Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Welcome back, Mr Deputy President, and congratulations, Senator Conroy. There must have been no-one else in the ballot. What we have here before us with the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 is basically a process that the Labor government have used to placate the Greens and to get to a magical number of 3,200 gigs. You can see the authenticity of how much they actually want to achieve this because, in the $1.77 billion that this requires, they have only allocated $50 million over the forward estimates. Therefore, this is more rhetoric than a reality.

As rhetoric, it falls well into line with everything else that has been insufficient about the government's current process in dealing with the water issue—insufficient insofar as we do not have currently a state intergovernmental agreement. They are state assets. We do not know how the states are going to do this. The states have not signed off on anything to do with this. We do not actually have an environmental water plan.

If this is correct, we will have 450 gigs from this, we have got 2,750 from the Basin Plan—there is your magical figure of 3,200 gigs—and we have already received about 962 gigs from the Living Murray and other state based plans. So we have got 4,162 gigs that have been returned to the river, of which 3,200—if you believe this—are going to be managed by the environmental water holder. That is a rather sizeable dam. That is a lot of water. That would be one of the biggest dams in Australia if it were all held in that dam. But what are they going to do with it? How does it actually work? How do they get this water to their assets? Where do they store it? What are the rights of other people near those dams where they store water? What happens if it pushes out the water that is being stored there for irrigation?

In my area, in the north, it is kind of ridiculous, because what they are doing is buying water that would have otherwise gone down the river to the Culgoa floodplain and the Narran lakes. And after they have purchased it, the water will still go down the river to the Culgoa floodplain and the Narran lakes. They are busily buying water that, in some instances, was never going to be used in any case. But, anyway, it helped some people and got them out of some rather large loans with the bank. They have laughed all the way to the bank—and that is fair enough.

This account is part of a rhetorical process more than it is part of an actual process. How are they managing even the water that they have got at the moment? We know from their tests that they have been trying to get water to South Australia but they actually cannot do it because of restrictions. There are so many issues pertaining to this that make it awfully convoluted. It will just become part of this political debate. It is not worth compromising the plan for an addendum which really is of no real consequence, because there is very little money, if any, actually allocated to this over the forward estimates.

As part of this process, the coalition will be looking to move amendments to reinforce our position so that, if we get the honour of becoming the government, the Australian people will have a strong idea about what we intend to do. Our amendments will remove buyback. We do not believe in buyback. We believe that, if you want to get water back into the river, you should do it the clever way. You should be trying to do it through infrastructure, through on-farm works and measures, through using laterals where you can, through more efficient mechanisms of storage and deeper cells. These are the sorts of things that a clever country would do. Just buying back the water and sending towns and communities broke is not clever. We in the coalition, in the National Party and in the Liberal Party, actually rate people above frogs—based on the Maslow hierarchy of needs—and believe that we are actually in this parliament to try as best we can to represent the 2.1 million people who live in the basin and make sure we protect their economic base. We will also be moving an amendment so that it goes back to what it initially said. This initially said 'up to 450 gigalitres' but, of course, that changed. Do you know why it changed? It changed because the Australian Greens wanted it to change. This is part of this 'Captain Chaos' government, which is currently being dispensed by the Australian people—now being dispensed by people on their own side—because, if you try to serve two masters, you end up serving none. In trying to serve the Greens, the right wing of the Labor Party and the left wing of the Labor Party, it has once more managed to create a piece of policy which is merely rhetoric because it discusses something that we have not actually allocated the money for. It talks things way off into the never-never. It talks it in a form where we are currently $262 billion in gross debt, so wherever this money comes from it is only borrowed money. If the nation does not have the money, what are your prospects of getting your hands on the money if we are so far in debt?

The coalition will be moving an amendment—to make sure that we specifically talk about the current process, because this goes back to the plan—to cap buybacks so that they do not go beyond 1,500 gigalitres. I cannot stress that enough. If you are going to steal from a town, you do it by actually taking the water licence off them. Once you take the water licence off them then maybe the farmers would be happy—because they will collect the cheque, go to the coast and live happily ever after—but the tyre business in the town just goes broke. Maybe they go to the bank to borrow $800,000, $900,000, $1 million or $2 million to build a motel, but all of a sudden the economic base of their business, their rug, is pulled out. These people do not get compensated.

This is why you have to be so careful: because any government that is going to an election talking about economic prudence—talking about having the capacity to get the economy going—is going to look awfully odd if one of its front-and-centre pieces is a policy to actually shut down economies. When you really think about it, the way it is going about this is that it is borrowing money from overseas. We are in debt by $262 billion, and 86 per cent of that money that we have borrowed comes in from overseas—from the good people of China and from the people in the Middle-East. All of these prudent people saving their money send it over to us because we cannot make our incomes meet our expenses and our debt gets bigger and bigger—we borrowed in excess of $2 billion last week—and ultimately we have to pay these people back. But when you think about it, when you really drill down to it, we are borrowing money from overseas not to create a productive asset that can pay things off—not to actually build a new factory or a new dam or to increase our capacity to meet our debts. We are borrowing money from overseas to shut the factories down and to shut the towns down. It is a double whammy. We are borrowing the money and we are reducing the size of the economic component that is supposed to pay it off. It is a very, very strange and peculiar thing. It is a job for Inspector Clouseau, something we must investigate more closely. It needs a rather large magnifying glass to work out why we are doing this.

But we have always said that it is for the environment. Of course people say: 'Well, it's your policy. It's the coalition's policy'. The difference is that we brought this policy about when we actually had money in the bank. That is the difference. Now we do not have money in the bank; we just have massive debts. We are very mindful of the fact that, yes, we must deal with the environmental issue where that was pertinent, but we must not deal with it in a way that destroys the economic fabric of the 2.1 million people living in the basin. We are very aware of and very alive to issues such as the 600 dairy farmers that turned up in Victoria the other day—we are very alive to that. We are very alive to what the pressures are on these people's lives. One is the overcentralisation of the retail market and the fact that they are being exploited by dollar-a-litre milk—we acknowledge that. Another thing is that we have this crazy policy where the government is now basically going into areas and buying out the water, becoming the biggest competitor in their own water market, shutting down their towns and putting extra pressure on them because of a fascination with frogs and moths. We will be part of this process, but we will not do it to the extent that it creates a mechanism for the destruction of the communities that we are supposed to represent and it becomes symbolic of a process that shows that you have no economic credibility whatsoever in that you were going to areas to shut economies down rather than build them up.

