Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the Water Amendment Bill 2015. Water is one of the most important resources for our nation. More specifically, it is a vital element for the prosperity of my state of South Australia. There has also been the rather vexed issue about who owns and has rights to the water as it flows through the Murray-Darling Basin. I remember the spirited discussions and debates we had in the past with our national cousins, particularly from Queensland, who were obviously concerned for their communities whilst South Australians were desperately concerned for the wellbeing of their communities. I also acknowledge that there has generally been a bipartisan approach. We had some differences with the now opposition when they were in government, but there has generally been a bipartisan approach to the need to get the balance right.

You cannot just advocate for environmental flows whilst ignoring the impacts on and the costs to local communities, many of whom are entirely dependent on the health and wellbeing of the Murray-Darling Basin—none more so, I would posit, than some of the communities in South Australia, who did it extraordinarily tough during the 10 years of drought when people like Tim Flannery and the Greens party were telling us that it would never rain again, the rain would not fall in the right spots, that we would all have to move north or to Tasmania, or whatever their claim of the day was. The reality is it was a dreadful drought and emotions were very high. People were fighting very hard for their livelihoods and their communities and to represent the interests of their states. But through it all there was an acknowledgment and an acceptance that the Murray-Darling Basin is a national river system. We have to coexist and use it wisely.

It used to frustrate me when we would discover at Senate inquiries and Senate estimates that there were thousands of kilometres of illegal structures in other states that were used to store water—they had no approval—when we had communities in my Riverland region of South Australia that were desperately in need of water allocations for their citrus crops. A huge toll was taken on many communities. Some farmers and growers left the land. Some risked it all and rolled the dice to see if they could continue building their prosperity. Some were successful and, unfortunately, some were not. But through it all there was general goodwill. The general goodwill was that the Murray-Darling Basin is the lifeblood of many communities. We have to come to a compromise that will provide benefits to the communities, meet our nation's requirement for a food bowl and, of course, achieve the environmental outcomes that are very important for the long-term health of any ecosystem.

I am pleased to be speaking on this bill. The coalition has committed to implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. It has committed to doing it on time; it has committed to doing it on budget. But, perhaps most importantly, it is going to have what some refer to as the triple-bottom-line focus that, as I mentioned, supports and maintains healthy, viable communities and the environment for the future. It is acknowledged—and there may be some dispute about this in other areas of Australia—that the basin is the food bowl of our nation. We need to make sure it is used sustainably. We need to make sure it is used prudently to ensure the survival and prosperity of both our communities and the environment for future generations. As a father—and even those of you who are not parents—I understand that we are the custodians of this land, we are the stewards of the resources and we need to make sure we are preparing our country for the challenges ahead.

I am delighted to say that we on this side of the chamber—and I acknowledge that it is not going to be opposed by those on the other side—are committed to working with the people of the basin to make sure that farmers and communities are viable and sustainable for the long term. It is not just about us; it is about future generations. The government, through the hard work of ministers and through the representations of many backbenchers who have a vested interest in this, from the point of view of representing the community—but who also have a clear and unambiguous understanding of what needs to be done—has worked with all stakeholders to deliver this triple-bottom-line outcome.

It is about delivering greater certainty. When there is greater certainty, there is an opportunity for businesses, community leaders, civic leaders, local governments, state and federal governments—every organisation imaginable—to plan for the future. Perhaps the greatest risk to planning is the unknown. The whims and dictates of bureaucrats, governments or personalities are the things that can have a dramatic impact, more often negatively than positively, in the sustainability and viability of our regional and rural Riverland communities. The government has tried to deliver that certainty. It wants to deliver certainty for farmers, businesses, communities and, very importantly, the environment, and that is what this bill does.

I will just touch upon some of the key elements of the bill. A key element for certainty for communities and businesses is how the government is going to cover its legislative obligations, principally in recovering water for the environment. The coalition has had—and I acknowledge Minister Birmingham's work on this when in opposition—a strong, steadfast and long-term commitment to returning the Murray-Darling Basin to health, whilst also recognising and supporting agriculture. It is no good having one without the other. It is no good just chasing the agricultural basket and ignoring the health of the river or the river system. Of course you cannot sustain it without a healthy river system, and yet there is no point in having a healthy river system if it is not going to be able to be utilised for the benefit of all Australians, not just the environment. It is about getting the balance right.

