Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Just before I start, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, through you, I note Senator O'Neill earlier today referred to Senator Birmingham as the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. He is not that minister. He represents that minister in this chamber, but he has his own portfolio responsibilities, and I'd like to get that on the record.

What we're talking about today is an order for the production of documents that was originally lodged in 2017. At that time, the decision was made that parts of the information requested had an element of commercial sensitivity. That seems to be what the furore is about. But let me explain why commercial sensitivity in an issue such as the water market is so real. Back in 2010, the Financial Review noted that, before the government began its buyback process, prices for permanent water licences were trading at around 50 per cent less than when the government started purchasing water. Government actions in the water market have an impact, so it is quite right that we take time in releasing commercial information about water prices to let the market restabilise.

But I note that Senator Patrick and his friends on the other side want to talk about the government doing dodgy deals and the government keeping things in house. I note that there have been a lot of shared talking points on the other side today, and they have obviously done a deal. When they talk about water purchases and wanting openness and transparency about government water purchases, they draw a line at 1 January 2017. Why is that? Is that because, back in 2010, when the Financial Review did its investigation into the impact of government actions in the water market, they were particularly interested in a purchase by the government from the Twynam agricultural company? It was a $303 million deal that the Financial Review found was at least a $40 million premium across all of the water licences purchased—one bulk lot of water licences.

We are talking about licences across multiple valleys, for which Twynam got a premium. In the Macquarie, they got a nine per cent premium. In the Gwydir, they got a nearly 10 per cent premium. In the Lachlan, it was a 17 per cent premium. In the Murrumbidgee, they got a premium. But the crossbenches and the opposition don't want to investigate that water purchase. Why is that? It is because that was a purchase done under former water minister Penny Wong.

Senator Patrick interjecting—

I agree with you, Senator Patrick: two wrongs don't make a right. But what we, as the government have done, is learn from the way Labor conducted their water purchases. In fact, Labor themselves changed their own water purchase processes to a round of blind tenders. It was found that blind tenders did not have the same negative impact on the water market as did the open tenders that were so prevalent in the early days.

Another water purchase that we could talk about is the purchase of Toorale station and Toorale station's water holdings, which was done back in 2008 with no tender. The day before a public auction, the New South Wales and federal governments—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Yes, a blind tender. But this was done quietly, and they turned Toorale station into a national park.

One of the differences between the premium paid on Kia Ora's water licence and the Toorale Station experience is that part of the contract for Kia Ora was that they had to decommission their on-farm levee banks to ensure the water was returned. Even though the purchase of Toorale Station occurred in 2008, as late as last year, 2019—with good rainfall for the first time in years up in the northern basin, and an estimate of 23,000 megalitres of water from localised rainfall flowing down the Warrego River—a mere 600 megalitres a day managed to get from the other side of Toorale Station, because the levee banks are still in place. The levee banks were never removed.

If we are talking about what is efficient use of taxpayers' money, we need to look at that. Leaving those levee banks there has meant that no water flows back to the Darling. Contrary to then Minister Wong's assertions that it would lead to at least 20 gigalitres a year in extra flows down the Darling River and 80 gigalitres a year when there's flood, that has not occurred. That water still gets captured by the infrastructure on Toorale Station, which now the New South Wales government is looking at upgrading so that it can water the ecological wetlands that have evolved there over the 100 years of levee banks existing on that station. Was that a good and efficient purchase of water? If the intention was to keep and maintain those wetlands on Toorale Station, all well and good. But that was not how the deal was sold to the Australian public at the time. At the time, it was said that it was going to restore the health of the Darling River, but that water doesn't get to the Darling River. So let's think of that.

We’ve had water purchases right back from 2008, so if we're going to investigate water purchases we have to investigate every single one of them, not just pick a random date in time that suits the purposes of a conspiracy theory of the crossbench and the Greens. We need to look at all of them, to go right back to the very beginning of water purchases, because what we have seen time and time again is water purchase tenders or water recovery programs. The opportunistic ones take advantage of it. The stressed farmers who have their backs against the wall take advantage of it. But the people who are left hurting at the end of the day are the farmers that remain who, unlike Johnny Kahlbetzer, can't take their $303 million and go and purchase land in South Africa and start farming in a whole new nation. They are left behind, trying to compete in the water market against the huge and enormous almond developments that have blossomed in South Australia, have blossomed in north-western Victoria and are now blossoming in sections of New South Wales—all downstream of natural delivery constraints, like the Barmah Choke, like the Lower Goulburn Choke. The water can't get through. Those people are left competing and struggling.

Meanwhile, the purchases that Senator Patrick wants us to focus on today, the Kia Ora and Clyde purchases, are actually having great environmental outcomes. They are effective, because, as I said before, they decommissioned the infrastructure. They now allow the natural flows to flow down the river. We heard at Senate estimates this year that around 100 gigalitres made it to the internationally recognised wetlands associated with Narran Lake.

I might add that that water delivery had great outcomes for birdlife, including the Australasian bittern. Where else did we get good outcomes for the Australasian bittern, which is an endangered species? On our rice farms. The Ricegrowers Association should be commended for the environmental and ecological work they've done to help with the Australasian bird-breeding events in the Riverina and now at the Narran Lakes wetlands, which is a fantastic use of environmental water. It is getting down the river. The $80 million purchase of this river represented 30 per cent of the water needed to be recovered in that valley. We keep getting told by the Greens and others that we need to get on and deliver the Basin Plan. But, when we undertake a purchase that is consistent with the valuation that requires decommissioning to ensure we get the environmental and ecological outcomes we want and we do a big lump sum at once, we get slammed for it.

Let's also bear in mind how many water licence holders there are in the part of the river relevant to Narran Lakes. There are four, and we've purchased one of them out. When you have such a limited pool of contenders—and no-one else is expressing an interest—the way water works, you can't go out with a Basin-wide water tender program and expect to get outcomes in the Narran Lakes when you're purchasing water from a river that goes nowhere near it. It was purchased within the valuation. As highlighted by Senator Birmingham in his response, it was a purchase that covered the value of the water, it covered the decommissioning and it was a highly sensitive area of the river. Tick, tick, tick—it ticked every box. The only reason why Rex Patrick has a bee in his bonnet is that, when he first lodged his order for the production of documents, it was so close to the time of the purchase occurring it was deemed commercially sensitive. And I get that. I support ensuring that our government actions do not impact on the water market. This is why the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has open and transparent processes for operating in the market. This is why we saw such negative impacts on the water market through open-purchase tenders, which even the Labor Party walked away from. It's because the impact on the water market was negative. It was having a negative impact on our farmers and their ability to produce the food and fibre our nation needs.

So I say, Senator Patrick, that I understand your frustration, and obviously it's an ongoing frustration. As I said before, you've shared your talking points about all of the FOI successes you've had in the past with all of your colleagues over on that side. However, when we're in government and we are responsible, we need to make sure that we proceed with caution so we don't negatively impact on the jobs and businesses of the people we represent.