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

I want to agree with one thing Senator Hanson-Young said, and that is that this government doesn't manage the Murray-Darling Basin—because we don't manage the Murray-Darling Basin. We don't manage water allocations and we don't manage planned environmental water. The only thing that the Commonwealth does is manage held environmental water, which is also at the mercy of state water management rules and state water allocations. So I urge Senator Hanson-Young to read the report developed by Mick Keelty earlier this year which clearly outlines the different jurisdictional arrangements and the complexity of managing the Murray-Darling Basin. What the government are doing is continuing to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which we inherited from the former Labor government.

What this disallowance motion before us today does actually has nothing to do with the Basin Plan but everything to do with what our government did to address the concerns and the struggles of irrigators in the southern connected system. We negotiated an arrangement with the South Australian government to, where possible, free up some water that we could put on the market, which is the only mechanism available to the Commonwealth government. We cannot allocate water. We don't have water to allocate. The market is the only mechanism we can use. We made, in the first tranche, 40 gigalitres available. It was a highly successful program. That 40 gigalitres was distributed to 800 farmers, who were restricted to using the water to produce food and fodder crops to support livestock in the midst of the worst drought that our country has seen in a very long time. This was at the same time that South Australia saw 900 gigalitres of water over and above their entitlement flows flow over the border into South Australia, nearly 700 of which flowed out to the Indian Ocean, as Senator Malcolm Roberts has just alluded to.

I have no issue with that extra water flowing to South Australia, but it is quite understandable that irrigators in Victoria and New South Wales who are on low or zero water allocations ask why. It is quite right that, when an opportunity arises at a time when temporary water prices are between $700 and $900 a megalitre and well out of the reach of fodder producers and the government offered a product at $100 a megalitre, they raced for it. There were over 4,000 applications, which shows that this was a program that was strongly desired.

In the review, 68 per cent of survey respondents supported the program. More than 70 per cent said they would actually participate again. Remember that this program was developed at a time when storages in the southern connected basin were only 38 per cent. Today, thankfully, storages are at 58 per cent. What the government has done is put the second tranche of this program on hold, which is right because, thankfully, we have had rain this year. We have seen water prices on the temporary market drop to between $150 and $250 a megalitre, depending on where you are in the southern connected system.

We have allocations this year. In my home region of the New South Wales Murray, I am pleased to say allocations have reached 12 per cent today. But, as Senator Roberts rightly said, South Australia are on 100 per cent, as they are every year. They hold an extra 300 gigalitres over and above what they normally use in storage in what's called 'deferred water'. South Australia have plenty of water. The environment now has allocations. They can use their water to deliver for the environmental needs as per their long-term environmental watering program. No-one suffered through the rollout of this program. South Australia did not lose water. They finally got the opportunity to test their desal plant. They did not lose water. The South Australian government made money. They were at no costs lost out of this program. Farmers benefited out of this program because they could access water and grow the food and fodder that they needed and they were able to put some of that fodder onto the market to help drought stricken farmers across the whole eastern seaboard, not just the southern connected basin. So I do not see any reason to disallow what was a very successful program that was fit for purpose and right for the time.