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

I move:

That the Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2019L01591].

I rise to speak on this motion of disallowance for the Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019. This was a program which was a bit of a thought bubble by the Prime Minister. He didn't know what to do to deal with those who were complaining that his government and his coalition partners in the National Party had stuffed up the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

As the drought drew on last year and got harsher and harsher, this government had done nothing to make sure that their New South Wales counterparts, their Queensland counterparts and, indeed, even their Victorian counterparts did what they could to ensure sustainable use of the limited amount of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Rather than doing anything to fix the problem, they went for what they thought was an easy answer. And what was that? It was cutting South Australia's water supply—cutting the allocation that flows over the South Australian border. This program was designed to reduce South Australia's water by 100 gigalitres and to say that that water would then be packaged off and sold at a cheaper rate to farmers further upstream who needed water in the midst of the drought. Rather than accessing water from further upstream from those who had already been too greedy, the government decided to pick on South Australia—at the bottom of the system.

We know that this was happening at the same time as the Liberal government in South Australia was working with the federal water minister to commission a report into cutting South Australia's water supply permanently and replacing it with water from the desal plant. What would that mean? It would mean that South Australians would be saddled with some of the highest water bills in the country. It would mean that South Australians would be paying more than 40 times the market value for water—40 times!—because the government and their Nationals coalition partners in the various state governments could not be bothered putting in place the recommendations, and the reforms that have been needed for far too long, to make sure that the water in the Murray-Darling Basin is managed sustainably and that there is enough there in the dry times as well as the wet.

We know that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is almost halfway through now and we are still well short of the actions required to make sure the Murray-Darling is put on a sustainable footing. Billions and billions of dollars have been spent on this reform and yet we are staring down the barrel of the government having to announce very soon that they're not going to be able to make the deadlines promised and set out in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I remember back in 2010 when we were debating the draft of this plan. Those on the opposite side were spearheaded, of course, by the former minister in charge of water, Mr Barnaby Joyce, who never wanted any reference to climate change in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, who would not accept that the system was overallocated, who did not accept the science. He did everything he could with his Nationals mates and his big corporate irrigator mates to destroy that plan and to make it as difficult as possible for us to recover the water that the environment needed.

Fast forward to 2020, a decade later, and billions of dollars have been spent. The reason we have this program before us today is that those opposite stuffed it up. They didn't listen to the science and they spent all the money, some of which went to some of Mr Joyce's mates. Some of it went to companies like those established by Minister Angus Taylor. A lot of the money went to friends of the National Party. But where did all the water go? Well, the water continues to be siphoned off, stored in big private dams and harvested at the expense of neighbours and downstream communities. The only reason this Water for Fodder program is even on the table is that this government is crap at managing the Murray-Darling Basin—incompetent, incapable.

What do you do when you have stuffed up the process, spent billions of dollars and still don't have a management system for a river that is choking, thirsty and crying out for intervention, and you've got small family farmers throughout the basin? It is not their fault the government stuffed it up. It is not their fault that the government did everything they could to make sure the big corporate irrigators were okay but everybody else was left high and dry. What did the government do? They said, 'Oh well, it's the bottom end of the river; they don't need as much.' So they came to South Australia and argued that South Australia should have 100 gigalitres less and that South Australians should be paying for it through the desal plant, at 40 times the market value.

The government's own report into the Water for Fodder program has finally been released. Despite the fact that this place, the Senate, months earlier asked for the documentation to be tabled, the government refused—another sign that the government continue to cover up their stuff-ups time and time again. They refused to release that report. It did come out, finally. And what does it say? It says this program is a flop. They released it at the same time as the feasibility study into South Australia's desal plant. It turns out that that's a flop too.

So it's no wonder that we've got a disallowance motion before us today, because this government can't manage the Murray-Darling Basin. It's too busy filling the tanks and dams of its big corporate mates and friends of the National Party. Meanwhile, downstream communities and small family farms are left high and dry. It is no wonder that there are communities right through the Murray-Darling Basin who are turning their backs on the National Party. It is no wonder that the National Party are scrambling to try to work out why everybody's deserted them. It's because they have mismanaged the nation's biggest river system, year after year after year.

