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

I move:

(1) Page 6 (after line 11) , at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Modifications of Basin Plan

Water Act 2007

1 At the end of Part 2AA

Add:

86AK Primacy of environmental considerations in delivering 450 GL of additional environmental water—modifications of Basin Plan 2012

(1) Section 7.09 of the Basin Plan 2012 has effect as if:

(a) the words “while maintaining or improving social and economic outcomes” were omitted from paragraph (a) of that section; and

(b) the words “economic, social and” were omitted from paragraph (d) of that section; and

(c) the words “and benchmark conditions of development” were omitted from paragraph (d) of that section.

(2) Subsection 7.17(2) of the Basin Plan 2012 has effect as if paragraph (b) of that subsection (including the heading) were omitted and substituted with the following:

Improved environmental outcomes

(b) The efficiency contributions to the proposed adjustments achieve improved environmental outcomes compared with the benchmark environmental outcomes.

2 Application

(1) The modifications of the Basin Plan 2012 made by subsection 86AK(1) of the Water Act 2007 , as inserted by this Schedule, apply in relation to a supply measure or an efficiency measure, whether the supply measure, or the efficiency measure, was notified under section 7.12 of the Basin Plan 2012 before, on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) The modifications of the Basin Plan 2012 made by subsection 86AK(2) of the Water Act 2007 , as inserted by this Schedule, apply in relation to an efficiency contribution that relates to an efficiency measure, whether the efficiency measure was notified under section 7.12 of the Basin Plan 2012 before, on or after the commencement of this item.

I circulated the amendment in this chamber and it was referred to a number of times already through the second reading debate. This amendment seeks to ensure that the promised 450 gigalitres that was essential in securing South Australia's support for the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan is in law, that we lock it in so that it happens.

We know that back in 2012, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was finalised and voted on in this place on the basis that the remaining 450 gigalitres were to be promised. Yet what we've seen to date is that every time there is an opportunity for Victoria, New South Wales or, indeed, the big corporate irrigators to run an argument against delivering the 450 gigalitres, they take it.

Last year there was the exposure of the corruption going on throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly in the northern basin, which is what this overall bill deals with in terms of water in that area. I must point out that it doesn't deal with the corruption, the rorting or the fact that more water is being taken out of the system than the river can manage, but it does indeed deal with the northern basin. Every time these allegations were raised, we had Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the big irrigators saying, 'Well, if you try to hold us to account, we won't give you the 450.' Over and over and over again, we've seen upstream states hold the river, South Australia and the environment to ransom. Indeed, I would argue that they try to hold the Senate to ransom as well, because every time we raise issues of what's going on in the Murray-Darling Basin, we get told, 'We're going to run away from the Basin Plan and you'll never get your extra 450 gigalitres.' It's not good enough. This is absolutely not on.

This amendment says: 'Okay, if we agree in this place, and if the states have all agreed'—which they say they have—'that this 450 gigalitres of water is required to meet the objectives of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, to keep the river alive and to ensure that the environment is looked after, then let's put it in law. Let's make sure it's locked in, that it must be delivered and that it can be delivered, and not give any wriggle room to those who want to continually stifle the opportunity for us to return the water to the river.' We need this 450 gigalitres, as previously promised, to ensure that the environment thrives, that the Murray mouth is able to stay open and that our Coorong and the Lower Lakes in South Australia can survive. The 450 gigalitres is critical to the achievement of the plan's original intention—the ultimate purpose—to restore water to the river to keep the river alive. If we don't, in five years time, 10 years time or 20 years time there isn't going to be a river. There won't be enough water left in the Murray-Darling Basin for the farms that rely on it or for the communities that rely on it. For those of us living in South Australia, at the bottom of the system, we already know how vital it is to ensure that we restore the river's health. Already, we can see that as the drying periods are coming upon us, there just isn't the water in the river to keep it flourishing and alive.

