Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Gallacher today relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I very reluctantly rise to speak, because, as you may recall, I spoke on this topic yesterday. I had expected that with the return to Australia of our Prime Minister the problems that we saw with the Murray-Darling Basin, the confusion and chaos in the government, would have been resolved. A strong Prime Minister would have come back to this country, realised the terrible things that were being said by the Acting Prime Minister in his absence and would have pulled the Deputy Prime Minister, as he now is today, into line, and we would have got back to a situation where Senator Birmingham, from South Australia, would know that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—which was negotiated and implemented in the parliament before last—was going to be achieved.

I rise because I have been so disappointed in the response from the returning Prime Minister. Not only hasn't he done what I thought he would have done, which was pull Barnaby Joyce into line and say, 'You can't desert South Australia. You can't desert the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to give the people of South Australia, and all Australians, a guarantee that what we promised to do in respect of the Murray-Darling Basin we will do.' But that is not what happened, I am very disappointed to say. Not only do we find that he has not rebuked the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue but now other members of the government are running rampant on this issue.

I refer to the very good question that Senator Gallacher asked the minister. He referred to a statement this morning from the Nationals member for Mallee, who congratulated the Deputy Prime Minister for admitting the delivery of 450 gigalitres was 'never going to be achievable'. So not only has the returning Prime Minister not pulled Barnaby Joyce into line, he has let the cat out of the bag, and all of the Nationals members of parliament are now getting behind the Deputy Prime Minister, and they are all saying that they cannot achieve or deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I referred yesterday to the fact that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was one of the crowning achievements of the Gillard government. There were many achievements in that government but this was one of the crowning achievements. I have had some comments, since I made that comment yesterday, from a lot of people who are now saying, 'The Gillard government is looking like a golden era in governance.'

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

I can hear you laughing, Senator Birmingham, but why aren't you standing up for South Australia? Why aren't you going to the Prime Minister and saying, 'Why don't you deliver on that 450 gigalitres?' Why don't you go to your Prime Minister and say, 'Slap down Barnaby Joyce.'

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are delivering.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it is being delivered upon, why has the member for Mallee freely gone out this morning—not yesterday morning, not the day before—and said, 'The delivery of the 450 gigalitres is never going to be achievable.' We now know who runs this government, unfortunately, because I know you would like to deliver on this, Senator Birmingham. I do know that. I concede that. But your problem is that your Prime Minister is now in thrall to the Nationals. He cannot move. He cannot attack them. We saw it on guns. He cannot pull them into line on that. But let me tell you—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's changed over guns? Nothing, zero.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me tell you this: you will regret not delivering on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. If you think you had a problem with submarines, wait until you fail to deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will direct through you, Madam Deputy President, to Senator Farrell, some advice: we have two choices in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We can sit down at the table and discuss how we are going to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, and that includes the 450 gigalitres of so-called upwater to which the senator, I assume, is referring. We can do that—just as I have arranged to do so with minister Hunt this weekend. We are going to sit down and we are going to talk through ways that we can resolve this unnecessary impasse that has occurred through a whole heap of overly-heated discussion that has not really been based in fact.

We can do that, or we can do something else—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know—

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can do something else, Senator Farrell: we can blow the plan up.

South Australia, through its actions since this discussion has started has basically put on the table that it would rather blow up the plan for political imperative and political outcome than actually work with us to deliver a plan and all the challenges that go with the situation that occurs when you are trying to achieve environmental outcomes—return of water to the river system to deliver environmental outcomes. At the same time we have to be very mindful of the fact that we have a very strong economy in rural and regional Australia, and much of it exists along the Murray-Darling Basin corridor. We need to make sure that we do not destroy those river communities and also destroy the underpinning component of agriculture in our regional communities at the same time.

We have agreed in this place and we have agreed through the negotiation between the governments that exist within the Murray-Darling Basin that we are going to deliver 2,750 gigalitres of water for environmental use via the plan, and that an additional 450 gigalitres will be delivered through an agreement between the governments in a way that does not have any detrimental impact on the river communities that rely so heavily on this water.