What do we know is coming next? There will be a water ministers council meeting in December, and we're going to hear New South Wales and Victoria, and probably Queensland as well, refuse again to find the remaining 450 gigalitres that is needed if we're to give this river a fighting chance of survival. We'll hear all over again that these state governments cannot get their houses in order to deliver the water. There'll be a push to blow out the time frame of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—$13 billion down the drain.

The mismanagement, maladministration and stuff-ups in the Murray-Darling Basin that have been overseen by this government would be laughable if things weren't so sad. When the coalition came to power, the biggest mistake the Liberal Party made was to put the Nationals in charge of the water portfolio. We could all see it coming, we all knew it was a big mistake, yet what did Tony Abbott do? He handed the keys to the Murray-Darling Basin and the coffers of public money to Mr Barnaby Joyce. Where are we today? We're up the creek, high and dry, because Barnaby Joyce cannot be trusted, the National Party cannot be trusted and this government cannot be trusted with managing the nation's most important water supply. They certainly can't be trusted to look after the environment and environmental flows.

We will push through with this disallowance. For a South Australian senator it is the responsible thing to do. It shouldn't be left up to South Australia to carry the can because of the mismanagement of the federal Liberal-National party and the corruption and maladministration of the New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian state governments, who have done nothing to rectify this situation and make sure that the reforms science requires are implemented in full.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I will be opposing this motion. The first 40 gigalitres of the Water for Fodder program has already been distributed. Farmers have used that water to grow fodder for their cattle to keep our struggling dairy sector in business. If this disallowance is successful, it may well have the effect of preventing the second 60 gigalitres of water. It will, however, cast into doubt the legality of the first 40 gigalitres. That's not something that One Nation can support.

This scheme fired up the desalination plant in Adelaide to produce water that was exchanged for irrigation water in the northern Murray. The Adelaide desalination plant has been a disaster. It was built in 2007 at a cost of $1.83 billion. In the 13 years since, the plant has produced just 148 gigalitres of water, about 10 per cent of its capacity. Even worse for a state that is power poor, the plant takes $13 million a year in electricity just to keep it maintained. This is yet another example of an economy killer from climate alarmism.

Getting back to the water issue, I can understand that the government was looking for an excuse—any excuse—to send some love down to that money pit in South Australia. So when One Nation demanded time and time again that farmers get their allocations, the government cooked up this scheme. It would have been simpler to just give farmers another 10 per cent of their water allocation, but no: why do things the easy way, when you had a white elephant sitting down there needing a cash injection? So here we are with another 60 gigalitres due under the Water for Fodder program.

What to do? What to do, I ask the people of Australia. The government has produced a report into the first release. I thank the minister for providing a copy of this report in response to my motion for the production of documents. That report clearly recommends that the second 60 gigalitres of the Water for Fodder program not proceed. This is based on predictions for water inflows into the Adelaide catchment provided by the Bureau of Meteorology. Not surprisingly, these predictions were wrong. Adelaide has way more water in storage now than the report produced in July anticipated—way more. After a year of rain, there are currently 5,200 gigalitres of water in storage in the upper Murray, and that is expected to continue to increase. I believe the projection is around 6,500 gigalitres. Lake Victoria, which holds SA's water supply, is full. The Lower Lakes are full. The water in the Menindee Lakes is still there from the recent flood in southern Queensland, and that is a pleasant change, because it means no government fish kills this year. South Australian farmers have the water for 100 per cent allocations this year. Conveyance water for South Australia is 1,400 gigalitres. This is held in Dartmouth Dam, which currently holds 2,123 gigalitres. Senator Hanson-Young should be pleased to know that South Australia is taken care of—well taken care of.

