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

One of the most dangerous myths flying around is that something is better than nothing. That is what we have heard from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and that is what we keep hearing from Minister Burke. But something is better than nothing if, indeed, it is not locking in failure.

The worst outcome would be a plan that locks in failure and that puts the final nail in the coffin for the Murray-Darling Basin system—the final nail in the coffin for the river, allowing it to continue into environmental collapse. That is why we need to ensure that we get this right.

The bill before us, the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012, would allow for the adjustment mechanism—to allow five per cent up, five per cent down—despite the fact that we need to return a minimum amount of water back to the river in order to give it a fighting chance.

This piece of legislation will have a significant impact on the Basin Plan and on how it actually achieves the outcome and how that exorbitant $11 billion will be spent.

The government's bill amends the Water Act to allow the long-term average sustainable diversion limit to be adjusted up and down by five per cent, basin wide and averaged out. That could be a gain or a loss, depending on what it is that the political will in this place will allow.

It could be a gain or a loss of 710 gigalitres. That means risking nearly a quarter of the whole volume of water that is meant to be returned to the river system. Let us remember that, in the first place, we are starting from a very low point. We are told by the minister that when the Basin Plan is finally tabled it will return only 2,750 gigalitres to the river. And if we were to allow a five per cent reduction, then we would be looking at returning only a piddling 2,100 gigalitres for the environment. If we are to save the river from environmental collapse, then by any stretch of the imagination that is not enough.

The best available science, which has been advocated and spoken about passionately, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, CSIRO, 60 of Australia's leading water scientists, environmental groups and many people in my home state of South Australia, including farmers and irrigators, know that this is simply not enough in order to save the river into the future.

They say 2,750 gigalitres is not enough, so clearly 2,100 gigalitres goes nowhere near what we need to reform the system. They even say that 3,200 gigalitres is really not enough—but it could be at least a good start if it were a guaranteed minimum. We know that the best available science says that at least 4,000 gigalitres is what is needed if we are to give the river a fighting chance and allow it to get through those dryer times. Returning enough water is not just an environmental necessity; returning enough water to deliver true reform is the only responsible position because it is about the very existence of a sustainable river system that keeps our industries and our basin community alive and well—as well, of course, as protecting those unique species that are currently at risk throughout the basin.

The adjustment mechanism will be benchmarked to environmental outcomes that will be pegged to a sustainable diversion limit that is set by the Basin Plan—and that is only at 2,750 gigalitres. If we allow this bill to pass in its current form, the only water guaranteed to be returned by this parliament to the river system is 2,100 gigalitres. That is not enough to save the system; it is not enough to give the river a fighting chance, particularly in the dryer years. The 2,750 gigalitres currently proposed by the authority and the minister would achieve only 57 per cent of what we are meant to be trying to do—57 per cent of the authority's own environmental targets for the health of the river would be met. If we allow this legislation to pass, it would reduce the water to be returned to the river to 2,100 gigalitres. We are going to get nowhere near that target when, even at 2,750 gigalitres, only 75 per cent of those targets are achieved. It is a starting point that fails. It will condemn the Coorong and the Lower Lakes and many of the flood plains around the basin to a certain death, particularly in the next drought.

Let us not forget all of that and that we are actually spending $11 billion of taxpayer money—$11 billion which is meant to be saving the system is condemning it to certain death. That is why I will be moving an amendment this afternoon or this evening—whenever we get to that particular part of the debate—to ensure that there is no cap on the five per cent adjustment when it comes to returning more water to the river. This bill in its current form allows less water to be returned to the river and sets a cap on how much we can achieve. As we get better at being able to use more water more wisely and at understanding that the needs of the environment are becoming more and more dire, rather than saying that we should be able to return more water to the river, this bill, as it is currently set out, says no, you cannot; it puts a cap on our level of achievement.

As our knowledge of climate change grows, and groundwater extraction increases and the climate dries, we know that we need to be finding more flexible ways to return more water to the river. That is what science tells us and, if we are going to make the river survive, that is what we have to do.

I will also be moving an amendment that removes the ability of the adjustment mechanism to reduce the amount of water available for the environment. It is not genuine for anybody in this place, particularly the minister, to stand up and say that this plan will deliver 2,750 gigalitres if this bill passes in its current form—because that can be reduced to returning only 2,100 gigalitres. We know that the eastern states, particularly Victoria and New South Wales, will be quite happy with returning only that amount of water—but it is not going to be enough to save the river.

The Greens will also be moving amendments to the bill that is currently before the House of Representatives which would allow for the payment of the extra 450 gigalitres—the 450-up bill, as it is being referred to around this place. This bill was announced with a big fanfare by the Prime Minister when she visited the Murray Mouth only weeks ago. Of course, that extra 450 gigalitres is not guaranteed in the current legislation that is before the House of Representatives. We need to make sure we can amend that to make sure that it is; otherwise, all we see before us are two pieces of legislation that continue to pork-barrel more Australian taxpayer money to the big irrigators upstream—billions upon billions of dollars—without any guarantee that real water is going to be returned to the river. That will fail not just the public's view and desire and understanding that this reform is meant to be saving the river; it will fail the river itself, and it will certainly fail the aspirations of my home state of South Australia.

We need to make sure that we have a floor—and that is what this bill should be doing: putting in place an absolute minimum so that, if we are going to spend $11 billion of taxpayer money, we know for certain that this amount of water at the very least is going to be returned. We want nothing less, because we know that returning even less water will condemn the lower stretches of the river, the southern end of the system, to a slow death.

Despite the fact that we have this piece of legislation before us, and despite the requirements of the Water Act itself, there has never actually been modelling or a public release of the best approximate figure for water recovery that will satisfy the 112 hydraulic targets across the basin. We will never know what the right figure is. The best available science tells us is that it is at least 4,000 gigalitres. The minister, the Prime Minister and the Premier of South Australia say at least 3,200 gigalitres is needed. It can be done and it should be done. Let us make sure that is an absolute minimum and lock it in. To do that, this bill would need to be amended in the manner in which the Greens will be moving.

The Greens have a long-held position to stand by the best available science, and that has meant at least 4,000 gigalitres. We have said to the government very clearly that we would be willing to accept 3,200 gigalitres as a step forward, but we have to lock it in and we have to make sure it is an absolute minimum that we cannot waver from. To do that we must ensure we remove the ability to relegate down five per cent, as currently outlined in this bill. I will also be moving amendments to ensure that, when the adjustment is proposed by the authority in 2016, it must also release basin-wide integrated modelling for the impacts on all of the targets that have been set out so that no-one who lives in the communities throughout the basin will be left in the dark again.

The other very weak part of all this is the allowance in the plan to increase the groundwater extractions. Throughout this year we have heard many scientists raise this as a major concern: the fact that there will be an allowed increase in the amount of water that can be taken out of the ground—an increase of 1,700 gigalitres. That is extra water being given away, virtually for free. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have raised significant concerns about this increase. The government, the authority and the government agencies cannot even tell us what that interconnection between the groundwater and the surface water is going to be.

The Greens will be moving amendments to this legislation to make sure that, before any increase in groundwater extraction occurs, we know exactly what the impact is going to be on the surface water and to communities downstream. We should not be giving away more water, repeating the mistakes of the past by allowing overallocations to the groundwater system simply because we do not have the information to help us make the right decision. Let's get the review, let's get the science, and then we can determine whether increasing groundwater extractions is indeed the correct thing to do. The Greens amendments will fix this.

Our amendments will return to the precautionary principle: let's know what we are doing first before we move in and start ripping out more water. In an age of climate change we need to make sure that we are taking on board through these reviews the most up-to-date information about climate data. The Greens amendments will make sure this happens. The increased knowledge about climate change must be factored into how the plan can be adjusted. It is absolutely crucial at a time when we are fighting to reform the Murray-Darling Basin system that we do not do it in the vacuum of what is available now. This is meant to be a plan for the future. Once this plan is passed, it will be in place until 2030. The climate is going to be very different by 2030 and we need to make sure that we have the ability through the adjustment mechanism to adapt as need be.

In my closing remarks I want to emphasise how important it is for this piece of legislation to be amended to make sure that the plan is the right one to save the river, not just for the rest of the country but, indeed, for the end of the system in my home state in South Australia.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012 before the Senate. This bill, along with the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012, was referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee by the Selection of Bills Committee. The bill was sent to the environment committee on the basis that it would remove the power of the minister and the parliament to oversee potentially significant changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and because doubts have been expressed by the various states upstream and downstream and stakeholders of all persuasions—that is, irrigators and environmentalists—about the content of this bill. What that does not say is that the concerns from the irrigators and the environmentalists were two extremely different concerns. One focused on the social issues that were outlined by Senator Barnaby Joyce earlier and others were reflected in Senator Hanson-Young's contribution about the importance of the environment. So there were two really conflicting approaches to this bill.

I congratulate Minister Burke on moving this forward. We could have been in the same position as we were for a long time with climate change issues and putting a price on carbon, where the position was deadlocked and we did not move. I understand that this bill will not meet Senator Hanson-Young's concerns and some of the environmentalists' concerns. I also understand that there are still concerns from the National Party and the coalition about some aspects of the bill. We are never going to get a pure position that will satisfy either the Greens party or the coalition. To try to get this bill through parliament, the government have accepted some issues that we may not have wanted to accept. One of the issues was the independence of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

It is clear that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will have the expertise to deal with these issues. But it is equally clear that you would never get a Murray-Darling Basin Plan through parliament if you did not give some ground on some issues to try to get a consensus, to get some progress on this vexed issue. And this is a vexed issue.

This has been a vexed issue from the very day John Howard determined there was going to be a Murray-Darling Basin Plan and allocated $10 billion to a plan, without any consultation with his ministers, without any consultation with Treasury and without any consultation with the cabinet. That was the start of this bill, and we have had to pick up the pieces on the way through. And I think Minister Burke has done a tremendous job to get us to where we are.

Senator Joyce said earlier that people were doing it tough out in the irrigation areas, and I understand that. He said that some of us here may never have done it tough. Well, I have done it tough. I have lost my job because the economic circumstances meant that the employer I was with could not continue. I have had to try to deal with individual workers as a union official, and with communities and enterprises—with people who have lost their jobs and their futures as a result of economic circumstances and changed circumstances. I have been lectured about Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction—about how things change and how you move from one job to another. I have never been too impressed by Schumpeter's theory of economic destruction. But I have to say that I do understand that workers and communities need to be taken into account, and I think this bill is trying to do that.

The other aspect of this which has not been spoken about to any great level—Senator Hanson-Young has raised it—is the changing climate, and the need to deal with these issues. It is interesting that we have just had another report, not from a green group, not from some tree huggers, but from the World Bank. The World Bank is basically saying that they have reviewed all the literature, all of the science on this issue, and that we are heading for a four-degree increase in the temperature of the globe.

It is okay for people to stand up here and say, 'We've got to protect every job; we've got to protect every community,' but they have to take into account the health of the river. That is what came through to me in the committee hearing. I agree with Senator Hanson-Young: if you do not have a healthy river then the jobs that are associated with the river will go and the communities will be as unhealthy as the river. You cannot, by some legislative process in parliament, guarantee that there will never be a change in the communities on the Murray-Darling. As much as we would like to think so, it is not going to happen. I think climate change is going to make us look at this as an ongoing issue, but I think the minister has done a good job in trying to deal with the issues that are before us at the moment to try and get this bill through.

I really do not accept the proposition, from the Greens again, that we will get out there and do all the pure environmental issues and not take into account the issue of the communities. There has to be a balance. But that balance has to take into account the environment. That is my view: it has to take into account the environment. And you can never get everything you want in one hit.