In showing a process of cautiously working with the government and in close discussions with our state colleagues, we will go down this path, but we will do it in such a way that we will be moving amendments to clearly show to the Australian people what our views are on this issue. There really needs to be a lot more work that goes into this whole plan. It is a plan that, in some areas, is completely incongruous to the outcome. There is no water. We are probably going to be ending up with about 150,000 to 180,000 megalitres per day going through St George. I can assure you that that water will never, ever get to South Australia—not a chance. Some of it may get to the Menindee storage lakes. There was this view at the start of this debate that Australia was this interconnected garden hose where, if you just tip a bit of water in at Toowoomba and wait long enough, it arrives at the Lower Lakes. That is an absurdity. As I said at the start of this debate some years ago, it is a big old dry carpet. This plan does not properly reflect the hydrology of it. The latest tests that they have done in trying to move and shepherd water have emphasised quite clearly the impracticalities of trying to shepherd water, whether it is from Copeton Dam in northern New South Wales or, even more ridiculously, virtually from central Queensland down to South Australia. It is just impractical; it will not do it. What really were the issues that we were trying to address with this? How did we get ourselves into a position where we are so far down the track? When are we actually going to see an environmental watering plan? When is this document going to turn up? Why is it that we have been in a position where the biggest irrigator with the biggest water asset in our nation will now be the government? Others may be irrigating things that actually produce money, whether it is cotton or rice or apricots or apples or onions or potatoes, but the government are going to be watering swamps and forests and moss. That is marvellous, but the government are now the biggest irrigator and the water asset that they have on the books would be the biggest water asset held by anybody. It is a massive asset. But you do not get any sense of comfort when you think, therefore, that these people better be absolutely competent and on their game. What sense of competence do you get from a government when you find out that they bought a property, Toorale Station, near Bourke, and the Commonwealth taxpayer shelled out $23.75 million. The closest that this government ever got to that place was 30,000 feet on their way to Darwin. They never set foot on it.

The story goes that this place was going to auction and someone from the government rang up and said: 'We may have an interest in that place. What is your reserve?' The sellers said, 'We do not tell you the reserve before we sell a place.' I know that Senator Fifield, who used to work in the Treasurer's office, will be fascinated by this. The government said, 'We are really interested.' They went back and had a meeting and said, 'The government has just rung up and wants to buy Toorale, wants us to tell them the reserve.' The bloke said, 'Tell them to go jump.' Anyway, the number they actually had in mind was $16 million but they said, 'If they ring back, just say 23.' Guess what! They rang back and said, 'It is 23.' They thought they would drive a really hard deal. So do you know what they said then? They said, 'But it has still got cattle on it.' They said, 'They have to go and that will cost more.' So it cost the Australian taxpayer $750,000 to remove the Commonwealth's stock off their own place and have them sold.

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

It is ludicrous.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is. These people are running the country. They say, 'Oh, this is a one-off.' They cannot possibly have bought the place without seeing it. Well, they did. At that stage the minister was Penny Wong. She only turns up once in your life and when she turns up you just have to make the most of her! Then the government came back into the market because after Toorale they went and bought Twynam's water from Johnny Kahlbetzer. I went to college with him. He is a clever man. They bought all his water licences, the whole $303 million. There were other people in tenders up and down, offering it cheaper. But this is the government and this is why the government are so far in debt. This is why I have no confidence whatsoever that these people will be competent enough to complete on this plan.

We started this process in good faith, that there was an environmental issue there and we would try as best we could to address it. We put the money on the table when we had money in the bank. We knew full well from the word go that, if the coalition were not at the table, this rambling disorderly nonsense which is apparently standing in proxy for a government instead of talking to us would talk to the Greens. You will see one of these amendments coming up: rather than saying they want 'up to', they want a minimum of 450 gigs from this. That is what we would have to contend with. They said at the start they wanted in excess of 7,000 gigs to be taken out of communities and put back into the environment. That would absolutely decimate the Murray-Darling Basin. They were kicking and screaming, they were never happy.

It was force majeure for us because we knew full well, if we were not the participants to try and placate the excesses of this ludicrous scheme, who would be doing it—the Australian Greens, as orchestrated from inner suburban Adelaide. That would have not been doing the right thing by our people, by those 600 dairy farmers who were protesting the other day, by the people of Bourke, by the people of Parkes, by the people of Goondiwindi, by the people of St George, where I live. This river goes literally past my front door. I can throw a rock from my front yard into the river without much effort whatsoever. In fact, in a couple of days I will be able to almost kick it into the river.

To be honest, we are extremely reluctant participants in an incompetent government, but we do it because we know that the alternative is disaster. We will be moving amendments that clearly state our position should we come to government. Make no mistake about our position. There will be a cap at 1,500 gigs on buyback. We will make sure that the operations of the environmental water holder do not disturb the market but, if there is the opportunity at times for water that is not going to be used, that people have the capacity to use that productively. These are the sorts of logical things that have to happen. With a sense of scepticism and erring, we cautiously move forward with this bill.

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

I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 as well. This bill has had to be brought forward by the government because the plan that was ticked off by this chamber and by both the government and the coalition did not deliver enough water in order to save the Murray-Darling Basin and restore it to the health that it needs in order to allow communities and the environment to flourish.

Last November the government and the coalition passed the plan. It did not deliver that guaranteed water. In fact, it was a standout failing of the plan, because it started with recovering only 2,750 gigalitres for the environment. When you take into account the adjustment mechanism that will be applied in 2016, that water recovery figure could be even lower than 2,000 gigalitres, which is nowhere near the levels we need in order to save the Murray-Darling Basin and put it on a healthy path to a healthy future.

The government and the coalition passed the plan last year knowing full well that 2,750 gigalitres would not return enough water to save the river. They knew full well that it would not be enough water to allow the communities that rely on it that certainty that they need. They knew full well that 2,750 gigalitres, as outlined in the plan, would not be enough to secure the water that would be needed during the dry times and when drought comes back. Just as an interesting note, obviously Adelaide relies very heavily on the healthy water flows of the Murray-Darling Basin in coming down to the southern end of the system, and only last week it was recorded that Adelaide's water reservoirs are lower at this time of year than they have been in a decade. So despite all of the rainfall that we have had over the last three years, Adelaide's water security is at higher risk in February than it has been for the last 10 years, and we know that part of the big problem here is that this plan never included any impacts on climate change. We know that the plan does not set the management of the system up for a drying climate and for less water to be available overall in the system.

