Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to the allocation of ministerial responsibility for water.

I think the answer was really instructive in a bizarre sort of way because, bereft of any knowledge, information or clarity, Senator Colbeck had to stumble and mumble his way through a couple of minutes of prevarication. That is quite normal, I suppose, on that side of the chamber. The really interesting matter before us is what is seriously happening with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the plan that this new government under the honourable Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has.

We know very clearly that there is a lot at stake here. I just want to put on the record what is at stake. James Horne, the inaugural chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Officials Committee, in 2009 said:

… merging the two portfolios could have several important implications.

Horne said the job of implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan would fall to Joyce as Agriculture Minister, which would be "anything but straightforward".

"It involves ensuring adherence to the new, reduced sustainable irrigation limits that are already agreed but not yet implemented," Horne said.

"It also involves implementing water planning in a comprehensive way that has never been seen before in the Basin. This planning is a key element in ensuring an end to the environmental degradation seen in many areas of the Basin in recent decades."

That basically describes the situation we have.

We know that there was a deal done. In order to get ongoing support for this government, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull had to make an accommodation with the Nationals, and we are now struggling to find out what has actually happened. Who will have responsibility for water? Will it be the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, the former senator? Most of us who have been here a short while would have enjoyed his contributions here in the chamber. But that contribution in this chamber would not have given you any great confidence, particularly as a South Australian, that we were going to see the Murray flow and enjoy nine out of 10 years of water flowing out into the sea without the continual years of dredging.

The Hon. Barnaby Joyce is now in the House of Representatives as the member for New England, Tony Windsor's old seat. He will take an agricultural view. I have no doubt about that. It will be to support farmers. It will be to support use of water. It will not be an environmental view. The silent partner in this agreement is the environment. I have no confidence that this minister will take an environmental view at all.

There was some hope with the announcement of Senator Ruston as having responsibility for water that perhaps she would get a guernsey in how it would be managed and that South Australia and those further down the river from the Hon. Barnaby Joyce's electorate would enjoy some representation. We know that there was a water minister in South Australia, a Nationals water minister, who took a very, very keen interest in water usage, the environment and the degradation that had occurred over many, many decades. We had some hope, but the fine print has not been sorted out.

If you ask the Parliamentary Library who has responsibility for which area, they will tell you that it has not been sorted out yet. It is not on the website, and there is usually a confidential exchange of charter letters which are generally not made public.

The public in South Australia will take a very keen interest in this matter. Several Liberal MPs have already put their concerns on the public record. All of the Labor team will put their concerns very fully on the record, including in every electorate of South Australia, to make sure that we do get what we need: the three S's—social sustainability, economic sustainability and environmental sustainability. Thank you.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very proud to be part of a coalition that takes a balanced view on all of these issues—on issues of water and the environment. I believe the coalition has a great history and record of approaching issues in a balanced way that recognises that there are a number of trade-offs from time to time between environmental concerns and the need to support local communities and jobs, to maintain families on farms and our access to cheap and affordable food—something that we have always benefited from except for the very early times of the first settlers when they nearly starved to death.

We are lucky in this nation to have that access, and that requires a balanced approach. That approach, I think we should agree, should be based on the national interest, not on particular parochial interests of any individual state or any individual region. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be about managing the Murray-Darling for the entire nation, not for individual regions.

When individual senators want to speak only about concerns in their own area of the country, that is the very type of behaviour that caused us to have the problems in the Murray-Darling in the first place. We have had to take the kinds of actions and major policy departures from what we had before for the Murray-Darling, because individual states managed the system separately from each other and did not work together to coordinate.

I want to see a process that manages this system as a nation. I want to see a process that does not set Queenslanders against South Australians, New South Wales against Victorians or indeed environmentalists against farmers. I think the problem with the Labor Party is that they have no balance in this area. Some of them believe that every farmer is an environmental bandit who wakes up in the morning, trying to work out how they can destroy and despoil the wonderful environment we all enjoy here in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth, because it is our farmers and our farming communities who live in this environment. They are the ones who live on the river. They are the ones who rely on the river flowing all the time and who have the greatest interest of all in our nation to make sure the river remains healthy.

There is a great degree of vitriol and insinuation about the new minister for water resources, Barnaby Joyce. But you can say that he has actually lived on the Murray-Darling. He used to live on the Balonne River in St George. He now lives in New England in the Gwydir catchment in the Murray-Darling Basin. He understands the system and he was also shadow minister for water for more than three years during the time when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed to—and it had to be agreed to by both parties to get through this chamber. It was a disallowable instrument and it could have been disallowed by either side of this chamber but it was supported by the coalition government. It was put forward by the Labor Party and supported with Barnaby Joyce as the shadow minister for water, so I am sure that he more than anyone else in the coalition will make sure it comes to fruition.

