Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

It's hard to keep track of all of the programs that the government has managed to announce with a great big announcement and a lot of fanfare only to see the actual delivery fall a long way short of what's promised. We can add this one to the list, because when Minister Littleproud first went out and started talking up this program he said that up to 6,000 farmers could be supported by this program. We had a chat about this at the cross-portfolio estimates back in February.

Do you know how many people were actually able to be assisted by this program? At that point, 800. I asked officials how it could come about that a minister would go out and say that 6,000 farmers were all getting extra water and then, in the end, the number was 800, which is a much, much smaller number; even those on the other side I think would have to agree. The explanation given to me was:

The program design was modified after the first announcement so that a slightly larger volume of water was made available under the program guidelines.

It sounds like a pretty big mess, doesn't it?

There was a decision to put out a press release. That's where all decisions start with this government—a decision to put out a lazy press release, having done none of the work and, in this case, apparently, not having even really determined in any meaningful way with officials about how this thing was going to be delivered. I asked the minister who was representing at that time, Senator Duniam, about this. I said:

What happens when a minister goes out and says, 'I've got a program for 6,000 people' but in the end it's only for 800?

Senator Duniam said:

Then, when officials do some further work and other models are adopted, it is consultation.

That's not really how policy and program development is supposed to work. What you are actually supposed to do is identify the problem and do some consultation and then make the announcement. But, like everything else with this government, it is all about the announcement, and the follow-through is dreadful.

At the beginning of this year, Mr Pitt was out there saying:

My very strong view is we'll deliver exactly what we said we would and that's 100GL in the Water for Fodder program.

This was the revised version. But, on 7 August, the ABC reported:

The Federal Government has walked away from plans to deliver 100 gigalitres (GL) of water to farmers to grow feed for their livestock, indefinitely deferring a decision about the future of its Water for Fodder program.

Again, there was a lot of big talk and a lot of assurances, but the reality falls far short.

The disallowance before us doesn't deal with these problems. In fact, Labor's concern is that the disallowance that the Greens ask us to support would actually make the situation worse by generating risk and uncertainty in a system that is already struggling with questions of compliance. The specific thing that we would point to is the possibility that this disallowance motion, if passed, would have the effect that the Commonwealth would lose their capacity to ensure compliance and enforcement.

Compliance and enforcement is obviously key to the integrity of any program. It is particularly significant in the Murray-Darling Basin. Labor is not inclined to support a disallowance that jeopardises enforcement arrangements. The government does need to be able to check that the water is actually being used for fodder in the Water for Fodder program. I do note again that, when we talked about this in estimates earlier in the year, the department told me that the compliance and enforcement arrangements were not yet in place. I look forward to hearing from government about the compliance and enforcement arrangements they have put in place to make sure that this program works in a way that they say it will work.

More broadly, there is a problem with the government's administration of the Murray-Darling Basin. Scandal after scandal after scandal plagues their management of this critical system. Labor established the Murray-Darling Basin Plan because we want a healthy working river. We want it to work for graziers, and we want it to work to manage the environment. We want it to work for irrigators, for First Nations people and for the communities along the rivers of our basin. The reckless approach to water management taken by successive ministers, aided and abetted by the National Party, is a national shame. Like much that has happened under this government over the last seven years, it falls well short of the big promises that they like to make to their constituents. The government needs to get its act together. The Murray-Darling Basin is a precious national asset. Stakeholders all across the basin and, indeed, all across the country depend on it. We can't allow the mismanagement to continue.