Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to put on record that Labor will be supporting the Water Amendment Bill 2018. We understand that this will allow the re-establishment of the Northern Basin Review instrument. When the Labor Party previously supported the disallowance of this instrument, the indication was given by the Hon. Tony Burke that the intention was to enter into good-faith negotiations with the government on a number of issues before revisiting the disallowance. I do note that it was because of our support for the plan that we supported the disallowance motion. In fact, we are the party that delivered the plan. It was Labor that delivered the Murray-Darling plan in government and it is Labor that will fight today to save that plan—the whole plan, the entire plan—for all Australians.

We know that legitimate questions have been posed concerning the content of the Northern Basin Review and, indeed, the SDL adjustment mechanism. We believe that the best way to deal with these concerns is through improved transparency and new auditing and compliance requirements to ensure a healthy working basin. Labor has also been very determined to make sure that decisions about the volumes required to restore the system to health are determined by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and that they do not, instead, become subjected to daily amendment by political processes. This decision from the Labor Party means that the full Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be back on track with new levels of compliance and transparency. In coming to this decision, we have been mindful of ensuring that all elements of the plan would be properly implemented, that the independence of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority would be preserved and that the demands of the Labor Party, which were put forward in February 2018, would be met. So we are confident that the Basin Plan is back on track, and this is because we received assurances from the government in good-faith negotiations.

As many will know, in the northern basin, you've a much flatter system and a system where, when there's heavy rainfall, it flows, and, each time it flows, much of the water will flow in a slightly different fashion to the way it did the previous time. This is something that's been seen in the southern basin when you get an overbank flow, but, largely, in the southern basin, as we've seen, the water is more predictable. This means there is some degree of uncertainty in the northern basin numbers, and this can have a flow-on effect to the plan and its implementation. But we believe, as the years of data build up, those numbers will always be subjected to new information and the water will continue to flow differently in the north, so we believe that there is a clear need for the northern basin plan review as these numbers must be properly assessed. We have also managed to include something that was not included in the original plan when it was made under Labor back in 2012, and I'm proud of this. For the very first time, there will be a fund for First Nations in the northern and southern basins to acquire water entitlements. To be clear, we think more needs to be done with respect to cultural water, but this is a step in the right direction, and we're pleased that the government has been willing to make it.

It's also pleasing to note the government's plans to establish a Northern Basin Commissioner responsible to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and in consultation with the Minister for the Environment and Energy to oversee the implementation of the Northern Basin Review. The commissioner will report annually on progress on the rollout of toolkit works and measures and other initiatives arising from the northern basin water recovery task force report and this agreement.

We believe that paramount to this agreement is that the plan exists to restore the Murray-Darling Basin to good health. We on the Labor side wholeheartedly believe that having an independent authority is absolutely essential. We know that without an independent authority we will not meaningfully resolve issues with the basin, because we've seen the kind of conflict that happens with competing interests. Labor's decision to support this legislation today means that we firmly believe that the plan is back on track with new levels of compliance and transparency.

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

I rise to contribute to this debate on the Water Amendment Bill and to put very clearly that the Greens do not support this piece of legislation. We think that it is incredibly irresponsible for the Senate to be even debating, let alone passing, this bill today, particularly when the South Australian royal commission has said that this legislation if it passes will be unlawful, that it is in direct contradiction to what is required under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and that, indeed, we might end up in the High Court as a result of its passing. So on that assumption I urge both the Labor Party and the Senate crossbench to be very wary of passing this bill today.

This bill is a result of the dirty deal done between the Labor Party and the coalition government, mainly at the behest of the National Party. It's a deal that effectively achieves nothing but cuts to environmental flows. Let's not forget that this legislation is allowing the government to take billions of litres of water out of the environment to hand to big corporate irrigators in the northern basin. Labor has achieved nothing in exchange for its support for this legislation. During the debate on the previous disallowance, after the deal had been announced, we went through all of the things that the Labor Party had suggested they'd achieved. We knew at that time that all of those things had already been put in place. I don't know who was negotiating on the side of the Labor Party but they didn't do a very good job. They've achieved nothing but what the Labor Party perhaps believed at the time to be the resolution of a political problem for them, because of the conflict involving the Victorian Labor Party and the position of the Victorian government.

