Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Water policy initiatives, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is a reference that was set up under the old arrangements of the Senate committee system. It is an important inquiry. The terms of reference included: the impact on rural water usage of recent water policy initiatives and the possible role for Commonwealth agencies, with particular reference to the development of water property titles; methods of protection for rivers and aquifers; farming innovation; monitoring drought and predicting farm water demand; and the implications for agriculture of predicted changes in patterns of precipitation and temperature—in other words, climate change.

I congratulate the members of my committee and acknowledge the hardworking and diligent secretarial backup that we have had. An interesting lot of evidence was taken, and I have to say that a lot of it was not news to me. It is patently obvious that in Australia we have had some catastrophic mismanagement of water under the present administrative rules, which basically means that the states run water. Even though nature says that rivers do not stop at the borders, the legislation does, which does not make a lot of sense to me.

I will not speak for very long because I am sure that other members of the committee wish to speak. I intend to speak on another occasion in great detail on what I think should be the creation of some federal influence in the management of Australia’s water resources and the investigation of the 60 per cent of Australia’s water that is in three catchments in the north of Australia.

Australia is in a fortunate position. With climate change there will be significant pain, and that is being felt at the present time in everything from the sheep market and the cattle market to the land market and our farmers, with their crops. But in southern Australia, if you believe the science, there will be a considerable reduction in run-off—in fact, something like 3,000 gigalitres—in the Murray-Darling Basin; mainly in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, where 38 per cent of the run-off comes from two per cent of the landscape.

Today there was a rice growers lunch—I have forgotten the name of the group. The rice industry is very efficient. They now have their challenges. Australia’s dairy farmers using irrigation have certainly got some great challenges with the price of water. These are all challenges we will have to meet. There was some anxiety from some environmental groups about developing the north and making the mistakes of the south.

One message that this committee got out of some of the evidence was that Australia needs to put all its information onto one database and give serious consideration to understanding our water resources before we allocate them. Obviously, some serious mistakes were made in the past—none more spectacular than the overallocation of some of our groundwater aquifers and a complete breakdown of water auditing, which has been evident this year. A lot of farmers in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, the Murrumbidgee and the Murray catchments thought they were implementing good drought policy by acquiring water from outside, in the water-trading market, and were then told that, despite the fact that they had bought the water, they would not get the water. All of these issues are being considered.

We collected evidence of water thieving, both from flood plains and by other means. It is blatant water thieving. With some of the wetlands—there is certainly the spectacular example of the Macquarie Marshes—there is an argument, which I have to say is a furphy, that they should not send the environmental flows to the wetlands, because the wetlands are dying. But we quickly discovered, and we have the evidence, that in fact the 50,000 megs, or whatever it was, that were sent down there were actually diverted before they got there. That is why the wetlands were in a poor state. There is quite obvious evidence of unlicensed, unauthorised earthworks that divert this water onto private land. There is some beautiful feed growing on some private land there, and the water should actually be in the wetlands. I was pleased to see a motion in this chamber the other day that the government accept that we have to do something about that and put everyone on notice.

Obviously we dealt with the contentious Lower Balonne issues. There is a recommendation from our committee, which I am sure other members will articulate, that there ought to be an independent scientific study—a genuine study, that is; there have been some studies which have, shall I say, been selectively quoted—on the impact of overland floodplain harvesting and the interception of downstream riparian rights in that process. The committee thinks that all consideration of future overland or floodplain harvesting licences should be halted until there is an independent study, because there is a potential lurk with the process that is under way in the Lower Balonne. You would issue a whole lot of licences—and bear in mind that the committee thinks that there are some strong conflicts of interest at work there, which would be laughable if they were not so serious—and those licences should not be issued until there is consideration of the impact in the long term.

Peter Cullen has certainly pointed to the fact—in his selectively quoted study—that the river itself is in reasonable order, but, if the capacity of flood harvesting is put in place, there will be long-term damage. All of that needs to be considered because, if we issue the licence to them, there will be a case for compensation. We ought to look at the overallocation before we look at the compensation. I note that the Mayor of St George said, ‘Of course there’s damage downstream with the graziers, and the solution to that is to not send them water but send them money.’ I do not know what nature thinks about that.