For South Australians, this amendment is crucial. Our state was promised this water. It's time we put it in law and make it a reality. For South Australians, this isn't just about a number of 450 gigalitres; it's the difference between clearing out the salt of the Coorong and the Lower Lakes and not. It's the difference between keeping the mouth of the Murray open and not. It's the difference between watering 35,000 hectares of flood plains and not. Without the 450 gigalitres guaranteed and delivered, the whole purpose of the plan is put into jeopardy. Without this water, the river is put into jeopardy. It is a core component to the whole objective of having a plan to manage the Murray-Darling Basin so that the water is shared equally and that the river can flow from one end to the other and keep the river system alive. It is not optional. This 450 gigalitres is the difference between life and death for the river.

Our position when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin plan has been consistent all the way along. It needed to be based on the best available science, and science said we needed at least 4,000 gigalitres to give the river any hope of survival. This is the science of the CSIRO—originally the MDBA—despite which, we know now, they've watered that down, they've reduced that number, because of political interference not because the facts support it.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists has also said that 4,000 gigalitres is the bare minimum. Yet this plan didn't even deliver that. This total amount gets reduced, gets cut down further and further and further. All this amendment bill tonight is doing is saying: let's at least sandbag the 450 that was promised and is yet to be delivered.

It's the science that matters here. The science says climate change isn't a trivial omission from the original plan. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan doesn't even talk about climate change. Yet already we have this government, other upstream states and the big corporate irrigators finding every which way to reduce the amount of water that should be returned to the environment through this process. The science says that you can't rely on historical water flows to calculate the future needs of a rapidly warming planet, yet none of these figures are even factored into these calculations. All the science says this 450 gigalitres is what is needed. All the science says we actually need more.

This amendment makes sure we can at least secure what the original intent was. The delivery of the 450 gigalitres is currently contingent on it being demonstrated that there is no negative social or economic impact. If we don't deliver the 450 gigalitres we will find out that there ain't going to be a river in generations to come. The next time the drought hits, as the climate warms, there is not going to be enough water in the river for it to survive. This requirement that the government stands up and spruiks day in and day out on this issue is meaningless. They misunderstand that, unless you have a strong underpinning of guaranteed water for the environment, the river is going to die; and that is the ultimate impact on the socio-economic issues for the basin and the basin communities.

If we're serious about looking after the communities, they need to know that the river's survival is paramount and that it is supported by the figures that are being passed and endorsed in this place, and not just for this year and not just for five years time but for decades. For decades we have debated how we share the amount of water in this river fairly, and for decades it's been the environment and the river that continue to be short-changed. Ultimately, it's the communities who rely on a healthy river that will suffer; it's not the big corporate irrigators, who're going to bank all their money and put all the cash, paid for by the taxpayer, in their back pockets and bugger off after this process is finished. They're not the ones who're going to be upset when the river's not healthy; it's going to be the communities that are left there with a river that is unhealthy and can't sustain and underpin those communities.

This amendment removes the requirement that the delivery of 450 gigalitres is simply a condition of it having neutral or positive socio-economic impacts. And that is because these are a farce; they don't tell the true story to those communities who desperately want to know that the river is going to be there for the future—not just for the end of this government's term, not just to when the end of this planned process has finalised. They want to know that this river is going to sustain them into the future for generations to come. Calculate that into your impact on socioeconomic factors. If that were the true calculation, this government would not be finding every which way to reduce the amount of water that's being returned to the environment and the river.

We know that we just can't trust the state governments of Victoria and New South Wales on this issue. Every single time they have an opportunity to slam the delivery of the 450 gigalitres or wriggle out of it, they take it; they try to manoeuvre themselves so they don't have to be part of this process. Give them an inch and they take a mile. That's what the Victorian and New South Wales governments are doing at the behest of the big corporate irrigators upstream. They don't give two hoots about what happens to the health of the river in years to come. They don't give a damn about what happens to the communities that rely on the river, and they certainly don't care about what happens in South Australia at the end of the river system. During the process of the negotiations over the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the only way South Australia would come to the table—reluctantly—was if this 450 gigalitres was delivered. This was reluctantly agreed to at the time by the upstream states and the federal government. It wasn't put into legislation; it was simply: 'Oh, yes, when we get to it—wink, wink, nudge, nudge.' It was a side deal. As a result, exactly what we thought would happen did. Those who never wanted it on the table in the first place are now the first to say it should be done away with.

