Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Stakeholders want stability and continuity around the Basin Plan, and so these are minor changes would not adversely impact on the Basin Plan.

The bill implements the recommendations of the Report of the Independent Review of the Water Act200the Water Act review—and recommendations that have been agreed to by the basin states. It will provide for five-yearly reviews of the social and economic impacts of the Basin Plan 2012. One key change is that it will allow the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to invest in non-water environmental activities, so the holder is not restricted to just water. The bill will also make other minor administrative and technical amendments.

The success of the Basin Plan has always rested on bipartisan support at the federal level, the support of the basin states and at least nominal support of agricultural and environmental groups. Given the support of the basin states, Labor will not oppose the passage of this bill in the interests of bipartisanship and the stability of the Basin Plan.

As many of us in this place will know, disagreement over the management of our most important river system and our most important food bowl pre-dates Federation. The first conference on the Murray was held in 1863, decades before Federation. The Federation drought brought the states together in Corowa in 1902, leading to the River Murray Waters Agreement in 1915 and the formation of the River Murray Commission in 1917.

The importance of the basin to agriculture in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales led to the construction of numerous dams, weirs and locks. By the late 1960s, drought, the overextraction of water for irrigation and rising salinity began to put the health of the Murray-Darling system onto the radar. Fast forward to the drought of the early-2000s—or the Millennium drought, as it was clearly known—and it was clear that more needed to be done.

Under the Howard government, the National Water Initiative was agreed to and the Water Act 2007 was passed through this parliament. And now, thanks in large part to the former minister for water, the member for Watson, Tony Burke, we have a plan that is restoring our rivers to health, supporting strong regional communities and ensuring sustainable food production.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, or the Basin Plan, has bipartisan support at the Federal level and the support of the basin states: South Australia, Victoria, NSW, Queensland and of course the ACT. Importantly, there has been very significant Commonwealth investment in ensuring that farms remain productive as the plan is delivered. Two million dollars a day is being, and will be spent, on efficiency and infrastructure measures out to 2019. This is not just a significant amount of money; it is a significant commitment to the Basin Plan, to the health of our rivers, and the ecosystems and regional communities that that river systems supports. Not everyone obviously got everything that they wanted from the plan, but it does retain significant support throughout the system. It also had the support of farming, environmental and Indigenous groups.

The Basin Plan, brought into force in November 2012, will set basin-wide sustainable diversion limits and return 2,750 gigalitres to the environment. Basin states are required to prepare water resource plans that will give effect to the sustainable diversion limits from July 2019.

Under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, up to 650 gigalitres can be provided through supply measures—projects that deliver environmental outcomes with less water—and that is a really significant and good thing. Proposals for these supply measures are, I understand, in varying states of preparation and assessment. To date over 1,900 gigalitres have been recovered for the environment. This includes over 1,160 gigalitres through water purchase; over 600 gigalitres through infrastructure investment; and over 180 gigalitres through other basin state recovery actions. This is water that can be used, at appropriate times and where it is needed, to improve flows and help restore health throughout the system. And already we have seen successful water releases overseen by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the state and regional water management agencies.

Importantly, there has been significant Commonwealth investment in ensuring that farms remain productive as the plan is delivered. Two million dollars a day is being and will be spent on efficiency and infrastructure measures out to 2019. This is not only a significant amount of money; it is a significant commitment to the Basin Plan—to the health of our rivers and the ecosystems and communities they support. That is why the previous Labor minister for water did so much work in ensuring that we did get this right.

The basin supports agriculture on a grand scale—around 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. That is in no way an insignificant figur According to ABS figures, in 2012-13 the basin accounted for over 50 per cent of Australia's irrigated produce, including nearly 100 per cent of Australia's rice, 96 per cent of Australia's cotton, 75 per cent of Australia's grapes, 59 per cent of Australia's hay, 54 per cent of Australia's fruit, 52 per cent of Australia's production from sheep and livestock, and 45 per cent of Australia's dairy. Around two million people live and work in the basin, in communities ranging from fewer than 1,000 people to large urban centres, such as Wagga Wagga with over 45,000 people. A further 1.2 million people depend on its waters for survival. All of this agricultural production and the two million people living in the basin rely on the healthy functioning of its river system.

