Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to confirm to the House that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will release a draft plan for the Murray-Darling Basin on Monday 28 November. In developing this plan, the authority, led by chair Craig Knowles, has worked closely with irrigator groups, environment groups, scientists, local and state community leaders and state and territory governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT. The draft plan is required to be built on the foundations of the best available science and to optimise the environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Across Australia, everyone understands the challenges we face in the driest inhabited continent. In most of the country we have an ongoing cycle described as droughts and flooding rains. This cycle will not change. It is a cycle which presents challenges for our food and fibre producers. It is a cycle felt acutely in the Murray-Darling Basin. Of the water which makes its way into basin rivers and creeks, more than 40 per cent on average is diverted for human use. We run our river system hard.

Inevitably in this debate, arguments will occur about whether a particular policy position is good for irrigators or good for environmentalists; good for South Australia or good for Victoria and New South Wales, for the ACT or Queensland. The guide to the draft plan proposed a recovery range of between 3,000 gigalitres and 4,000 gigalitres as a long-term average. So inevitably, some irrigators will compare the draft plan to the 3,000 gigalitre scenario and some environmentalists will compare it to the 4,000 scenario. A debate about numbers does not answer the question about what we are trying to achieve. What we want to achieve is a healthy, working Murray-Darling Basin.

There has been a tendency to look at the extreme scenarios in considering Murray-Darling Basin reform—the years of deepest drought or the years of the highest flood. During times of drought, people have argued the case for reform as if we could prevent a future drought. And in the wet years, I hear it argued that there is plenty of water around and nature has fixed the problem so we do not need water reform anymore. Murray-Darling Basin reform is about the in-between years. It is about the in-between years because you need to keep the system healthy enough so it can approach the drought years with a level of resilience.

An example of building resilience is the iconic river red gums. We nearly lost vast tracts of red gums during the last drought—not simply because of the drought itself, but because the red gums had been living for years as though there was only ever drought. They had been dry for so long that they did not have a sufficient level of resilience when the drought actually hit.

For the health of the system and to flush salt out of the Murray—which is both an environmental requirement and a requirement to ensure water is suitable for productive use—we need to ensure regular and strong flows of water out of the river's mouth. That is why I have set the benchmark that the Murray mouth should be open nine years out of 10. This benchmark preserves the basic environmental standards that we need for a healthy working river system.

Considering total volumes without talking about the objectives risks delivering on the total volumes without delivering on the reform. It is essential to get the arguments back to the fundamentals of what we are trying to achieve in the Murray-Darling Basin. We want to restore the system to health. Murray-Darling Basin reform has been put in the too-hard basket for too long.

This government is committed to reform for the Murray-Darling Basin that will restore our rivers to health, support strong regional communities and sustainable food production.‪ That is why we are making record investments in infrastructure projects to improve irrigation efficiency and get more water back to the environment. And Commonwealth environmental water is being used to help achieve a healthy, working Murray-Darling Basin.

When the Murray-Darling Basin Authority presents its draft plan for the basin, it will inevitably generate significant debate. But we should not expect a consensus position. In different parts of the Murray-Darling Basin, different communities have different things at stake. That is why when the Murray-Darling Basin Authority presents its draft plan, understandably there will be protests from some environmentalists saying that the numbers are too low and protests from the same people that were burning books a year ago saying that the numbers are too high.

The consultation conducted by the authority over the last 12 months has been significant, and I have also been working with representative groups and organisations as well as state governments across the Murray-Darling Basin. I would add that there has been further consultation conducted directly by this House, led by the Windsor inquiry, to which the government will provide its formal response shortly. I acknowledge the chair of that committee, the member for New England, and his presence in the chamber.

It is important to dispel a few myths that were put forward a year ago and that will no doubt be put forward by some again soon. Firstly, there is the myth that we are forcibly taking water from irrigators. This is wrong. If irrigators do not choose to sell their water or participate in our programs, the government has no interest in compelling them to do so. The only water the government has ever bought is water from someone who has an entitlement and decides to put all or part of their water on the market for sale at a price they choose themselves. If people do not sell water to the government, there are still other water traders on the market. The government has only bought a portion of what is put to it each time a tender is run. And if a person who sold the government water wants to re-enter the market to buy either temporary or permanent water, they can do so.