I would have been more interested in the Greens and their contribution today if they had actually attended all the hearings, and listened. Senator Hanson-Young, you can sigh all you like, but I think if there is a hearing on the issue that you are so passionate about then the Greens could actually turn up to all the hearings and listened to what is going on. So I just do not accept all this passionate opposition, when the Greens will not even put the effort in to attend all the hearings. It is a bit rich to be here with all the passion and all the worries if you do not even attend the hearings on this issue. It is an issue, and it is a real issue.

So what we are trying to do with this bill is to ensure that we achieve, as best as possible, a balance. It might not be perfect for the irrigators. It might not be perfect for the environmentalists, or the Greens. But there was lots of conflicting evidence before the committee about the impact of the 2,750 gigalitres, moving to 3,200 gigalitres with that 450 extra gigalitres. There was evidence about choking points. There was evidence about floods in some areas around choking points in the river. There was evidence from the irrigators about the need to actually manage this very carefully, and there was other evidence, which was completely to the contrary to that, from the environmentalists, similar to what Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has put here: that there are real problems with the approach and not enough water to make the river healthy.

We went to two areas. We went down to South Australia and we heard all of the arguments about why you need to actually meet the commitments that the government outlined and that Minister Bourke outlined in his second reading speech. In relation to the special accounts bill, the committee has said that we should actually put the targets in legislation so that the fears of some environmentalists, that we would not get that water in and it would not make the difference down in Adelaide, would be dealt with. So it was very important to do that.

My view, and I have not got a lot of time left, is that we certainly should support this bill. It may not be everybody's nirvana and it may not be the perfect issue for everyone here but it is a massive step forward in trying to get the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in place to make sure that the population of Adelaide can have access to water and can have reduced salinity and that we can have the rivers as healthy as we possibly can while maintaining the social, industrial and agricultural efforts in other areas upriver from Adelaide. So this is a very complex issue and this is a tough game.

I say again that Minister Burke has done a tremendous job in trying to manage this through parliament given the problems that we have. It became clear during the hearings that there were differences between the Liberals and the Nationals because different constituencies have different priorities—and I am not criticising that as I think some differences within parties are good for debate and outcomes. I see Senator Birmingham has come in and I am sure he will be speaking shortly. Senator Birmingham has got the job of trying to massage this through with Senator Barnaby Joyce. Good luck, Senator Birmingham! You are going to have your work cut out but I am sure you are up to it. I am sure that there will be a robust debate and you will be in it looking after Adelaide and making sure its people are getting a fair go. I am sure Senator Joyce will be saying cotton farmers have to get a fair go as well. It will be an interesting debate in the coalition party room on this issue. I am looking forward to the outcome of that to see who comes out with their head still intact.

I support this bill. I think it is important that it gets through. It may not be everybody's perfect solution but it is a solution in the interim to get all this moving to get a Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan in place. I think it is a good approach. I certainly support the bill and I commend it to the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to offer in-principle support for the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limited Adjustment) Bill 2012, and to welcome the arrival of this legislation for debate in the Senate because it signals, I hope, that we are getting very close to the end of a very long, tortuous and drawn out process. It is more than five years since I rose in this place to speak—at that time sitting not far from where Senator Cameron, who has just spoken, sits now—on the then Water Bill 2007. The Water Bill was the last great reform of the Howard government. The attempt to get Murray-Darling Basin reform at a national level was the last great issue pursued by the Howard government and it is one of which I am incredibly proud. It has not been smooth sailing since then; it has not been smooth sailing at all.

The Howard government handed down a package that involved legislative reform through the Water Bill, which is now the Water Act, which at present we are debating amendments for. It provided for a $10 billion fund, to try to ensure the adjustment required to put the Murray-Darling Basin on a sustainable footing could be achieved and achieved in a way that protected the economic and social fabric of our food-producing communities. Not everything has been smooth since then. I do not want to dwell too much on what has gone wrong but certainly we have seen significant delays in terms of when we expected to see a basin plan under the Water Act finalised. Happily, it looks like it is very close to finalisation—it looks like we will see it finalised and delivered within the next few weeks, if not days. If that is the case, and particularly if Minister Burke has managed to do this in a way that has some buy-in and some approval from each of the Murray-Darling Basin states, then I will congratulate him on having done so.

For more than 120 years this country, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin states, has argued, squabbled and bickered over water reform. Way back when the Federation conventions were held in the 1890s to debate the writing of the Australian Constitution and the very establishment of this parliament in which we meet today, the then South Australian Premier, Charles Cameron Kingston, was arguing that there should be explicit federal powers for the management and oversight of the Murray-Darling Basin. Why? Because, as John Howard more than 100 years later in 2007 put it, 'the rivers don't recognise state borders'. The Murray-Darling system and its tributaries stretch across five different state and territory jurisdictions. They do not recognise state borders, yet our system has been managed on a basis of state borders. So I am pleased if we are getting to the end, if we are getting to a point where, as the minister has indicated, the passage of this bill before us today will allow him to hand down the basin plan that John Howard envisaged in 2007. That would be a very strong step forward.

Critical to it, though, will not just be volumes of water. Volumes of water are just means to ends in this process. The ends involve several things. Firstly, they involve, of course, having an environmentally sustainable River Murray and Murray-Darling Basin. The growth in extractions and water allocations that we have seen over decades reached an unsustainable point, and that is what prompted this action and this reform, in 2007. So I hope that we will see brought in changes that will give us environmental sustainability for the key environmental assets of the river and, importantly, the river system itself and that will ensure that level of sustainability for the future.

Importantly, the ends also include having vibrant regional communities.

I want to see not just a plan but the supporting evidence for the water recovery strategy that will accompany it and for the intergovernmental agreement that should accompany it. I want to see the evidence that demonstrates that this plan will be delivered in a way that guarantees the future of river communities in my home state—Senator Ruston, who I note is in the chamber, lives in the Riverland in South Australia—as well as the river communities in the home states of Senator McKenzie, who worked with me on the committee report and inquiry into this legislation; Senator Nash, from New South Wales, with whom I have travelled extensively around the Murray-Darling Basin; and Senator Joyce, my colleague and the shadow minister for water, from Queensland. We want to make sure the river communities in all of those jurisdictions have a strong future ahead of them, not just for the sake of those communities having a strong future—although that is a pretty worthy goal in and of itself—but also to ensure that this country continues to grow food for itself and food for export to the rest of the world.

Wherever I go, I am yet to meet anybody who does not want Australia to be a country where farmers grow our food on Australian farms for Australian consumption and for export to the world. It is critical that we have that. It is why the $10 billion was allocated by the Howard government. That funding was central to solving the problem of overallocation, to making the take from the Murray-Darling sustainable. In bringing around that sustainable take, we not only kept farmers on their farms with the same level of productive capacity or better but we also returned water to the environment by doing it all far more efficiently.

Regrettably, over the last five years, the priority that those efficiency improvements should be given to upgrade infrastructure has not necessarily always been there. We have seen, of the money that was put aside, more than $500 million meant for infrastructure projects spent on administrative functions and even on advertising campaigns. The proof of this government's failure to deliver on the principle of supporting infrastructure as the cornerstone of Murray-Darling reform is the fact that to date, in terms of the water secured for the adjustment to a sustainable Murray-Darling Basin plan, in excess of 1,000 gigalitres has been secured through buybacks—often buybacks lacking any type of strategy or thought as to their impact on local communities—and just under 300 gigalitres, less than a third, has been secured through infrastructure programs. That has done so much to undermine the confidence of basin communities in this reform agenda and made the process of getting to a final outcome so much harder.

To give credit where credit is due, I acknowledge that Minister Burke and the government have been converted to the priority that should be given to infrastructure. They may be late converts and they may have done a lot of harm to confidence in this process along the way but the conversion is welcome. The conversion, the plan and the water recovery strategy, which would give some priority to a range of infrastructure programs and environmental works and measures, are very welcome. The legislation before us is central to that. The adjustment mechanism allows not just for an upwards adjustment in environmental flows but also for an acknowledgement that if you can get the same environmental benefits by holding less water then that is what you should do. Our priority should be to have a sustainable river system because everything we do depends upon that and the future of our irrigators depends upon that. Beyond that, we should ensure that every drop we can allocate to productive uses is sensibly used because that is what generates the wealth in our country and what generates the food for our region.

Sheer volumes of water are not always the answer. Just go and ask the irrigators in my home state around Lake Albert, where the sheer volumes of water running through the system are always the answer. Right now Lake Albert irrigators look out from their front porches across Lake Albert and see a lake that still has water in it that is unusable for irrigation activities. It still has in excess of 3,000 or 4,000 EC units—way above what could practically be used. We are at the end of our third consecutive year in a row of flooding through the Murray-Darling system. We have seen enormous volumes of water pushed through the system and flowing out of the Murray mouth, yet Lake Albert, at the bottom, has not managed to recover from the last drought—not for lack of water but from poor management. The entrance to Lake Albert has never been properly dredged or cleared and there is no flow-through of water. These are concerns that should be addressed to ensure we get a better environmental outcome regardless of how much water actually passes through the Murray mouth.

I welcome the fact that this legislation is a step forward to getting an outcome. I welcome the fact that it provides flexibility, which hopefully will see better environmental outcomes up and down the river regardless of how much water is involved. I welcome also the fact that the government has shown some cooperation with the opposition in dealing with this legislation. When it was first introduced into the other place, there were concerns that the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limited Adjustment) Bill 2012 did not have proper ministerial or parliamentary oversight attached. The basin plan that is established through the Water Act that was passed here in 2007 is a disallowable instrument. It will be tabled in this place and the parliament will have the opportunity to have a final say on whether it is a good plan or a bad plan. It is our belief that changes to it facilitated by this legislation should be treated the same way.

That was not the government's original intent, but I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the government supported amending the legislation in the lower house to reflect the fact that the opposition wanted to see that ministerial and parliamentary oversight maintained. I think that is very, very important.

We are potentially on the cusp of a period of good cooperation on this topic across the chamber, as, in fact, there has been at almost every juncture. Though I may have many criticisms of the way the government has gone about implementing this, I note that the Water Act itself was a bipartisan piece of legislation. Amendments to it, made in 2008, were also made in a bipartisan way. The only people in this place who have really sat on the sidelines and never been constructive in this process are those on the crossbenches, in particular in the Australian Greens. I notice even today that the Greens are still trying to play base politics with this. I see a media release from Senator Hanson-Young, who appears to want to be critical of the legislation before us. Yet, rather than criticising the government, whose legislation it is, the media release is headed 'Barnaby Joyce poses a real danger to river plan'.

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

That was from Saturday!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young; it was from Saturday. I do not check your website all that often, you will be pleased to know. However, Senator Hanson-Young, what I did check was that during the committee hearings into this legislation and the complementary bill, the legislation to establish the environmental special water account, the Australian Greens were nowhere to be seen. There were hearings in Adelaide, there were hearings in Canberra. Two different opportunities, not a single one of the Green senators. How many of them are there nowadays? That is right, there are nine of them. There are nine of them nowadays.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—

You are dead right, Senator Fierravanti-Wells: you would have thought that one of them could have turned up. They are pretty quick to come into this place and throw barbs around, they are pretty quick to put out press releases, they are very, very quick to engage in the stunts, and yet when the hard work was there to be done where were the Greens? I will acknowledge that Senator Hanson-Young was, I think, overseas at the time, but you would have thought that one of the other eight Greens senators might have been able to participate in the inquiry into this bill and the other bill.