Knowing this, we had the Prime Minister and the water minister come down to Goolwa in my home state in South Australia in October last year and promise an extra 450 gigalitres. They did not put it in the plan even though we knew that it needed to be benchmarked, that we needed that extra water and it should have been the starting point for how the river would be managed—the amount of water to be returned back to the system. Rather than putting it in the plan, they decided they would leave it out and put in a separate piece of legislation, and that is what we are speaking to today. That extra 450 gigalitres is meant to be the top-up that is needed to reach a figure of 3,200 gigalitres, which is the absolute bare minimum that is needed if we are to save the system.

Australia's top scientists tell us we need 4,000 gigalitres, and yet even with this extra 450, as allocated in this bill, we will not even get to 4,000—we only get to 3,200. But the clincher in all this is that even in this bill, despite the promises from the Prime Minister and the big fanfare about giving extra water--that this was going to be the day that we save the river system—there is no guarantee in this current legislation as it is drafted before us today that that extra 450 gigalitres will even come. It is an aspiration. It is not a gold-clad guarantee. We know that governments like promising things that they then, further down the track, realise that they no longer wish to deliver, which is why we will be moving amendments to this legislation; to guarantee that 450 gigalitres is returned to the river and that we do not have to stick by that pushed-out time frame of 2024. Despite the fact that scientists are telling us we drastically have to manage our water system better, that we need more water allocated to the environment and that we have to give the river back its fair share, there are no guarantees that any of this amount will actually be returned to the river anywhere before 2024—far too late to really save the system.

It has been very disappointing to see how both the government and the coalition have worked together on delivering such a pathetic plan. It does not set the river up for a healthy future. This bill before us does not even have strong enough environmental protections. It allocates $1.8 billion from the Australian taxpayer to the most expensive and least effective water recovery methods, and it puts off finding that water until 2024, which allows for the very dangerous position of that $1.8 billion being frittered away before even reaching the figure of 450 gigalitres. We need to guarantee that that amount will be returned. We need to bring in the time frame so we are not asking communities, such as mine in my home state of South Australia, to wait for another 11 years before the river is given back the water it desperately needs. If we all agree—and the water minister has said that he does, the Prime Minister has said that she does and the Premier of South Australia says that he does—that the absolute minimum amount of water for the river should be 3,200 gigalitres then that is what we should be delivering. If that is the minimum then let us deliver it. Why do we need these get-out clauses and weasel words in the legislation if it is not only to allow the government of the day off the hook if they decide they want to put the interests of big business ahead of the protection of our environment and the water security of our communities?

As I have said, we will be moving amendments. We are willing to work with the government to try to fix this mess. The government agrees that 3,200 gigalitres is what is needed. Let us lock it in, secure it and make sure that Tony Abbott and his coalition cannot fritter it away with their big business mates on day one after the next election. We need to lock this in as a floor.

Let us go to a couple of the specific amendments that we will move when we get to the committee stage in this debate. We know that South Australia suffered terribly during the millennium drought. Many of my South Australian Senate colleagues will probably participate in this debate. I see Minister Wong sitting on the front bench here. Minister Wong understands how vital it is to ensure that South Australia gets this extra water. If we do not get this extra water, if it is not guaranteed, then we will have just wasted five years negotiating the Murray-Darling Basin Plan only to have to revisit it in 10 years time.

We have to lock that figure in. In order to do that we have to insert the words 'at least'. We cannot say 'up to 450 gigalitres'; we need to say 'at least 450 gigalitres' because that is the only way we are going to be able to guarantee that the river gets the water that it actually needs. Our amendments will fix this. We will ensure that we get at least 450 gigalitres. With $1.8 billion of Australian taxpayers' money we can do that. In fact, we have already been doing that. We know that we have been buying significant amounts of water—since 2008 over 1,300 gigalitres have been already returned to the river—so securing at least 450 gigalitres with $1.8 billion will not be very difficult. It can be done. We just need the political will to do it.

We also need to make sure that we are spending this money as wisely as possible, which is why the Greens will be moving amendments in relation to auditing and accountability. $1.8 billion is a lot of money. If we were to buy back those water entitlements, we could be getting four or five times more water for that figure. The way this bill has been structured is to allow $1.8 billion to be spent in the most ineffective and most inefficient way. We need to make sure that there are proper balances and checks to ensure that taxpayers' money is not wasted.

The Greens do not want to see the special account become nothing more than an ATM for big business and foreign owned cotton growers. We do not want to see $1.8 billion of Australian taxpayers' money handed out as sweeteners to the big irrigators in Barnaby Joyce's electorate. We want to make sure that $1.8 billion is actually spent returning the water that the river needs. If we are serious about getting to that 3,200 gigalitre figure then there should be no argument about making sure that those guarantees are locked in.

As I have said many times in this place, we know that buying back water is four to five times more effective than spending the same dollar amount simply on infrastructure that cannot guarantee the volume of water to be returned to the river. When a government buys a water entitlement it knows how much water will be returned. Despite repeated reviews proving this and audits that have shown that you recover less water at a more expensive rate by just spending that money on concrete and pipes rather than on real water, that is not what is currently in this bill, so we need to fix it. Our amendments still leave the government of the day all of the options for different methods of finding water, including on-farm infrastructure, while also reopening the door to buybacks. We know that if we are to return 450 gigalitres it cannot be guaranteed that it is going to be delivered through infrastructure. We need to be able to buy those water entitlements as well.

We are not sure what is going to happen in the future. Scientists are suggesting that the climate is drying and there will be less run-off throughout the system. We need to make sure that we can buy the water back that we need in the most cost-effective and most successful way to ensure that Australian taxpayers are not having their precious money frittered away. Our amendments to this legislation also put more rigorous limits on how saline South Australia's Lower Lakes and Coorong are able to become. We know that this is important because we need proper triggers in order to ensure that the government of the day does act on returning the water that is needed. We know that in the last drought the extremely salty water left native flora and fauna struggling to survive. In fact, a quick visit to the southern lagoon in South Australia's Coorong shows you that, despite more water being in the system over the last few years, the system was so crippled by a lack of water during the drought—massive over allocation throughout the whole system—that the environment just has not been able to recover. It is still struggling to survive. We know that very, very salty water has made our wetlands a breeding ground for tube worms which has obviously made a massive impact on the native flora and fauna, in particular the freshwater turtles that live in the Lower Lakes and along the shores of the Coorong.