When the Labor Party started this process when they were in government, they got it wrong. Initially, they got it terribly wrong in 2010 when they released the Murray-Darling Basin Plan calling for 6,700 gigalitres to be reduced in usage in the basin, which caused great consternation. It was an incredibly unbalanced approach—even they would admit that now. They eventually implemented a plan that called for a reduction of 2,750 gigalitres—less than half the initial proposal.

That was a much more sensible process. That was a much more sensible plan. Our job now is to make sure we implement water reform, implementing a triple bottom line in a way which protects the environment absolutely but also protects farming communities, jobs and our ability to grow food and create wealth for our nation. Many of the issues that go to the implementation of the plan go to very detailed considerations in those catchments and areas.

Just recently we had a Senate committee in one of these catchments—in St George, the most important irrigation community in the Murray-Darling system Queensland. Those complex details were very stark and, unfortunately, there were no representatives from the Labor Party or the Greens at those hearings to hear those things in detail; however, those are the kinds of issues and complexities that could be dealt with considerably better, I think, with an agriculture minister in charge of water going forward.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers to Senator Wong's question to Senator Colbeck. I am glad that Senator Canavan has formed such a clear view about what is necessary in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, because it is not at all clear to anybody else that that kind of clarity is enjoyed across the government benches. We all woke up this morning to reports on the front page of The Australian indicating that there is in fact significant disarray and disagreement within the coalition about who exactly is in charge of water. Is it Senator Ruston? Is it Senator Joyce or is it indeed Senator Hunt? Or do all of them share some role in implementation—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hunt—you have promoted him!

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Minister Hunt—or is it in fact something that is shared by all three of them? We are not clear What is more alarming, of course, is that we are not at all clear about the overall direction that is intended by the government in relation to these matters. That is much, much more important.

The question was asked today about whether the National Party is in fact capable of taking the interests of South Australians seriously in relation to water, or of taking the responsibility for the environment. Unhappily, the experience over many years has been that members of the National Party have consistently shown themselves unwilling to truly consider a triple bottom line.

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this represents the position of many country Australians. In fact, in previous roles I have had the good fortune to meet with farmers across New South Wales who were extremely concerned about the health of the environment in their area, caused by the overextraction of water resources and the consequential ecological impacts that occur on the floodplains and wetlands around New South Wales rivers. I know that those people were good farming people. They were the sort of people that many people on the National Party benches might expect to vote for them year after year. But those people were destined to be disappointed if they looked to their National Party representatives for a serious, science-based approach to the problems that were besetting the river system in the Murray-Darling Basin.

A point, too, is that on the Liberal side there are plenty of people in the regions, in the towns and in our big cities who also look to the Liberal Party for leadership on questions of the environment. Again, sadly, they are routinely disappointed because the Liberal Party, tethered to their National Party cousins, are completely unable to take seriously the consequences of ongoing environmental degradation.

So ultimately, of course, it is left to the Labor Party to take responsibility for the big environmental decisions in this country. We have seen it in forestry and in marine conservation, and we saw it again when it came to the Murray-Darling Basin where, ultimately, responsibility for forming a plan that could be accepted across communities once again fell to Labor.

You might have expected, having reached a final settlement on a question that had bedevilled the Federation since our commencement, that the National Party might have been pleased to support such a plan. But no—what did they do? I point to Barnaby Joyce in particular. Minister Joyce spent years undermining Labor's approach to Basin Plan implementation. He was critical of water buybacks and he advocated moving water across the continent. He never really accepted in any foundational way that the system had been overallocated, that mechanisms did need to be put in place to recover water for the environment and that unless we addressed that in a serious and consequential way there would be no ongoing sustainability or economic viability of basin communities.

Now, as part of a deal with Prime Minister Turnbull, they have demanded that these responsibilities be transferred to the National Party. They are apparently upset that even components of the administration of the plan be left with the Department of the Environment, when—if we think about it—the allocation of environmental water should be undertaken by an environment department with expertise in the environmental assets that this water is supposed to be protecting and enhancing. More than that, what we see is a situation where—once again—the Liberal Party and the National Party are completely unable to resolve their underlying philosophical differences about how the environment ought to be protected. They are unable to resolve at a personnel level the differences within their government and it will be to the very great loss of the environment in this country. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regret, I say that I have not heard such uninformed drivel for a long period of time, talking about issues of which the former speaker absolutely has no knowledge. What we are debating today is the answer to the question of who is in charge of water. The answer is clearly this: it is the coalition government that is in charge of water, as it has always been. Mr Deputy President, if you look back in history, every single major environmental initiative for Australia has been done by a coalition government. Whether it be saving the Great Barrier Reef, saving Fraser Island or saving Antarctica—any significant environmental issue—these are all issues introduced under coalition governments.