For those in this place tonight who are from South Australia—and there are a number of us—I implore you to think very carefully about what this amendment will mean for our home state. We were promised this water. What is the excuse for not putting it in the legislation? The assistant minister is going to stand up and say, 'It can't be done.' That's only because the upstream states have bullied your government so badly. It's only because, on this issue, the upstream members of your own party room have you bent over a barrel singing the tune of the big corporate irrigators. They are never going to do what is right by the river. They don't care about the health of the system going forward, and they certainly don't care about the communities and the smaller farms throughout the basin.

I have spent quite a bit of time in the last few weeks down at the Lower Lakes and the Coorong in South Australia, talking to locals about what's going on down there. They are in despair. People in the electorate of Mayo are in despair. Of course, the bottom of the river system is right there. After years of debate on this issue, they thought that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan would be the thing that would, finally, be a circuit breaker. Billions of dollars were put on the table to make it happen. No other reform in this place has had so much money thrown at it yet been rorted so badly. Now, right at the end of the process, we see the upstream states and the Turnbull coalition government, at the behest of the National Party, saying, 'Oh, yeah, that 450 gigalitres—we'll deliver it if we can.' No, you deliver it now, you deliver it in full, and you stick by your promise. South Australians are not going to sit by and be ripped off again and again. If you're a South Australian in this place, do the right thing by your state and stand up for the river. (Time expired)

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

I rise this evening to put on record that we do not support this amendment. We are fundamentally concerned with the way that it alters the Basin Plan put in place by the previous Labor government.

The choice that we have here before us in this chamber is: do we have a plan that we've agreed on and that the nation can agree on or not? Do we have an independent authority or not? Labor, very firmly, wants the plan. Indeed, we also want an independent authority. We're sympathetic to many of the issues that are raised in this amendment, but we understand that by supporting them we would be attacking hard-fought agreements that we've worked hard to deliver and where we have to bring everyone to the table. We understand the plan is not perfect, nor is its implementation, but the simple fact is that we have come a very long way. It's a framework for delivering more water for the environment and, indeed, returning the rivers to health.

Let's not forget, in this chamber, that the Greens voted against the plan in the same way that they voted against the CPRS. They cannot accept a way forward where we have to take the whole of the community with us to get the job done. We very much see this as another attempt by the Greens to sabotage the agreement and the plan.

We are very aware that there's been problems with compliance, reporting, data and modelling. We've sought assurances from the government that these problems will be addressed, and we will be vigilant in making sure they stick to their agreements with us to make improvements. These include improvements in transparency, compliance, data and modelling, Indigenous engagement, the 605 gigalitres of supply measures and delivery of the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. This agreement between Labor and the government simply highlights that the days are over where the likes of Mr Barnaby Joyce can say, 'The 450 gigalitres of water for the environment simply isn't possible.' He said, 'Not a hope in Hades.' We want to see those days behind us.

This isn't about the Greens seeking to politicise this issue for their own political gain. We have to be above that. This is about taking the states with us. It's the only way to get this job done, including, as you highlight, with the more difficult upstream states.

The ministerial council, on June 8, met to progress these issues. They are setting up a new Basin Compliance Compact to deliver a consistent and transparent approach to compliance with all Commonwealth and state laws on water use in the basin. We know they are also starting to address more metering so that we know where the water comes from and where it's going. We know that states have introduced more laws on compliance and established embargoes so environmental water isn't stolen or taken illegally. We've seen a fund, importantly, for cultural water—a measure I would have certainly thought the Greens supported—new measures to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people in the basin and a new Northern Basin Commissioner. These are all worthy things. The Greens playing politics with these issues simply undermines the fact that we have to get this job done as a nation and we have to do it together.

We know that the basin states and the Commonwealth announced 62 gigalitres to contribute to the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. That means, effectively, that we have less than 390 gigalitres of that 450 gigalitres to recover. We are impatient for water recovery, but that is a start towards that 450 gigalitres. We asked for action, and we are pleased to see that action is being taken. The Commonwealth announced that it will soon run an infrastructure round to recover more water to bridge the gap and keep the 450 gigalitres of recovery water coming in. Members have also agreed to an efficiency measures work plan through to 2024 to deliver a pathway to achieving the remaining water recovery of the 450 gigalitres through efficiency measures.