It is a comprehensive report. I congratulate the committee. Obviously, I have a strong view that, because of climate change and the positives, within a constructive and scientific way, with the right data on the right database, we could have some development in the north of Australia that would complement the development of some of those remote communities and, at the same time, not damage the environment. From a previous inquiry that took evidence in Kununurra, which I will not bore the Senate with today, there are some fundamental issues that have delayed that development process up there. I would like to make a detailed and full speech on this matter at an appropriate time. As we are pressed for time at the moment, I would like to give my deputy chair a full shot at this, so I will sit down.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an extremely important issue at an extremely important, critical stage. We heard today that ABARE has released its latest forecasts for December. We have heard again that our winter crops are down 62 per cent and the forecast for summer crops is very poor, likely to be down at least 33 per cent, so the issue of drought, climate variability and climate change is of critical importance and on everybody’s minds. We have also heard evidence about various wetlands being degraded and suffering. We also heard that the Murray is receiving its lowest flows ever, month after month—I think October was the lowest on record—and that by April-May next year our storages will be empty. The Murray river system in particular is running on empty.

We also heard that dams around Australia—as I think we covered in the interim report—are suffering and most of them are carrying water below 50 per cent in all our capital cities. We heard significant evidence of overallocation and of the confusion that still exists over water entitlements and water allocations. We heard about the lack of data, the inconsistency in data between states, the way data is recorded and that some states do not have data. We also heard of states being unwilling to share their data.

While the Greens support the majority report, we also submitted additional comments because we would have liked to have seen some significant issues addressed in greater detail. We are fully aware that it is likely that reduced rainfall, increased temperatures and increased climatic variability are going to have a significant impact on our water resources and that there is an urgent need for appropriate forward planning. There is a need to develop appropriate adaptation strategies on the critical issues of water scarcity and water security in Australia. All these things need to be addressed if we are going to ensure that Australia has a sense of security about water.

The Australian Greens believe that these issues are not being addressed with the degree of urgency and level of detail that is required. The clear consensus among the scientific experts in the areas of water resources, climate and agriculture is that climate change, in particular, poses a major threat to the security of our water resources and the ongoing viability of our agricultural zones. The evidence presented to the committee clearly demonstrates there is a pressing need to act decisively on these issues. We need to urgently re-evaluate our water resource security planning. We need to look at our priorities for water use, the way we allocate our water resources and the way we allocate risk. We need to take very seriously the issue of developing adaptation strategies based on the best science. The Australian Greens believe that we need to consider the flexibility and adaptation of our allocation systems to deal with the likely impacts of climate change.

The fundamental importance of factoring the impacts of climate change into our systems of water management and allocation was very clearly put to us by CSIRO in their submission to the inquiry. They stated:

Under the present water reforms, longer term water security is not guaranteed since these reforms do not explicitly take into account threats to water quantity and quality due to enhanced climate variability and change.

CSIRO suggests there are significant knowledge gaps in terms of the impact on climate change, irrigation, water management, regional planning and the economy. Further, they stated:

It is crucial to understand the impact climate change would have on water demand and potential land use changes as water is tied to the highest value product.

They further recommended:

... a multi-stakeholder national initiative is needed to consider climate change impacts on farm to regional levels, and to devise robust policy options for the viability of irrigated agriculture, hydroelectric power generation, rural industries and regional communities.

And they stated:

There is a need to incorporate climate variability and change scenarios into understanding the sustainable footprint of irrigation, irrigation demand management, whole farm planning and environmental management.

We also had some very interesting submissions from a number of farming organisations. In particular, the Queensland Farmers Federation noted that they recognise:

... responding to and managing for climate variability and change is fundamentally a responsibility of farmers and rural industries. It is also recognised that this management effort must also be supported by clearly defined government policy and targeted scientific research.

…         …         …

QFF—

the Queensland Farmers Federation—

does not believe that current drought programs adequately address the needs of intensive agricultural industries, continuous production systems, and those impacted beyond the farm gate.

They also made a series of recommendations on how to deal with climate change. They suggest:

... that a national approach to drought preparedness and drought management is a preferred position to the present reactive and uneven approaches embedded in the ‘Exceptional Circumstance’ programs.

So we need to urgently address climate change and, as I said, I do not think that extreme sense of urgency was picked up. We recommend that this urgency needs to be dealt with.