Labor's cowardice has effectively granted the National Party everything they wanted from the deal. That should be enough to cause suspicion. Let's have a little bit of a recall of the rap sheet of the National Party—part of the coalition here and in charge of the water portfolio under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Let's have a little bit of a look at what the National Party have achieved since being in charge of the Murray-Darling Basin and look at where all the water is going. We know that the in-laws of the Nationals current federal water minister, Mr Littleproud, are currently being investigated for what's alleged to be the biggest water theft in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's history. That is fact. That is the truth. The idea that we are now passing a piece of legislation that gives more water to corporate irrigators in the northern basin, while that investigation is underway, is absolutely beyond belief.

We also know that the National Party have been appointing irrigation lobbyists to plum public service jobs in New South Wales—lobbyists like Perin Davey, who was recorded in a backroom conversation with a water bureaucrat, a matter which is currently before ICAC. When the bureaucrat offered her secret departmental documents to help irrigators exploit the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, she said: 'Yeah. That would be fabulous.' Those are just some of the things that have been going on since the Nationals in this place have been in charge of the Murray-Darling Basin.

That puts them as the biggest risk to making sure we have a system that is put back on track. The entire point of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was to ensure we had a sustainable amount of water for the river, to keep the river alive, to have it flowing right through to the end of the river system, at the end of the Mayo electorate, down at the mouth of the Murray, and to ensure that all of those communities that live throughout the Murray-Darling Basin would have assurance that this river system can survive. Once you start ripping out more water from the environment and saying that big corporate irrigators can keep it, you undermine the plan and the purpose of the plan from the word go.

We often hear about the plan being put at risk and that, if we do what the plan asks for, which is to return water to the river to ensure that the environment gets its fair share, somehow that will put the plan at risk. I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, it wasn't those of us who are advocating for the environment and ensuring that the river is sustainable who stood up in a pub and boasted that we'd been given the water portfolio just so that we could stop water being taken off irrigators and added to the environment. Of course, that was the former water minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce. His job was to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and yet he believed that actually his job was to stop it, to undermine the plan—and he did a pretty good job on that. The current water minister, Mr David Littleproud, in his first speech in parliament, said that the balance the Murray-Darling Basin Plan strikes between the environment and irrigation is not fair and that the plan needs to be rewritten. Again, the person in charge of this portfolio is actively undermining the whole purpose of the plan. From his first day in parliament, that is what he said that he would do.

This is a system that desperately needs more water returned from those who have been too greedy, who have taken more than their fair share. It needs to be returned to the river so that everyone has an opportunity to rely on a healthy system into the future. The Nationals have never supported returning the river to a sustainable footing. They've tried, every step of the way, to undermine reform of the system. They are doing the bidding of the big corporate irrigators in the upstream states, and they are unashamed about it. They are absolutely unashamed about it. We had the former Deputy Prime Minister bragging in a pub, and we had the current water minister saying in his first speech that he wanted the rules rewritten. To stand in this place today and to see the Labor Party doing a deal with the Nationals, and with the government, to take even more water out of the system, undermining the plan even further—and its purpose, its objective, which is to help sustain the environment—is just shameful. And it is irresponsible when we know that we might just all end up in court on this because the royal commission in South Australia has said that this Water Amendment Bill may be unlawful.