We have the situation where we have identified that we have some challenges. We always knew the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was going to be difficult. But with great fanfare we celebrated the passing of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and everything that went with it. We were all proud. We took a bipartisan approach to the delivery of this plan for the betterment of Australia, its river, its communities and the people who live along the river system. So we were all very pleased about that.

What I am calling on the South Australian government for is—and I did this this morning, when I wrote an opinion piece in the paper—please, do not blow up the plan. Please do not do that, because that is what you will do if you continue to pursue the political outcomes that you are trying to achieve by destroying this plan. This is not going to serve the best interests of the health of the Murray-Darling Basin or of South Australia.

Blowing up the plan is not going to achieve, nine years out of 10, the water flows out of the Murray Mouth. Blowing up the plan is not going to deliver water to the Chowilla wetlands, which are at the back door of the place where I live. They are on the Murray River, a place that I love. There is nobody in this place, Senator Farrell, through you, Madam Deputy President, who is more determined to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full for the betterment of the river system, of the river communities that rely on it and for everybody in Australia who benefits from a healthy Murray-Darling Basin than I am.

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

Take it up with your boss, Barnaby!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would call on you and your colleagues, Senator Gallacher, and Senator Wong, to make sure that you impress on Premier Weatherill and Minister Hunter that the most important thing they can do is to work with us, the federal government, and with the governments of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, to make sure that we deliver this plan, because if we do not sit down and have these discussions and work out how we are going to do that then the plan gets blown up. And it will be on your head and on the head of the South Australian Labor government if that happens.

I certainly call on you—and why don't you stand by me?—to help me, to help Senator Birmingham, to help Senator Fawcett and to help Senator Bernardi. Why don't you stand next to us and help us deliver this plan? Because you know, Premier Weatherill knows, Senator Gallacher knows and Minister Hunter knows that the Commonwealth government cannot change the plan without bringing it back to this place and getting this parliament to change it. They also know, as you know, that we cannot change the 450 gigalitres of up-water without the agreement of all states, including South Australia.

Stop your scaremongering; save the Murray! (Time expired)

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard lots of words today about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We asked the minister to make a commitment today in terms of words that were spoken by Senator Ruston—and I really do admire the commitment that Senator Ruston has brought to the discussion here, asking for people to work on the plan. It is very important that people work on the plan and remember that it was actually a plan that was developed by the Labor Party. This plan was to make a healthy and sustainable basin.

At that stage, it was cross-party—it was absolutely cross-party. One thing that we have heard a lot of today is about how committed everyone is. If I had had the time to count the number of times the word 'committed' was used in the process today it would have come to a very large number. But we have had confusion. Again, there seems to be confusion and some disagreement about how exactly that commitment is going to operate.

When we asked Minister Canavan to actually respond to a question from Senator Gallacher about whether exactly it was the Deputy Prime Minister's words or Senator Ruston's words which said how this plan was going to operate, it was very hard to hear anything in that answer except 'commitment'. There was no detail; there was no knowledge about exactly how the plan was go to operate. But we do know, and we can hold it to our hearts, that there is commitment. We need more than that. South Australia needs more than that. South Australia has been asking for so long to have a clear understanding of exactly how this plan will work to benefit South Australians.

I spoke with the Queensland minister on this issue over the weekend, and his concern, again, was to ensure that an agreement was actually established with all the states that were going to be involved in this process. He did not feel that that particular agreement was actually being supported by the Deputy Prime Minister. His understanding was that there was a sense of agreement, that there was an understanding of what was going to happen. The Deputy Prime Minister is the man who actually said to South Australians when this plan was being developed that the way South Australians should actually handle their water is to move to where the water is.

