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

I support the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016, and I will outline the reasons why. Before I do so, I will give some background. Back in 2007, when I stood for election for the Senate and was elected, the southern states of Australia, in particular, were gripped by what was called the millennium drought, one of the most severe droughts we had seen for many generations. I spoke to so many farmers, so many environmentalists, who indicated just how awful it was in terms of rising salinity levels and a lack of ability to draw water out of the great Murray-Darling river system. Our farmers were in dire straits as a result of the deteriorating water levels and water quality levels. There was a need to manage the environmental flows better so that we could get a better outcome for agriculture as well.

Back then it was almost a case of musical chairs and pass the parcel, in that nobody wanted to take responsibility for the whole issue of water and maintaining the great Murray-Darling Basin from Queensland to New South Wales, ACT, Victoria and, of course, South Australia, where we are particularly vulnerable because we are at the end of the river system. The Lower Lakes are what many leading water economists and environmentalists, such as Professor Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, have described as the lungs of the river system. You need to ensure that the nutrients and salinity are flushed out through the Lower Lakes. That is critical for the health of the river system upstream as well.

I had an opportunity in early 2009 to negotiate with the then Rudd government to ensure that there was going to be an increase in water buybacks, to the tune of half a billion dollars, to improve environmental flows so our farmers would have a healthier river system. Unless we have a healthy river system, our farmers cannot rely on that river system. If you have rising salinity levels, if you do not do the right thing environmentally, you compromise the agricultural production of our great river system. I also managed to negotiate $200 million in stormwater harvesting, which was used in projects around the country because it is an efficient way of ensuring that you can access water. It is much cheaper than desalination plants and it makes a huge difference in terms of a good environmental outcome and saving water. I also negotiated a $200 million package for river communities that were at breaking point because of the drought. These were communities in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT.

I think we did the right thing then. We should remember that the $10 billion package for water—that great program—was initiated by the Howard government because former Prime Minister Howard understood the importance of having a national plan instead of a state-by-state, piecemeal approach when it comes to the management of our great river system, the Murray-Darling, and the communities that rely on it in the Murray-Darling Basin.

So I support the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016. This bill will help deliver on the 2012 decision by the basin ministers to enhance Basin Plan environmental and socio-economic outcomes through three key elements: firstly, adjusting sustainable diversion limits to offset the originally proposed water recovery target of 2,750 gigalitres by 2019; secondly, addressing physical and operational constraints on the use of environmental water; and, thirdly, recovering an additional 450 gigalitres of water for the environment by 2024 through so-called efficiency measures.

On the issue of efficiency measures: South Australia has had to, by virtue of drought since the 1960s, be more efficient and adopt water efficiency measures earlier than other states by virtue of the fact that we are vulnerable being at the tail end of this great river system. That is something I do not believe has ever been adequately taken into account in the formation of policy. This bill, agreed to by the Basin ministers in April this year, primarily addresses the first element—that is, to adjust sustainable diversion limits by giving states more time to develop projects to offset the need for water recovery. This is very important and could potentially allow diversion limits to be increased; notwithstanding that, you need to give them more time to transition. I see this as part of having a healthy river system so that our farmers can have a long-term, viable future in relation to their agricultural produce.

However, it is just as important that all jurisdictions maintain their efforts in the second and third elements of the Basin Plan implementation—that is, by addressing constraints and by recovering the extra 450 gigalitres by 2024. I support this bill with the expectation that New South Wales and Victoria, in particular, will honour their commitments around addressing constraints on the use of environmental water and the recovery of the extra 450 gigalitres. The constraints that Basin governments agreed would be addressed as part of the Basin Plan implementation are essentially a set of operating rules and structures that currently limit the delivery and timing of environmental flows. Addressing these constraints is vital for enabling additional areas of wetlands and flood plains to receive water when they really need it. Again, this is about getting the balance between the environment and agricultural production right because farmers cannot have a viable, agricultural production and economic model unless we have good quality water so that they can grow crops.

While addressing constraints, this will have significant environmental benefits. The potential constraint projects being considered by Basin governments also provide an opportunity to further offset the need for water recovery, which again would benefit irrigators, and that to me is very important. Those irrigators in the Riverland and in the lower part of the Murray lands in the Lower Lakes need our support. Just as importantly, constraints projects also have a potential to benefit regional communities and individual landholders by providing greater protection against both naturally occurring and managed higher flow events in key parts of the Murray-Darling Basin. So I urge the New South Wales and Victorian governments to continue working with their communities to realise the full potential of these constraints projects for the benefit of Basin irrigators, affected communities and the environment.

In supporting the passage of this bill, I also wish to highlight the need for states to put forward sound water recovery offset projects in a timely manner, and it must be done in a way that gives good value for taxpayer money, as well as a good environmental benefit and, through it, a good benefit for our farmers. Constraints are one set of projects that can offset water recovery as well as deliver broader community and environmental health benefits. Projects such as the Menindee Lakes water-saving project is another type of activity that can offset water recovery by delivering evaporative water savings.

In relation to Menindee Lakes, it supplies water to Broken Hill. It is on the same time zone as South Australia, so many people in Broken Hill are much closer to Adelaide than they are to Sydney and there is a close affinity and bond between the people of Broken Hill and South Australians by virtue of geography and history. I have been asking questions in Senate estimates, going back eight years now, about the reason why it has taken so long for the New South Wales government, or rather governments since that time, to implement some sensible measures to deal with the massive evaporation in the lakes and to secure a high-quality potable water supply for the people of Broken Hill. I hope we will get a breakthrough on that sooner rather than later because the people of Broken Hill deserve better.

The Menindee Lakes water-saving project will significantly change how the River Murray is operated. To ensure its success, New South Wales is to engage the Australian, Victorian and South Australian governments as early as possible to make sure the project takes into account all jurisdictions—I emphasise 'all jurisdictions'—and the River Murray water requirements.

I support this bill. I believe this is the best we can do. I also consider that not having a national plan, not going ahead with this, will ultimately harm our irrigators and harm our farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin and all of those great communities that are in that basin. But, of course, it is reasonable, as always, where communities' livelihoods are at stake, where taxpayers' moneys are being expended at a significant level, to ensure a constant scrutiny and questioning. That is why, whilst I may disagree with Senator Leyonhjelm's conclusions in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, I welcome that level of robust debate because it is a healthy thing in our democracy with respect to getting the best outcome for the great Murray-Darling river system.