Secondly, there is a water market, whether the government is buying or not. The concept of the Swiss cheese effect within irrigation districts can occur at any time either through irrigators when, in the past, they have sold their entire entitlement to the government or when they have made a similar sale to other irrigators within the catchment. What we will have in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a sustainable diversion limit that must be reached by 2019.

The best thing for communities is to steadily stage water recovery for the environment over time between now and 2019. There is no better time to pursue that transition than now, when allocations against entitlements are at or close to 100 per cent and people have more water because of the breaking of the drought.

But this is not only pursued through buyback. It is also pursued through significant infrastructure investment. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has advised that 1,068 gigalitres has already been recovered which will count toward achieving the new sustainable diversion limits. Recently I signed an agreement with the Victorian water minister for the second stage of the Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project. This project will provide a further 214 gigalitres of water for the environment through investment in infrastructure. This project takes the total to 1,282 gigalitres.

Based on the remaining investment from the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program, we are projecting an additional 400 gigalitres of water which will be recovered through on- and off-farm infrastructure and environmental works and measures. This would take us to 1,682 gigalitres of water recovered for the environment with the remaining water needed to be recovered over the next eight years.

The myth that there is rush for communities to achieve the transition is wrong. Any transition will be gradual. The next drought will come and we must not stand still waiting for it. Over the next four years, there will be a prioritisation of funding for infrastructure projects compared to water purchases. These projects make more water available for the environment and deliver an extraordinary benefit in upgrading infrastructure for producers. Water recovery must continue at a steady pace. If we do not do that, we will let communities down horribly and they will feel the pain of required adjustment later.

Out of all this reform in the Murray-Darling Basin, at first glance, in the flood years it will not look that different. But we will have a situation in the in-between years where levels of resilience for the ecology of the rivers does not decline the way it used to. And when drought hits, allocations will go down for environmental water holdings just like they go down for irrigation water holdings, but the system will approach the drought in a standard of health that it has not experienced for generations.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the reform right, and the responsibility will rest with all of us in this parliament. When the starter's gun fires and the draft plan for the Murray-Darling Basin is released on Monday, there will be people who will see a huge political interest to engage in misinformation, to claim water is being ripped from communities, to claim a whole lot of things. But we should not miss this opportunity, and let us not miss this opportunity. The right reform is better for irrigation, better for communities, better for people who drink from the Murray and better for their water supply.

It is better for the one river system that stretches across our continent. We can say we are not going to wreck it; we are going to restore it to health. The government is committed to tabling a final Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the parliament in 2012 that restores our rivers to health, supports strong regional communities and sustainable food production for the future.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to let the member for Groom speak for 11 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Groom speaking for a period not exceeding 11 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be news to me as I read it as well, so I am sure it will only go for 11 minutes! I thank the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for the opportunity to respond to his statement on the Murray-Darling Basin. It has been almost five years since John Howard announced that the Commonwealth government would seek to establish a Murray-Darling Basin Plan to finally put the management of the Murray-Darling Basin on a national basis. As the Prime Minister said at the time:

We could muddle through as has occurred in the past, but frankly, that gets us nowhere. Without decisive action we face the worst of both worlds. The irrigation sector goes into steady but inevitable decline while water quality and environmental problems continue to get worse.

I give credit to the Labor Party at the time for supporting what was a comprehensive and bold step to provide the necessary national leadership to solve this problem. As the minister has stated, these changes were never going to deliver consensus. Changes on this scale would always be difficult for some. Adjustments to lower water use were a necessary reality but never easy ones. But this is precisely why these changes need to happen in partnership with the basin communities.