We almost lost all of South Australia's local industries and dairy farms during the dry period. We went from 40 farms around the Lower Lakes to now four. It had a crippling impact on the local economy in South Australia. We cannot let this happen again. If this is about setting up a management system for the river for the future—for the river itself and for the environment—to care for the local communities who rely on that healthy system then we need to make sure that these things are locked into legislation. This is why we need salinity targets to be legislated—in law—so that there are no weasel words and ways out just because the government of the day decides that the environment is not that important after all.

I am guided in this place by my deep concern about the rights of South Australians and our state's passion for the river Murray. We rely on it. We drink its water. Our kids swim in the lakes, paddle in the Coorong and swim in the river. Our industries rely on it. Our local communities desperately need water security—healthy water security. In South Australia we lead the country with our water efficiency targets. We are the driest state in the driest continent on earth, and we have had to learn to use water in the most wise and efficient way. But, despite all of the work that South Australians have put in, we know that the Murray-Darling Basin is managed across the country. South Australia cannot fix this on our own which is why scientists have always argued for the minimum amount of water to be guaranteed by the federal parliament. Three thousand two hundred gigalitres is the absolute bare bones of what needs to be returned. We have already heard that the minister agrees with that. We know that the Prime Minister agrees with that; so let us lock it in. Let us make sure that this is not a promise that will end up being broken.

I think the idea of the special accounts bill is a good one in order to try and ensure that that happens—that it is locked in. But only if the detail is actually correct. This is why we need those amendments because otherwise it is just a hollow promise and, as we know in this place time and time again, South Australians will continue to miss out once the levels of water in the river drop, once the hard, dry times come back. It is South Australians that will be hung out to dry. I will be moving those amendments when we get to committee stage, and I would also like to indicate that the Greens will not be supporting any of the Coalition's amendments which obviously only serve to undermine this entire process.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise as a senator of South Australia to speak to this bill. For the purposes of making sure the chamber is clear, I am obviously not the minister closing the debate and I think Senator Birmingham would be quite grouchy if I did. Senator Farrell is obviously handling this debate for the government. I did think it was an important bill for me to speak on given the history of this area of policy and the importance of this issue to South Australians. While the health of the Murray River is important to the whole of Australia—and certainly to the eastern seaboard—it is in South Australia that the impact is most acute, and so I am very pleased that we are debating this bill—one more step towards water security for people from my home state.

As people in the chamber would know, in this last decade we saw the worst drought in the nation's history. The Labor government was elected during this drought crisis and it is probably useful at this point to recall some of the challenges that faced us at that time. It was not only the environment that was suffering; the future of our irrigation communities was also under threat. Consecutive years of low water allocations from 2006-7 onwards—for example, in South Australia's Riverland—risked thousands of hectares of perennial plantings. For rice growers in Deniliquin, the drought resulted in water allocations of zero for two years running. Across the basin water levels were reaching critical lows. From 2007 to 2009, the annual amount of water flowing into the river Murray system for each of those years was just one-fifth of the long-term average. This was the period for most of which I was water minister. Obviously I did not have much luck in getting it to rain.

Hyper-salinity was affecting aquatic and plant life and changing ecosystems. A lack of water was putting at risk environmental sites across the basin with wetlands being isolated from rivers because of low water levels, and the Murray mouth was closing up. Flows down the river Murray were so limited that silt was not been flushed out to sea, and Goolwa locals could walk across its mouth. Ferry crossings were closed in the Riverland as water levels dropped, and long heat waves were evaporating six to seven billion litres of water each day from the Lower Lakes. Compounding the impacts of the drought, and in spite of multiple warnings from experts over many years, too much water was being taken out of the basin without proper regard for the consequences. Since the 1950s basin governments had tripled the amount of water that they could take out of the system. Old infrastructure which was leaking vital water failed to be replaced as new technologies came online. For too long we allowed the lack of water to stress native wildlife to the point of no repair and to damage valuable ecosystems. For too long the heartache of drought and the uncertainty of water supply placed considerable stress on the many communities which rely on the Murray-Darling. For too long the overallocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin meant we failed to properly manage our precious water resources, and for far too long governments lacked the courage to secure the Murray's future. They were too timid to find the balance, a fine balance, between what our farmers required and what the environment needed. So over the years we have seen much talk. We have seen promises made and promises broken, and we have seen report after report, but we did not see action. That is why this Labor government made it a priority, where those that preceded us had failed, to action a sustainable path to manage our water and river systems, because, fundamentally, whether it is in this policy area or in terms of our fiscal policy, the onus is on a generation to leave things in good shape.

As a South Australian, and as I think all South Australians in this parliament know, I felt keenly the need for reform of the basin. We could see the effects drought and overallocation were having on the basin in ways many others could not—the strain on the Coorong and the Lower Lakes; concerns over Adelaide's ongoing water supply; the plight of Riverland farmers, who have become as efficient as possible, to make their diminishing water resources stretch further. It was a privilege to serve as water minister for 2½ years; a privilege to take up the fight for basin reform and to start the work to find a position of consensus with the states. It was by no means easy because management of the basin is never the sole responsibility of one government. Governments always need to work together to achieve an enduring solution, bringing together those on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and moving past the 'not in my backyard' approach, which for too long has dominated the politics and policy of the Murray-Darling Basin and consigned the last 100 years of inaction to the records of history.

The Labor government considered finding a solution to the Murray to be one of our most important environmental reforms, and we worked hard to secure agreement of the states to allow the Commonwealth to proceed with cross-border planning, and we got it for the first time in our nation's history. We succeeded in getting this agreement in early 2008, less than six months after coming into office. We created a single agency charged with the responsibility for planning the integrated management of water resources across the basin. The agreement also launched state-led projects, which are now assisting irrigators with the challenge of continuing their ongoing viability with a smaller pool of available water to modernise irrigation systems, develop new technologies or consider different approaches requiring less water. While carrying out these tough and often protracted negotiations with the states we also got on with the job of returning water to the rivers, to return a greater share of water to the basin rivers when it became available. It is never about the health of just one wetland or one particular ecosystem; it is about improving the overall health of the basin. By the eve of the federal election in 2010 federal Labor had purchased over 900 billion litres of water entitlements for the basin's rivers. We did this without resorting to compulsory acquisition because we considered such an action would diminish the property rights of farmers.