I am disappointed that, as we are getting close to reaching something that could be quite historic in finally delivering on the long-held dream of national management for the Murray-Darling Basin, there remain those who say they are concerned about the environment, but frankly, from their actions, look far more like they just want to maintain the debate rather than see an actual outcome. I want to see an outcome from this process—be in no doubt about that. I want to see a plan brought into this parliament that all of us on this side of the parliament can support alongside all those on the other side of the parliament. I want to see us ensure that we have a future in the Murray-Darling: that it has a healthy river system, that it has healthy and robust communities, and that the outcomes and ambitions that John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull had in 2007 are delivered. I want to see a situation where we make sure that environmental water is used just as efficiently, just as effectively, as irrigated water is used. I want us to get to a situation where eventually—hopefully—squabbling between the states just might come to an end. Maybe that is too much to hope for, but perhaps we could at least get to a situation where there is an acknowledgement that all states are trying to apply best practice standards to infrastructure, to irrigation and to environmental water use, and that we are trying to get a positive outcome for the river system, for the river communities and for this country's future.

The opposition will propose one amendment to this legislation. The amendment seeks to ensure that the socioeconomic test that Minister Burke and the Prime Minister and others have spoken of is enshrined in this legislation. We hope the government will support that amendment. It certainly is something we have spoken to the government about in relation to the other legislation that is before the parliament at present—the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012—and I particularly hope to see changes made to that to ensure that all of the promises that the government has made on that legislation are included in that legislation when it comes to preserving the future for communities.

As I sum up, I think back to the number of times in this chamber that I have had cause to speak on the Murray-Darling—a topic I have spoken on probably more than any other. I am pleased, as I have said, that we may be close to getting something that will deliver a long-held dream of national reform. I hope the government does not mess it up in the last few minutes. I hope that, in the final days or weeks, we get an outcome that all of those fellow senators from all of those different states representing all of those different communities have something they can go back to their communities with and say: 'We can work with this. We can build on it. Sure, we can improve it. We can make sure that it's as fair as possible to each of your communities, but that it is something that gives us a healthy river and does so in a way that preserves the economic and social fabric of the all of our communities.' I look forward to the committee stage of the debate, and, importantly, to the passage of this bill.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012. Firstly, can I say that I am an irrigator. I hold a water licence in South Australia and I am a member of a community that relies absolutely entirely on the Murray River for its very existence. There is not one person in the community in which I live that does not want a healthier river—a river that is in a robust enough condition to continue to provide for river users, a river that will continue to feed this country and many people who live overseas, and a river that will provide enjoyment and benefit for every Australian. My community is very, very keen to see a Basin Plan that will return certainty to their lives.

For the past five years, while the government has flip-flopped all over the place, developing numerous draft plans, desktop testing numerous scientific assumptions and spending millions and millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, river communities have remained in limbo. There are fears now that nobody has actually been investing in these communities. People have been reluctant to spend money on infrastructure, on new plantings and on plant and equipment, because they just do not know what the future holds. We now have this huge investment lag which we are now going to need to deal with over the coming years. Just as an example, the current crisis that we have in our citrus industry has certainly been exacerbated by the fact that people have not had the confidence to change their plantings, and, hence, we now have an oversupply of some varieties while demand for new varieties cannot be met.

Another consequence of this prolonged inactivity and uncertainty in the market is the price of water. As long as the government continues to be such a significant player in the water market, the price of water will remain distorted. Once we have this plan in place, the government plainly needs to get out of the water market and let the market find its own level. In doing so we might get some confidence back into that market. Hopefully the trading of water will start to be done for sound economic reasons and we will stop seeing the short-term profiteering that we saw during the drought. Basically, we just need certainty so we can get on with our lives.

Hopefully, the adjustment mechanism proposed in this bill will give some comfort to the people in the community that I live in. There is no doubt that we do need a mechanism so that we can alter the SDL, because there is plainly every chance that the SDL is going to be wrong. Over the time we have been debating this in the short time I have been in this place, the number has kept on changing. The number is based on science, it is largely untested in the field and it is a constantly moving target. The adjustment mechanism will hopefully allow us to test the science in a real-world situation before we destroy further communities along the river by continuing to take overgenerous amounts of water out of our system before we have even seen whether we need them to achieve the outcomes that we are seeking.

I can talk about the obsession with his magic number. We have had 7,000, 4,000, 3,500, 3,200 and 2,750—all these numbers have been bandied around. But the real issue is not how much water we need but how, where and when we need it. We do not have an implementation plan. We have no environmental watering plan. In fact, as I am standing here today debating this particular bill, we do not even have a Murray-Darling Basin plan. Until we see a basin plan we are just having a chat about what might be. As one person tweeted on Q&A last night, 'A vision without execution is an hallucination'. Without either an implementation plan or an environmental watering plan, we are playing in the dark. We have none of these documents. It does give me some confidence that the mechanism to change the number exists, but none of us can have any confidence whatsoever that that number is right. I am not saying it is wrong, but we do not know whether it is right.

We do not know whether delivering the water when and where it is needed is even possible. The Committee for Economic Development of Australia report the Australian water project, of 2012, raises this issue when it says:

Better funding and coordination of environmental water allocation, monitoring, measuring and analysis is critical before any changes are made to the sustainable diversion limits.

I note that in the last two years we have seen significantly above-average flows but, as Senator Birmingham mentioned in his comments, we have not seen any great improvement in the Lower Lakes—simply because we have not done the necessary works to be able to achieve those environmental outcomes. It is not just water; it is what you do with it. So we need a much better understanding of how this water will be used before we can hope to come up with an SDL that maximises economic outcomes, protects our river communities and delivers good environmental outcomes. During a recent Senate committee hearing the Chief Executive of Murray Valley Winegrowers, Mark McKenzie, highlighted this issue when he said:

We do not have the capacity to fully assess the plan at this point for a couple of reasons. One is that we do not have a water recovery strategy and we do not have an environmental watering plan in final form. They are still works in progress. …

From our perspective, we have always held that it would be better to do the work first rather than push on with a target which, with respect, is a political target, not a target to deliver a plan which the whole community in the basin can sign off on. That said, we are fatigued and we need certainty. …

Mr McKenzie probably speaks for many, many people that live in these basin communities.

I also think that most people in the basin just want a plan. I know that the people in South Australia just want a plan, and I also think that every South Australian would agree that a healthy river is extremely important. I do not think you would get much argument from the farmers who rely on the river that a healthy river is in their best interests. What they will argue about is taking water from productive use before all other avenues of water savings have been exhausted. This has been argued right across the basin.

During the same water hearing I was referring to, the Chief Executive of the NFF, Matt Linnegar, also commented:

… a limit [should] be placed on any future buyback in light of the social and economic consequences that would follow.

Mr Tom Chesson from the National Irrigators Council also argued that buybacks must be a last resort.

There are a number of options available to achieve water outcomes without resorting to further buybacks, and they are off-farm infrastructure improvements to increase efficiency in the delivery of water, environmental works and measures, removal and reduction of constraints to the river flow and on-farm efficiency measures. All these measures must be pursued so that we can find out exactly how much water can be secured, without reducing productivity in one of Australia's key sectors—primary production.

I would like to draw the attention of senators again to the CEDA report, the water project report, where it said:

A rigorous investigation is required into the food supply chain for irrigated agriculture–from water, to crops, to international food markets–to remove blockages and constraints so Australia can take advantage of increasing international demand.

If we are serious about taking advantage of the opportunities of the Asian century that this government is talking about, we need the capacity to expand our food production. One the one hand, the government is saying that Australia needs to take opportunities in China; while, on the other hand, the government is restricting our opportunities to participate in this sort of planning. This is not only happening with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We only have to look at what is happening in our fisheries at the moment, with the restrictions on being able to fish in areas around Australia. We are restricting our fishery when we do not have any species of fish that are being threatened by overfishing—which is interesting in itself.

As I stand here today, just over 1,500 gigalitres of water has been returned to the basin using the money allocated to it in the $10 billion fund. Very little has come from infrastructure projects, and the rest has come from buybacks—water that has been taken out of productive use. Much of this water has been purchased from desperate sellers—not people who wanted to sell their water, not people who were making money out of selling their water, but people who were desperate to get the banks off their backs. People were living in situations of such total uncertainty about their products and their ability to invest in their businesses that they just had to sell their water. I think this is a very, very sad situation to find ourselves in.

It is time that the Infrastructure Fund lifted its game and started putting back its share of water into the communal bucket. With $5.8 billion allocated to infrastructure projects, what have we got to show for it? My understanding is that we have secured around 280 or 290 gigalitres of water so far out of a $5.8 billion fund. This is an absolute disgrace! What is a further disappointment is the need for the constant requests to the MDBA for information specifically about how that money has been spent. To the best of my knowledge, those questions have not been answered. I heard those questions being asked in estimates. They were put again to the department during the Senate hearing on this matter just a couple of weeks ago. Without this information, it is very difficult to know how much money is likely to be needed to secure the additional water in order to reach the targets that are on the table and that are assumed to be in the plan, as well as any subsequent money needed should the circumstances occur where the SDL is lowered through the mechanism that this bill seeks to legislate.

The more sceptical of us would say that the reason we do not have the breakdown of this money is that maybe the money has been used for purposes that were outside the intent of the fund. Maybe the agency has spent vast amounts on consultancies and on its own administration. Maybe the government knows that there is insufficient money left in the bucket to fulfil the promises it has made, particularly the promise that the Prime Minister made to the people of South Australia to return 3,200 gigalitres of water to the river.

As I said, the food producers and the communities support the river. They also support the MDBA in its endeavours to come up with a plan—a plan that will provide for the ongoing management and operation of the system in a sustainable manner. These communities have already given up a huge amount of water over the last few years to return it to environmental flows, and so it is very disappointing when we hear that the environmental lobby is fixated on buyback as the way to achieve water recovery. My question is: why should they care?

The Australian National Environmental Defenders Office said at a recent hearing that research indicates that buying water access rights is the most cost-effective means of returning water to the environment. One would like to think that the Environmental Defenders Office might be thinking about the implications of buying back that water from communities and not worrying about whether it is going to deliver an environmental outcome. During the hearings, these same sentiments were expressed by other groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wentworth Group. I would say to these groups: 'Your agenda is to get enough water to meet your environmental targets. How that water is achieved should not be of any concern to you.' They should leave the irrigators alone and allow all the other mechanisms that I have mentioned to provide the water before seeking water through buybacks.

We know that water buybacks have a detrimental impact on our regional communities. The debate about doing it just through buybacks does nothing to achieve a conciliatory outcome on this issue. I will give an example of the terrible impacts that buyback has created in my own local community. It has the Swiss cheese effect, whereby blocks are left completely without water. All of a sudden, you have fewer irrigators in your community, but the same amount of infrastructure still has to be paid for by the irrigation trusts in the region. So you end up with a situation where fewer people are paying for more infrastructure costs and the land is being left vacant. I say to those who support buyback: think very, very seriously before suggesting buyback as a priority for returning water to the environment.

Before I finish, I would like to put on the record South Australia's record of responsible use of water over the past 40 years. Since 1969, we have not breached our cap. I think every other state would agree that we are very efficient irrigators. We have relied on high security for much of the working of our irrigation operations in South Australia. I would also like to put on the record how the South Australian River Communities group has been working to try to get a fair deal for South Australia.

