Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum related to the bill and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019 is a necessary response to the failure of the Australian Government, and the Governments of New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, to respond positively to the findings and recommendations of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission.

Regrettably, it is necessary to open debate on an unpalatable measure that may ultimately prove necessary to protect and restore the environmental health of Australia's biggest and most vital river system.

In his report, released on 31 January 2019, Commissioner Bret Walker SC delivered a damning indictment of water and environmental management under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and recommended a complete overhaul of the scheme, specifically to reallocate much more water from irrigation to the environment.

The Royal Commission found the Murray-Darling Basin plan ignored potentially "catastrophic" risks of climate change.

The Commissioner found that Commonwealth officials have committed gross maladministration, negligence and unlawful actions.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has repeatedly pushed aside and suppressed good science while the defence of sectional interests has prevailed over the health of our major river system.

Perhaps most importantly, the Commissioner found that the so-called "triple bottom line" approach, in which economic and social factors are considered to reduce the water recovery target for the environment, is fatally flawed, and at odds with provisions of the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 which requires that Basin water resources be managed "in the national interest" and, inter alia, " to protect, restore and provide for the ecological values and ecosystem services of the Murray-Darling Basin".

Large scale water buybacks, and a consequent reduction in irrigation – especially in the northern Murray-Darling Basin – are essential to restore the environmental health of the river system and ensure water security for cities, towns and communities downstream.

It should be recalled that the Royal Commission was prompted by allegations of massive water theft by New South Wales' irrigators.

The Royal Commission proceeded with its work in the face of conspicuous non-cooperation from the Australian Government, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and from the New South Wales and Queensland Governments.

Meanwhile drought has gripped the Murray-Darling Basin.

Rivers have stopped flowing in north-west New South Wales, leaving some towns on severe water restrictions.

Major fish kills in New South Wales, including two on an extraordinary scale at Menindee, have resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of fish dying.

Against this background, it is remarkable that the Royal Commission's report has been met with government reactions ranging from indifference to outright hostility.

The New South Wales and Queensland Governments have effectively rejected the report and its recommendations out of hand. The Australian Government appears indifferent, while the South Australian Government's response has been low-key to the point of timidity.

In these circumstances, in which there is no political movement to embrace the Royal Commission's report, it is necessary to consider other measures to protect and restore the environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin.

In this the role of cotton production in the Murray-Darling Basin cannot be ignored.

The overwhelming majority of Australian cotton is grown in the Murray-Darling Basin with some 90 per cent exported, mainly to China and India.

This is a highly successful industry, but one that imposes a major drain on the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 21.4 per cent of Murray-Darling Basin irrigation water was used in cotton production in 2005-06.

In 2008-09, the ABS reported that cotton accounted for the highest proportion of irrigation water used in the Murray-Darling Basin – 23 per cent, exceeding that used for cereal crops – 20 per cent – and for pasture for grazing – 15 per cent.

For 2010-11, the ABS further reported that:

For 2011-12, the ABS reported that 1,996 gigalitres were applied to cotton production in the Murray-Darling Basin, nearly one third - 32 per cent - of all water used in the Basin in that year.

Curiously, the most recent ABS report for 2016-17 doesn't give figures for agricultural water use in the Murray-Darling Basin but does give figures for national volumes.

In 2016-17 cotton used 2,566 gigalitres of 9,104 gigalitres of national water use - 28.2 per cent.

Given that there is hardly any cotton grown outside the Murray-Darling Basin, the percentage of water used for cotton production in the Basin is probably rather higher.

Cotton is the single largest piece of the challenge of managing the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.

And although the Royal Commission report does not single out cotton, in the absence of Commonwealth, state and territory government commitments to fully implement the Commission's recommendations, that is precisely what must be done in Australia's national interest and the health of our rivers.

This Bill is intended to trigger a national debate on the future of the cotton industry in the context of its impact on the Murray-Darling Basin.

Centre Alliance's firm view is that major choices need to be made and that the environmental health of the river system, water and food security must be our national priorities, not cotton exports.

Exporting cotton is like exporting water. Australians live on the driest continent on the planet yet are using our precious national water resources to produce a water intensive crop which we then export overseas so that foreign entities can profit from making textiles and clothing.

Export cotton production should not be given the same priority as food producers, or for that matter, the towns and cities dependent on the river system for water supply, and the overall environmental health of the river system all the way to the Coorong lagoon in South Australia.

This Bill will prohibit absolutely the export of cotton grown in Australia.

It is not unusual to regulate or, in some cases ban, the export of agricultural commodities in the national interest.

The Export Control Act 1982 allows the making of regulations relating to "prescribed goods" that are declared as such by regulations.

Subsection 7(1) of the Export Control Act provides that regulations may prohibit the export of prescribed goods from Australia.

The Bill will insert new section 7AA which would provide that three years after the section commences, the regulations are taken to have declared that cotton grown in Australia is a prescribed good; and prohibited absolutely the export of that cotton.

The prohibition will apply to the export of cotton grown anywhere in Australia.

The production of cotton for use in Australia will not be affected.

In this regard it should be noted that section 99 of the Australian Constitution provides that the Commonwealth "shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof."

The Bill is intended to be compliant with this constitutional provision.

The three-year time frame before the ban will take effect will allow cotton farmers to anticipate and prepare for an end to cotton exports.

No doubt some cotton farmers may shift production to other irrigated crops. Some may move to other activities including significantly less irrigated water. Overall, it could be anticipated that termination of the cotton export market would result in significant reduction in demand for Murray-Darling Basin water resources. This would provide an opportunity to return significant volumes of water to the environment, consistent with the objectives of the Water Act to manage the Basin water resources "in the national interest" and to "protect and restore the ecosystem of the Murray-Darling Basin".

Significantly the proposed three-year time frame will also provide the Australian Government and the governments of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory time to reconsider and implement the recommendations of the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission.

If governments are able to come together and adopt policies based on open and transparent science, and consideration of the national interest rather than the defence of narrow sectional interests, the measure proposed in this Bill may well prove unnecessary. In the absence of such action, however, the environmental degradation of the river system will undoubtedly continue and calls for radical action, most likely focussed on the cotton industry, will most likely grow.

"It is regrettable that we should have to consider such a measure, but in the absence of real commitments to put the health of the Murray-Darling first and foremost, and implement the Royal Commission's recommendations, this is something that must be considered in Australia's national interest.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.