As a committee we were also required to look specifically at the impact of rural water usage of recent policy initiatives and the possible role of Commonwealth agencies. The National Water Initiative has not been under way that long, and that was acknowledged. We did not get a lot of evidence on this. However, we must note that the NWI was signed by most parties on 25 June 2004, and this built on a previous COAG framework that had been in place for a decade. So the lack of progress on the initiative and the difficulty faced in identifying and assessing its major impacts, I believe, is cause for concern.

Given the increased risk to water security currently facing Australia, we should have gone further in the report in assessing and commenting upon the current impacts of the policy and had perhaps a much more detailed discussion on how we can ramp up the NWI to deal with the emergency situation that we are currently in. While it is acknowledged that many of the issues around water security are in fact a state responsibility, there is a requirement on the Commonwealth, I believe, to show leadership. Unfortunately, it has not been above politicising some of the water issues.

This was no more apparent than in Toowoomba, where pressure from the federal government did lead to politicising the referendum around the recycling of water there. This has now resulted in their not having a clear option for dealing with the water crisis there. It became a political issue—and I will not repeat some of the language that was used in the debate because I think it is probably unparliamentary—and it was very clear that the focus on securing water resources was not the focus of the debate. It became a political debate and unfortunately that has set back the issue of recycling around the whole of Australia.

The issue of the adaptation of Australia’s agriculture to reduced rainfall, higher temperatures and increased climate variability is particularly important to regional Australia and its future. We are concerned that the implications of climate change and climate variability are not being adequately assessed in terms of the impact they are having on rural communities. There is a pressing need for further research and development of adaptation strategies and a need to look beyond some of the options that are suggested, such as GM cotton, drought-resistant wheat varieties and improved irrigation practices.

These alone are not going to solve the issue of our water security crisis—and I am deeply concerned that people may think that if we do these things we are going to deal with this issue when, clearly, we are not. There is a very clear need for better data collection, for information generation and for decision-making tools that enable our farmers, our farming communities, the broader community and in particular our regional communities to make adequate decisions on water use allocations and on adapting to climate change. There is an urgent need to address the issue of overallocation in our systems around Australia but particularly in the Murray-Darling system. Unless we fix the governance process, the way we make our decisions, and deal with information and information generation, from now on we are always going to be running the Murray on empty. I believe the Australian community finds that unacceptable. We need to act collectively to address these issues. I commend the report to the chamber, both the majority report and the additional comments.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very hard when you are dealing with water to get agreement. Since man has been on this planet it is what seems to start wars. The fact that we have managed to get a report that is supported by both the government and other parties is quite something, and I commend all those who have worked so hard in that process. Water is the source of wealth. It is also the source of all the problems that can occur if the mix is wrong and the mathematics incorrect. Often when we do a report on water we are actually doing a report on drought and, as everyone knows, drought is a complete lack of water. For instance, in our area now I can assure you that there is no water above us, no water on us and no water below us. There is just no water. It has not rained, and that can inspire a sense of hopelessness in people who live without water.

When you live without water things can be very dire—in fact, it will send you broke. This charges the debate with emotion, and people feel that the only way you can get through the emotion of the debate is to find an answer to no rain. There is no answer to no rain. The only answer to no rain is rain. It would be marvellous if someone in this chamber could work out how to do that. We would certainly have something newsworthy then.

I want to concentrate on a positive outcome of this report, one that deals with the fact that we in this nation must start to look to the way in which we are going to put people where the water is rather than always trying to recalibrate the issue of moving water to where the people are or somehow dividing up the water cake when there is no more water cake to divide up. One of the recommendations is that the government must look to tax incentives or managed investment schemes or other government incentives to start giving people a very strong reason to live in different corners of this nation. What Senator Siewert said is correct: you cannot go back to the Murray-Darling Basin because there is nothing more there to divide up. It is a fully allocated system and, some would strongly suggest, overallocated.

So that either puts a cap on our growth or suggests that we have to start looking at other areas and start giving people a back-pocket reason to go to other areas. We have to start giving that leadership reason to go to other areas of our nation. There is a great opportunity politically for whoever wants to take up the cudgels to come up with a program that further develops some of the water we have in our north and give people an alternative to being in the Murray-Darling Basin.