When it comes to water, the coalition government understands water, irrigation and the environmental necessity of water and flows at various periods of time. It was, of course, the coalition government that undertook some of the major water projects—I was going to say 'of our time'—perhaps of my time but not of many others'. The last major dam water storages in Australia—the Fairbairn Dam near Emerald and the Ord River Dam up in the Northern Territory-Western Australian border area—are initiatives of coalition governments which were criticised at the time but which have been proved to be major assets to Australia. If you have a look at the Fairbairn Dam around Emerald you see the wealth that is created from that water storage initiative by farmers there, producing billions of dollars of export money for Australia. The Ord River Dam—whilst it has taken some time to become absolutely productive—is hitting its straps at the current time. In addition, for those on the other side who claim to be environmentally aware, the Ord River Dam—an artificial dam—has created a Ramsar wetland in the Ord River area. For those who do not understand, a Ramsar wetland is a wetland of international environmental significance. It has been created because of and by the building of the Ord River Dam more than 50 years ago.

Coalition governments over the years have understood the Murray-Darling Basin and they know what is right in managing a very difficult water supply area. The question was whether it is Mr Joyce or someone else who is in charge of water policy. The government is in charge of water policy, and Mr Joyce is certainly part of the government—as are Mr Turnbull, Senator Brandis, Senator Colbeck and Senator Ruston. The government will make decisions on these issues in Australia's interest. Some criticisms have been made about Mr Joyce and his involvement with water. Mr Joyce chaired a government committee that looked at water issues, water storage and the environmental sustainability of water storage across Australia, so he is well qualified to deal with issues relating to water.

I point out again that both the white paper Developing Northern Australia and the AgriculturalCompetitiveness white paper make substantial reference to the necessity for dams and water storage and do so in a way that understands the environmental consequences of water storage. Those initiatives, as outlined in both of the white papers I mentioned, will mean the creation in the years ahead of productive parts of our country similar to those that grew up around the Fairbairn Dam in Emerald, the Burdekin Dam in Ayr and Home Hill, where I came from, and around the Ord River dam. Mr Joyce and all of the government are significantly in charge of water in our country. (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to take note of the answer given by Senator Colbeck to the excellent question from South Australian senator, Senator Wong, about allocation of responsibilities for the water portfolio under this new look but same-old-policies coalition government.

South Australians have every reason to be extremely concerned about the brawling that is going on in the coalition party room between the Nationals and the Liberals about who is going to end up with responsibility for water, and in particular for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its implementation. South Australians know that giving that responsibility to Mr Barnaby Joyce, who clearly wants it, will be a disaster for South Australia because Mr Joyce, the agriculture minister, has always made it clear that he has no insight into or interest in the downstream plight of the river and the communities along it.

If I remember rightly, Mr Joyce at one time told South Australians that if they were concerned about the lack of water and the poor quality of water in the lower reaches of the river where we live in South Australia, then they should move up north to where the water was. Of course, he backtracked from that pretty quickly when he realised what a dreadful thing that was to say to the Riverland communities in South Australia. Nevertheless, he said it and, therefore, you would have to think he actually believes it. Now we are talking about that man, Mr Joyce, being responsible for the River Murray and for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is so important to my community in South Australia.

My fellow South Australians in this place should agree that the state that is most affected by the overallocation of the river is South Australia, and yet South Australia also happens to be the one state where the National Party has no representatives and so the National Party in the federal parliament could not care less about South Australia. We do not have federal Nationals in South Australia, but we do have Liberals though, and some of those Liberals have been very, very concerned about this impasse on who is going to get responsibility ultimately for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Mr Pasin, the Liberal member for the seat of Barker, has already expressed his concerns. He said that he was very nervous about Mr Joyce having control of water. He said:

The National Party don't have significant interest in the lower end of the river system …

Of course, he was right. Mr Pasin is not often right, but he was right in that particular regard, because we know that the Nationals do not care about South Australia.

At least Senator Ruston, the other coalition member angling to get control of the water portfolio, is a South Australian. She certainly understands the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to South Australia and she comes from the Riverland. If you are going to give the water portfolio and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to a member of the coalition, then she would probably be the person who would have the most experience to deal with it. But of course that is a sensible decision, and we do not see sensible decisions from this current government, particularly when it comes to managing the environment and precious water resources.

What we have going on is this unseemly brawl that I understand has not been resolved yet. Mr Joyce has written to Mr Turnbull stating his claim for what he thinks should be the case—that is, that he should have control of water and that Senator Ruston, the assistant minister, should have responsibility for agriculture and wine. I do not know what Mr Joyce has got against agriculture or horticulture and wine, but obviously he does not want to be troubled with those other industries that are also important to my home state, particularly wine. That is what he said to Mr Turnbull. Mr Turnbull has not responded to him yet, as far as I understand. There are some negotiations going on that Senator Colbeck alluded to in his pathetic attempt at an answer to the question from Senator Wong today.

I hope the people of South Australia are paying careful attention to the brawling that is going on in this coalition government. We might have a new Prime Minister, but we have the same old policies and the same old fights between the Nats and their coalition partners. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.