So let's be clear: Labor very firmly supports this plan. It is a plan that has resolved over 100 years of conflict. We don't want to stand here and take us back to those days of conflict, which is why we are not supporting the Greens' amendment. We want to see results, not just a fight about these issues. What is very clear is that when there is conflict the only thing that suffers is the health of the river, and that is what 100 years of conflict has brought us.

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

The government does not support the amendment that's been put forward by the Greens, because we believe that the amendment is both unwarranted and unnecessary. The 450 gigalitres has frequently and often been guaranteed by this government, and I think that Senator Hanson-Young is being a little disingenuous in not acknowledging the fact that the Prime Minister, the previous water minister and the current water minister and I have continually reaffirmed the intention of the federal government to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

I'll take Senator Hanson-Young's interjection. She just yelled out, 'Well, put it in law.' I draw to the attention of Senator Hanson-Young the Water for the Environment Special Account, and I quote:

(3) The object of this Part is to be achieved by:

(b) increasing the volume of the Basin water resources that is available for environmental use by up to 450 gigalitres.

It's quite clearly written into the special account. So it is already enshrined in legislation that we are required to deliver on the 450 gigalitres.

Senator Hanson-Young's amendment seeks to remove the requirement of the plan to get the water for the environment that is outlined here—the 450 gigalitres of water—from efficiency measures with neutral or beneficial socioeconomic outcomes. I would have thought that to do so was entirely responsible and sensible government. To actually go out and say that we're going to take 450 gigalitres of water without any regard whatsoever for the socioeconomic impact on the communities that rely on this river is, I think, tremendously irresponsible.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

I hear Senator Hanson-Young continuously objecting. We have worked very hard on this, and I thank the opposition for coming on this journey. We've been on this journey together since the plan was first agreed and we continue to work together. The opposition and the government are on a unity ticket in making sure that we actually improve the environmental outcomes for the river as well as take into account the impact that this water recovery is having on our river communities. We in the government—and I'm assuming that the opposition is the same—believe that you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You don't just have to take water for one reason; you can do so without causing severe economic and social impacts on the people who are directly impacted.

I would point out to Senator Hanson-Young that I am the irrigator in this chamber. I am a senator for South Australia—as Senator Hanson-Young is—and I have seen firsthand the impact that the water extraction has had on my community. I can assure Senator Hanson-Young that there are other communities that are a lot worse off than the community I live in and that there has been a lot of pain.

We are committed to the delivery of the whole plan. Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens might like to think that the plan is something that they've conjured up with the science that they want to listen to, but the Basin Plan is actually a plan that is made up of a number of components. It's made up of 2,750 gigalitres of water, which is the gap water. This is the base water, much of which has been achieved. There is another 450 gigalitres of efficiency water, for which we are debating this amendment. There is 605 gigalitres that was enshrined last week by amendment, which is the sustainable diversion adjustment mechanism, which allows us to achieve the same environmental outcomes without having to take water out of these communities. I would have thought Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens would have thought it was a really good idea to deliver the same outcome without actually taking more water out of our communities. Today we are seeking to remake an amendment to enable the northern basin to have the same privilege as the southern basin, and that is to be able to deliver their environmental outcomes in the northern basin without having the guts written out of their communities.

What we're saying is that we wish to continue with the delivery of the plan in full. That's a 3,200-gigalitre plan—if I add 2,750 and 450 I get to 3,200—so one could suggest that we're not moving away from the commitment of the 450. But we're not going to do it without regard for the communities. We are very serious about looking after our river communities into the future. Today before the chamber is a very significant and important amendment to this bill that will enable us to honour one part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is not an opportunity, as Senator Hanson-Young is choosing to take, to revisit the Basin Plan. This was agreed by all the states and territories and the federal government back in 2012, and we are not seeking to re-prosecute it. What we are seeking to do today is deliver that plan. I commend the bill to the House. We will not be supporting the amendment by the Greens.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet 8444 be agreed to.