There has been criticism on both sides about the pace at which the government carried out water purchasing and the extent to which we did. What I would say is that, without this significant purchase of water entitlements, the implementation of the Basin Plan would have been much harder. If we had not purchased water in those years, the implementation of the plan, which the chamber is debating, would have been much harder. These purchases laid the foundation of lasting reform and demonstrated to communities that an agreement could be done. It would have been made harder had we not undertaken the task of bridging the gap—bridging the gap between the amount of water we take out of the basin and the amount of water the authority determined that the basin needed to survive.

Late last year my colleague and successor as water minister, Tony Burke, signed into law the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the presence of the Prime Minister. After 100 years we finally have an agreement to return a stipulated amount of additional water to the environment. I congratulate Minister Burke on this huge achievement. He has delivered what many thought was impossible—a plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. Members on this side of the chamber should be very proud of what has been achieved by this Labor government. We secured in law through the Basin Plan a base amount of 2,750 gigalitres of water for the environment. The government's view was that more should be done in order to ensure greater environmental outcomes. We wanted to maximise those outcomes by delivering additional water but not at the expense of social or economic outcomes.

The bill we are debating here today formalises the Labor government's commitment to deliver an additional 450 gigalitres to the basin. Along with this additional water the government will also fund projects which remove the existing constraints that stop high flows of water being delivered to environmental assets in an efficient way. Constraint removals include actions such as providing for flood easements, securing agreements with landholders or raising bridge heights. To put this plan into action funding of $1.77 billion has been committed from 2014-15. That funding will be contained within a separate account with money appropriated each year, because we believe the setting up of a special account is an important mechanism to ensure a long-term funding stream. It is a long-term funding stream that delivers long-term benefits and ensures that the future health of the basin could not be undermined by governments ransacking its funds to balance its budget. It is a plan that has been carefully designed to recognise the concern of Murray-Darling Basin communities.

I want to respond briefly to comments that Senator Hanson-Young made about water buybacks. I would make the point that this government has to balance not only the environmental outcome but also community outcomes. Whilst it is the case that you could spend the entirety of the money only on water buybacks, that would not give the desired outcome for communities and industries that rely on the rivers and which is in the national interest.

This bill is the final piece of our plan for restoring the basin. Along with the finalised Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the sustainable diversion limit adjustment legislation it sets out our plan to return the basin to health. It is unfortunate, on what should have been an issue worthy of cross-party support, that some of those in the parliament have not engaged to achieve agreement. Clearly those opposite remain divided. The member for Riverina stated: 'It will certainly not get my support. It needs to be discarded because it's poor policy.' The member for Murray, Dr Sharman Stone said: 'I'm going to stand up and say "no", and I'm going to try, having said "no", when we are in government to start again.'

I do acknowledge that Senator Birmingham with his South Australian colleagues sought to be a voice of reason, but I do make also note of their dubious efforts to claim credit for this reform in the South Australian media. I do remind the chamber that it was not the coalition who negotiated with the states, it was not the coalition who started buying back water and it was not the coalition who delivered a plan for management of the whole basin. In 11 years under Prime Minister Howard the Liberal Party had an opportunity for over a decade to reform their basin. It was only in their last year of office that they finally sought to act.

Then there are, of course, those who seem more interested in protesting than in delivering meaningful change, those who oppose reform on the basis that it does not go far enough. Governing is always about balancing the needs of competing interests, and that is not a concept just applicable to this debate. For the basin there are the competing needs of the environment, irrigation communities and critical human needs or the needs of a state at one end of the vast system to be balanced against the needs of another. To oppose this bill on the grounds that it does not do enough for the basin is to oppose both the greater returns of water to the environment and the security of the funding mechanism proposed. To oppose this bill is to deny farmers in the basin additional funding to improve their water efficiency.

For South Australia and its representatives here in the federal parliament, this is an opportunity to turn around the cumulative inaction of 100 years of decision making. I think South Australians would hope that their parliamentary representatives could vote with one voice in favour of this reform.

If the chamber would indulge me, I do want to makes some comments about the work of many people over successive parliaments who have contributed to this reform like Tony Burke and his staff. I acknowledge the work of Mr Turnbull, the Member for Wentworth, for starting the process of change in 2007 with the first Water Act. For officials in the environment department—the name of which has changed on many occasions—some of whom are here in the chamber today, I thank you for having served the government of the day to deliver a reform that will be looked upon as one of the most significant environmental achievements of our nation. There are many people to acknowledge, but I particularly want to acknowledge the work of officials who served me well in my time as water minister: Robin Creyke, James Horn, Mike Taylor, Rob Freeman, Mary Harwood, Tony Slatcher and Ian Robinson. To Mike Kelly: I thank him for his work as Parliamentary Secretary for Water to me in my first time as minister. I also thank my personal staff from the previous term of this government who, because of the work they put in place, helped shape the policy we see today and laid down important foundations for long-lasting reform. To Tim Fisher, Don Freighter, John Olenik, Sareyka Tarcan and Ilsa Colson: your dedication is reflected in this final policy.

We cannot be fooled into thinking that Australia will not enter another period of drought in the near future, and when the next drought comes we need to be better equipped to handle the stress of less water. The best help we can give the environment is through the basin plan and important supporting legislation such as this bill. Successive governments and legislators failed the basin, its environment and its residents for over 100 years, and we are moving on from this disappointing legacy. Water reform has never been an endeavour that can be achieved over the short term. It is multi-government, decadal reform. No-one ever expects—although sometimes the media does—an instantaneous flow of water or wetlands to suddenly spring into life as a result of any one government's actions, but action now will ensure we see results in the future. As parliamentarians we have the enormous privilege of leadership and a great responsibility, and in the future, parliamentarians will also be required to lead and to ensure this plan comes into fruition. The basin plan is the blueprint, but the execution of it, the reality of it, is in the hands of future parliamentarians and future governments, state or federal. I hope that they live up to the expectations not only of Australians but particularly of South Australians from my home state.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Senator Wong. The debate not being closed, I call Senator Birmingham.