I would like to acknowledge the huge contribution of people like Ben Haslett, who is a very successful primary producer in our Riverland region who has given up hundreds of hours of his time to fight this cause on behalf of the irrigators of South Australia. I also acknowledge Gavin McMahon from the Central Irrigation Trust, who has also given up the most extraordinary amount of his time in an endeavour to see if we can get an outcome from this plan. I think they would all like to see a great plan for the whole of Australia, but the interests of South Australia have been foremost in their minds. I acknowledge all the other people who preside on the South Australian River Communities committee. I think we need to pay tribute to the huge amount of work that they have done.

I would also like to say that I am very pleased that the government has agreed to changes to this bill in the process of the debate in the other place. I specifically refer to the amendments for the minister to retain oversight of the plan and for the parliament to retain its power to allow and disallow. This is especially important given the comments of the National Farmers' Federation about how they had lost all confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and its ability to come up with proper and good outcomes. So I hope retaining the legislative instrument and also the minister's ability to oversee this plan will go some way to appeasing the concerns of the communities throughout the Murray-Darling Basin that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has not been serving their best interests and instead has been playing puppet to some political masters.

I understand that this bill is required to be passed to enable the minister to present the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan. On that basis I am very keen to support this bill because, like almost every other person who has been involved in this process, I want to see the plan. If you went out and surveyed everybody who has had any involvement in developing this plan over the last five years, I think they would all be extremely fatigued and be saying, 'Just show us the plan.' But, in supporting this bill, there must be a rock-solid guarantee that the socioeconomic integrity of our river communities is not jeopardised. We need to ensure we meet the requirement that there is no detrimental socioeconomic impact to this bill on our communities when it comes to any changes or any distribution of water from this river. I will support anything that goes to the crux of covering off the socioeconomic impacts of this bill, subsequent bills or the plan. It is absolutely essential.

Implicit in this is the promise of the Prime Minister and Minister Burke that there will be no compulsory acquisition of water to achieve any of the targets that have been set through this process, whether that be the original 2,750 gigalitres, the extra 450 gigalitres that was promised recently by the minister to appease the South Australian premier or the adjustment mechanism that may or may not be required resulting from this bill.

I want to be able to support the plan and I will do so if it delivers the triple bottom line of social, economic and environmental factors and addresses the issues by minimising the cost to communities, delivering improved environmental outcomes and enabling increased efficiency in the irrigation sector. We cannot take support for this bill as support for the final plan. To do so at this stage would be premature and negligent because, as we have said on numerous occasions, we have not seen the plan yet. There is on our side, however, a genuine and honest commitment to progress water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. I therefore hope that we can reach agreement on the passage of this bill so we can see the final plan and all of us can get on with our lives.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to make some remarks on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012. To follow on from some comments that my colleague Senator Birmingham made earlier, I too feel like I have spent many hours in this chamber discussing the issue of water. It seems like for years now we have been backward and forward across this chamber on the various iterations of water issues, with the Water Act 2007 initially and then the variations along the way. I have certainly sat through many hours of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee looking at issues to do with the Murray-Darling Basin and many hours in the estimates process doing exactly the same thing. I concur with those who say a resolution is needed.

It certainly has not been easy; there are no two ways about that. There are so many varied views about the appropriate way forward for the management of the Murray-Darling Basin that it is an enormous task to try to come to some consensus resolution on the most appropriate way forward. As my colleague Senator Joyce said earlier—I certainly do not want to verbal him—there is no perfect solution; there has potentially been some ground to give on all sides. But the mistake should not be made that this bill is in any way, shape or form—as Senator Ruston said before me—about the Basin Plan. That is an entirely separate issue. Support for this bill in front of us today in no way indicates support for the Basin Plan, because we simply have not seen it yet. Until we see the detail, there is absolutely no way that we on this side of the chamber can commit to signing up to it. I think that is a fair and appropriate position for us to take at this stage.

Certainly this bill in front of us today needs to be looked at independently of the broader water issues. It needs to be noted—and I want people to be very clear on this fact—that the ability to amend the Basin Plan already exists in the current Water Act, in subdivision F, from section 45 onward. So this is not a new introduction. This is not some new surprise that has suddenly been brought into the chamber. The ability to amend the Basin Plan already exists.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Before the dinner break I was pointing out that this piece of legislation is not the Basin Plan; it is separate to the Basin Plan. It is simply about adjustments to the sustainable diversion limit. Under the Water Act, potential already exists to amend the Basin Plan. As Senator Joyce was saying earlier today, this streamlines the process. There is a very convoluted process in subdivision F of the Water Act 2007 that enables amendment of the plan.

The government initially brought to us legislation that allowed the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to require changes to the sustainable diversion limit. Quite rightly, the coalition here and in the other place realised that that was not the appropriate mechanism through which to do that. There had to be an ability for oversight by the minister and the parliament. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority could not be left to determine something of this magnitude—whether or not there was an appropriate upward or downward movement to the sustainable diversion limit. I do commend the government for agreeing that that was an appropriate change, an appropriate amendment. I think there is a much greater level of comfort out in the water community that there will be oversight by the minister and by the parliament itself.

My view is that any upward adjustment within five per cent of the sustainable diversion limit should not be utilised through buybacks. Buybacks should be precluded in any upward adjustment of the sustainable diversion limit. There are other mechanisms, through infrastructure efficiencies, where that can be gained. I would hope that through this process, under the five per cent flexibility that occurs under this bill, we can rule out buybacks being used as a mechanism to increase the sustainable diversion limit. That five per cent is potentially around 710 gigalitres of extraction. There really needs to be surety in people's minds that that is not going to occur through buybacks.

At the end of the day, this whole process—not just this bill but the broader water issue of the Murray-Darling Basin—is about people. We have seen now over many years divergence of opinion, different views on different iterations of bills and different aspects of this debate around water. But at the end of the day it is about people, and we have to remember that. Of course everybody wants a better environment for the future and everybody wants to make sure that we have a sustainable basin for the future, but that cannot be at the expense of the future of people in communities in regional Australia. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

I live out in the Central West. We do irrigate; we have a groundwater licence. Along with that, I have spent years and years as a senator in this place going out into communities and talking to the people that this legislation—the broader legislation also—is going to affect. I think we on this side of the chamber are in absolute agreement—and I hope those on the other side of the chamber are too, although I am not so sure about the Greens—that we must take into account the social and economic impacts of removing water from communities by whatever means. There is absolutely no doubt that people look favourably upon the infrastructure efficiency improvements that lead to a reduction in water usage. Environmental works and measures that lead to a reduction in water usage are seen as sensible moves forward.

The issue of buybacks is a different kettle of fish altogether. I understand completely that in some instances benefits have been gained for people in rural communities. But, by and large, as Senator Ruston indicated earlier in her remarks—I commend Senator Ruston on her contribution tonight—so often they are not willing sellers; they are desperate sellers. They have been forced into a situation where they have no choice but to sell water. That, in essence, is a debate for another day. Today is about the sustainable diversion limit adjustment bill we have before us.

There is no doubt that there is not a perfect outcome here. We would all like to wave a magic wand and have a perfect outcome, but life is not like that. Life is not black and white; life is grey. Around this chamber there are a whole lot of different views; indeed, out in our communities there are different views. As my good friend and colleague behind me, Senator McKenzie, would know, if you put 10 farmers in a room you will get 12 different opinions. So it is very difficult to collect the majority view and ensure that we make the best decisions we possibly can in this place when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to weigh things up and try to make the right decision for those people we represent.

As my leader, Senator Joyce, said today, if we were not discussing the Murray-Darling Basin with the government, the Greens certainly would be. I can tell everybody out there in the regional communities of the basin that, if the Greens get what they want on the Murray-Darling Basin, they are going to be in a far, far worse position than they would be under any kind of negotiated outcome that the coalition and the government may be able to reach. This debate is on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012, but it is difficult to talk about the bill separately from the broader Murray-Darling Basin issue. So, while I have tried not to stray from talking about the bill, I have strayed and probably will continue to stray into talking about the Murray-Darling Basin issue.

It is really important that we in this place ensure that people understand that we do not underestimate the importance of social and economic impacts on basin communities. I know I have said that already, but I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is. While debate on the Murray-Darling Basin is so often about irrigators—and I know irrigators out in the regions and have great respect for them—this bill is also about everybody else in the regional communities of the basin, because the Basin Plan has flow-on effects on the very fabric of towns, businesses and families in basin communities. That is why on this side of the chamber—and I commend Senator Joyce for his leadership as shadow water minister—we are trying to get the best and most beneficial outcome for people out in those communities.

I note that Senator Hanson-Young has joined us in the chamber today. We try in this place to be mature and to look at issues in a balanced way in order to come up with the best outcomes we possibly can for people across the nation—and in particular, as far as the Nationals are concerned, for people in regional communities. Senator Hanson-Young has said recently, 'Barnaby Joyce is a danger to the river.' That is extraordinary. The Greens have every right to have their view on the Murray-Darling Basin and every right to put their view forward sensibly, but Senator Hanson-Young has said:

Barnaby Joyce is hoping to make a deal with the Government that would line the pockets of big irrigators…

I just wonder who on earth Senator Hanson-Young has been speaking to. She is talking about big irrigators. I can think of three; I can also think of about 3,000 small family-farm irrigators who are not big irrigators. They have their children at the local school. One of the parents in the family is probably a teacher. The other one probably works in a business in town somewhere for another family. They contribute to the local community. They are on their school P&C. They are part of the local chamber of commerce. They contribute every time there is a sausage sizzle at the local IGA. They are the people affected by the decisions we make in this chamber about the Murray-Darling Basin. Yet the Greens say, 'Barnaby Joyce is hoping to make a deal with the Government that would line the pockets of big irrigators,' and that shows how completely out of touch the Greens are with people in basin communities. They make that sort of media-grab comment instead of a sensible, rational contribution to the debate. It gets better. Senator Hanson-Young went on to say:

The Government has a decision to make; will it support Barnaby Joyce in his attempts to pork barrel the big irrigators upstream—

That sounds like something out of a bad novel—

or will it work with the Greens …

I like the next bit:

I will be meeting with Minister Burke over the coming days to negotiate a Plan that will support river communities …

Here is the thing: I will put five bucks on the table now to say that Senator Hanson-Young will not manage to meet with Minister Burke over the coming days to negotiate a plan. I wonder if she has asked Minister Burke if he is prepared to negotiate a plan with her. Let us sit here for a little while and wait and see. Maybe I am wrong. I am always happy to be wrong in this place, and maybe I will be wrong—maybe Senator Hanson-Young will negotiate a plan with Minister Burke that will support river communities by guaranteeing blah, blah, blah. But I suspect that she will not, because I think that the majority of people in this parliament want to get sensible outcomes for people in regional communities. Sensible outcomes are not achieved through throwaway lines; they are achieved by trying to do the right thing. At the end of the day, for us as Nationals, this bill is about making sure that people in regional communities have the best future they possibly can.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a really, really difficult issue. Mark Twain once said, 'Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over,' and I think he was probably right on the money. What is important in Queensland is not necessarily what is important in New South Wales, in Victoria or in South Australia. We could have a bland, blanket approach in any one of those states, and the other three would find it difficult or impossible to live with. The easy thing to do is to say, each and every one of us parochial in our own state, 'This is what we absolutely want to happen,' and stick by it, jump up and down and not deliver any kind of certainty or opportunity for the future of the basin. The hard thing to do is to try to find an outcome that we can all live with. We do not know—because we have not seen it yet—if the Basin Plan is going to deliver an outcome we can all live with. Our agreement with and support for the bill in front of us in no way indicates support for the Basin Plan, because we have not seen it yet.

As I said earlier, I commended the government for taking into account that for this adjustment bill for the sustainable diversion limits the oversight should be by the minister and the parliament, and the Murray-Darling Basin should not have the authority for the direction. I commend the government again for doing that.

