Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I can indicate my support for this bill. I respect Senator Leyonhjelm's differing view in respect of this but I fundamentally disagree with it. I do not believe it is good for the health of the river system—not just in South Australia, but for the entire basin—for salt water to be allowed into the lower lakes. The lower lakes do have an important role. As people such as Professor Mike Young from the University of Adelaide have indicated, they are the lungs of the river system. It is absolutely critical that we have that flow of water. To have a hypersaline environment is something that will ultimately be like gangrene going up the river system, and that is something that worries me considerably.

The Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 does implement a number of measures that are, in a sense, an update of the plan. It is something that has been brought about by discussion and compromise and consultation with basin stakeholders. I note that the South Australian government does not take issue with the bill. I think it is important to establish what the role and the position of the South Australian government is in respect of that. I want to make it clear that, when it comes to water, South Australia—being at the end of the river system—is incredibly vulnerable. Not only are we the driest state on the driest continent, but Australia's greatest river system, the Murray-Darling, winds its way from Queensland through New South Wales, Victoria and, of course, the Australian Capital Territory to the lower lakes in South Australia. The lower lakes are the lungs of the river system. They flush out salt and nutrients essential to maintaining the health of the entire river system.

Whenever there is a drought or overallocation upstream, South Australia's environment and irrigators can suffer the most. I make no apology for doing what I did back in February 2009 when I negotiated with the then Rudd government for $500 million in fast-tracked water buybacks, $200 million for drought-affected communities and another $200 million for much-needed stormwater harvesting. That was for not just the basin but the nation. It also ensured that those irrigators who wished to do so could leave their properties with dignity. These are important factors that need to be considered in the committee stage. I note that there are some amendments. Also, the shadow minister in the other place made reference to there being no definition of environmental activities to assist in the assessment of non-water purchases and the role of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder in respect of that. I think that ought to be explored in the committee stages of this bill. The point the shadow minister made reference to in his contribution in the other place, about the adjustments to the time line of key review points and milestones in the Water Act and the Basin Plan, does make sense. I agree with him in that but I would like to hear from the government as to what the practical reporting mechanisms are in relation to that.

I also acknowledge the concern I have for the social and economic impacts as well as the environmental impacts. I think there is a synergy between all of those. You need to have good environmental flows in order to have good social and economic outcomes. If you do not have a healthy river system then that puts those social and economic outcomes in jeopardy. I am concerned that the South Australian government announced just last week that the minimum baseline allocation for next year will be 36 per cent, after it was at practically 100 per cent for a number of years after the drought broke. That concerns me, although I do note that it is a baseline; there will not be anything less than that. It is a worrying development and something that I want to take up with the South Australian government, both as to the methodology used and whether the basis of that 36 per cent figure is fair and reasonable for the irrigators in South Australia. That is something, of course, that needs to be ventilated outside of this debate but, in this respect, I think this bill does have a number of measures that are practical, that make sense and that help to implement the Basin Plan. It is not a perfect plan by any means, but the alternative of not having a national approach and not having some methodology that is based on the science would have been much, much worse.