There are also great alternatives before the government if they wish to offer incentives to people to use less water-intensive crops and in so doing, if there is a real financial incentive for them to do it, say to them that the quid pro quo of that deal is that they must put water back into the river. They must give back to the river the water that they save and, for that benefit, they could get a financial advantage—for instance, higher depreciation rates or tax deductibility. Maybe they could even get grants for moving to a less water-intensive crop.

With this report we can also look at positive aspects and the way forward. It is all very well to comment on the problems. We can do that every day. But commenting on the problems just becomes an echo. The really smart thing is to come up with a path forward that causes the least hurt. There are comments, obviously, about the Lower Balonne and Condamine—the area from which I come. There are two sides to every coin, of course. There is a sense of the benefits that water, when it is used efficiently, can produce.

In an area such as St George we do not have some of the social problems that they have in other towns. When water is about, there is a sense of prosperity. There is a sense of people moving through the social stratification that can sometimes inhibit the growth of areas. We have Indigenous people who have actually become very wealthy members of our community. That is a positive outcome. There is a sense of egalitarianism, fair play and hope. There is a sense that water can deliver prosperity and a style and quality of life that fixes so many of the problems that are sometimes associated with remote regional towns.

In a place like St George we have a diversity of industry—and I put that on the back of water. We have a number of doctors. I think that, in a town of 3,000, we have about seven doctors. We have got around a lot of the ailments that have afflicted other areas. I firmly put that down to the utilisation of the water resources. I caution very strongly against the idea of putting water use up as a complete demon, because the use of water is not demonic. In fact, the use of water is sometimes a catalyst: it starts to actually deliver hope to areas. It was the fact that water was around that motivated me to move to St George and set up a business from scratch. It sustained me, my wife, my family and a number of employees—four employees at times. What I implore senators is that, in the reading of this report, we do not just see usage of water as something bad. Usage of water is something that, in so many cases throughout the world, is the inception of wealth.

The good thing about this report is that it asks people to look at the path forward—where you can go to deal with some of the problems that have arisen or may arise. That is what a good report does. It does not just wallow in grief. It does not partake in some hoary chestnut of a debate that gets kicked around. It gives a path forward.

I think those on both sides of this chamber would want to acknowledge that, if we are to do something worthwhile, it should be that we do not deliver fear to those people who are utilising water and whose lives have for once gone ahead by reason of the utilisation of this resource. We should deliver hope with regard to how we can better utilise it and further develop it in other areas.

The next stage for this nation is what we do in the north—how we get a better process and get further development in those areas where the demands on water have probably not been exceeded and where there is scope. From the Ord right around to the Burdekin, there is hope. Let us deliver hope to some of those gulf communities—especially in my state; places like Burketown—right around to Senator Nigel Scullion’s state and right up to Nhulunbuy. Let us deliver to them the hope that the people of the Murray-Darling Basin have in a lot of areas. It is not fair that we can just sit down here and say: ‘We’ve prospered. We’ve got ahead, but no-one else can do that. No-one else is allowed to partake of the wealth of our nation, only us.’ If we are a just and fair nation, we should look to those people in these areas who do not have the benefits that have been delivered to other areas and start thinking about them.

I believe that this government has a great chance to lay down a path for the Australian people at the next election, showing how they are going to deliver a true vision that the Australian people can remember this government by—how they can deliver that fairness, prosperity, justice, sense of hope, increase in the social structure and the ability for people to climb through social structures that is evident where water is properly and fairly used. I think that would be one of the greatest outcomes of this report. I commend the report to the Senate.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the report. In doing so, I begin by thanking the members of the committee very much for their concerted effort in actually finding some pathways through the difficulties that we had in drafting this report. There was quite a lot of negotiation. We had some very heated discussions about the kinds of comments that should be in this report, given that the future of rural water use is something that we on all sides of the chamber are passionately concerned about. Thanks too to the secretariat, which steered us through some pretty difficult challenges in getting this report to the Senate by the end of this year.

Having reflected on the comments of Senator Siewert, Senator Joyce and Senator Heffernan, I would like to not so much revisit the recommendations of the report but reflect a little bit on some of the discussions and findings of the committee as we deliberated this issue. First of all, I think that both Senator Joyce and Senator Siewert made very important points in the sense that we cannot be seduced into trying to find some short-term solutions and drought responses that are inconsistent. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.