Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2015. This debate is one that has engaged the minds of many over many decades, in fact leading all the way back to 1863, which was when I understand the very first conference on the Murray was held. Thirty years later, the South Australian Premier, Charles Kingston, at the federation convention that was held in 1897 expressed the hope that a solution might be found and:

… that the Federal Parliament will be trusted with Federal questions of the gravity involved in the use of the waters of the Murray.

Following that hopeful commencement and plea for the federal parliament to be involved in making sure that the states share this amazing resource as an asset in their communities we saw more than 100 years of fractious debate.

I endorse many of the remarks of colleagues who spoke before me in this debate. It is quite a remarkable thing that in November 2012 the Basin Plan became law and had the effect of creating a coordinated approach to water use across the basin's four states and the ACT. Achieving an outcome like that involved an awful lot of give from many active participants in the debate. I am very well aware that the matter is still not settled in the community and that people look at this plan as it is exists at this time with ongoing interest. Hopes that a genuine triple-bottom-line benefit to the entire community, the environment and to business can be reached remain high.

But at tricky times, such as now with this legislation coming through this parliament, we are always going to be tested about how strong the bipartisan commitment to this can be. I am pleased on this occasion that Labor does recognise the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin in particular, not only as our nation's food bowl but as a vital piece of natural infrastructure that blesses this continent. We support the passage of this bill which seeks, in particular, to put on a cap of 1,500 gigalitres to make sure we return some of that water to the river.

I can remember doing a project about the Murray-Darling when I was in year 4. We are not all good spellers all of the time, and it is with some embarrassment that I put on the record that I spelt 'Murray' without an 'A'. In my year 4 spelling I missed the 'A'! It made me pay a lot more attention to the title of works that I put in after that day! I never made that mistake ever again, and it was a great learning experience for me. But for the people of the Murray-Darling Basin there has been a lot more than a missing 'A', in the sense of how much they have been consulted about what has been going on. There is a yearning in that community to continue to be at the heart of further consultation around this piece of legislation.

The Murray-Darling is a mighty river system that supports around 40 per cent of our agricultural production. I was in the chair yesterday when Senator Canavan made his remarks about the complexity of a river system. I think he might have said it was not simply a hose connected at one end, where water goes in one end and comes out the other end, in a way that some people from the city might expect water to flow. The complexity of the river is a vital consideration for anything that is to occur moving into the future. It is certainly the focus of life for communities that lie far from its banks and, of course, it is of deep cultural importance to the Aboriginal nations and the communities of the basin. The health of the river channels themselves, and the flora and fauna they support, are vital not only in their own right but for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities that have been established in these regions over many years.

The so-called triple bottom line—the environmental, economic and cultural objectives—is sought by the Basin Plan, and Labor recognises the government's wish to provide the certainty that these basin communities require by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases, and we will support the passage of this legislation. I am pleased to say that, in developing our response to the government's proposal around this legislation, Labor has consulted with various stakeholders. We note a continuing divergence of points of view about this issue and about other issues going forward in terms of the management of the river. We have carefully considered their advice and opinions, and at this point in time we do support the government's position. We have also given careful consideration to the position of the basin states—New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria—and it is important to note that, with their support, things could continue to move in the right direction.

The report into the Water Amendment Bill 2015 handed down by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee this week says:

... the 1500 GL per year limit ... will be of significant benefit to farming and irrigator communities in the ... Basin.

There are two key imperatives for the success of the Basin Plan and these imperatives are the same for our approach to the cap on water purchases. There is bipartisan support at the federal level and it has the support of all basin states. Given the support of those states for this reform, as was the progress that has been made to date in recovering water for the environment, Labor will not oppose the bill.

In short, Labor supports the people of the basin, the towns of the Riverina and the farmers and the growers of the Murrumbidgee. Labor supports the people on the land and recognises the issues at the heart of their community. For many Australians who live on the edge of this great continent, water is simply too often something that just comes out of a tap, but, in the Riverina, for which I am the duty senator, water is the lifeblood of the community. It is certainly the subject of pub talk and rumour. Comments such as, 'Did you know that so-and-so sold his water and he's taken a couple of years off?' is not an uncommon conversation; it has been happening over the years.