Let's just have a look at the context of the South Australian royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin. We now have the government in this place and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—which is meant to be an independent association—fighting tooth and nail to not have evidence presented to the commission. What are they hiding? What do they not want the Australian people to know? In a time when we've seen corruption, water theft, active undermining of the plan, and rorting of the billions of dollars that have already flown out the door, why on earth would we stand by and allow this government and the authority to say, 'No, we're not going to show up, and we're going to gag our staff from being able to give evidence'? It's gutless, at best, and a total lack of transparency and hiding the truth, at worst. It's contempt for the Australian people and contempt for those South Australians who live at the bottom of the system.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority are doing everything they can to dodge the royal commission and they have the green light from the Turnbull government. The authority don't want to hand over papers to public scrutiny and they don't want to let their staff or former staff appear before the commission. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority says they are committed to accountability and transparency—and then go to the High Court to avoid having to do it. You can't keep saying you recognise the need for more public scrutiny, while dodging it at every point. You can't seriously claim a commitment to restoring public confidence—which is so desperately needed in this process—when you're using the courts to keep the public in the dark. Remember that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority trying to dodge the royal commission are the same agency that continue to say that they want more transparency, yet they won't bother returning the calls of journalists or senators. They won't bother to hand over documents to show people in this place exactly what the impact of the passage of this bill will be or, indeed, the impact of the amendments to the SDLs that passed this place only a number of weeks ago. They've never been forthcoming with the documents. They don't want the public to know. And now they're using the courts to hide.

You have to wonder why the Murray-Darling Basin Authority need 29 media advisers when they're not prepared to tell the public anything. It sounds like a waste of public money to me. But to deny the state in South Australia transparency into how our state, our residents, our part of the river system, and our communities are being impacted by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its implementation is just revolting. It's cowardice, and it's contempt for the people of South Australia because, no matter what the government says, and no matter what the MDBA says, the authority has questions to answer, and genuine questions to answer. David Bell, a water planner who worked for the authority from 2009 until his retirement only last year, said in his submission to the royal commission that he was:

… hastily given the task of identifying the key—

environmental—

sites in the Basin and to go away for half an hour and come up with an estimate of the SDL—

that is, an estimate of what the sustainable diversion limits should be. That is evidence given to the royal commission. The figure he came up with was around 4,000 gigalitres, based on the best available science. In his submission to the commission, he says that the number was reduced by more than 1,000 gigalitres or 1 trillion litres per year—not because it was the best available science, which is what is required by law; no, it was reduced because, in his view, those, 'responsible for landing the plan politically didn't they think could sell it'. This is the evidence that is being given to the royal commission in South Australia as we speak, and here in this place the government wants us to just tick off on this permanent change, and Labor's rolling over to let it happen. Yet the key bureaucrats who worked on the plan in the beginning said it was fundamentally flawed because of political interference.

South Australia was, of course, bound to lose out when you've got jokers like this pulling the strings. David Bell said he was pressured to come up with a number that everyone could live with except the river. He was pressured to appease hostile states, vested interests and flawed science. Again in this place we see a piece of legislation designed to appease hostile states and vested interests, and it's got nothing to do with the best available science. It's going to do nothing to help save the river for the future.

Mr Bell's original estimate was very similar to the estimate of the CSIRO, which found that anything less than 3,000, which is what we have at the moment, would not preserve the river. It's been condemned to death. Politics has weakened the plan at every step of the way. Every time the plan gets weaker, the river loses and the river's life system gets worse. It's now dying. That is what we're dealing with: a system that is in collapse, dying from the mouth up. South Australia is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to how the Murray-Darling Basin is managed, and we are seeing a river dying right before our eyes. Down at the Lower Lakes and at the Coorong, the mouth of the Murray, dredging has not stopped. The river is still sick. What we're being asked today is to take even more water off the environment so that big corporate irrigators can continue to be greedy.

The royal commission in South Australia is asking questions about this: about the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, about the government, about decisions that have been made and about the undermining of the objectives of the plan to save the river system and to protect the environment. Rather than participating in this process, the government and the MDBA are saying, 'Nope, we'll take you to court so that we can keep our mouths shut, so we can keep the South Australian people and the rest of the nation in the dark.' Our river is dying, and apparently we're not even allowed to ask why.