Let us look at the irrigation areas that would have received the second 60 gigalitres under the Water for Fodder program. The Murray is banking along its entire length, the Mulwala and national channels have been pressed into service, but not to take this water to irrigators to run it around the Barmah Choke and take the pressure off the water. Most of this flow will simply go to the south Indian Ocean and go out to sea. There is nowhere left to store it; it'll just be going to the ocean. However, irrigators in the upper Murray in New South Wales and Victoria have not had their water allocations—yet again, another year when they have not had their allocations. Allocations are mostly eight per cent, with some areas moving up to 40 per cent. That's it. Yet Australia is still importing wheat and rice because farmers are not getting their water allocations. How much more water do we need to have in the dams before we let farmers have some? Inflows into the Murray-Darling Basin this year are right on long-term average. There is no reason for farmers to not get their full allocations.

We have an economy that has been devastated by COVID restrictions. Our GDP is going to be down billions. Jobs are being lost. Farmers could help save the economy, if they get their water—their water. The difference between starving farmers for water and giving them their legal water allocation is more than $10 billion in agricultural output—$10 billion. One thousand gigalitres of the 5,200 gigalitres in storage would have a dramatic effect on our economy. It would save jobs and save massive social security payments, while bringing in foreign export earnings. It would save communities. What a bargain. Give our families their water.

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

I want to agree with one thing Senator Hanson-Young said, and that is that this government doesn't manage the Murray-Darling Basin—because we don't manage the Murray-Darling Basin. We don't manage water allocations and we don't manage planned environmental water. The only thing that the Commonwealth does is manage held environmental water, which is also at the mercy of state water management rules and state water allocations. So I urge Senator Hanson-Young to read the report developed by Mick Keelty earlier this year which clearly outlines the different jurisdictional arrangements and the complexity of managing the Murray-Darling Basin. What the government are doing is continuing to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which we inherited from the former Labor government.

What this disallowance motion before us today does actually has nothing to do with the Basin Plan but everything to do with what our government did to address the concerns and the struggles of irrigators in the southern connected system. We negotiated an arrangement with the South Australian government to, where possible, free up some water that we could put on the market, which is the only mechanism available to the Commonwealth government. We cannot allocate water. We don't have water to allocate. The market is the only mechanism we can use. We made, in the first tranche, 40 gigalitres available. It was a highly successful program. That 40 gigalitres was distributed to 800 farmers, who were restricted to using the water to produce food and fodder crops to support livestock in the midst of the worst drought that our country has seen in a very long time. This was at the same time that South Australia saw 900 gigalitres of water over and above their entitlement flows flow over the border into South Australia, nearly 700 of which flowed out to the Indian Ocean, as Senator Malcolm Roberts has just alluded to.

I have no issue with that extra water flowing to South Australia, but it is quite understandable that irrigators in Victoria and New South Wales who are on low or zero water allocations ask why. It is quite right that, when an opportunity arises at a time when temporary water prices are between $700 and $900 a megalitre and well out of the reach of fodder producers and the government offered a product at $100 a megalitre, they raced for it. There were over 4,000 applications, which shows that this was a program that was strongly desired.

In the review, 68 per cent of survey respondents supported the program. More than 70 per cent said they would actually participate again. Remember that this program was developed at a time when storages in the southern connected basin were only 38 per cent. Today, thankfully, storages are at 58 per cent. What the government has done is put the second tranche of this program on hold, which is right because, thankfully, we have had rain this year. We have seen water prices on the temporary market drop to between $150 and $250 a megalitre, depending on where you are in the southern connected system.

We have allocations this year. In my home region of the New South Wales Murray, I am pleased to say allocations have reached 12 per cent today. But, as Senator Roberts rightly said, South Australia are on 100 per cent, as they are every year. They hold an extra 300 gigalitres over and above what they normally use in storage in what's called 'deferred water'. South Australia have plenty of water. The environment now has allocations. They can use their water to deliver for the environmental needs as per their long-term environmental watering program. No-one suffered through the rollout of this program. South Australia did not lose water. They finally got the opportunity to test their desal plant. They did not lose water. The South Australian government made money. They were at no costs lost out of this program. Farmers benefited out of this program because they could access water and grow the food and fodder that they needed and they were able to put some of that fodder onto the market to help drought stricken farmers across the whole eastern seaboard, not just the southern connected basin. So I do not see any reason to disallow what was a very successful program that was fit for purpose and right for the time.

