Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. The Murray-Darling Basin is the largest and most complex river system in Australia. We should remember that when we listen to contributions of our colleague Senator Davey from across the chamber. It traverses much of the south-east of Australia—across New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and the ACT. It is more than a million square kilometres. It is home to 2.3 million Australians. It holds significant Indigenous cultural heritage, with members of more than 50 different First Nations peoples living in the basin. The river system is important for communities, industry and the environment. It contains 16 internationally recognised and protected wetlands and provides tourism services worth $11 billion each year. It supports one of Australia's most significant agricultural areas, with around 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural produce coming from the basin.

That is enormously significant, yet what we've done over decades and decades is scrap over it, fight over it. I think where we've landed today shows us that a negotiated balance can be had. I believe that's where we've landed today with the very productive and thoughtful engagement of the Greens, particularly Senator Hanson-Young. It is important to note that we've been fighting over water since the British first colonised Australia. They brought with them theories and experience of vastly different countryside, vastly different water resources, different climate and different agriculture that were not in line with the realities of Australia. First Nations people had looked after the river system successfully for tens of thousands of years, living harmoniously with nature. That experience, and their inherent connection to the land, has been consistently disregarded. First Nations people deserve to have water rights and access declared and enabled clearly and transparently.

Many years of overallocation of water, followed by the millennium drought and the ongoing increasing water needs of our society, have caused significant social and environmental damage. In response, the Water Act was passed in 2007. It established the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and also laid the all-important foundations for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was introduced in 2012 by the then Labor government. The purpose of the plan was to end the wars, the fighting and the accusations. It was brave; it was very brave. The fighting over water in this country has been going on for an extraordinarily long time. In fact, we were fighting over it while they were drafting the Constitution. It is time to get over it; it is time to put down each of the individual needs and look at the total needs—to lay down everyone's own personal focus and to think of the whole river system as one and how we protect it so that it can be a river that survives for the next generations.

The idea of the water basin resources being used and managed in a way that optimises social, economic and environmental outcomes is one of the objectives of the Water Act, because it is essential to find that balanced and sustainable way for everyone to get the most available water in a sustainable way. It's not to rip water out of the river and make the river sick and not to prioritise one particular source of agriculture or industry over another but to actually look at all of the needs of that river system. Let's be really honest here: neither human consumption nor agriculture have a future on a sick river. It's short-sighted to say that we have to prioritise farms and agriculture; if we don't keep the river healthy there won't be any farms and agriculture. The balance is what is crucial here.

The plan has been off track for so many years. We had a decade of what could only be seen as mismanagement by the former Liberal-National government. Eighty per cent of the water that has been recovered to date was done so under a Labor government. We had a Senate inquiry into this bill and we heard many outlandish statements. But we also heard many balanced statements; we heard many people acknowledge that change needed to occur and acknowledge that the plan needed to be delivered to ensure everybody could get what they needed out of the river. Let's just step out the players here. The environmental groups, expectedly, support the bill because they care about the environment. They also think the bill doesn't go far enough to protect the environment, but, on this occasion, they're supportive of the bill. As much as they may want more, they know that the protections that are in this bill and the water for the environment will take us on that path. The academics, in the main, support the bill. They obviously have tweaks they'd like. Farmers are split on this. In the main, farmers are those who truly understand the river system and the importance of a healthy river system. And they understand it has to be a healthy river system over the long term to ensure that productive farming is not just for today but that it is for the future, so that generations after generations can continue to use the river. However, they are, understandably, concerned about the river right now, today, and about the available water for their vital crops. And I get that. I totally get that. Most of the farmers are very reasonable and most of the farmers I speak to are very reasonable about this. They get it.

As to the processors, these guys are concerned that any change to volumes of produce will actually increase costs. I think Senator Davey's contribution somewhat overegged what they said to the committee and failed to recognise any of the other evidence that was given to the committee about the cost of food as it relates to water buybacks, whereas ABARES, based on data—real data—advised us that any change would be negligible.

Irrigators, in the main, are not supportive, as their business model is commercial water sales. But there are irrigators that are supportive, as they can also see the long-term problem of a declining river.

The Liberals, as usual, are just waiting to see what the best media hit might be, and, as a matter of principle, objecting to any Labor initiative. The Nationals have been spruiking their support for farmers, but, from what I can see, they are favouring the large commercial enterprises rather than the hardworking, generationally-connected family farmers, who eat, sleep and breathe the health of the river and the productivity of our vital agricultural lands, and, therefore, understand what we must do to ensure the long-term health of the river system.

But our Nationals colleagues are following the age-old path of saying: 'The sky is falling in. The world's going to come to an end.' I think we've even heard from our colleagues in the National Party that the agricultural sector will end, due to voluntary water buybacks. I'm just going to file that with some of the other ridiculous statements we've heard in this place over the years, including that we'll end the weekend—however on earth people think we would do that. That was another empty claim. We've heard that we're going to wipe Whyalla off the map. Well, Whyalla's a place I visit quite regularly, and I can assure you that it's doing fine. So we might just put aside some of these outlandish, unhelpful statements, which are all about political punchlines and social media grabs. They actually don't give a razoo about what's actually happening on the river and the fact that there are so many interests that need to be balanced. But, without a healthy river, nobody gets anything.

So I would like to give a shout out to the member for Sturt and Senator McLachlan. The member for Sturt has supported the 450 gigalitres of water and voluntary buybacks, and Senator McLachlan has agreed that we must prioritise the welfare of our natural world, and both of them have stated this publicly in the South Australian media. I thank them for this wise and balanced approach. In fact, we even had John Howard state:

… we need to confront head on and in a comprehensive way, the over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

He did show leadership on this. It's a shame that's all gone now. It's a shame that what we look at now is what I would say is the disgrace of those opposite, and of those in the Liberal and National parties more broadly, in not seeing how vitally important the health of this river is. It's vitally important to human consumption, vitally important to the environment, vitally important to our agricultural sector and vitally important to our tourism sector.

But addressing the overallocation of the water is exactly what we are doing. The Labor government will go on, and we'll amend the Basin Plan to ensure that we have a healthy river.

Now, we know that, in July 2023, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised the Minister for the Environment and Water that full implementation of the Basin Plan would not be possible by 30 June 2024. I think a lot of people knew that was coming and were concerned that that was the case, but that's as it was. Then, in August 2023, the Australian government, as well as the New South Wales, Queensland, South Australian and ACT governments, agreed to changes to implement the Basin Plan in full. That was because they all knew that the health of the river was critical to the future.

This bill will provide more time and options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure and voluntary buybacks; more accountability; and more money to deliver the remaining water and support communities. And there is also a suite of measures to bring integrity and transparency to the water market. Labor and the Greens have worked together to identify ways to strengthen the legislation, both through our work at the committee inquiry and also through negotiations with the minister. These amendments provide further rigour and protections, are well supported and will start us on the pathway of mending what has occurred in terms of Indigenous water access and water rights, which I think are a critical part of how we move forward. And it will provide better protections and more transparency.

For the benefit of those opposite, who don't yet seem to be quite grasping it, what it also delivers is more certainty for farmers, more support for affected communities and more protection for our environment. If this bill does not pass this year, the current legislation requires states to withdraw their unfinished projects. This will result in the plan falling over and in further substantial costs. I wonder if that's exactly what those opposite are looking for? But I'm standing here urging everyone in this chamber to understand the importance of the health of the river—the importance of it being healthy and of us protecting it. That's for everyone: for agriculture, industry and communities. Please, get behind this.