Billions of taxpayers' money has been spent. Billions has rolled out the door, and yet the river is not recovering. It's not money that is being seen in the communities either. Travel anywhere throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, and you can see that communities are still battling with how they manage to live within an existing industry and with a river that is sick. But there are some people who are getting a good bulk of the money that's rolled out the door, like those that are currently being investigated in Queensland under fraud charges—members who are in-laws of the current water minister. How much money has gone into the pockets of that farm? We're not seeing the water coming down the system. We're not seeing the system recover and—boy, oh boy!—the communities downstream are not seeing it.

In February 2018, the Senate voted to disallow the northern basin amendment. The ultimate effect of the proposed amendment would have been to reduce the amount of surface water required to be recovered for the environment in the northern basin from 390 gigalitres to 320 gigalitres. This in turn would have reduced the total amount of water required to be recovered for the environment under the Basin Plan from 2,750 to 2,680 gigalitres. We now know that because of the deal that was done between the government and Labor, for which Labor really secured nothing more than hollow promises, even more water is going to be taken from the environment's allocation and allowed to be spent by big corporate irrigators in the upstream states. You can't take billions and billions of litres off the environment and think that a sick river is going to cope. It's just not. When we know that the amount of water that was already put aside for the environment under this plan is far less than science asked for—we have now heard that in evidence from the royal commission, from David Bell, the former water planner who worked for the authority—the whole thing is a house of cards and it's crumbling before our eyes.

Over the next couple of hours you'll hear senators in this place stand up and say that you need balance. I wish there were some balance, because all we're seeing is the big corporate irrigators taking more, taking more and taking more, funded by the Australian taxpayer, and apparently we're not even allowed to ask why. The government are covering up evidence being given to the royal commission, they're gagging staff and they're keeping the Australian public and the South Australian public in the dark. This bill is a sham and it should not be allowed to pass.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Water Amendment Bill. In February I spoke on behalf of the ALP in support of the disallowance of Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1). At that time I made it clear that Labor were supporting the disallowance, because we would not accept anything less than the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time.

Our decision at that time to vote in support of the disallowance wasn't a position reached lightly. We in the Labor Party know the significance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan because we are the party that achieved that plan in government. I spoke in February of my experience as water minister at the COAG discussions with former Prime Minister Rudd, where, after 100 years of conflict, basin jurisdictions finally reached agreement on the future of the basin. That meeting came after some 11 weeks of negotiations by governments right across the basin. Signatories agreed to the 47 points in the MOU signed by the Commonwealth and the states. And, as I have previously said, to describe that process as 'taxing' probably doesn't even begin to describe what we had to go through to get all of the states as well as the Commonwealth on board, something the coalition under Malcolm Turnbull as water minister could never achieve. But we did it. We did it as a Labor government, with the support of the states. I'm very proud to have been part of this achievement and I'm proud as water minister to have purchased and returned almost 1,000 gigalitres of water to the river. Perhaps Senator Hanson-Young might consider what a Labor government delivered: 1,000 gigalitres of environmental water.

It gave me firsthand experience in the difficulty of balancing and dealing with the competing interests across the basin. That is an insight shared by Labor shadow minister for the environment and water, Tony Burke, who was the minister in the Gillard government when the plan was finally achieved and legislated, in 2012. That was a historic achievement. We reached agreement with all basin states, delivering a plan to return the equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres to the basin. We are very fortunate in the opposition to have Tony continuing as the shadow minister for environment and water, particularly given his intimate understanding of the Basin Plan and his personal commitment to ensuring its protection and implementation. It's an experience and an approach I wish others had, because frankly it is pretty easy to come into the Senate and lecture senators about what you think the right thing to do is.