What we need to see is a sensible plan from this government. There are a couple of things that I think are absolutely vital. One is the fact that, as the bottom line, we always have to include the social and economic impacts of any decisions we make around water in the Murray-Darling Basin in exactly the same way we do environmental impacts. We cannot discount that. Anything that is going to compromise the social and economic future of regional communities—that is going to impact the social and economic fabric of those communities—should not be supported. The other thing I know is that people in regional communities have had enough of the issue of buybacks. People need to be very aware that in any sustainable diversion limit around 1,500 gigalitres have already been bought back—that is not a new figure. We have a considerable amount that has already been bought back.

In my view, we should cap buybacks. We should not have unlimited buybacks in the future. I absolutely believe that the government should consider very, very closely a cap on that buyback mechanism so that there can be some certainty in those regional communities. As Senator Ruston said so eloquently earlier, 'Why on earth have we ended up in this situation where no funding has been spent on the infrastructure efficiencies or on the works and measures which should have been done and with which people right across the board agree?' Where there can be improvements to save water, we should be making them without the impacts that buybacks have on the communities. Just look at Twynam, which was so badly mishandled by this Labor government. We on this side of the chamber will try to find the best outcome for people in regional communities right across the basin. The coalition—and the Nationals in particular—will not stand by or make any decision that will have a negative impact on the social and economic futures of regional communities. That is what we stand by.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I happily rise after the Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Fiona Nash, to speak on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012. The bill allows long-term average sustainable diversion limits to be adjusted within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan without having to invoke the formal Basin Plan adjustment process. It is important for a variety of reasons, primarily for flexibility. The bill will also establish a process of ministerial oversight for the sustainable diversion limit adjustments. It will make the limits disallowable legislative instruments so that parliament can have input and hence, through the parliament, the people. It also requires public consultation ahead of any proposed changes, ensuring community input.

I am fully supportive of a balanced Murray-Darling Basin Plan—one that seeks to provide for a healthy river without decimating local communities and industries—but I will not support a bad plan. I believe this bill improves the current Water Act by providing an alternative amendment mechanism. It is odd for us to be here tonight considering legislation that allows for changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the final version of which is as yet unreleased. It acknowledges that there is so much that is unknown in this whole process. That is something that has been reiterated to us over the last few years.

The Senate Environment and Communications Committee, of which I am a member, has conducted an inquiry into this bill over preceding weeks. I would like to take this opportunity to thank particularly Senators Birmingham, Ruston and Joyce for participating in that inquiry and for their leadership. We held hearings in Adelaide and in Canberra and heard from 30 stakeholders—environmental groups, irrigators and even a couple of state governments. Many were concerned about the rapid consultation process and the lack of transparency in relation to the final Basin Plan. They had been asked to comment on a bill which establishes a mechanism that will affect them—up or down, either way—without having seen the final plan. But the time frame for consultation was particularly short. Consultation for this Labor government, however, is too often an afterthought. Ms Schulte from the New South Wales Irrigators Council summed it up best when she said:

For a peak body representing thousands of irrigators and water access licence holders in New South Wales, the time frame is insufficient to adequately consult with our constituency on all aspects of the proposed bills. In the absence of a finalised basin plan, as a legislative background for these bills it remains extremely difficult for us to evaluate in full the proposed amendments and provide detailed comments to the committee.

The inquiry process is a bit of a farce if our core contributors and those peak bodies which are bringing to the Senate process community concerns cannot actually perform their function because of the constraints the government has put on them through the consultation process.

Similarly, the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, of which Senator Nash is a keen participant, in a recent interim report also stated that:

As a result the Parliament is again being asked to legislate on a matter with insufficient information.

It is legislation in the dark. The information that is lacking includes environmental watering plans and a full understanding of the plan's socioeconomic impacts on many, many regional communities throughout the basin—including those represented by Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Joyce, Senator Boswell, Senator Nash, Senator Payne and Senator Williams, who are all in the chamber tonight.

This is in perfect keeping with the haphazard way the government has gone about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan process from the start. At a million square kilometres, the sheer enormity of the physical space we are talking about is 14 per cent of our nation's land mass, whilst being home to only 10 per cent of our population. Hence we get some sort of understanding, I guess, of the political power this group of people—despite their enormous contribution to our nation socially and economically—can wield. It is understandable that so many are concerned about its future. Many more rely on the basin for food and fibre—not only here in our nation, but internationally.

What constitutes a healthy river is a complex matter that is contested amongst stakeholders. One of the areas of concern raised over and over again in this debate is what defines a healthy river. Is healthy no more dams and, with climate change upon us, years and years of constant searing droughts with absolutely no water followed by rampant flooding for years and years, as my home state of Victoria and Senator Nash's New South Wales can understand after the last couple of years? This whole process has been about drawing a line—how we draw the line; where we draw the line. It is complex, and we heard evidence to that effect throughout the inquiry.

We also heard evidence about achieving an outcome, not an amount of water—not 2,100, not 2,750, not 3,200, not 4,000, not 7,000. It is not about a number; it is about an outcome and about understanding that rivers are ecological systems and that we need targeted localised approaches to ensure the river remains healthy rather than simply pouring more water in over the total system—and when we have a healthy river we have healthy communities. The government's historic approach of non-strategic buybacks has caused social and economic detriment to basin communities, particularly in my home state of Victoria and particularly in the Goulburn Valley.

Additionally, these communities have basin reform fatigue. I attended public consultations into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Swan Hill, Mildura and Shepparton over two years ago—that was under the former chair—and listened to the views of country people who were passionate about the basin and had an interest in its survival. It is a vested interest—and we make no bones about that, Senator Hanson-Young—in the health of the river because it affects the interests of their businesses and their families and because it is tied up with their history. There are those who seem to be of the view that if you are not supportive of the figures being bandied about by environmentalist lobby groups—the 4,000-plus figures—then you are not someone who cares about the river or the environment. I find that offensive, and so do my communities. This assumption is blatantly untrue. It is akin to assuming that because farmers use the land they therefore abuse the land—but why would it be in their interests to destroy the very thing that brings them their wealth and their sense of identity? Country people have sustainability at their heart because they live and work off the land; they do not work against it. It just shows how little the Greens and until recently Labor have understood those who live and work on the land. Their electorates are not centred around the Murray-Darling Basin—they have no skin in this game. The Greens were nowhere—Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Waters were not in Adelaide, and they were nowhere to be seen in Canberra when it came to discussing the issues surrounding the bill. To his credit, Senator Cameron was there; the Labor Party was there. The Liberal Party was there. The Nationals were there. The Greens, big on the media release and Twitter, were not there when it counted to discover the facts and prosecute their argument in the face of the very constituents their decisions will affect.

Section 23 of the bill establishes the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. The bill allows environmental works and measures to be acknowledged as water returning to the environment of the Murray Darling Basin. Prior to this amendment only water with existing entitlements—that is, mostly irrigators' entitlements—could be contributed to the targets of the Basin Plan. The disastrous release of the previous version of the Basin Plan etched into the minds of most Australians iconic images of angry irrigators burning copies of the plan. That was in February 2011 and resulted from the water minister and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority releasing a plan that lazily relied on the water buyback that was destroying the very fabric of rural communities by removing huge amounts of its lifeblood—water.

Evidence to the Senate committee indicated that environmental groups would like that to continue. To those who are listening, I recommend our dissenting report and additional comments. Already we have seen over 1,031 gigalitres secured through buybacks, yet just 284 gigalitres has been secured or is under contract through the infrastructure program. That is taking water out of communities. This reminds me of another Labor leader from Victoria who in his last term of government committed billions to now failed water projects. They failed because of a lack of planning. Julia Gillard trained in John Brumby's office, so Victorians are not surprised.

The government has spent more than $100 million on this process to date, not to mention the substantial costs to state governments and private individuals and organisations in both time and money as a result of their providing feedback, conducting modelling and consulting on this process of arriving at a plan. The focus has most certainly not been on the triple bottom line, which is why the amendment to be put forward by Senator Joyce on behalf of the opposition is so important. It will put the intent that the minister outlined in his second reading speech—to move away from water buybacks and towards a focus on no social and economic detriment—specifically into the legislation. It will ensure a consideration of what environmental, economic and social outcomes will mean for the basin's local communities. The adjustable mechanism is something stakeholders have been calling for for a long time, because flexibility is important. Mr Richard Anderson of the Victorian Farmers Federation Water Council outlined to the Senate's Environment and Communications Committee that it took six months of strenuous argument to convince the chair of the authority that the adjustment mechanism we are legislating for tonight was even necessary, highlighting again the importance of localism in policy development.

The five per cent up or down in section 23A(4) can have significant impacts—roughly 700 gigalitres might not sound like a lot of water, but it is equal to the entire South Australian quota. With water, seemingly small changes can have big impacts.    When you are talking about taking out the key element in the productive capacity of a region, it matters.    If farmers and state governments have invested in infrastructure that has meant more water has become available for the system and hence for the environment, it is only right that this be used to minimise the amount that is taken out of productive use.

Flexibility through the adjustment mechanism is important for several reasons in addition to that: the climate is variable, and we have spoken about flooding and droughts; and science and farming practice change over time, and may even result in us being able to achieve greater efficiencies either in the way we farm, in what we farm or in how we deliver water. The Australian Conservation Foundation acknowledged that they do 'not think we have reached the end of our ingenuity in how to operate the river infrastructure for irrigation purposes and potentially use less water', and I could not agree with the Australian Conservation Foundation more and I wholly support them in pursuing that. Flexibility is most important though so that, in relation to works that have already been undertaken, efficiency gains by irrigators and their communities can be accounted for appropriately. Section 23(b) of the bill establishes arrangements for public consultation ahead of any decisions on sustainable diversion adjustments. This is really welcome, but I am not overly confident about the consultation process.

In coming to the Senate I have travelled from Mildura to Albury and met with all the local governments right along the Victorian side of the Murray—the Mildura, Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Loddon, Campaspe, Moira, Indigo and Wodonga shires—and also of course with the Murray River Groups of Councils organising body. Consultation on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been key work for these councils for over two years, so it has been tireless advocacy by them—not to mention by the irrigator groups. Community groups, health providers, farmers' organisations and sporting clubs have all voiced their concerns for the future of their community and noted the importance of irrigated agriculture not only to their past prosperity but to their future viability. Collectively these communities have spent years preparing for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They have been holding their breath while they have been waiting for the government to finalise the plan and provide them with some certainty for the future.

My colleague in the other place the member for Parkes, Mr Mark Coulton, said in his speech on this bill that his electorate has 'reform fatigue'. I can attest to this from the Victorian experience. Reform fatigue in basin communities is widespread. The constant delays have not been conducive to strong, productive communities along the river. They have told me that they need certainty for investment—an entirely reasonable request—so they can start to plan their futures and ensure the economic sustainability of their towns. The Murray Valley Winegrowers Inc. Chief Executive, Mr McKenzie, highlighted the effect this uncertainty is having on their ability to assess the plan. He said:

"From our perspective, we have always held that it would be better to do the work first rather than push on with a target which, with respect, is a political target, not a target to deliver a plan which the whole community in the basin can sign off on. That said, we are fatigued and we need certainty."

Yes, certainty for futures that have every opportunity to be bright. At the moment, the Murray-Darling Basin provides nearly 40 per cent of the nation's gross agricultural product—and in the Asian century it is key to our government's white paper issues. But access to adequate water is essential to take advantage of the market opportunities arising out of the rise of the Asian middle class. We need to allow them to develop their livelihoods and balance environmental interests while not restricting ourselves through artificial barriers and arbitrary numbers.

