Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On Friday, 10 October 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport tabled its report from the inquiry into water management in the Lower Lakes and Coorong, including consideration of the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008. The committee received 84 submissions from state and federal government departments, key organisations and stakeholder groups and individuals. The committee held hearings in Adelaide, on 10 September 2008, and Canberra, on 9, 18, 19 and 26 September 2008. The committee heard evidence from a diverse range of witnesses, including representatives from the relevant federal, Queensland, South Australian and New South Wales departments, farmers’ and irrigators’ groups, the Australian Conservation Foundation, local councils and residents and technical experts.

One fact that was made clear by this inquiry into water management in the Coorong and Lower Lakes is that there are no simple solutions. Regardless of what others may be saying out there in the media, there is no simple solution. The fact remains that there is not enough water in the system and many environmental sites throughout the basin, as well as farmers, irrigators and communities, are suffering from the lack of water. The problem faced in the Coorong and Lower Lakes is a result of the Murray-Darling Basin currently experiencing the worst drought on record, historic overallocations of the water in the system and the emerging impacts of climate change.

As the lakes are freshwater ones, the focus of the inquiry’s first term of reference was to find possible solutions to obtaining additional fresh water for the lakes. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission estimates that a total of 830 gigalitres of water would be required to return the lakes to sea level by June 2009. Thirteen hundred gigalitres would be required to raise the lakes to a level where the fishways could be operated, and an additional flow of 550 gigalitres would be required to operate them for 12 months. A further 730 gigalitres per annum flowing through the barrages would be required to be sure of keeping the mouth of the Murray open to assist with tidal flows into the Coorong. But where does this water come from? And if water is available to allocate, how do you decide who needs it most? Options to find additional fresh water include: purchasing permanent water entitlements; capturing overland flows; acquisition of water on the temporary market; public storage sources such as the Menindee Lakes, Lake Victoria and the Snowy River; and manipulating weir pool levels.

The government has already committed no less than $3.1 billion to the purchasing of water entitlements under its Water for the Future plan and has also announced a tender in the southern and northern basins to purchase entitlements from willing sellers. The committee heard that storage volumes throughout the basin are very, very low and any available water would be required for high-priority needs. In the committee’s view, obtaining any additional water from any public storage source would only be at the cost of adversely impacting those particular sites’ environmental values and ecosystems.

One very esteemed expert, Professor Richard Kingsford, gave evidence that taking water from other public storages was like ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’. All the sites throughout the basin hold their own important environmental values and one cannot be seen as more important than another. Dr Arlene Buchan, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, supported this claim by saying:

The key users across the Murray-Darling Basin are irrigators, dryland farmers, flood plain graziers, the environment, towns and cities… all are legitimate users of that water … There is no room for any of those users to say that the rights of the others should be squashed.

Some of the options presented needed further investigation, but the general consensus was that there is unlikely to be enough water in the system to achieve the flows necessary for a significant increase of fresh water flows into the Lower Lakes.

Flooding the lakes with sea water is an alternative option to increasing the levels of the lakes that the committee inquiry explored. The options for sea water included temporarily admitting a small quantity of sea water to stave off the formation of acid sulphate soils; dividing the lakes in two and admitting sea water in one section; or removing the barrages and returning the lake system to an open estuarine system. In the committee’s opinion the question which needs to be answered in considering this is: would the damage from sea water outweigh acid sulphate soil formation? The general consensus of experts was that sea water was the less damaging option. However, other issues such as the potential impact of the salt on groundwater, the potential concern for the intrusion of salt water upstream and the impact that increased salinity in the lakes would have on the ecosystem were a concern to the committee and needed further investigation.

An option presented to the committee to potentially solve the immediate problem of hypersalinity in the south lagoon was to pump the hypersaline water out of the lagoon into the ocean. This option warrants serious consideration subject to further investigation. Ultimately it was the committee’s view that any addition of sea water would require thorough environmental impact assessment and community consultation.

This report highlights how difficult the situation is across the Murray-Darling Basin, including the Coorong and the Lower Lakes, and cements the fact that there are no simple solutions to this problem. Communities, farmers, irrigators and environmental values are all under enormous pressure. But, as was stated before by Dr Arlene Buchan, all are legitimate users and all have rights to the water. The evidence presented shows that there is not enough water in the system to do the things we want to do. Even if some water were available to be allocated, all of these users want and need water. If there is not enough water to go around, how do you decide who to sacrifice?