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

Thank you very much Mr Acting Deputy President. It is a pleasure to note that the debate is not being closed and that I do not need to go through the same processes we did at the end of last year in seeking some leave from the chamber to make a contribution as I had to on the basin plan disallowance motion. On that note, it is important to recall where it is that we finished last year, because there has been a lot of action in the water space over the period of months leading up to the end of last year, and of course that continues through to the debate of this bill before the chamber today. It is important to recall that last year both chambers passed amendments to the Water Act; amendments that allowed for the implementation of an adjustment mechanism; a mechanism that will allow greater flexibility in the operation of the sustainable diversion limits set by the basin plan; a mechanism and amendments that were supported by parties across the chamber, through both chambers at that time and that facilitated getting the type of agreement that was necessary between the states and cooperation to finalise the basin plan. I am pleased that the coalition was able to give support to the government and that the government was able to work with states of different political persuasions to construct an adjustment mechanism that achieved that cross-party support.

Most importantly and significantly, at the end of last year both chambers voted down a disallowance motion—voted to reject a motion to disallow the basin plan. The plan was the subject of much of Senator Wong's commentary as it provides the very firm underpinnings and the great basis upon which this bill builds. I gave a speech not dissimilar in some regards to Senator Wong's late last year. I am not going to revisit all of that territory in terms of what happened historically to get us to the point of having that basin plan or the importance that it has to our home state of South Australia, but it is important to note that it is the bedrock that underpins the bill that we are debating today. I do acknowledge the work of Senator Wong amongst many others in getting to that point and in her time as water minister. That is not to say that Senator Wong and I did not have some fierce disagreements in that time and that I do not continue to have policy disagreements with Senator Wong, Mr Burke or the government about the way aspects of water reform are handled. I do think that South Australia should acknowledge that, in the main, its parliamentary representatives, over a significant period of time, in both chambers have come to this place and fought for the interests of their state in getting water reform. But they have done it inside their parties and inside this parliament, and they have had some significant victories as a small state—as the smallest of the mainland states—against some of the larger states to achieve significant reform in that time.

Minister Burke, in speaking on the disallowance motion late last year, acknowledged that the work could be traced back to the Keating government's adoption of some principles through COAG to try to address overallocation. He also rightly acknowledged the very, very important 2004 amendments of the National Water Initiative which finally sought to establish a functioning water market, and that of course then provided a capacity to start looking at how you may deal with issues of overallocation. Then there were the 2007 national reforms of the Howard government that led to the passage of the Water Act itself.

Senator Wong in her remarks, though generously acknowledging me and other South Australian Liberals—and I thank her for that—did equally claim that it was only in the last year of the Howard government that those reforms were passed. I acknowledge that it was only in the last year of the Howard government that the Water Act was passed, but it was with a great deal of work done in advance to set the basis for that. More particularly, I note, that of course it was not the Labor Party's policy at the time for such sweeping national intervention into the Murray-Darling Basin. It was only because John Howard took the brave step of saying that it was time for national management that the federal Labor Party then adopted that as their policy as well. Never before then had we heard federal Labor suggesting that it was going to be their policy. Only thereafter did it become their policy, and even then in the period of time between John Howard's Australia Day announcement in 2007 and the 2007 election it was the Victorian Labor state government that held up reform so very much.

I also note that Senator Wong tried to say that it was not the coalition that delivered the plan with regards to the fact that South Australian Liberal members rightly highlighted to the South Australian electorate the support given by the coalition to the development and establishment of the basin plan. It was the coalition and the Howard government that provided the legislation that made the plan a possibility. It was the coalition and the Howard government that took the brave step of standing up to the states and saying, 'Enough is enough of the state management of the system. We need to have national management.' Given the many failings we have seen of the reform agenda adopted by this government, if that act had not been passed under the Howard government I am far from convinced that it would ever have seen the light of day from those opposite. Again, to remind the chamber, until it was adopted by the Howard government it was never even mooted as a potential Labor Party policy. But I acknowledge that the government finally got a plan in place, and I will turn back to some of the issues around delays and concerns that I have in just a couple of moments perhaps.

I want to reflect very briefly on Senator Hanson-Young's contribution prior to Senator Wong. I again remind the chamber of what occurred late last year when across the parliament the only party that consistently opposed the adoption of the Basin Plan was the Australian Greens. In this chamber we saw the Greens vote against it, whilst Labor senators, Liberal senators, National Party senators and Senator Xenophon all supported the plan's adoption. Perhaps there were varying degrees of reservation, but all acknowledged that it was an important step forward and that we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good despite our various reservations. It was the Greens that moved a motion in this place to disallow the plan. It was the Greens that voted in the other place—with, yes, a couple of coalition members and Mr Katter—to oppose the Basin Plan. It was perhaps a very strange and eclectic collection of voices against it in the other place. The coalition stood firm to say, 'This is a reform we started, it is a reform we are proud of, and it is a reform we will stand by into the future.' We should not forget that it is the need to make those difficult decisions rather than making sanctimonious speeches sometimes that is important in achieving reform in this place.

Reflecting on the time since we debated that on the last sitting day of last year, I am concerned though that we have not seen further progress in the development and implementation of the Basin Plan and in particular the finalisation of the intergovernmental agreements required for its implementation between the Commonwealth and states. I am concerned that in some ways there seems to be a deafening silence coming from the government at this point in terms of where we are with the finalisation of the Basin Plan's implementation and agreements that need to be struck with the different state governments.