Finally, the same section of the bill allows for ministerial oversight of any suggested changes to the sustainable diversion limits, with the minister having discretion around accepting the authority's advice, which will then be tabled in parliament and will become a disallowable legislative instrument. I congratulate the government for working with the coalition on these very sensible amendments which actually reflect the desire of basin communities. I do understand that that does provides the opportunity for ongoing potential politicisation of the debate, but it is important for communities and for those in charge of the budgets overseeing the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to have an input into that.

It is essential that our parliament and the minister have oversight of and input into the management of our most precious resource in this country—our water. One of the issues that were raised in the inquiry process was lack of trust in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Prior to this amendment being moved, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was going to be the one in charge of setting things and amending them. I think it is fair enough to say that the people in our communities, our stakeholders, do not trust the Murray Darling Basin Authority. They have been asked by the authority to provide input over a long period of time. They have been asked for feedback. They have been asked to attend consultation processes. They have been consulted in small groups, large groups and individually. Yet they feel as though none of their contributions has actually changed any of the authority's views or shaped in any way the final plan. The Australian Dairy Industry Council went to the heart of this, saying in their submission to our committee that their view was:

… given the Murray Darling Basin Authority’s history of seeking, possibly even considering, but then take little notice of advice from the States,—

who constitutionally are responsible for water—

stakeholders and community.

They also said:

It is unacceptable that Parliament should amend the Water Act to facilitate an unknown adjustment mechanism on a ‘trust us’ basis.

And, the National Farmers Federation, in evidence from their CEO, Mr Matt Linnegar, said:

… it is the view of many agricultural stakeholders that the Murray Darling Basin Authority is incapable of listening and hearing community concerns… I think we have made it very abundantly clear that there is a significant lack of trust in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. I do not think that should be a surprise to anyone.

So, while recognising this lack of trust, I welcome the government's commitment on 30 October 2012 to change this bill to allow for appropriate and ongoing stakeholder consultation and to enable the minister to consider the recommendations made by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and to decide on suitable actions.

In conclusion, the addition of ministerial oversight has made a welcome change, as has the change to a disallowable instrument and the inclusion of some public consultation before proposed sustainable diversion limit changes can be made. It is disappointing to be debating this bill without the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan before us. I look forward to the minister's tabling of the final version of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and hope that our communities can soon get some certainty about their future. I hope the plan delivers for the environment without unduly affecting the economic and social fabric of regional Australia. I encourage the Greens and the government to take the opportunity to embrace the triple-bottom-line approach and support the opposition's amendment, which will be moved later by Senator Joyce on our behalf, reflecting a commitment to the ongoing economic, social and environmental wellbeing of our basin.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limited Adjustment) Bill 2012. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Murray River will never ever again be the river it was 300 years ago. Mother Nature looked after the Murray for tens of thousands years and then, in the 19th century or earlier, man intervened and built the five barrages down at Lake Alexandrina and at Lake Albert, the locks up the river—lock 4, at Berry, and lock 5, at Renmark—and the dams upstream in the catchment. It is a wonder the Greens have not pursued a policy to tear that all down, to return the Murray to how it was for tens of thousands of years. In the days when Hume and Hovell crossed the Murray, it was a dry riverbed. Because of man's intervention, the river has changed. I am not for one minute suggesting that we go and put it back to its natural state of 250 years ago or so. No matter what we do, the river will be different. From the front of the Renmark Hotel a couple of hundred years ago or so and in a drought you could walk across the river bed. Now it is 200 or 300 metres wide. The water is there because of the dams and catchments upstream. That is simply a fact.

Some absolute fool many years ago suggested that European carp be put in the River Murray. My brother was telling me that in the sixties when he would cross the river at Murray Bridge in South Australia it was a clear, blue river. Now it is a brown mud bowl because some scientist or some fool suggested we bring European carp here and put the carp in the Murray to do away with the weeds that were gathering in the river. The carp ate all the weeds out all right, feeding off the bottom of the river. Now of course the weeds and grass are not there to protect the banks of the Murray, so the banks of the river are eroding away. What an absolutely idiotic thing to do: introduce a foreign species of fish so detrimental to our river system. The carp are all the way up the Darling now—I have travelled upstream—but luckily not into the Macintyre River at Inverell where we live because we have the Macintyre Falls and the carp cannot jump a couple of hundred feet.

If anyone thinks it is going to return to the river of old, they are wrong. It is not going to do that. So we need to manage the Murray as best we can with that triple bottom line—the environmental, social and economic impacts—as my colleague, Senator McKenzie, just said. If you go back to the old times of the Murray when the river was low, the ocean came into the river. Some say years ago you would see dolphins up towards Tailem Bend. Most of it was saltwater in a dry time. We now have the interstate argument: South Australia demands that those barrages stay there and that the Lower Lakes be pure fresh water with very little salinity in them—quite different to how Mother Nature built them. Those upstream get accused of storing water in dams. Yes, dams do store water, and that is what they are built for. But during drought times, the reason there is water in the Murray at the other end is because water has been stored at the top end and let out. The question now is: how much do you let out? It is a very controversial issue.

On behalf of New South Wales, when it comes to the buybacks New South Wales has given plenty. In fact, the previous Labor government of New South Wales had a water minister called Phil Costa. When Senator Wong was the water minister she bought water back but 97 per cent of the water buybacks came from New South Wales. In actual fact, Minister Phil Costa put a moratorium on any more sales of water licences out of New South Wales. This is the question: who pays the penalty? I agree with my colleague Senator Nash that buybacks should be capped. There was $5.3 billion budgeted for improvement in infrastructure and water efficiency—in other words, growing more food with less water. But the government did not carry out that investment. It went on a crazy buyback scheme.

One of my colleagues, Senator Nash, mentioned the Twynam Pastoral Company and the Kahlbetzer family. They sold all their water licences to Minister Wong at the time for $303 million—if my memory serves me right. Some of those rivers do not even run into the Murray. They bought water licences from one of Twynam's properties up on the Gwydir River, and that river runs out on the Gwydir Wetlands. They bought water licences from the Macquarie River but that runs out onto the Macquarie Marshes. They bought water licences out of the Lachlan River—perhaps once in 100 years, in a monster flood, some water might trickle into the Murrumbidgee but 99 per cent of the time nothing gets through the Lachlan. The government spent $303 million to buy water back to increase the flows in the Murray and half of those licences are for rivers that do not even run into the Murray. What a great investment of taxpayer's money that was. Of course, I am being sarcastic. That is the stupidity of this.

I would like to commend our shadow minister and my leader in the Senate, Senator Barnaby Joyce. The Greens get it their way, working with a gun at the head of the government. We know how the Greens operate: they shut down all industry, shut down all food supply and get a scientist to design a digestive system so man can consume trees only, because we are not allowed to grow food. 'Go back and live in the caves and we will give you three sticks a week to maintain your food and warmth'—that is basically the Greens' policy.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only three?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, only three, Senator Payne, and that might be excessive as well. At the same time, they are destroying our environment with the crazy policies of locking up country and leaving it uncontrolled.

This is going to be a terrible summer for fires. We have had a few wet springs. The fuel levels have increased enormously. I hope I am wrong but I said the red gum forests down in the Millewa State Forest near Deniliquin will not stand fire. You will see the Greens policy at work there with the National Parks Association and with a gun at Mr Frank Sartor's head—the former minister in New South Wales—locking it up for Green votes. You watch it get destroyed.

I have been down there. There is 900 hectares there now and it is just dead trees; it was burnt. The country was grazed with cattle when the forestry owned it, but of course now that it is national park you cannot graze on it.

When the new Victorian government put cattle up into the high country, in the alpine region, to lower fuel levels, the Greens said, 'No, take them out'. Minister Burke said: 'No, get them out of there. Don't control your environment.' When it comes to fire there are three things that destroy the environment: fuel, wind and heat. We cannot control the heat and we cannot control the wind, but we can control the fuel. But the Greens policy is to just lock it up and leave it and then let Mother Nature destroy it. That is why they are so damaging to our environment. And it will be no different with the Murray. They will just say, 'Let's all stand around the Lower Lakes and hold hands and be happy while all the water runs out to sea, and to hell with those people upstream who grow 40 per cent of our nation's food.'

In the Murray-Darling Basin, where one-seventh of our nation lives, there are local economies who rely on and work so hard to produce food for either domestic or export markets. They are feeding people around the world. I say this: desperate people do desperate things. If you want to see trouble on this planet, have people starving. Those desperate people will do desperate things. The thing we need to do in this nation is not only feed all Australians well but also feed the millions and millions of people on this planet who are going to rely on Australia for food. If we go down the road of the Greens party, we will have billions of people literally starving as we all watch Mother Nature destroy our environment with fire. As I said, this summer is going to be a dangerous fire season and we will learn a lesson about the Greens' lock-it-up-and-leave-it attitude to national parks–very much supported by former Premier of New South Wales Mr Bob Carr—now Senator Bob Carr I might add—when he said he was going to have the greenest government New South Wales had ever seen. That title might change by the time this ICAC investigation has finished.

Mr Deputy President, 1,500 gigs have been bought back. The infrastructure spending has not been invested; the efficiencies have not been made. This bill amends the Water Act to allow the adjustment of the long-term sustainable conversion limits under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is meant to provide transparency for all stakeholders. We will not support changes from the government based on trust. They must be subjected to proper scrutiny because we support the future of the 2.1 million people who live in the Basin. I will quote Senator Doug Cameron again. He was in the media this morning saying how the people of Western Sydney do not trust the Australian Labor Party—this government. I agree with him totally. We do not trust them to manage our rivers. We do not trust them to manage our money. We do not trust them to secure our borders. That is why we have had to be involved in this. The government have an abysmal track record on the Murray-Darling Basin. All they have managed to do is get everyone offside with their boots and all tactics, upsetting those communities that depend on the basin and its infrastructure for their survival.

The coalition has been unrelenting in its pursuit of a fair outcome for the 2.1 million people who live in the Murray-Darling Basin. The coalition put the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on the path to national management in 2007. We started the process of fixing the Murray-Darling and we remain committed to doing exactly that. I remember when the first Murray-Darling Basin draft plan was released and community meetings were held across the three states. I attended one of those meetings in Goondiwindi in southern Queensland and the anger was at fever pitch. There was a cross-section of farmers, rural contractors, business people and representatives of community groups, and they believed their livelihoods were about to be pulled from under them. The fact is that the many of us who live in regional Australia understand regional Australia. The Greens make out they understand regional Australia, but they are fly-in fly-out politicians. I do not think any of them live in rural Australia, but they do fly-in fly-out and grab a bit of press. I noticed in some press clippings that Senator Hanson-Young was saying Senator Barnaby Joyce was uninterested in the irrigators upstream, that he does not care about South Australia. That is wrong. Senator Joyce has done an outstanding job playing the balancing act to getting this fair and right for those three pitched bottom lines. It is not only the environment; it is also the social ramifications and the economic effects on those communities that is the most important thing.

As I said, the Murray-Darling Basin produces 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural output, over 90 per cent of our tomatoes and almost 50 per cent of our fruit. It is Australia's fruit bowl and worth millions and millions of dollars to our economy. I do hope this comes out well. It has got to be a balance, as I have said. It is not only about the environment; there are two other factors to take into consideration.