On the more positive side, the committee heard that recent rainfall in the Lower Lakes region, combined with increasing seasonal allocations to South Australia, means that the likelihood of reaching the acidification management threshold before winter next year has fallen considerably. Dr Craik, from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, said:

Under the worst case scenario a relatively small amount of water could be required to avoid acidification before next winter. Given the rainfall and the reduced evaporation, we believe that we only need a relatively small amount of water to get through to next winter. Under anything less than the worst case scenario the lakes are at a low risk of acidification before the next winter inflow period.

This is positive news for the short term but, as included in the six recommendations the committee provided in the report, the need for a management plan to address the long-term threats to the site’s environmental values is of vital importance. I must reiterate: the whole Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis; there is absolutely no mistake about that. I will reiterate one more time: how do you determine who is more important than anyone else on the Murray-Darling system? That is not for us to decide, but we need a long-term solution, and this government will continue to strive to find a long-term solution.

I would like to thank fellow senators for their work on this committee, bearing in mind that it is just halfway through and there is a lot more to be done. Once again I will take this opportunity to thank the secretariat of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. Their undying commitment to this work is second to none. They are under enormous pressure—there is no doubt about that—yet they deliver. Nothing is a problem to them. I thank Jeanette and her team and look forward to continuing on to see if we can finish this other part of the inquiry and wrap it up by the December date.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The report handed down on Friday afternoon by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, Water management in the Coorong and Lower Lakes (including consideration of the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008), is disappointing. We have just heard from the chair of the committee a list of reasons why the recommendations in the report did not necessarily support the evidence that was given during the inquiry. This was an urgent inquiry set up by the Greens, with cross-party support because all sides of politics understood that it was an important issue we needed to tackle and we needed to act on. So it is disappointing that the chair’s report fails to recommend swift, decisive remedies for action to save the Lower Lakes and the South Australian Coorong.

We have just heard that the decisions and the actions that we need to take are going to be difficult, are going to be hard and are going to be tough. Since when did having to make the hard, tough choices mean that it was a good enough excuse just to sit back and wait? Senator Sterle is right: we do need a long-term plan for managing the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and the rest of the Murray-Darling system. We definitely need a long-term plan. We need that fast-tracked. We cannot wait another two, three, five, 10 years before we see action.

The Greens are disappointed with the majority report. That is the reason we worked together with Senator Xenophon to put forward our own minority report. The majority report dismisses the evidence that was given during the inquiry based on what water is needed, how we could acquire it and the risks and dangers of flooding the lakes with salt water. If the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, wanted a report to support her continued inaction, this would be the report she would write. The government has its head buried in the sand on this issue. The communities in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong are desperate for action. They are sick of being told, ‘Sit back and pray for rain,’ and yet the chair’s report simply continues this business-as-usual approach.

We have dodged a bullet. We have had an intervention from Mother Nature herself. Unexpected rain down in the lower reaches of the Murray has bought us time. We now know that we need only 30 to 60 gigalitres of fresh water to cover those soils and avoid the disastrous situation of the acid sulphate soils taking over. If we need only 30 to 60 gigalitres to secure the survival of the lakes before this time next year, we have some time to plan for action. We must not lose this opportunity. We have dodged the bullet; now let’s take the bull by the horns and actually get moving. It is not good enough to say, ‘Because the decisions that we need to make are hard and tough,’ as a reason not to make them.

We need the experts to make these decisions. We need a task force established to ensure that it is experts that are managing this crisis, managing the system, because it has been proven time and time again, year after year, that politicians are not the right people to do it. Inaction and deferring of hard decisions is how we got here in the first place. We need action. In the short term, between now and spring next year, we need to secure 30 to 60 gigalitres of fresh water to cover those soils; we need to pump the hypersaline water out of the southern lagoon in the Coorong; and we need to fast-track the management plan for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong so that we can ensure survival in the long and medium term and ensure that we are not here again in 12 months time. Sixty gigalitres of water is not that hard to find when we have been told by the commission themselves that 1,500 gigalitres is available in the southern basin—what is hard to find, in this chamber, is the political will.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Water Resources and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few comments on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into water management in the Lower Lakes and Coorong, including consideration of the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008. I acknowledge that my colleagues also want to make some comments, so I will keep this very brief. Certainly there is no easy solution. While the inquiry focused on the Coorong and the Lower Lakes, we did take into account some broader issues relating to the basin itself, and I want to touch on a couple of those today.