I do hope that in the closing parts of this debate we will hear from Senator Farrell and that he will be able to tell the chamber just why there seems to be this delay. Or, if I am mistaken, perhaps he will tell us that there is no delay and give us a firm timeline for when we can expect finalisation of the remaining elements around the implementation of this plan. We did see at the time of the release of Basin Plan's Environmental Water Recovery Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin, a draft of consultation, and I understand that that will form at least part of those discussions with the states as to how the Basin Plan is to be implemented. My concerns about the delays we are seeing are perhaps driven as much by the track record of the government when it comes to delays in this space as by the two months that have elapsed since we saw the disallowance motions rejected in this place. I recall that at the very outset of the life of this government, with the Water Act freshly minted in 2007, it took then Minister Wong 18 months just to appoint the chair and members of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—a terrible delay right at the outset. I recall that the original timeline was to have the Murray-Darling Basin Plan finalised in 2011 and that we were to have seen a draft of the actual plan before the 2010 federal election. Instead, we did not see a draft of the actual plan before the 2010 federal election, and even after the election all we ended up getting was a guide to the draft, an outline of it, which proved to be one of the very tragic steps in the development of the Basin Plan. We know that it was more than a year after the original deadline was set that we finally saw the finalisation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. So, once again, delays are proving to be a consistent theme through this important reform under this government, which drives my concern today about the silence from the government since we saw the rejection of the disallowance motions to the Basin Plan and the adoption of the Basin Plan late last year.

On the infrastructure projects side we have the iconic project of fixing the Menindee Lakes, so often talked about as having the potential to allegedly save up to 200 gigalitres of water—a very significant potential reform. In Labor's policy document at the 2007 election it was listed as the top priority amongst their infrastructure projects. Here we are in 2013 and not a single sod of soil has been turned and, as far as I am aware, agreement is something that is still being worked upon. I know there are difficulties with the state government in getting that off the ground. Of course, initial delays did not exactly help in that regard and, perhaps, if agreements had been struck earlier we may have seen action by now. Whether it is that project, the 2008 promise of the Sunraysia modernisation project or the chronic underspending in the budget when it comes to water infrastructure, the government has a track record of just not delivering. It is those delays and those failures to deliver that feed my concern about where the current process may or may not be up to. I do hope that we will see the government drive this hard to ensure that they get the necessary agreements in place rather than allow things to set in and drift, as appears to have happened on far too many previous occasions.

The topic of infrastructure projects allows me to turn to some of the detail of the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 and how it will operate. I think it is fair to say that this is an unusual bill. It is unusual for the chamber and this parliament to appropriate funds so far in advance, and this bill appropriates annual allocations all the way through to 2024. At face value, that is an act that I would have a concern with; however, understanding the interrelationship between this legislation and the Basin Plan I can understand why this step has been taken. The Basin Plan essentially sets out that 2,750 gigalitres of water must be recovered to meet the new targets for sustainable diversion limits. That water simply must be recovered. If governments of either persuasion are to honour the promises that we have all made not to have compulsory acquisitions or the like, we simply have to find the budget to undertake the actions to get to that 2,750 level.

We then have the decision that, despite some changes to the wording of the legislation in the other place, we are going to try to get another 450 gigalitres on top of that to get to a 3,200-gigalitre reduction. To ensure that the government of the day actually does try and actually does have the capacity to get through this process and get to the end of that 450 gigalitres if possible, the money is being set down. Had the 450 gigalitres been included as part of the Basin Plan, and had there actually been a 3,200-gigalitre reduction in the Basin Plan, then, quite clearly, appropriating this money in advance would not have been necessary. But because it is being done as an addendum, as an additional target to try to achieve, I can see that there is some case to budget those funds.

I am not 100 per cent convinced whether the funds in question will prove to be enough, but I note the assurances of the government that it believes the sums do stack up to get a potential 450-gigalitre target. I particularly note, though, that there is a real inconsistency in what Minister Burke argues when it comes to how the 2,750 gigalitres is achieved versus how this 450 gigalitres is achieved. When it comes to the 2,750 gigalitres, the government rejects the cap on buybacks because it says that, basically, you need to maintain the threat of buybacks so as to get the state governments to deliver the water infrastructure projects and ensure that they occur. Yet, when it comes to the 450 gigalitres and this bill before us, it prevents the use of buybacks and says that it must be via infrastructure projects, with some allowances to recover all of the water saved under those infrastructure projects through buybacks. But it requires infrastructure projects in the first place with no threat of buybacks existing as an incentive.

So there is a serious inconsistency in the argument made when Minister Burke or others say they oppose the request of the New South Wales government or the policy proposition of the coalition to cap buybacks and say, 'We will definitely deliver on infrastructure policies and projects'. They seem to argue that cannot possibly be done. And yet when it comes to this legislation, it is very clear that they believe it can be done. So if it can be done for the 450—if you can say that you can get all 450 without recourse to buybacks, that it can be done through infrastructure projects—then very clearly you should be able to do likewise as outlined in the targets of this water recovery strategy. Those targets should be enshrined.

As Senator Wong rightly said today, the reason to reject buybacks across the board—I wish she had done a little more of this as minister—is because you have to balance the environment with the communities. That is why this is so important.

This bill earns the support of the coalition because it balances the environment with the communities. In the end, it makes clear—the government has made clear—that infrastructure comes first to deliver the water savings for the environment; that you try to achieve the win-win outcomes that get water for the environment without decimating the economic fabric or productive capacity of the communities along the way. That is the reason we are supporting this bill. I welcome it as the next step in this process and, of course, welcome here the government perhaps responding to some of the questions I posed.

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

I rise too to speak on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012. As a South Australian, and as an irrigator, I understand intimately the importance of a healthy river system, with sufficient water flowing into South Australia to ensure our future. One can only hope that if the South Australian environment is healthy then all the environments of the states upstream will be in a similar condition.

We supported the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, when we eventually got it. We supported the adjustment mechanism to allow the moving up and down of the amount of water that will be available, should it be proven that it is insufficient or too much. We will support this bill. But the attitude that you 'just add water' really does need to be looked at a little bit more carefully. In my opinion, it is not about the amount of water or the numbers; it is about where you get the water from and how you use that water once you have it.

We need to be smarter about delivering the best possible outcomes by taking the least amount of water out of productive use, and by having the least amount of impact on the lives and the assets of the people who rely on the river—the people who produce our food and the people who, like everybody else in this state, have a right to be able to earn a living without having something taken away from them unnecessarily. It is not just by innovating and the like for irrigation practices; it is also about being innovative about a broad range of things that we do to ensure that we deliver the best possible outcome for the least amount of negative impact on our communities.

The water delivered by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and the additional water that is proposed to be delivered by this bill, does give us a huge opportunity to do much good. We must not waste that opportunity or the water that we are getting. Like so many things, the devil is always in the detail. The ability of the additional water that is identified in this bill to be used effectively will require very, very careful management by those who are entrusted both at a federal level and in the respective states on how they use that water, and what they do with it.

