling Basin system to health and managing limited water supplies more sustainably, we can provide more certainty for the businesses and communities that rely on it. We cannot do that by ignoring facts and resorting to cheap and dishonest populism for short-term political gain, as seems to be the current tactic of the opposition. That is why this government is developing a plan for the Murray-Darling Basin, a plan to revive our rivers by addressing the overuse of water. Its objectives will be a healthy Murray-Darling river system, strong regional communities and sustainable food production. This is what I believe is called the triple-bottom-line. There is of course some tension between these three objectives, but the government believes that with careful planning and proper attention to the science they are all achievable.

The opposition has sought to make short-term political capital by criticising the proposals made in a document called the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan, recently released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It must be pointed out that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is an independent authority. It does not make government policy and its statements cannot be seen as reflecting government policy. The opposition knows this because, of course, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was established under their legislation, the Water Act 2007. As Senator Colbeck said in 2007:

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be an expert, independent body which will report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Its primary responsibility is the preparation of the basin plan.

It follows from this that the document recently released by the authority was not a statement of government policy. The document issued by the authority is an opportunity for consultation. It will inform the drafting of the proposed plan, but it is not government policy. The government’s policy will be announced by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities at the end of the consultation period.

Sadly, but predictably, there has been a great deal of misinformation put out by the coalition in relation to these issues. Members such as Dr Sharman Stone and Mrs Sophie Mirabella have been spreading this misinformation in communities along the Murray, trying to whip up fear and hysteria for their own short-term political purposes. First, opposition members have claimed that the document issued by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority represents government policy, which of course it does not—and they know it does not. Next, they have claimed that the government will forcibly acquire water from people. This is untrue. They have also alleged that no account will be taken of the water conservation work already done in basin communities. This is also untrue.

Nevertheless, there is no point in pretending that we can go on as we have for the past century, taking more water out of the Murray-Darling river system than rainfall is putting into it. Since we cannot make it rain more, any rational plan for the Murray-Darling must involve reducing water usage. In the past, when they were in government, opposition members were willing to recognise this very simple but very fundamental fact. Let me quote Ms Mirabella from 2007, speaking in the debate on the Water Act:

Important elements of this bill, which give effect to the National Plan for Water Security, include an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority with enforcement powers; a basin plan which sets a cap on water systems; an environmental watering plan to coordinate management of the available water in the basin; a Commonwealth environmental water holder to manage environmental water in and out of the basin; …

So in 2007, contrary to what she is saying now, Ms Mirabella recognised that there would have to be a cap on the use of water from the Murray-Darling system and that there would have to be a body to enforce that cap. So she was quite willing to see the Howard government pass a bill that would give the Murray-Darling Basin Authority coercive powers over irrigators and other water users in the basin. It is curious that now she is in opposition she no longer sees things the same way.

Let me outline briefly the process that the government has set out for the development of this plan. The government has announced a parliamentary inquiry into the social and economic impact of cuts in water allocations in the basin. Mr Tony Windsor, the Independent member for New England, will be chairing the committee undertaking this inquiry. The inquiry will of course seek input from people living in the Murray-Darling region. The inquiry will have a strong focus on understanding the social and economic impacts of the necessary changes.

In the meantime, the government is investing more than $12 billion in the Water for the Future initiative to help communities adjust to a future with less water, and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is undertaking more detailed studies on the local and community impacts of the proposed Basin Plan. This study will consider the likely impact of reductions in water use. This study will be completed by March 2011.

The opposition claims to be representing the interests of farmers. They do not seem to understand that ‘if we strangle the river, we will strangle Australian agriculture’—to paraphrase former Senator Hill. A viable Murray-Darling Basin Plan must secure long-term water supplies for all water uses, including for agriculture. The government wants to ensure that water for agriculture is used for sustainable, effective and efficient food production. This means working with farmers and rural communities to ensure that irrigated agriculture in the basin continues to be an efficient and sustainable contributor to Australia’s economy.

We cannot kid ourselves that things can go on as they are. Denying the reality of climate change will lead only to disaster for Australian agriculture. The erosion of soils, the decreasing food production, the decreasing rainfall and the recent long drought should inform all participants as to the very real crisis facing the Murray-Darling Basin, even those who do not believe in the science of climate change. The government fully understands that change will impact on regional communities. But it is important to appreciate that no change will also impact on regional communities.

No change, continued destruction of the environment and continued overuse of the basin will inevitably and inexorably see our Murray-Darling system die. That is why the government is committed to helping communities adjust, through water buybacks, rural water infrastructure investments and its Strengthening Basin Communities program. This is a government that believes in evidence based public policymaking, this is a government that will tell the people of Australia the truth and this is a government that will make hard decisions when they have to be made.