It beggars belief that the man who is now the minister responsible for the plan is the same person, with a different title, who said that South Australians should move to where the water is! I am actually not quite sure what that means. I would think it means that the whole population of South Australia should pick themselves up and move down to the coast, that that would be the only way they would be able to have effective water in their state!

Remember, the whole reason for this plan was a shared acknowledgement that this wonderful Murray-Darling Basin should be treasured and supported, and that this was an agreement that needed to be developed, agreed and understood by all the states through which the Murray-Darling rivers flow. Somehow, between the discussions that began and where we are now, there seemed to be a feeling that this plan is not being supported by today's government. I think that is really disappointing because we just heard Senator Ruston talk about how much she wants South Australia to have an effective plan. I think that is something that everybody shares.

What we do not feel is that there is true trust about the way this is going to operate, particularly in the way that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for the plan, is acting with regard to the discussions and the openness with all the states that are involved. We know that there was concern when the responsibility for the plan for water was given to Mr Barnaby Joyce in his role. In this place we heard the Liberal member for Barker, Tony Pasin, being quoted saying he was 'concerned about the fact that we now have a deeper involvement of the National Party with respect to the implementation of the plan'. There is concern not just about the National Party but in particular about Mr Barnaby Joyce, who is now the minister responsible. With the background he has and with the statements he has made in the past, it is very difficult for the people of South Australia to actually accept that their interests will be well protected by the man who said that their water management should be linked to moving near where it is. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Turnbull government could not be any clearer that we will deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time. That is our absolute commitment, as Senator Moore indicated, which we have emphasised again and again. There are no proposals to change the plan coming from the Turnbull government. We are working to see the plan implemented.

Madam Deputy President, you would be forgiven for thinking that those opposite either have never read the plan that was developed during their time in government or are deliberately misrepresenting the content of it. The plan is not a magic wand or a magic pudding that just says, miraculously, 'You get all of this water back into environmental flows.' The plan is a complex plan with a whole series of different conditions put at different junctures for how things work. We have seen in this complex document that we have worked to implement it to the letter of the document and to the letter of the plan, and yet those opposite seek to misrepresent what is occurring.

Firstly, we have had, most recently, the release of the work of the northern basin review. I have heard those opposite criticise the work of the northern basin review, which suggests that there are some adjustments to the sustainable diversion limits that could be achieved in the northern basin. What they ignore is that Mr Tony Burke himself, the then water minister, wrote to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority as water minister asking for that northern basin review to be included in the plan. We have simply followed through with doing exactly what Tony Burke asked us to do—exactly what the then Labor government put into the plan by having the northern basin review. That is actually implementing and delivering the plan in full and on time, because the plan called for that northern basin review to be undertaken.

Equally, in relation to the 450 gigalitres, the plan is very proscriptive about the process for the development of what is known as the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. The adjustment mechanism has a number of tests and barriers to it. Those tests include that that adjustment must be achieved with neutral or improved socioeconomic outcomes. It sets out in the plan the criteria of how improved or neutral socioeconomic outcomes are defined. The criteria say it has to either be through the voluntary participation of water users in projects to recover works or through the participation of consumptive water users in other projects in relation to farm efficiency, or through arrangements proposed by a basin state and assessed by that state as achieving water recovery. In fact, to achieve the 450 gigalitres requires either the voluntary participation of farmers or proposals from basin states—that is, the cooperation of basin states, the action of basin states working together—to make it happen.

That is exactly what Senator Ruston just told this chamber: of course, to achieve the full capacity of the plan it requires the basin states to work together. The only threat at present is the failure of the basin states to be able to work together, led by the actions of the South Australian Labor government. When Mr Joyce put on the agenda how it is that those states need to work together and how they are going to address some of the challenges of ensuring that water is recovered with no socioeconomic disadvantage, what happened? The South Australian water minister sat down with the other water ministers and decided to direct the c-word to the Victorian Labor minister—that's right! Then he told everybody else that they could all eff off. That was the approach undertaken by the South Australian Labor water minister. That is not a way that is going to get cooperation from the other states. That is not a way that is going to get them to deliver their commitments or their obligations under the plan as to how it is actually implemented in full, on time and delivered in the way that we want to see that occur.