We see again today that the Greens intend to move amendments to alter the Basin Plan put in place by the Labor government. We have just endured another series of grandstanding and posturing from Senator Hanson-Young. Let's remember, this is the party that voted against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, just in the way they voted against the carbon price and sat with Cory Bernardi when the CPRS was voted on.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

You wouldn't want to have a plan that actually did something, would you—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please refer to senators by their appropriate titles.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi—my apologies, Mr Acting Deputy President. You wouldn't want to have a plan that actually did something, because you might have to stop posturing. A thousand gigalitres of water I bought as water minister on behalf of taxpayers, and on behalf of taxpayers you voted against the plan.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, address your comments to the chair.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People can decide who's grandstanding and posturing, and who actually wants to deliver something. What we see over and over again is too much grandstanding and posturing from the Greens, and too many in the coalition who are not committed to the plan. We in the Labor Party are committed to the plan that we put in place, and in opposition we will do everything we can, as we are doing, to force this government to deliver on the plan, notwithstanding the views of some of those inside the National Party, particularly the former minister. We in the Labor Party understand that grandstanding and posturing might play to some but delivers to none. What we have to do is be responsible and achieve reasoned, well-informed positions that deliver outcomes, and that is approach we will continue to take.

The review of the water recovery targets of the northern basin was always envisaged as part of the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We had a range of concerns about the review and about the implementation of the plan more broadly, hence the Labor Party supported the disallowance of the instrument to which I have referred. That was a big thing to do, given this is a plan we put in place in government. The Northern Basin Review came after years of backsliding under the coalition government and particularly under former Deputy Prime Minister Joyce. The review was delivered in the context of extraordinarily serious allegations of water theft and corruption in the northern basin—allegations which, frankly, confirmed the worst fears of South Australians.

These were bad enough, but worse still was the response from the Turnbull government to these allegations. The then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Joyce, responded to the allegations by saying that it was an issue for New South Wales—washing his hands of it. He told irrigators in Shepparton that the Four Corners report was a plot to steal their water. Not only did he completely fail to act appropriately in response to revelations not just of poor conduct and policy implementation but of corruption and theft in the northern regions of the basin but he also continued to actively undermine the plan. That probably is a demonstration of why it has to be supported. If Mr Joyce thinks it should be actively undermined, it probably does something he doesn't like.

Who could forget his standing up in the House of Representatives and declaring that a key component of the overall package required to deliver the equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres back to the river didn't have a hope in Hades of being delivered? The bloke in charge of delivering it said, 'It doesn't have a hope in Hades of being delivered.' This was the Deputy Prime Minister and minister responsible for the implementation of the Basin Plan, standing up in our parliament and undermining the very legislative instrument he was responsible for delivering. Not only do I blame him; I blame Prime Minister Turnbull, who gave this portfolio to Mr Barnaby Joyce.

The component that the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, was undermining was key to South Australia's agreeing to the plan. It was supported by a funding package of $1.77 billion that Labor delivered in 2012. Labor was not going to see Mr Joyce undermine the plan and risk setting the basin back another century. Frankly, his statements and his attitude are no surprise. This is the same bloke who, during the millennium drought, told South Australians, 'Move to where the water is.' Remember, if Mr Turnbull complains about the problems that Mr Joyce has caused in this portfolio, Mr Turnbull has only himself to blame. He chose to hand the water portfolio to the National Party and in particular to Mr Joyce. That decision was made not in the interest of the Murray Darling Basin, not in the interest of the security of the plan, not in the national interest, but in Mr Turnbull's own narrow personal political interest: 'How do I keep Barnaby onside?'

In the lead-up to the vote on the disallowance Labor made clear what we wanted to see from the Turnbull government to support the northern basin proposal. We made clear we were willing to work with the government and the authority to resolve our concerns and deliver an outcome in the interests of the whole basin. We weren't willing to support its proposal until the government demonstrated it was serious about tackling the allegations of theft and corruption in the basin and, given the statements by the former DPM, we also wanted greater certainty that the full 450 gigalitres of up water would be delivered, which is key to returning the full equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres to the basin.

