Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today hundreds if not thousands of irrigators, irrigation farmers, community members, business people from our regional communities in the Murray-Darling Basin—particularly the southern Murray-Darling Basin, where I come from—and members of the 'Can the Plan' convoy gathered right here in the nation's capital in a passionate demonstration of hurt and upset at a plan perceived to be the cause of a lot of heartache across our southern basin communities. These people come from where I come from. Make no mistake, I feel the pain of our regional communities day in, day out. That is why I facilitated a meeting today between members of the convoy and the Minister for Water Resources, David Littleproud, and the Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley.

Members of the 'Can the Plan' convoy who we met with asked us to do a number of things. They asked us to stop the Basin Plan, provide an emergency allocation of 1,000 gigalitres, build a 'lock 0' and automate the barrages in South Australia, review the Murray-Darling Basin agreement, which is outside the Basin Plan, hold downstream development and prevent the increasing development of nut farms and almonds. Both ministers committed to engaging with state ministers on these issues, because a lot of these issues are not within the purview of the federal government. For example, building lock 0 and automating the barrages is purely within the remit of the South Australian government, and our water minister made it clear that, if a proposal was brought forward by the South Australian government, he would consider it in full detail and quite probably support it. When it comes to the almond developments downstream of known constraints in the river system, these have happened under the watch of state ministers. And, may I say, it has been raised to them as an issue by river operators for a number of years. I myself have been at meetings where I have seen river operators raise concerns about the ability to deliver the capacity of water needed to meet the demands of the plantations of the size that have gone ahead downstream of known river constraints, to no effect. But the Commonwealth has no right and no purview to block the development of land in state jurisdictions.

In the lead-up to today, I genuinely asked myself what the convoy's ask would really mean for basin communities both now in the heat of dire drought and in the longer term when better conditions will prevail. If we tore up the Basin Plan today, New South Wales Murray General Security water holders, where I am from, would still be on zero allocation because the distribution of New South Wales water resources is managed by the state in accordance to their own rules outside of the Basin Plan. Water would still be flowing to South Australia in accordance with the Murray Darling Basin agreement, which is separate to the Basin Plan, and water would still be separated from land because that was an intergovernmental agreement reached under the National Water Initiative and asked for by farmers in the nineties, again separate to the Basin Plan. Living on an irrigation farm myself, although not owning any water entitlements, I share the frustration of farmers who feel that water sharing in the basin is not meeting the needs or expectations of anyone. But is the solution the canning of the plan or are there solutions outside the plan?

As a nation, we absolutely need to have a conversation about water resource management, river operations and interstate water-sharing agreements, but we need to make sure we are talking about the right things and we identify realistic and practical solutions. What I mean by this is that what we identify must be capable of standing the test of time in this place. Each time we return to this debate, communities and politicians get caught up in a polarising debate, which only falsely and dangerously pits agriculture against the environment, and we cannot continue down that path because our agricultural producers are the best environmentalists we have. With each false debate, our communities risk losing more once this drought ends. I know I will never allow my regional communities to go through more pain than what has already been necessary. But what can we do as a government right here and right now to ensure we keep our basin communities sustainable? I'm committed to ensuring that, in the delivery of the Basin Plan, there is no further recovery from productive water use in the basin, and I truly believe we can achieve that.

Further to the Basin Plan, improving our water security is absolutely vital for regional towns. We need to have a conversation about stormwater capture, harvesting water, recycling water and new dams. The Nationals in government have established the National Water Grid to do just that, and we stand ready to work with the states when they bring forward proposals to do just that. That means, if South Australia comes forward with lock 0, we will absolutely look at lock 0. We will not stand in the way of lock 0 if South Australia brings that proposal forward, but we as a Commonwealth government cannot force South Australia to build lock 0.

We also need to have a conversation about the idea of water flowing to its highest value use. Is that the best use? Food staples such as cereals, rice and dairy cannot compete against high-value crops like almonds when the water market is constrained in times of low supply. The fact that dollar returns from almonds are so high has seen tens of thousands of hectares of previously undeveloped and unirrigated land planted to these very thirsty crops. Make no mistake, these crops are thirstier than cotton or rice. This development has created increased demand for not only water but also river capacity. The channel-sharing arrangements are vitally concerning.

Questions are now being asked as to whether there is capacity to deliver for all users in times of peak demand, but it's not the fault of river operators. They have raised these concerns for a number of years, and I have personally participated in meetings where they have done so. But governments have not paid attention until now, when we are actually in the grip of drought. So, it is right that we, as a government, have initiated the ACCC review of the water market to look at not only non-landholding speculators in the market, but what about landholding speculators—the people who've planted crops without owning water to feed the crops? It's also right that we have an independent panel looking at the social and economic impacts of the Basin Plan, and ways to improve the economic sustainability of our communities. I believe there is more that we can do.

It is also right that we consider establishing a mechanism for, and having a conversation about, countercyclical sharing of environmental water to make available a volume of water for cropping in dry times and returning that volume to the environment in wet times. That was the original intent when John Howard announced his water reform in January 2007 at the Press Club, and that is what we should be looking at now. We have not achieved that in the Basin Plan, but we can achieve it if we all sit down, take a deep breath and have a look at what can be done. We don't need to 'can the plan'; we don't need blow up the Basin Plan. What we do need to do is have a very respectful and adult conversation about how we achieve the intent of water reform without decimating our regional communities. Thank you.

Senate adjourned at 22:27