This is a common-sense and logical approach that I wish was applied more often in seeking legislative outcomes. But we have it here. The government has followed up on its election commitment to give priority to investment in water infrastructure efficiencies that return water to the environment through water recovery by purchase. Investment in infrastructure is the primary method of recovering water to improve the basin environment. I have observed some of that lack of infrastructure firsthand on a number of occasions. I want to pay credit to the South Australian Riverland communities who have invested very heavily in infrastructure to prove themselves to be some of the most efficient users of Murray-Darling Basin water. But there is a sense of frustration at times when you drive through the Riverland and you see the overhead watering of certain crops in the middle of the day, and that is simply because the infrastructure is not strong enough to cope with the demands for watering—the pipes are not big enough, and the cost of putting bigger pipes in is prohibitive particularly in difficult times. But there is this commitment from these communities that they want to do the right thing, so they install drip irrigation, they try to use appropriate methods, and going to such inefficient methods of watering is a last resort. It is driven by a lack of infrastructure; even so, they have done a mighty job. The frustration is compounded when they see, upstream, much less efficient methods of watering. That is a source of frustration and I know it is something the government has acknowledged, and I know that many other communities acknowledge that, given the right incentives, given the right infrastructure, they can do a better job as well. That helps the entire health of the system.

So the government has followed through on its election commitment, and that is what this legislation is about. It is about the government meeting its election commitment to cap water purchases and focus on the triple bottom line outcomes through improving our agricultural efficiency. This is an unprecedented investment—some $12 billion to implement the Basin Plan, with several outcomes in mind but, to sum it up, to better manage our waterways through the provision of improved key water infrastructure that will benefit the environment and agriculture. Every single day between now and 30 June 2019—some senators probably will not be here in 2019, Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, though I have no doubt that you will be—there will be $2.5 million invested in the future of agriculture in the basin. That is $3.9 billion going into infrastructure that will improve farm efficiency and productive capacity while returning water to the environment.

Earlier today we heard from Senator McKim in his first speech about how sustainability is the key driver for the next 100 years. When I was listening to the contributions made here I noted that the Labor Party got that mantra—they understand that sustainability is important and that is why they are not opposing this bill; they understand that investment is the key to getting productivity outcomes and environmental outcomes. What I do not understand is how Senator Rhiannon, from the Greens party, could stand up and say the Greens were opposing this bill—they are opposing it when it is all about getting better environment outcomes along with better agricultural outcomes. It is a win-win—$12 billion invested into a plan to protect the environment and protect agriculture in this country, and there are people that are opposed to it! That makes no sense when it was said earlier today that sustainability is the key driver of the next hundred years. I would suggest that we have to take with a grain of salt the Greens' supposed commitment to better environmental outcomes. There is no balance there—there is no balance at all.

To prove that there is a human dimension to this and that we are not just talking generically about communities or groups of farmers, over 10,000 individual irrigators have benefited from the government's water efficiency programs that underpin the government's approach to implementing the Basin Plan. Already, 10,000 irrigators are doing better from a productivity point of view; they are delivering better environmental outcomes as a result of the government's approach to implementing the Basin Plan. Part of that plan is about a water recovery target. I mentioned before that $2.5 million a day is going to be spent through until 2019—and there is also a water recovery target of 2,750 gigalitres by 2019. We are going to prioritise water recovery efforts through investment in on-farm and off-farm water-saving infrastructure and efficiency projects over water purchasing.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I regret that I am unable to complete my remarks tonight because I have to replace you in the chair. But there is a lot more to say. I think we need to herald the brave, courageous approach that the government has taken. I acknowledge that the opposition have chosen not to oppose this legislation for petty politicking's sake—they may have had some variations in how they might have approached it, but they recognise that this is a very important step for the security and sustainability of both our environmental river system in the Murray-Darling Basin and the agricultural communities that rely so much on it.