I did acknowledge in February that Minister Littleproud seemed to be far more interested in dealing with the issues and prepared to clean up the mess left behind by former Deputy Prime Minister Joyce. Negotiations ran up to the vote on the disallowance. Unfortunately, time ran out, but we were confident there was a pathway to get the plan back on track. Negotiations with the government have continued and we have been able to agree on a package which addresses our concerns. In particular, we are pleased that we will see an expression of interest to commence the recovery of the 450 gigalitres and a commitment to link the payments for supply measures with efficiency measures for environmental water. That means that if the full 450 gigalitres isn't being recovered the funding for the 605 gigalitres, the project that states are so keen on, won't be provided. I look forward to the government ensuring that that compliance mechanism and funding pressure, whatever instrument is used to get that funding pressure—I'm looking at the officers here—has some teeth.

Importantly, the New South Wales government has also committed to start the 450 gigalitres process. That is also a step in the right direction. In response to allegations of water theft and corruption, the package includes measures to ensure water purchased by the taxpayer for the environment is delivered to the environment. And the package includes new measures which we hope will go some way to addressing concerns expressed in the community about transparency of modelling underpinning the implementation of the plan.

This package has been agreed with the government and that fact provides some cautious optimism that the plan can get back on track. But it took significant political pressure to bring the government back to the table. Irrigators, scientists and environmentalists across the basin have been campaigning for the government to change course. Communities and their governments have fought to ensure that what they were promised will be delivered. I acknowledge in particular the work of the former Premier of South Australia Jay Weatherill and the whole of his government. Premier Weatherill was a fierce advocate for South Australia and he fought vigorously for a final Murray-Darling Basin Plan which would ensure the health of the River Murray, and it was a fight he continued throughout his time as Premier. Whilst there is insufficient evidence of this so far, I hope that the new Liberal South Australian government will take just as seriously their responsibility to defend South Australia's interests because our state's interests, regardless of which party one belongs to, are best served by ensuring the plan is delivered on time and in full. I can assure the new state government that all of the Labor people in this parliament as well as in the state parliament will be fighting to ensure that they meet their responsibilities.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan isn't perfect but it is an historic agreement and it is the only agreement in 100 years that has the chance of ensuring the health of the basin. Labor, in government, fought to achieve the plan and, in opposition, we are continuing to fight to ensure it is delivered on time. We want the plan implemented in full, because it is the first time in our nation's history that all of the basin states and the Commonwealth have actually agreed to work together to secure the health of the river. We are committed to protecting the River Murray and we will always fight to ensure the plan is implemented in full and on time.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2018. I'm pleased to see the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources is in the chamber to hear my important contribution. This bill reflects a bipartisan agreement which will ultimately facilitate the immediate passage of the Northern Basin Review amendment, which the Senate disallowed on 14 February 2018. Ordinarily, a legislative instrument that has been disallowed must not be introduced within six months after the day of disallowance. This is an important principle. It's reasoned and well considered. It is a principle that Centre Alliance believes should not be circumvented. It is for this reason we will be opposing the bill.

There is no need to expedite this bill. There is no need to usurp section 48 of the Legislation Act 2003. In just under two months the government could reintroduce the Northern Basin Review instrument. This approach would adhere to the well-established principles that we have established in law. While I normally welcome the coalition and Labor sitting down and working out their differences, I'm surprised that Labor's change in position has occurred without any new information being made public. I note that any new amendment under this new bill must be the same in substance as any earlier disallowed amendment and therefore would have already been subject to a consultation process. However, as noted by the committee, the Australia Institute contended that the original Northern Basin Review instrument contained changes that were never subject to public consultation, with the changes included several months after a public consultation process on the instrument had concluded.

When I spoke on the disallowance of the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument, or the Northern Basin Review, I called for the plan to be paused so that the issues raised in the various reviews, including the Matthews review and, of course, the MDBA's own water compliance review, could be addressed and relevant recommendations implemented. No-one, including Labor, can put their hand on their heart and say that all of this has been fixed. While this view, to pause the plan, is not shared by the government and, now, not by Labor, I believe it is the most appropriate course of action in order to reinstate public confidence in the plan. We should not forget we are dealing with a substantial amount of taxpayers' money—more than $10 billion. This is why I have been advocating for a more transparent Basin Plan.