It was on a visit to Griffith early last month that I was able to learn firsthand of the myriad issues that affect our rural communities. I say once again that members of the community who came forward and spoke to me at a range of places over the course of that weekend continue to pay intensely close attention to the action of water flows in the river. They are certainly watching what we are doing here in the parliament today. I hope that, when I return to Griffith to speak with people, they will continue to provide me with the feedback that I need to understand better and better what they see happening as a result of the government's actions.

I do have to say, though, that, apart from the conversations which were frequently around water and the Murray-Darling scheme, I have also learnt that many people in the community of Griffith in particular feel that they do not have a voice and that what concerns them is falling on deaf ears. Many articulated very clearly that, after more than four decades of representation by the National Party, their ballot has been taken for granted. It is as if they say, 'Thanks for the vote. We'll see you again in three years.'

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was a topic of discussion with just about everyone that I met, including the Mayor of Griffith, John Dal Broi. He spoke very passionately about the issue of water at the heart of his community. He is on the front line of debate that continues about the best way to manage the challenges of bringing this plan to fruition with that triple bottom line outcome being delivered. His conversations were a mixture of enthusiasm and frustration about the future of the town and the region. Like dedicated dwellers of Griffith, he envisions a thriving in community that is built on the confidence that what they do actually matters to the nation. He was incredibly proud, as were so many of the members of the community, of the produce that they give to the Australian nation and overseas through rice, cotton, wine and fruit. Indeed, they talked about the Orange Festival with glowing acclaim. I will have to put it on my bucket list of things to get back to, because it was such a place of pride for the community.

Mayor Dal Broi envisions a possibility for Griffith that, sadly, is clouded by the attitude of the federal government, not just with regard to water, where concerns continue to be expressed, but also with the fact that people in Griffith need access to a range of services and provision and certainty from this government. It is not just the water that is an issue in Griffith. Sadly, we have seen a very mean-spirited federal government that seems to think that the bush can afford incredible cuts. This is an insult to the community as they are undertaking a transition in their economy with this significant change to water that feeds the irrigation and wetland farming of that area. They are being asked to take more than their fair share of burden from government cutbacks.

Mayor Dal Broi presides over a council that will have $1,752,083 less in its coffers over the next four years, thanks to Prime Minister Abbotts ill-advised four-year freeze of the indexation of federal assistance grants. That is a significant amount of money into the community. Down the road, at Wagga Wagga, the council will be $3.66 million worse off and at West Wyalong, the Bland Shire Council will be short-changed $2.4 million by the freeze. For a community that is struggling with the transition that the water scheme is impacting on them, this is an insult added to considerable injury for many. In fact, the grants that have been cut will rip more than $18.9 million away from the Riverina electorate. In a committee of that size, where they are already concerned about the changing nature of the economy as the population moves to adjust to the changes that the water scheme has impacted, they are very concerned about seeing shops closing on the main street of Griffith and they are very concerned about the flow-on in terms of youth unemployment.

This is a community that is also seeking opportunities for education and employment, raising young people with a quality of life that is certainly guaranteed for many in the cities. So when you factor in other policies that have been advanced by Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne, you can pretty well drop the idea of a degree or any further education from plans for the future for many young people in this community. Many young people are devastated because they are fearful that they are going to end up with $100,000 worth of debt before they get out with their degrees—$100,000 millstones around their necks. If students had aspirations to go to one of the sandstone universities, it could be even more than that. This is a layering of impediment and disadvantage on the community of the Riverina and the bush. These sorts of opportunities need to be given more generously to people in the regions who are away and facing the challenge of trying to get to cities to go to university.

I had the pleasure of having a coffee with a number of high school students from the Griffith region and I felt with them the same enthusiasm and mix of hope that I felt with many of the students that I taught in my years as a teacher on the Central Coast. I met with Marian Catholic College's captain, Alanah Jeffrey, and vice captain, Francine Barbaro, Griffith High School captain, Vanessa Myers, and Rotaract director, Jenna Rogato. These are truly remarkable young women—very intelligence. They had pride in themselves and their schools, and they did their schools and the communities that they represent in their senior leadership roles great justice by raising a number of issues. Certainly, they talked about water and they will be very interested in this piece of legislation that is going through the House.

But this piece of legislation does not exist in isolation from other government policies. Students in the Riverina are very concerned about the impact of these cuts on their local community and the limitations on what their futures might hold, with the $100,000 debt sentences hanging over their heads. Alana Jeffrey has even taken it upon herself to establish—