What we desperately need to see is those opposite urge their political friends and cousins in South Australia to actually engage cooperatively with the other states. They must work with the Labor government in Victoria to engage cooperatively on developing their responsible components of the plan so that it can be implemented as we want it to be: in full, on time and delivering the water flows back into the river to ensure its health, as we are determined to achieve and see occur.

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

To use an old-fashioned colloquialism: there are some strange bedfellows in this debate. Here we have the opposition leader of South Australia saying: 'We need to take this fight on the states which are upstream.' That is the Hon. Steven Marshall. The Liberal Party in South Australia is unequivocal: 'We want the full environmental flows.' Who started this blue? Barnaby Joyce. Very clearly, he has been completely spooked by the loss of the seat in Orange. He has been completely spooked. A 79-year history of only the Nationals owning that seat appears to have disappeared. He is now attempting to unwind one of the hallmarks of good parliamentary legislation: 100 years of history reduced to legislation, with a bipartisan view to do a very simple thing, and that very simple thing was to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in its entirety. This includes the additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water that the science shows is the minimum necessary amount of water diversion required to keep the Murray River healthy, flowing and the mouth open in at least nine out of the 10 years, as well as the South Australian agricultural sector and environment thriving.

I agree with what Senator Ruston said. And she does lives on the river; it is a beautiful place just outside of Renmark. As you move up the river, what you realise from a South Australian perspective is that efficiency gets worse. In South Australia, where water is precious, the environmental outcomes are better because of the infrastructure investment. Drip irrigation is the norm. All of the possible improvements that you can make in the use of water are exhibited in South Australia. But every year when I drive across the Hay Plains to Canberra, I see the open channel irrigation of the rice and cotton areas. Those features need to change. They have not been frugal with their water. There are infrastructure investments that can make their use of water much better.

It is a really sad day when the Hon. Barnaby Joyce looks at his electoral patch and says: 'Okay, I'm going to go out as the best retail politician in Australia and promise my constituents what they want.' The reality is that he is the Deputy Prime Minister, and when he did this he was acting as the Prime Minister. You cannot be a retail politician, a member of cabinet, a Deputy Prime Minister or an Acting Prime Minster and walk away from legislation of this parliament because you might be able to get a few more votes in certain electorates. That is not the way that a responsible minister in any government should behave.

Senator Joyce has form on this. It does not matter whether it is coal seam gas, it does not matter whether it is the Shenhua coalmine, when it is in a regional area and it suits his political expediency he changes the game. He leads with his foot—in his mouth, generally. He wrote the letter that caused this problem. No-one can make any apologies for the behaviour of the South Australian minister. He did what he did and he should cop what he cops for it. But that is a diversion. That is a simple diversion—and there is no pun intended there. We want the environmental flows. Senator Farrell is dead right: if you think submarines was a widely held and deeply felt issue then water and the River Murray is an even greater issue. It is a greater political issue, evidenced by the statements of the Liberal leader, who said: 'We need to take this fight on with the states which are upstream.' That is what he said on 22 November. The Liberal Party in South Australia is unequivocal: 'We want the full environmental flow.' There it is in a nutshell. We are on a unity ticket with the Liberal Party of South Australia and against this attempt by the Acting Prime Minster at the time and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia to take electoral advantage of something that has been sorted out.

It is a difficult issue. But I believe that, with the correct application of infrastructure improvements, we can minimise any potential job losses in the areas that we are talking about. The Deputy Prime Minister has gone off on a frolic of his own. I do not believe that Senator Ruston actually agrees with his position. Senator Birmingham is there trying to defend his position. The Deputy Prime Minister is off on a frolic of his own and he needs to be brought into line, brought into gear, and put us on the right track.

Question agreed to.