In closing, Centre Alliance will be reviewing the Northern Basin Review instrument when it is re-tabled and will consider any new information that is made public at that time, but, unlike Labor, we won't be making a different decision based on information and circumstances that have not changed.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to speak in respect of the Water Amendment Bill 2018. Labor support the Water Amendment Bill 2018 because we need to get the Murray-Darling Basin Plan back on track.

The basin's sustainable health has always been a priority for Labor. In 1994, the Keating Labor government brokered the COAG agreement that established the framework for the Murray-Darling Basin reform that survives to this very day. In 2007 the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was established, and Senator Penny Wong, as water minister, started to acquire water for environmental use. In 2012 Tony Burke finally achieved what had escaped governments for 100 years, namely an agreement on a plan that prioritised the sustainable health of the entire Murray-Darling Basin system.

The goal of the plan is to deliver a healthy river, and Labor still puts that outcome ahead of politics. We delivered a plan for the recovery of 2,750 gigalitres for the environment and an additional 450 gigalitres of water for the environment from on-farm infrastructure. The plan includes a mechanism to allow 450 gigalitres of water to be added as well as a reduction of up to 650 gigalitres, but only if the health of the environment isn't jeopardised. To test that requirement the plan includes environmental targets that need to be delivered. The 450 gigalitres came with a funding package of $1.77 billion that Labor delivered in 2012. That package is for on-farm water projects that provide the Commonwealth with water and money to remove constraints in the basin to allow the water to get to where it is required. Barnaby Joyce put the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment in doubt. The package of measures Labor recently agreed on with the government overcomes that problem by locking in that 450 gigalitres once again. So the Greens can grandstand, as they have continued to do for the whole period of the debate about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, but the reality is that the agreement that has been reached is what will enable the plan to be implemented. And let's not forget that they voted with Bob Katter against the plan in 2012—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, would you please refer to members of the other place by their appropriate titles.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure what else—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Mr Joyce', 'Mr Katter'—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, 'Mr'.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Bob Katter and Ms Hanson-Young voted against the plan in 2012—

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

Senator Hanson-Young.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young voted against the plan—that's the point I'm trying to make here—as did Mr Katter. They voted against the plan when they had the opportunity to support the plan. And, of course, if they had their way—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Senator, I know you're up for re-election and you're trying to make an issue—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please address your comments through the chair, Senator Farrell.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, through you, because I'm sure—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I'd remind Senator Hanson-Young that interjecting is disorderly.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure, Acting Deputy President Bernardi, that you know that the only reason Senator Hanson-Young is taking this stand is not to benefit the Murray-Darling, not to benefit irrigators in South Australia and not to benefit the people of South Australia but simply to grandstand, firstly in the lead-up—

Senator Ketter interjecting—

Yes, that's right, Senator Ketter—not Katter, but Senator Ketter! She's grandstanding in the lead-up to her preselection. I know that she's beaten Mr Simms; I predicted that, as you might recall, on the night of the state election. She's managed to get the No. 1 spot and now she's grandstanding in the lead-up to the next federal election. But the reality—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Look, if you were trying to save the Coorong, Senator Hanson-Young, you'd be supporting the Labor Party's plan, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and supporting what Labor has done to restore the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. And you shouldn't—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Farrell, I recognise that you're building up some momentum but I'd ask you to address your comments through the chair, and I would ask Senator Hanson-Young to cease interjecting. It is disorderly.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Order!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll finish on this point in respect of Senator Hanson-Young. She's seeking to use the Murray-Darling Basin for the benefit of her own re-election, not for the benefit of South Australian irrigators and not for the benefit of the community. She did that in 2012 and she's continuing to do it today. If they'd had their way then, we still might not have a plan at all. Not to agree to this bill today would further delay the implementation of the plan—and delay hurts the river.