One of those is the important issue of water buyback. During the course of the inquiry we tried to see if there was any water available for the Coorong and the Lower Lakes, which eventually led to discussion around buyback. What became very clear in evidence from the department that was given to the committee was that, with the $50 million buyback that the government has recently undertaken, for which the Prime Minister and Minister Penny Wong indicated that there would be 34 gigalitres of entitlements, in actual fact only 4.8 gigalitres—not 34 but only 4.8—and only 443 megalitres of real water had transferred to the government. So it became very clear that the indications given to the community of how much water was coming back as a result of the government buyback were not happening. The amount reclaimed, which they said would be 34 gigalitres, was only 4.8 gigalitres and, as I said, 443 megalitres in real water.

That leads to the issue of the north-south pipeline, or Sugarloaf pipeline, in Victoria, which we also took some evidence on. Interestingly, that is going to pull at least 75 gigalitres of real water out of the basin for Melbourne. Compare that to the 443 megalitres that the government has managed to save in real water for the basin so far. At the same time, we see Minister Garrett agreeing to a pipeline which is going to pull 75 gigalitres of real water out of the basin for Melbourne. So there were some very serious concerns raised by the coalition senators around that issue.

The other issue that was raised and is, again, a very serious concern to us was the lack of economic and social impact modelling being done on the effects of this buyback on rural and regional communities. We are seeing open slather from the government in terms of this buyback and yet there is no social and economic impact modelling being done on the effects of those buybacks on those communities. It is effectively putting the cart before the horse. Indeed, we had evidence from the department at one point that that modelling was going to take place but the buybacks would continue—in essence, the buybacks would continue regardless of what that economic and social impact modelling put forward to the government.

It was a very significant inquiry into what is a very difficult issue for the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. With those few brief comments: I think on balance very good conclusions were reached and, certainly from the comments from my fellow coalition senators, we definitely have some kind of a way forward to try and address the issue.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief. I endorse the remarks of Senator Hanson-Young, and I was pleased to be part of that minority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into water management in the Lower Lakes and Coorong, including consideration of the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008. I also acknowledge and endorse the remarks of Senator Nash in relation to the Sugarloaf pipeline and the damage that it will do to the Murray-Darling Basin. I will confine my remarks principally to the issue of the emergency water bill that I introduced and the evidence that was heard, particularly from Professor John Williams, of Adelaide university’s law school.

It is clear that the Commonwealth does have the constitutional power to tackle this crisis in the Murray-Darling basin. It is clear that it can use its powers to fast-track water buybacks and to take the action that is necessary to avert this crisis so that there is an equitable share of water in the system, overallocation is dealt with and the crisis that the Murray-Darling Basin faces can be dealt with comprehensively with one set of rules by the Commonwealth. That is something that has not been done by this government. I urge the government to have the same sort of political will that the Hawke government had 25 years ago when it took on the then Tasmanian government in relation to the Franklin River. That is the sort of approach and the sort of urgency that we need now to tackle this crisis.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to remark on Senator Nash’s comments on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report Water management in the Coorong and Lower Lakes (including consideration of the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008), it is amazing that here we have the government and Minister Wong actually purchasing some water and that being the subject of criticism by the opposition. The reality is that during the 11½ years that Senator Nash’s party were in government they did not buy a single drop of water. Senator Wong has been doing that. The reality is that the issue of the Murray River is arguably the most important and pressing problem facing Australia today. The government may be able to insulate us from a world financial crisis, as of course the government has been doing over the weekend, but unfortunately it cannot produce water out of fresh air. It is simply not possible.

The picture as it relates to the Lower Lakes that is reported in the standing committee’s report is far from rosy, but it is accurate and it is truthful. The reality is that for too long we have been taking too much water out of the river system. Combined with the extended drought conditions and the reality of climate change, we currently have a crisis in the Murray River. I guess one of the difficult scientific facts is that even if we do get water further up the system—up Senator Heffernan’s way or further north than that—the reality again is that we lose 70 to 80 per cent of that water in transmission to get it to the Lower Lakes.

The Senate committee heard evidence that the very low irrigation allocations to date in the southern basin are threatening some of the permanent plantings. All up the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry makes it clear that there simply is not enough water in the basin to do everything that we want. But, on the more positive side, at least for the moment, the committee did hear that recent rainfalls in the Lower Lakes region, combined with increasing seasonal allocations to South Australia, mean that the likelihood of reaching the acidification management threshold before next winter has been reduced considerably. Longer term challenges do remain, and that is why the federal government has made commitments to the South Australian government to try to address some of the problems. We have committed $200 million towards ensuring solutions around the Lower Lakes area, with $10 million being immediately available to accelerate programs on the Lower Lakes and the Coorong.