I have lived in rural Australia all my life. I have seen those who work so hard. I have seen the Riverland of South Australia. I have seen them up there pulling out the fruit trees and going into grapevines; I have seen them pulling out the grapevines and going back into fruit trees. I went to school in Adelaide with people from Loxton, Renmark and Berry who came from those fruit-growing properties, who worked hard as youngsters whenever they went home for school holidays, whose parents were battlers—many of them migrants who came to this nation after the Second World War with basically nothing. We know what they were like, the immigrants—the Italian immigrants and the Greek immigrants. Many of those Italian immigrants came here as prisoners of war. After the war the nation said: 'Okay, war's over. Pack up and home you go.' And they said: 'We're not going home. This is our home. We'll stay in this country.' They grew to love Australia; they helped to grow our nation. As I said, they did not have anything, but what they did have was a will to work. And if those opposite think that on this side of the parliament it is acceptable to now go and shut down their livelihoods so that people can stand at the Lower Lakes and watch water ran out into the ocean, then they are wrong. That is simply wrong and it will not happen. There must be a balance.

I grew up in South Australia. I know the state well. There is probably not a town I did not go to when I was driving semitrailers delivering livestock. There is probably not a country town in the state that did not have someone go to boarding school with me in Adelaide.

I realise that South Australia is the driest state in the driest nation and they need to be protected as well. That is why everyone has got to work together on this. But if we leave it to the Greens, the guillotine will drop and there will be no fair triple bottom line; it will be all-out chest beating for the environment while our local economies go down the tube.

In winding up I would like to once again thank Senator Joyce for working with Minister Burke, for being involved in the whole debate and putting up proposals. I commend him for his hard work in putting the future of everyone in the Murray-Darling Basin, not just the extreme environmentalists, first and I look forward to his amendments, where some common sense can be brought into this whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Hopefully we will be blessed with more good seasons, because the drought from 2002 to 2010 did not help one bit. Some said it was climate change. It is funny: we had a drought from 1895 to 1907, a 12-year drought—I suppose that was climate change then as well! Many were saying that the dams would never fill again. Tim Flannery was one: 'Brisbane dam—Wivenhoe. That won't fill.' It filled all right. It overflowed that fast it caused extensive damage for the people of Brisbane and the local communities there. I noticed Minister Penny Wong said that we must get more water down the Murray, but she was quick to sign off with Melbourne for a north-south pipeline to take water out of the Murray. So there is a lot of irony in this whole plan.

That is why I think, now that Senator Joyce has been involved in these discussions with Minister Burke, a fair framework and a fair policy can be developed. Hopefully it is a long, long time before we again see an eight- or 10-year drought, which put so much stress on the whole Murray system. As I said, the last one was 1895 to 1907. Let us hope that the 2002 to 2010 drought does not return for many, many decades ahead. We know we will get droughts again. We know we can manage the environment to the best of our ability.

As I said at the start of this presentation, the Murray will never be the river it used to be, because we have intervened with it, we have interfered with it, we have built structures in it. Not even the Greens are proposing to pull those structures down, which is quite surprising, because if they did they would not have that freshwater down the end of the Murray—and, of course, Senator Hanson-Young would not have the votes come next election. That is what is behind all that. Normally the Greens would say: 'Put it back to Mother Nature. Let's let Mother Nature look after it.' But they are counting on votes in the next election. That is why the Greens have done a backflip.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012. As someone who was born on the banks of the Murray—in Red Cliffs, Victoria—and spent my childhood there, this is a very important river to me. I am thinking it must be quite comforting to be a member of The Nationals: to be able to pretend that life can go on as it always has; that things like climate change are a fantasy; that we do not have the environmental challenges that we face this century on a very small, fragile planet, with a population of seven billion and growing; and that the industrial activity that the human species has engaged in, with increasing effect on our environment over the last several hundred years, has had no effect. Because then we could tell the people who vote for us: 'Don't worry, nothing needs to change. Business as usual can go on. We'll have droughts occasionally but we'll get through those. The mental health effects that we saw from the most recent drought, long lasting as they are, we will get through. It's fine. Don't worry. Nothing needs to change.' Unfortunately, being a Green and being unable to turn my face away from the science that we are hearing increasingly every day about the reality of the challenges we face this century means that I cannot live in that lovely fantasy land and I have to have the courage to face up to the challenges that we face this century and make decisions in the national interest.

I want to put this bill in some context. Here we are being asked to agree to legislation which will allow the total Murray-Darling Basin extraction limits to be adjusted up or down by a factor of five per cent. The future health of the Murray-Darling Basin absolutely relies, like never before, on the amount of water which is extracted from the river system—or, rather, the amount which is allowed to remain in it after years of overallocation. That is the effect of this bill. And yet we have no clear commitment as to the criteria which is to be applied when making such a crucial adjustment decision. We are being asked to vote here on a mechanism to adjust a plan but we have no definitive plan. So we are being asked to make this extremely important decision on faith—as if we can have faith in a process which has demonstrated almost no good faith up to now.

Let me say why. We do not yet have the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan, so this is a mechanism to allow adjustment to a plan we do not yet have. Yet what we do know is that, if we are serious about finally coming to a position where the future sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin and the communities and peoples that rely upon it is to be guaranteed, the foreshadowed plan is grossly inadequate. It is understood that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan proposes to start with a figure of 2,750 gigalitres of water being returned to the river system. We know that the science provided by credible and independent scientists—the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Goyder Institute and the Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre, among others—all tells us that 2,750 gigalitres is not enough, particularly in the dry times that are inevitably coming. The science tells us that we need at least 4,000 gigalitres to have a strong chance of ensuring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin into the future for people. Despite this, we know that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority only modelled water recovery above 2,800 gigalitres a year at the last minute, and this was incomplete modelling of 3,200 gigalitres using relaxed and inadequate constraints. We know that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan does not demonstrate that 2,750 gigalitres is sufficient to flush the system—a system where two million tonnes of salt travel down in an average year.

The plan does not establish that there will be a sufficient volume to keep the mouth of the Murray open without dredging, which is necessary not only to ensure the health of the river but also to ensure that the precious Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert—highly significant, internationally recognised Ramsar sites—are sustained. This plan increases groundwater extraction by 1,700 gigalitres, without any caution against connectivity with surface water or knowledge about recharge rates and how those might impact groundwater dependent ecologies in the long term. We are, I fear, about to repeat the same mistake we made with surface water overallocation 100 years ago, and continuing. Perhaps most alarmingly and inexplicably, given what we know now, it does not include any modelling for climate change. It merely refers to 'climate change knowledge' as a matter for adaptive management in the future. Yet we know that there are predictions that rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin will decrease by up to 60 per cent by the end of the century due to climate change.

Basically, what we do know is that the foreshadowed Murray-Darling Basin Plan has not been designed to achieve the hydrological and environmental targets that would return the Murray-Darling Basin to health based on the best available science. The best available science is, in the end, all we have between us and the risk of ecosystem failure and a dying river system. Let us not be mistaken: a dying river system will affect all of us, not just the non-human species that rely on it. It includes all those communities who rely on the Murray and its tributaries and wetlands for their agricultural, social and economic wellbeing. So we have a manifestly inadequate plan, with a starting point of 2,750 gigalitres. An adjustment of five per cent up or down would take the upper limit to about 3,200 gigalitres—still not sufficient according to the scientific evidence—but even that is not guaranteed. It could drop to as low as 2,100 gigalitres, which would be disastrous. We are being asked to agree to this.

Finally, in any event, this process does not recover the extent of this water for the environment until 2024—four federal governments away. What we do know is that, in the end, this is not a scientific plan; it is a political plan. It is a plan designed to appease many interests, and so, sadly, it replicates the history of decision making and exploitation that we have seen in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin for many, many decades. It is business as usual. This arrangement, with an inadequate starting point in the plan and then a plus or minus five per cent sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, does not guarantee that additional water will be provided when necessary to meet the needs of the river, which, in the end—let us not be mistaken—are the needs of the people and the communities, us, which rely on the river. This is not a matter of people versus the environment, because we see now, this century, increasingly clearly that we are of and in the environment.

I turn now to the South Australian position, because as a South Australian senator I am particularly troubled by this proposed scheme—the plan and the bill that we are being asked to decide on tonight. The consequences for a badly managed Murray-Darling Basin are particularly acute for my state, and yet South Australian irrigators are some of the most efficient in the country. With some prescience, South Australia's extraction caps started in 1969. But in the Millennium drought only 18 per cent of water allocation was available to South Australia. Now only 10 per cent of rainfall makes it down to the Murray Mouth and Lower Lakes. It used to be 99 per cent.

Under the draft plan, South Australia is expected to return 101 gigalitres—that is 20 per cent of South Australian irrigators' current diversion limit. We know that under the draft plan dredging of the Murray Mouth will still be required in dry conditions. In the Millennium drought, dredging cost South Australia $790 million. It costs $100,000 per week to dredge the Murray Mouth, which the environment can do for free, if we allow it to. For the last year and a half, the quantity of water flowing over the barrages has been actually above what we will get with a limit of 2,750 gigalitres. That is still not enough as the area remains drought affected. But if we cannot deliver what we need in above average years, how do we possibly deliver it under the draft plan? Mid to high South Australian flood plains will receive little or no extra water, which will mean high salinity and further degradation of environments. In drier periods, salt will accumulate at the Murray Mouth. We have no certainty in the draft plan that in the dry years the two million tonnes of salt will be flushed out of the system. Again, that will affect the whole river system. We also know that dry periods are getting longer. South Australia used to have high-flow events four in 10 years. Now it is only one in 10 years. This augurs badly for the entire health of the basin, not just those of us in South Australia. This arrangement sells out not only the interests of South Australia but all those who ultimately depend on the long-term survival of the Murray-Darling Basin.

This process of determining the amount of water that must be returned to the river represents a missed opportunity to grapple with a legacy of the short-term, political decision making that has so dogged the history of the Murray-Darling Basin. In the past, this may have been understandable and perhaps even forgivable, although there have been voices warning of the effects of over-allocation since the 1920s. But there is no longer any excuse for bad decisions. I and my colleagues in this chamber and in the other place are members of one of the best resourced parliaments in the world. We have access to the most reliable, up-to-date, comprehensive information and advice available to anyone anywhere. We have the excellent resources and research capacity of the Parliamentary Library. We have advisers, lobbyists and stakeholders who are generous with their learning and ideas. We have information at the click of a mouse or the dial of a phone.

So we have absolutely no excuse for ignorance when it comes to making decisions which will affect our very ability to survive into the future. To their shame, the government and the opposition are insistent on passing this legislation, and history will judge them poorly.

The environment, which we rely on for our ultimate survival, is in the end non-negotiable. So my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will be moving Australian Greens amendments in an attempt to ameliorate the worst aspects of this legislation. We will be seeking to ensure that the proposed limit of an additional five per cent for the water recovery target may be increased if there are environmental reasons to do so. In so doing we are attempting to remedy the clear omissions in the plan to take account of the likely and unexamined effects of climate change and the use of groundwater. As we know, the figure of 2,750 gigalitres is manifestly inadequate, so our amendments are also designed to prevent an adjustment of five per cent downward to set an even lower figure of 2,100 gigalitres.

In relation to groundwater extraction we will ensure that any proposed extraction from now on must be properly modelled and assessed with consideration of its connection with surface water recharge rates and its impact on those plants and ecologies that rely on it. If the proposed extraction will have the effect of reducing surface water, the Commonwealth will be required to buy back the equivalent amount.

My colleague Senator Hanson-Young will be moving amendments designed to apply proper scrutiny to decisions by the minister to adopt adjustments, including how the new target will reflect the environmentally sustainable level of allocation and how Australia's Ramsar convention obligations will be upheld The minister will be required to demonstrate that the environmental outcomes that were met under the 3,200-gigalitre modelling continue to be met or are improved. The amendments will also maintain a number of targets for the Murray mouth and Lower Lakes, including salinity levels, barrage flows and the Murray mouth remaining open.

