Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am privileged to speak on this motion, and indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Greens in this respect. In particular, I make reference to the part of the motion which says that the Senate:

(b) is of the opinion that the 1500GL cap on water buybacks be repealed; …

I think that's the essential part of this particular motion.

I was lucky enough to be born on the River Murray, at the great South Australian Murraylands town of Murray Bridge. Like just about all South Australians, I've been passionate about the health of this mighty river system all of my life. The Murray and the Darling systems are not only iconic parts of our Australian landscape and environment; they're the lifeblood of many Australian communities. We have a responsibility to manage the entire system in a way that ensures its health and its sustainability not just for a year or an electoral cycle or the time between one good season of good flows and the next. As federal parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to manage it in the best possible way to ensure its health and sustainability both now and for future generations.

We've seen what happens when the rains stop, and the worrying reports about further mismanagement of the basin. Acting Deputy President Gallacher, I'm sure you've seen this in recent weeks and months, as the report of the South Australian royal commission has shocked people in South Australia. We've seen the theft and corruption that has gone on and been exposed by the royal commission. We've seen a dry riverbed. We've seen dying crops. We've seen those most shocking scenes of Murray cod, golden perch and other native fish suffocating in their thousands and perhaps millions.

A cap on water buybacks was never part of the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Of course, that plan was put through this parliament by Tony Burke, the then environment minister, who worked tirelessly for months and years with Prime Minister Julia Gillard to get that plan through this parliament. What the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission has made clear is that the cap on water buybacks should now be repealed. It was a feature of the original Murray-Darling, but, because of the incompetence and the misuse of the plan by the coalition government, we are now of the view that the only way to save the Murray-Darling Basin is to repeal that cap on buybacks. Repealing the cap on buybacks is also a recommendation of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, an independent expert group.

There has to be a mechanism for getting more water through the system to restore it to good health. The Murray-Darling Basin is under pressure from drought and mismanagement by this coalition government. The cap on buybacks reduces the incentive for governments to buy back water for the environment and to develop effective supply projects. Removing the cap removes any legislative barrier to buybacks over 1,500 gigalitres being one of those options. It also means that, if the 650 gigalitres of supply measures—projects that are still under development in some cases—do not deliver, buyback becomes an option into the future.

This parliament must put the sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin ahead of partisan politics. We must not continue to have the sort of situation we had when Barnaby Joyce was responsible—or perhaps irresponsible—for this portfolio. His South Australian coalition colleagues were more interested in pandering to his personal political interests than they were in standing up for the health of the River Murray in their home state. I can see three of them sitting over there on the other side. Everybody else was calling for action—federal Labor MPs and senators, state Labor MPs and a coalition of local councils along the full length of the River Murray. But where were the government MPs and senators? They were nowhere to be seen. They had trust in New South Wales to deliver on this. Of course, as the royal commission has very clearly identified, that trust was completely misplaced.

Time and time again we've seen undeniable evidence that things are not right with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But what do we get from those opposite? Not much more than cop-outs. 'We can't make it rain,' they would say. Well, none of us can make it rain, but we can work together to ensure that the incredibly precious and critical resource that we have in the Murray-Darling Basin is managed in a way that anticipates drought. We're all aware of the cycle of drought and flooding rains. That's probably never been more evident than this year, with those floods in Townsville. Those of us who don't have our heads in the sand are also aware that this cycle changes over time. The millennium drought no doubt played a part in increasing the will within politics to deliver the historic agreement reached under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Recently, we have again seen drought that has had a terrible impact not only on the river system but on many Australian communities. In my home state of South Australia, communities along the river have been ahead of the curve, introducing super-efficient, modern infrastructure and strategies. South Australian irrigators have proven that smart investment and smart management can allow them to make the most of the water that is available to them. We've done it in tough times, but we've made an effort. We need all stakeholders in the health and sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin to make that effort. I call upon those opposite, in particular my fellow South Australian senators, to work constructively and put the river before politics.