The agreement we've got includes the checks and balances needed to make sure that the plan gets back on track and that we're making progress towards a sustainable future for the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. The government has committed to the commencement of the recovery of the 450 gigalitres of environmental water through an expression of interest. Payment for the 605 gigalitres of supply projects is linked to the delivery of the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. If the 450 gigalitres isn't being recovered, then funding for the 605 gigalitres won't be provided. The package is clear that the government will prioritise the removal of constraints, because there's no point in having water for the environment if we can't use it. It is also clear that the key to river health is the ability to move 80,000 megalitres per day across the South Australian border.

There is also a provision to make sure that irrigators can't take environmental water. The Four Corners report revealed that some people were taking water, both legally and illegally, that was meant for the environment and diverting it instead to irrigation. That has to stop. Labor has ensured that the package agreed with the government includes, firstly, funding for more metering so we know what water is being used; secondly, no meter, no pump rules; thirdly, embargoes on environmental water; and, fourthly, daily extraction limits to protect environmental water. Labor will continue to work to make sure that all basin jurisdictions work together to deliver the plan for the sake of the future health of the river system and future generations of Australians.

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

I too rise to make a contribution in this debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2018. I want to stress at the outset that I don't come with any particular point of view other than that South Australia is pre-eminent in its use of water, its frugal use of water, and its complex and good investment in infrastructure to get exactly the right outcome. That is because we, who are at the end of the river, have learnt through experience that we have to use it well.

My involvement, I suppose, goes back to my membership of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. By being on that committee, we had the opportunity to take evidence up and down the river and to participate in additional estimates and a number of inquiries over a number of years about the whole complex area of management of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I do have to pay credit to former ministers Senator Wong and Mr Burke with respect to the absolute endeavour they brought to the table to get this plan into government policy and legislation. I know that there are those in the chamber who will never be in government and who will never be charged with making the complex legislation and policy that goes with an enormous endeavour that took over 100 years to come to fruition. But I do say this: everywhere in the Murray-Darling Basin, every community, will have a coherent, consistent position which is evidence based for their community, but the problem is that we are trying to manage the entirety of the system. That is where all of the divergent views and issues come to the fore and that is where someone at the bottom of the river will say, 'You're stealing water from us.'

I find it intriguing and really inconsistent in this current era of technology that we don't have telemetering, that we don't have a really good, hard system of validation of taxpayers' expenditure with respect to the use of water. If we have capitalised water, as we have, it's extremely valuable; it's a tradeable commodity. But, intriguingly, we don't have compliance systems that enforce the observance of profit metering. A community should not have to get into a boat and sail up the river listening for pumps that are operating. You should be able to see that metering on the internet, in real time, live. People should not be in a position where they can take one litre extra of water. The technology is there to ensure that that doesn't happen.

We know that the plan goes from 2012 to 2019, when the hard markers start coming in. We have to start delivering that taxpayer investment in better environmental outcomes for the river. Senator Wong went completely through the performance of the former water minister, which was nothing short of disgraceful. A minister of the Crown was trying to dismantle complex policy that has taken generations to achieve. They were trying to overturn it all, throw it all out, for cheap political stunts in some areas and they were misleading whole communities about what was actually going on in this complex area of government policy. It is, I think, an occasion where people can have shallow political views in a complex area of really good government policy. So, unless we can actually meter, monitor and publicise who is taking the water that they've paid for and not a litre more than they're not entitled to, we will always have these allegations.

The allegations are well publicised. You have to pay credit to the ABC. I know some on the other side don't like the ABC, but the work they've done in this space is exemplary. They have presented factual information about untoward activity in certain areas of this river, which needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed by the New South Wales regulators and it needs to be monitored by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. And all of the competent respective authorities up and down the river need to assure the taxpayers that what they're paying for is delivered and no-one is taking a litre of water that they're not entitled to.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Gallacher! You will be in continuation upon resumption of debate. It being 2 pm, we'll move to questions without notice.