Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. The first thing for me to say is that neither the Murray nor the Darling rivers run through Tasmania, but that doesn't mean that I don't take an interest in or care about the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan to make sure the rivers will continue to flow.

The Jacqui Lambie Network has been banging on about our nation's food security and national water ever since I was elected. The Murray-Darling Basin supports $22 million in agricultural activity and is part of our nation's food bowl. Over two million Australians call the basin home and 40 First Nations peoples have called it home for a thousand generations. The Murray-Darling Basin also generates billions of tourism dollars, not to mention the internationally recognised wetlands and the animals, birds and fish that live on and in the rivers. The Murray-Darling Basin has many stakeholders, and that includes communities in the basin and beyond. These are people in Adelaide and as far as Whyalla on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula, who drink its water.

But for a long time there has been too much water taken from the Murray and the Darling rivers. It took the millennium drought for our leaders to wake up to the idea that a plan was needed to address the overextraction of water. Back in 2006, water ministers from the affected states and the federal government met and agreed that if things didn't change it would lead to environmental, economic and social disasters. And, for once, everyone agreed that action must be taken. A year later the Water Act 2007 was passed, guided through the federal parliament by then federal water minister, Malcolm Turnbull. It legislated the need for a plan, the scientists got to work and in October 2010 the Murray-Darling Basin Authority said that, scientifically, we need to return at least 3,900 gigalitres of water, and that was for a low certainty of success. But the scientists at the time said that a better number was 7,600 gigalitres for a high certainty of success. The big irrigators weren't happy. They saw an immediate challenge to their bottom line. Protests were organised. In Griffith there were even burnings of the guide to the plan. Well-paid lobbyists were engaged and political arms in this building were twisted. I can tell you that nothing much changed. In the end—what do you know?—as per usual politics trumped science. I know that, sadly, that won't surprise many Australians out there.

The lobbyists had done their work, and the plan for water was reworked so that it called for only 2,750 gigalitres to be returned to the river system, plus another 450 gigalitres of 'efficiency water' South Australia insisted on before agreeing to the plan. Instead of a scientific number between 3,900 and 7,600 gigalitres of water being returned to the river, the target was set at just 3,200 gigalitres. You wonder why we are standing here today. The scientists had agreed that 3,200 gigalitres wasn't enough, and, by the way, it wasn't. To make matters worse, the government didn't factor in climate change, which of course is making the situation even worse. It's getting hotter, and inflows to the southern basin are falling. Less water is going in, more is being lost through evaporation, and there has been no reduction in what's being taken out of the river.

Thirteen billion bucks was set aside to implement this scientifically flawed plan. What happened? It failed. It has fallen short of the 2,750-gigalitre target. After nearly 10 years, the plan has recovered just over 60 per cent of the target. Of the 450 gigalitres, only five per cent has been achieved. That in itself is shameful. It's a pretty bad return to Australians out there for their 13 billion bucks.

After 10 years of the very poor performance of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, Labor has been left to clean up the mess. But—this gets even better—it's taken Labor and Minister Plibersek 18 months to come up with a plan to fix the water flows and keep the rivers flowing, and this is what they've come up with. The bill before us isn't perfect. As a matter of fact, it is far from it. It's not a winner for any of the stakeholders. No-one is winning out of this. You've had 18 months to come up with a plan of trash. That's what the taxpayer is paying for. That's the truth of the matter. Is this the best thing you could deliver in here? My goodness me, Labor is slipping, isn't it!

The coalition originally promised First Nations people $40 million to buy water entitlements. The $40 million never turned up, and now the Labor government is promising $100 million. But the bill doesn't, in law, recognise the connection of these nations. The bill also removes the cap on water buybacks, which is the main method for getting water back into the rivers. Guess what, Australia? The government won't even say how much this will cost. That's right—it's got no costing on it. And another thing: the government are hiding behind commercial-in-confidence, as per usual.

Australians are no better off with either side. The bill also doesn't address—wait for it—targeted reforms that will take into account climate change projections. They have not done that. They have not done that, but the Greens have decided to sign up with them. I don't see any amendments that address that. The Greens are signing up with the Labor Party here. With environmental groups telling the media that this bill is doing the bare minimum, this is as good as it gets from a Labor-Greens government. This bill also delays a review of the operation of the act. A farmer told me, 'I have never been to so many depressing farming meetings since this bill was announced.' As if they're not doing it tough enough already.

Something has to be done. We're at a fork in the river. Down one path is a smooth ride free of conflict with big irrigators and state governments, but it will inevitably lead to dry creek beds and environmental disasters. Down the other path are some political rapids that will take a bit of courage to push through, but they will lead to a sustainable system where everyone benefits, even the irrigators. This looks to me like another government bill that has been designed to do a little bit here and a little bit there but never fix things. It's like being half-pregnant. You haven't got the glory to go all the way and do what needs to be done for national water security; that is what it comes down to.

Why aren't we looking at what crop production best meets the national interest? Why aren't we looking at what crops are needed to provide a variety of food for Tasmanians? Have you learned nothing from COVID on that side? Obviously not! Which communities and businesses can be transitioned so they can survive into the future? Where is all that done? Look at the cotton and the almonds, crops that use hundreds of gigalitres of water. But we ship it off so that huge hedge funds—that's right, the hedge funds—and big business can make mega profits. Don't worry about our food and water security in Australia; don't worry about that. You have neglected that, as per usual. We live in the driest continent on the planet, and exporting cotton and almonds is the same as exporting water. How dumb is that? I thought this government was going to bring back manufacturing; I thought it was going to bring some common sense back in here. It obviously has not! This government was going to make Australia great again. Well, we're 18 months in. How's that going for you? Not so bloody great, is it?

I'll be looking at every one of these amendments, and I'll be looking very carefully at what we have done this morning, because, as per usual, having everything wedged at us as once as a crossbench is not helpful. I'm hoping that some of these amendments may make this bill just a little bit better, although I have my doubts. I also want to make sure that this apparently new plan will protect our food security. I actually have no faith in you doing that whatsoever, to be honest—none whatsoever! And I ask the Australian people not to have any faith in them either, because I do not believe you'll get the job done.

My question to you, Minister, is: I have not seen it, but is there or is there not economic modelling in relation to this bill?