The environmental needs of the rivers are of course incredibly important. Within the basin there are approximately 30,000 wetlands, over 60 species of fish, 124 families of macroinvertebrates, 98 species of waterbird, four threatened water-dependent ecological communities and hundreds upon hundreds of plant species supported by key floodplains. The health of the river channels themselves and the flora and fauna that they support are not only vital in their own rights but also vital for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities. The health of the basin, and particularly the Murray, is epitomised by the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth. It is important that we understand the environmental needs of the rivers within the basin system to ensure sustainable communities and sustainable food and fibre production can be maintained. As I said, there are approximately 30,000 wetlands in the basin and over 60 species of fish. These are not insignificant ecological outcomes that we find in our basin environment.

Related to environmental needs and environmental flows, the Aboriginal nations and communities in the basin also want, and should have, access to the flows that they need to ensure the continuation of their health, their culture and their social and economic wellbeing. Aboriginal people feel a deep connection to their land and the waters that flow through and across them, and this needs to be recognised and provided for, not as an exercise in some kind of imperial patronage but by ensuring that Aboriginal people are empowered through governance and water rights, because they are and will always be the custodians of that land. When environmental water is released into the river and wetlands Aboriginal expertise needs to be heeded. The deep knowledge of Aboriginal people of our river systems means that they have important, if not vital, advice to give our water managers that, if heeded, can add great value to the work of those managers. Groups such as the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations have a lot to offer us if we listen to them. Engagement with Aboriginal people in the basin cannot be done as a tick-a-box exercise, and government certainly needs to understand and realise that. Proper ongoing engagement will not only benefit Aboriginal people; it will benefit all of us.

This bill implements a number of recommendations from the review of the Water Act that was conducted through 2014, including: firstly, to allow the CEWH, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, to invest in non-water environmental activities so that the holder is not restricted just to water; secondly, to provide for greater incorporation of Indigenous expertise in the governance of the Murray-Darling Basin water resources for the reasons I just outlined; thirdly, to implement five-yearly reviews of the social and economic impacts of the Basin Plan; and, finally, to implement a number of minor administrative and technical amendments. All of those recommendations from the review of the Water Act need to be taken note of by government, and I hope that they will do so. A lot of them are, of course, being done through the passage of this amendment bill.

I would note that there is no definition of 'environmental activities' to assist in the assessment of non-water purchases. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is required to operate consistently with the Basin Plan and its environmental water objectives, but this still may have the potential to be broadly interpreted because of their being no definition. So Labor will be monitoring the appropriate balance between flexibility in the water holder's activities and clarity regarding what activities might be contemplated under these amendments.

There are adjustments to the timeline of key review points and milestones in the Water Act and the Basin Plan which the opposition think broadly make sense. However, there may be some practical issues with reporting on environmental outcomes as long-term watering plans will not have been in place for long prior to their reporting date. So delivering interim results will be important for transparency and for public confidence. By this stage water recovery will have been undertaken for nine years and the environmental outcomes achieved should be made publicly available to the fullest extent possible. Stakeholders as well as the signatories to the Basin Plan want stability on continuity around the Basin Plan, and these changes, if they are well managed, should not adversely impact those objectives.

The success of the Basin Plan rests on the support particularly of both major parties in this parliament—and the Labor Party has been willing to provide that support through the passage of this bill—as well as the agreement of all the basin states, which I mentioned earlier, as well as the ACT. Obviously, there is also a very deep engagement, but not always an easy engagement, with the full range of stakeholders, those being irrigators, farmers, environmental groups and Indigenous communities, and I am sure there are others as well.

An important driver in Labor's support for this bill, though, and some other amendments to the Water Act that were proposed by the government last year is the agreement that the government has obtained for these measures from all of the basin states in order to maintain that political consensus. As I said, for the ongoing implementation of a plan that is overwhelmingly in the national interest and that Labor, when in government, played a significantly key role in, Labor therefore provide our support to this bill, retaining that bipartisanship.

Stakeholders from both irrigator and environmental groups have expressed concern, and I understand that concern, about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan becoming politicised to the point of detriment. They have asked that there be no major changes to the plan at this point that would disturb that political consensus. These stakeholders have told us that what is most important for them is stability, predictability and consistency. Therefore, on that basis, and on a number of the other key elements that I have raised in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, we do not propose to hold up this legislation. We broadly support it. In fact, we recognise the work that has been done not just by this government but also, in fact, by the Labor federal government before this government in getting us to this point where we are today.