Finally, in considering this legislation I am very conscious that I have been entrusted with a role that very few Australians will ever experience: participation in the parliament and the governance of this nation, to represent the people of South Australia and, more broadly, to consider and make decisions in the national interest. Being a Greens senator, I also look to the future and consider not only the short term—my generation and those of us who are alive today—but also the children of our children and their children in turn, those Australians who will come after us. This role brings with it a huge sense of responsibility. We face pressing and frightening challenges this century, and I am sure other politicians have stood here and thought that too, but every day now we are reminded of the environmental crunch points that are coming unless we act now and swiftly to change the habits of a lifetime, to understand and live within the environmental constraints of a small planet which is now home to seven billion people. No amount of jeering, scepticism or ridicule can change this fact. The vast majority of scientists around the world are warning us, and we must be prepared to face up to this courageously and make the decisions that we need to make while we have the opportunity to do so.

Just yesterday, for instance, we were reminded of the pressing crisis we face from climate change as a nation and a planet. The World Bank's report Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoidedshowed us that we are on course for four degrees of warming by the end of this century, that it could occur as soon as 2060 with accompanying disastrous effects and that our current action is not enough to keep us below two degrees. The choice before us about how we will manage the wonderful resources of the Murray-Darling Basin is one more important example of this challenge. We must not shy away from it.

What will Australians of the future and the not-too-distant future make of our decisions within this parliament? It is within our hands.

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

In my first speech in this place, just over four years ago, I spoke about the great Murray-Darling River system. I said that the irrigators need help and the environment needs protecting and that this issue should not be about state against state, region against region or irrigator against environmentalist. With one river system there should be one set of rules to run the rivers in the national interest. Governments should not give in to temptation to play divide and rule as the river dies—and it was dying back then because we were in the grip of a severe drought. It was Mark Twain who likened the River Murray to America's great river, the Mississippi, but commentators said:

Were Twain to see the Murray River today it is unlikely he would repeat the comparison, for the Murray and its sibling the Darling are dying, strangled by a combination of political apathy, cowardice and stupidity.

Fortunately, a lot has changed since then. We have had some good rains in the system from the top to the bottom. That much-needed rain has ensured that salinity has been flushed out of the system. I agree with Professor Mike Young, one of this country's great experts on water, who says that great river systems die from the mouth up and that is why it is important for the entire river system, from Queensland into New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and South Australia, that the river system is kept healthy. That is why it should not be a contest between one group or another. It must be first and foremost in the national interest. To have a healthy river system means that the communities that rely on the river for food production can prosper.

Tonight we have the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012. This bill will amend the Water Act to allow the long-term average sustainable diversion limit laid down in the basin plan to be adjusted without having to go through the formal basin plan process, and that makes good sense. Under the bill, in order to adjust the SDL, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority must prepare a notice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. The authority must also prepare a relevant amendment to the basin plan that reflects the proposed adjustments. After this information is provided to the minister, he or she can make a discretionary decision on whether or not to adopt the amendment proposed by the authority.

As I understand it the bill also provides that such amendments to the basin plan are disallowable instruments. This was not always the case. However, I welcome the recent amendment to this bill in the House of Representatives that will allow for parliamentary scrutiny over such changes. Such scrutiny is essential; such scrutiny is appropriate.

A number of conditions will be opposed on adjustments to the SDL. Firstly, the authority must seek advice from the Basin Officials Committee, which comprises officials from all the basin states and a Commonwealth representative before proposing any adjustment to the SDL. The authority must invite public submissions on any proposed adjustment, and the SDL must of course still reflect an environmentally sustainable level of take as suggested under section 23 of the Water Act. Critically, the adjustment to the total basin SDL must be no more than five per cent either way.

The inclusion of an SDL adjustment mechanism as laid out in this bill has been sought by all basin governments. I think we can all agree that getting state governments to agree on anything when it comes to protecting this vital resource is very rare, but in this particular case it is a good thing.

Furthermore, recent amendments to the bill requiring public consultation provide an extra level of transparency and scrutiny that has often been overlooked or completely botched throughout this entire process. I say 'completely botched' in this context: I recall very well attending a public meeting in Renmark in the Riverland of South Australia back in October 2010 when the guide to the draft Basin Plan was released. I remember a venue bursting at the seams and a PA system that was not working. So many people attended that it had to be split into two rooms. It was an absolute nightmare. The authority ended up holding two sessions at the same time but in different rooms, with the chair and other representatives running backwards and forwards between them. I am not sure how it helped all those stuck out in the street, who could not participate or be part of the meeting. It was completely unsatisfactory. When I told the then chair that I could have given him a much better deal at the Greek hall down the road maybe he was not so amused. But in the end, the subsequent meeting a few months later was held in the Greek hall down the road in Renmark. It could take all the people interested in that meeting, and it was a much better-run meeting.

While I support the broad objectives of this bill at this stage, I also flag my intention to propose a number of amendments to it because they are crucial for issues of equity and fairness in the way that this plan will work. I again go back to the first round of community consultation sessions when the guide to the basin plan was released. Irrigators in the Riverland, many of whom had capped their water diversions in the late 1960s and invested in irrigation efficiency measures, out of their own pockets to a large degree, were understandably furious. Nowhere in the guide to the plan had they been recognised for their past efficiencies. It had not been recognised that because they were so efficient they had less to give back to the environment. And it had not been recognised that because they were so efficient it was virtually impossible for them to be part of the $5.8 billion infrastructure fund that was established by the Howard government and then continued by the Rudd and Gillard governments. So there was a real issue there of equity and fairness. It is almost as though a student who does their homework early and hands it in gets penalised for doing their work on time and for doing it well because they did it before anyone else.

The guide to the plan dropped on many like a tonne of bricks. Wide-ranging figures were presented without any justification or meaningful prior consultation, yet answers from the authority were not then forthcoming. There were a few figures in the guide that justified their concerns.

At a Mildura hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin system in April this year, chaired by Senator Bill Heffernan, Chris Byrne, the executive officer of the Riverland Winegrape Growers Association said this:

When the guide was released, it reinforced our belief that what we thought about ourselves was correct. Page 95 of the guide makes it quite clear that the average gross value of irrigated agricultural production in our region was a staggering $9,176 per hectare. That compares with what I would rate as a fairly ordinary $3,295 per hectare as the basin average. It reinforced our belief that, yes, we are already a very water use efficient region.

The whole process has rubbed salt in the wounds of many irrigators, who had also applied for water efficiency grants—most notably the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program—but who were deemed too efficient to qualify, as I have indicated.

The criteria of such programs have been geared largely towards open channel systems—and I understand that—but that does not help those with modern pipeline delivery systems such as those in the Riverland. The most recent works done occurred back in 2002. It has been 10 years since the last lot of infrastructure improvements in the Riverland, which basically meant state-of-the-art irrigation infrastructure systems in place. Worse still, those who have been able to access the funding for water efficiency upgrades also got to keep half the water they saved compared with those under the $5.8 billion plan fund. In a sense, that skews the market against many in South Australia.

Subsequent versions of the plan did not address the key issue of equity either. At no time has there been a level playing field. As Gavin McMahon, chair of the Central Irrigation Trust in South Australia, argued at the hearing in Mildura:

… have all the water recovery processes been thoroughly investigated everywhere up and down the river? Have we looked at all stretches of the river to see exactly what savings can be made across the whole system? Are they taken into account in the process, and how are they taken into account in the process?

I think we can safely say that, no, they have not.

We did hear some very good evidence, including from Mike McKenzie, both recently in Adelaide and back in Mildura in April. He suggested that for grape growers in the Sunraysia area there are ways to improve with local knowledge of water-saving measures. That involves local knowledge from farmers, from communities and from environmentalists, working together. That is something we need to take heed of; that there are smart ways to save water where we can listen to the local knowledge.

I agree with experts such as Professor Mike Young, who makes the point that the best way to get those water-saving measures and the best way to maximise the benefit to the environment and to communities is to listen to local knowledge; not to have it managed by bureaucrats in Canberra, but to actually have some real local input from farmers, from environmentalists and from communities working together.

I will be proposing amendments to this legislation to ensure that when the authority proposes changes to the SDL it must consider the efficiency of that area prior to 2007 when the Water Act was introduced. The authority must also consider the efficiency of the area when creating the SDLs.

I have at times been criticised by my colleagues from the eastern states for putting parochial interests above the national interest. I think it is fair to say that it is an argument I do not want to get started on here today, but I believe that I have worked cooperatively with all my colleagues and whatever differences I have had with, for instance, Senator Barnaby Joyce in relation to this, I believe he has approached this issue in good faith, that he understands the issues of equity, as do my colleagues from the government in relation to this, and as do, of course, my colleagues on the crossbenches, the Australian Greens and the DLP.

The amendments I am proposing do not preference the Riverland. They do not even preference South Australia. They do preference, in a sense, the national interest to ensure that there is some equity and a level playing field when determining this. They make sure that those who have been historically most efficient with their use of this vital resource, or those who have little left to return to the environment without placing undue social and economic stress on that area, are not disproportionately affected by any adjustment to the SDL, no matter how small.

These amendments also mean a better outcome for the basin, because they will encourage the authority to make SDL cuts where there is fat to trim, and so the overall efficiency of the basin will be improved. This argument is not about geography. It is about equity, and about giving acknowledgement where it is due. We just need a plan that is fair, and I believe these amendments will go some way to achieving that. If the government and the opposition are not inclined to support these amendments, I ask them genuinely and in good faith to explain what alternative mechanism there will be to ensure some equity, because irrigators and environmentalists I have asked questions of in the numerous Senate committees I have been part of in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin all agree that prior good behaviour ought to be the subject of some acknowledgement in any plan.

We cannot go back and right the wrongs that have occurred since Federation, but we can act now to ensure that those downstream are not disadvantaged by the implementation of the plan. We can act now to ensure the environment is protected for our future generations and for the communities that rely on the river for their livelihood and that the millions of Australians that rely on the Murray-Darling Basin for their food are also protected. Early adopters must be able to access money for research and development and the authority must consider a buyback approach that does not distort the water and commodity markets. I concede that the federal parliament would not be in such a bind if state governments had not put their own interests first and continued to suck more water from the system than it could handle, and also the way the system itself was managed. But for me, it is about doing what is fair for irrigators and right for the environment. This does not have to be about state versus state, region versus region or irrigator versus environmentalist.

I was elected to this place as an Independent on a commitment to fight for the River Murray. I have not forgotten those in the Riverland in South Australia who gave up their time to put me in this place. I have not forgotten those in the Lower Lakes in the lower reaches of the Murray who, too, gave up their time and who have supported me. Now more than ever, those communities need us as parliamentarians to stand up for them. Our irrigators need help and our environment needs protecting. We need a plan that is fair and that is why I will be proposing amendments to this bill. I think that it is fair to say we are reaching a historic juncture where we can say that the river system will at least have a plan and, as imperfect as it is, it will still be a plan that will make a difference for the river system, for communities and, ultimately, for the environment, because without a healthy environment we cannot have a healthy river, and without a healthy river those communities cannot prosper as they should.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the senators who have made a contribution to the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limited Adjustment) Bill 2012. It is a significant reform to the Water Act. The bill has now passed the House of Representatives and, as time is short this evening, can I just point out that the government welcomes the report from the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment and Communications on the bill and the work that the various senators have played in bringing this bill to the Senate this evening. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.