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

It's hard to keep track of all of the programs that the government has managed to announce with a great big announcement and a lot of fanfare only to see the actual delivery fall a long way short of what's promised. We can add this one to the list, because when Minister Littleproud first went out and started talking up this program he said that up to 6,000 farmers could be supported by this program. We had a chat about this at the cross-portfolio estimates back in February.

Do you know how many people were actually able to be assisted by this program? At that point, 800. I asked officials how it could come about that a minister would go out and say that 6,000 farmers were all getting extra water and then, in the end, the number was 800, which is a much, much smaller number; even those on the other side I think would have to agree. The explanation given to me was:

The program design was modified after the first announcement so that a slightly larger volume of water was made available under the program guidelines.

It sounds like a pretty big mess, doesn't it?

There was a decision to put out a press release. That's where all decisions start with this government—a decision to put out a lazy press release, having done none of the work and, in this case, apparently, not having even really determined in any meaningful way with officials about how this thing was going to be delivered. I asked the minister who was representing at that time, Senator Duniam, about this. I said:

What happens when a minister goes out and says, 'I've got a program for 6,000 people' but in the end it's only for 800?

Senator Duniam said:

Then, when officials do some further work and other models are adopted, it is consultation.

That's not really how policy and program development is supposed to work. What you are actually supposed to do is identify the problem and do some consultation and then make the announcement. But, like everything else with this government, it is all about the announcement, and the follow-through is dreadful.

At the beginning of this year, Mr Pitt was out there saying:

My very strong view is we'll deliver exactly what we said we would and that's 100GL in the Water for Fodder program.

This was the revised version. But, on 7 August, the ABC reported:

The Federal Government has walked away from plans to deliver 100 gigalitres (GL) of water to farmers to grow feed for their livestock, indefinitely deferring a decision about the future of its Water for Fodder program.

Again, there was a lot of big talk and a lot of assurances, but the reality falls far short.

The disallowance before us doesn't deal with these problems. In fact, Labor's concern is that the disallowance that the Greens ask us to support would actually make the situation worse by generating risk and uncertainty in a system that is already struggling with questions of compliance. The specific thing that we would point to is the possibility that this disallowance motion, if passed, would have the effect that the Commonwealth would lose their capacity to ensure compliance and enforcement.

Compliance and enforcement is obviously key to the integrity of any program. It is particularly significant in the Murray-Darling Basin. Labor is not inclined to support a disallowance that jeopardises enforcement arrangements. The government does need to be able to check that the water is actually being used for fodder in the Water for Fodder program. I do note again that, when we talked about this in estimates earlier in the year, the department told me that the compliance and enforcement arrangements were not yet in place. I look forward to hearing from government about the compliance and enforcement arrangements they have put in place to make sure that this program works in a way that they say it will work.

More broadly, there is a problem with the government's administration of the Murray-Darling Basin. Scandal after scandal after scandal plagues their management of this critical system. Labor established the Murray-Darling Basin Plan because we want a healthy working river. We want it to work for graziers, and we want it to work to manage the environment. We want it to work for irrigators, for First Nations people and for the communities along the rivers of our basin. The reckless approach to water management taken by successive ministers, aided and abetted by the National Party, is a national shame. Like much that has happened under this government over the last seven years, it falls well short of the big promises that they like to make to their constituents. The government needs to get its act together. The Murray-Darling Basin is a precious national asset. Stakeholders all across the basin and, indeed, all across the country depend on it. We can't allow the mismanagement to continue.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government obviously won't be supporting the disallowance. The Industry Research and Development (Water for Fodder Program) Instrument 2019 is a regulation that allows the Commonwealth to ensure compliance with arrangements agreed by landholders who receive water under the Water for Fodder program. Round 1 of Water for Fodder has offered 40 gigalitres of water in 50-megalitre parcels to 800 farmers. It is a measure to help farmers to grow fodder, silage and pasture in the Murray-Darling Basin, and the water is not allowed to be traded for profit or used on non-fodder crops. A decision on round 2 will be announced soon.

Question negatived.