The government have also committed a further $120 million to piping works to provide the towns, the communities and the irrigators who are currently relying on the fresh water in Lake Alexandrina with fresh water. These are all part of the government’s commitment. The federal government have committed $12.9 billion for the Water for the Future plan and we are focusing on trying to adapt to climate change, using water wisely, securing water supplies and ensuring healthy rivers. On that note, I conclude my remarks.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to express some disappointment with the majority report issued in response to this inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into water management in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, including consideration of the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008, and note indeed that there is some common ground between the minority report issued by the Greens and Senator Xenophon and the additional comments made by coalition senators. Thankfully Mother Nature, in respect of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, has delivered us some time. This report makes it clear that the government needs to get on and utilise that time, to get on and do it. There are some things we can do; let us get on and do them. What this inquiry has demonstrated more fundamentally is the shortcomings in the government’s approach to the Murray-Darling Basin in the broad. In short, the Coorong and the Lower Lakes are potentially not only a tragedy unto themselves but also a tragic microcosm of what can happen and will happen in other spots—not hot spots but rather dry spots—across the country if the government continues its current approach.

As part of this inquiry we heard evidence from stakeholders who had not been consulted by the government in the formulation of approaches to resolve the dire circumstances facing the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. We heard evidence of new solutions—funny, that. When there is a failure to consult with stakeholders, it should not be surprising that all the alternatives have not been identified and then assessed. What this inquiry demonstrated is the need for the government to deliver what Kevin Rudd has promised in terms of evidence based policy—in all facets of governing the country but particularly in respect of water. What else did we hear as part of this inquiry? We heard about the Wellington weir proposed to be constructed at Wellington in South Australia. We heard that thus far there has not been a clear purpose expressed for the building of the weir. We heard that environmental impact assessments have not yet been completed in respect of the weir. And yet the proposition is to go on and build it. We now have more time, says South Australian Minister Maywald, in respect of the weir. But again, in terms of the weir, there is a demonstration of a failure to commit to evidence based policy—why are we doing things; how are we going to do them; and when?

We heard about capital cities and in particular their reliance on the Murray-Darling Basin system. We heard evidence about the ability to wean Adelaide off the Murray inside 10 to 12 years, yet we heard from a state minister who refused to commit to doing so. Instead we heard vague and confusing evidence: ‘Adelaide’s already on the Murray. Why would we take it off when it’s already on?’ Adelaide as a capital city is not on the Murray at all—nor, for that matter, is Melbourne. Yet we heard evidence about the north-south pipeline. Funny—but it will be far from funny; it will be or odd and undoable, I would suggest—it will be to have the city of Melbourne put on the river system. It is not currently on it. It will be put on it supposedly to serve critical human needs. Once on, no Victorian government will want to agree to take it off. That is the plan. That is part of the plan.

Senator Sterle indicated that, in the government’s view, there is not enough water. In the same breath, he referred to evidence by Dr Buchan that all users of the river system and the basin system are equal. Governments have to make hard decisions. They are faced with very hard choices. There is not enough water in the system, there are users who want more than is available and you say that all users are equal. Well, I am sorry; governments have to take some hard decisions and prioritise. We need this government to demonstrate its evidence based policy for resolving the problems facing Australia, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin. We look forward to the second term of reference of this inquiry, to further investigating and causing the government to actually do what it promised in the election.

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

One thing we discovered during this inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into water management in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, including consideration of the Emergency Water (Murray-Darling Basin Rescue) Bill 2008—and it was obvious to me from the day we set upon it—was that there is not the water in the system, despite what the green people say. We are dealing with the third most inefficient city water user in Australia—that is, Adelaide. We are dealing with the fact that, if the science is right, we need to get Australians generally to understand the science of the future rather than the history of the past. The science of the future is saying we are going to lose out of the Murray-Darling Basin somewhere between 3,500 and 11,000 gigs out of a total of 23,000 gigs over the next 40 to 50 years. Even if that is only half right, we have a serious problem. The 75 gigs that is proposed for Melbourne will be very critical to the Murray-Darling Basin. It will not be critical for Melbourne. All Melbourne has to do is recycle its water and collect its stormwater. Like Sydney, if it recycles 335 gigs and collects three major outfalls it will fix its water supply for the next 40 years.

With a view to the future instead of a wish about the past, it is patently obvious—as it was 100 years ago—that the Lower Lakes will be salt. People ought to get used to that idea if the science is right. There is no other way out of it. I have to say that I think the committee did a good job in discovering that there was not water available. There was a bit of politics played. That is fair enough; we are political. But all governments from all persuasions for all time have managed to muck up water. I would like to take the chamber through some of the ways that we have managed to cock up water over the last 100 years. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.