One small example—well, not a small example for the people who were involved—that was highlighted during a Senate hearing into the impacts of the plan was actually raised by the Murray River Action Group. They gave evidence that the impacts of flows of 40,000 megalitres per day in the Kiewa River, upstream from Albury and from releases from the Hume Dam, will have absolutely devastating impacts on their area. We need to remember that these guys are not irrigators, so do not place the blame on irrigators and say, 'Well, you know, the irrigators have taken the water'. These people are actually dryland farmers; they just happen to be in an area where they have had reasonable levels of rainfall so they end up being quite wet dryland farmers. They go on to say in their submission:

Pastures underwater in Spring for long periods of time will result in pastures being totally wiped out for 7 - 8 months at a time …

They refer to the fact that with flows of 40,000 megalitres a day, many bridges and approaches within the district will actually deny access both to their land and their stock.

Obviously, there is an increased risk of exacerbated flood damage. If you are actually doing controlled releases of water at a time that you get high rainfall, then all of a sudden you have turned what was apparently going to be a controlled flood into something that could be entirely devastating to the region. It is not just the things I have said above about loss of access and loss of crop but also loss of livestock.

Another thing: we are talking about looking after the environment. There are huge red gum forests up there, and red gum forests that spend their lives with wet feet, which potentially could happen, actually will die, so we will have a negative environmental impact. That was just one example from a community that is along the Murray-Darling river system.

I suppose one thing that we really do need to note in all this is the issue of compensation. It is not the government that pays compensation; it is actually the taxpayers of Australia who pay that compensation. So we need to be very, very careful that we cover ourselves off and that we do not actually cause a worse set of problems by trying to solve one problem.

That is just one example. Further downstream, the removal of constraints does have the potential to have a major impact. Like a chain, the river is only as strong as its weakest link. By removing these constraints we have a very serious potential that we could cause other problems. I would really like the department to answer, 'Does anybody really know what the impacts of an 80,000 megalitre-a-day flow at the South Australian border is going to mean for the upstream states?'

You have to remember that this water is being released from dams at the top end of the system. It is not just being caused by run-off from rain along the entire river system, so the water is not gathering as it comes down; it is actually one lump that is being let go. Another example is: how are the suggested quantities of water that are coming down from these upstream reservoirs going to get past such natural impediments as the Barmah Choke? All of these issues need to be addressed before we try and stuff all this water down our river corridor. The taxpayers of Australia have stumped up an awful lot of money for this reform package, and they will stump up a whole heap more before it is finished. But already we are starting to see that some of our state governments are seeing it as a way of reducing their commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. We need to deal with this issue now.

One of the issues that has resulted from this reduction of funding coming out of the states is very close to the heart of many people in South Australia—that is, the Native Fish Strategy. Minister Burke last year announced that the Native Fish Strategy would not be funded from the middle of this year. This has occurred, according to his department, because the state governments have reduced their funding. In particular, he said that New South Wales had reduced its funding, which had normally triggered the dollar-for-dollar funding that would normally go into this strategy; hence, if the New South Wales government and the South Australian governments were not going to put the funding into this strategy then the federal department was not going to either. Given that native fish populations are a true indicator of the health of a river system, surely, with all of this money that the taxpayers of Australia have put up to try and achieve a healthy river system, there is the capacity in the project mix that we have put forward to allow this small amount of money—we are talking a couple of million dollars a year—to continue.

Such a program provides critical support across the whole of the basin—it is not just a state activity—and it delivers a huge amount of positive outcomes for the basin: the restoration of the riverine connectivity, advances in integrated pest management, the delivery of demonstration reaches across the basin, the initiation of knowledge generation projects, the harmonisation of fisheries management and related natural resource regimes, and community education and engagement. Native fish populations and fish communities basin wide remain severely depleted, and to stop this program now just does not make any sense to me. Demonstrably healthy river native fish populations are a key signal to the basin's human communities and the Australian people that the river is healthy and that the management of the river is being effective. So, once again, it is a very easy and effective way for us to check whether the projects being put forward and the delivery of this Basin Plan and its associated instruments are actually working. Achieving a healthy, working Murray-Darling Basin Plan requires a broader focus than just water management. Without the support of these complementary management actions we will be wasting the opportunity to maximise the outcomes of the water that this very bill seeks to deliver.

Another way that we can achieve the best outcomes is through encouragement of innovation. In the electorate in which I live, we have an example where the community has positively embraced the action to look after the river. The Loxton Waikerie council is a small council in the Riverland of South Australia and on their own, off their own bat, they took up the initiative of constructing a 25-megalitre dam in the town of Loxton to capture the town's stormwater. The council hopes that this dam will not just reduce the town's reliance on the Murray for its water but take it completely off the system. A similar project has been planned for Waikerie, the other major town within this council area. This $9.5 million project has significant benefits for the local community. It certainly takes off the draw on the river. It increases the knowledge bank within the community. It increases the capacity of that community to manage flood mitigation during times of high volume, and it also gives them the opportunity to manage their own land management plans in a much more effective and innovative way.

There are myriad projects that we could be looking at that would enable the water that is being recovered here and returned to the river environment to be used and maximised. In South Australia we were lucky enough to get $265 million from the federal government towards a project which has been referred to as the Water Industry Alliance. I would like to acknowledge that eventually, after many, many years of the South Australian community demanding recognition for the fact that they have been the most responsible water users in the basin forever—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senators! Senator Ruston still has a few minutes left on the clock. Could we keep the chatter to a minimum.

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

With recognition of the irrigation water efficiency and things like the compliance on the water cap in South Australia, we have been really quite delighted to see that after seven years we have been acknowledged for it. In the acknowledgement of this and the allocation of the $265 million, we have seen the capacity for us to spend money that otherwise would have been allocated to either specific water-saving infrastructure upgrades or water buybacks and put it to better use on projects that will increase the efficiency of agricultural productivity within the region. We are looking forward to seeing the outcome of the process of defining what those projects are through the Water Industry Alliance. The fact that this 450 gigalitres of additional water will not be secured by buyback is a huge relief for the people of South Australia. The plan and this bill are supported because they can do good, and we must make sure that they do do good, by implementing the plan in such a way that the beneficial outcomes are maximised for all stakeholders: the environment, the economy and the river communities that rely on it so heavily.

Debate interrupted.