There are 2.1 million people who live in the basin, and I am one. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you are another. I live right at the top, so I get first go at the water. I think of the South Australians every time I press the button! If it were a state it would be the equal fourth biggest state of our nation, on par with Western Australia. Another one million people in South Australia rely on the basin for reliable water supplies. Many of the 2.1 million people who live in the basin have invested their lives in providing 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural output, including almost 95 per cent of Australia's oranges, 93 per cent of Australia's almonds and 68 per cent of our tomatoes. I note that, despite these contributions, the minister on Insiders a fortnight ago remarkably stated that the Murray-Darling is not about food security. Minister, just because cotton and wine grapes are grown in the basin does not mean you can ignore the 90 per cent of the other agricultural output that is grown there.

Many others not involved directly in agriculture rely on the irrigation industry to provide the economic base of their jobs and their businesses. The minister says that purchases are made from willing sellers. That is true, but there is nothing willing about Paul Pierotti, whose furniture business sales in Griffith have dropped by 20 per cent since the release of the guide. There was nothing willing about the 10 per cent average drop in house prices in the months after the guide was released. As the Labor Party moves to another inevitable policy fiasco, there are people that are left behind. The irrigator can sell out and move to the coast, but the mother with a mortgage is left behind with a diminished asset but the same amount owing to the bank.

Unfortunately, the people of the Murray-Darling feel let down by a government that has promoted uncertainty through constant delays in the plan and has chased the political prize of water buyback targets rather than delivering water savings in a way that has fostered a true partnership between the government and basin communities. The government took 18 months to establish the authority alone. This year the draft to the Basin Plan has been delayed three times.

These are not just the political views of this side of politics. May I remind the House that these are the considered judgments of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia. The Labor Party, the coalition and the crossbenchers all signed off on the report on the Murray-Darling, which concluded:

The Committee heard of grave mistrust of this department—

that is, the minister's Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—

across Basin communities resulting from the failure of the department to identify and respond to community concerns on a range of issues. In addition, this department has demonstrated a consistent failure to deliver water programs, including strategic water buyback, which is in the best interests of productive communities. This department should no longer be responsible for delivering these programs.

I think that the last part deserves repeating and emphasis. The judgment of this House, including Labor Party members, is that the government has consistently failed to deliver its water programs.

Despite these damning allegations, the government has accepted only one of the 21 recommendations made by this committee. These water programs were absolutely essential in delivering a solution to provide environmental benefits at the least economic and social pain. Principal among these was the $5.9 billion that the coalition put aside to help modernise Australia's irrigation network. Such investments would deliver more water for the environment and irrigation communities. However, this government has spent just $245 million on projects which will actually deliver water into the Murray-Darling Basin environment. Only 33 gigalitres of water had been transferred to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which works out at $7,400 per megalitre of water saved.

Instead this government has raided the funds we set aside. From the $5.9 billion Infrastructure Fund that we established, this government has allocated over $2 billion to projects which have nothing to do with delivering water to the environment, including over $200 million for the bureaucratic expenses of its water manager and the expenses of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and $8 million for an advertising campaign in the Murray-Darling. We must remember that it was always the coalition's plan, right from the start five years ago, to prioritise these investments over the buyback of water. That was because these investments gave communities the best chance to adjust to a future of lower water availability. Instead the government has adopted the exact reverse approach. The government had spent $1.54 billion on water buybacks by 30 June 2011. Labor has mismanaged the buyback program and has failed to end the non-strategic buyback of water, despite that being a recommendation of the House of Representatives committee.

In its election policy last year, the coalition promised to make the buyback program 'more strategic'. Every year Labor has spent more on water buybacks than planned and less on water-saving infrastructure than hoped for. It is $200 million ahead on water buybacks but $1.25 billion behind on infrastructure investments compared to its original plan. For every one bucket of water the government has saved through investment in infrastructure, it has bought back 24 buckets. The minister is absolutely wrong to say that the Basin Plan will start in 2019. It has started now. For the town of Collarenebri, the purchase of $300 million of water from the Twynam Agricultural Group shut down its cotton gin. For them the plan is not starting in 2019; it is being felt right now.

I note that the minister suggests that the draft Basin Plan will be released on 28 November. It surprises me that so many members and senators already seem to have a copy of this draft under their arm. If the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area had as many leaks as the authority, it would be a national disgrace. At the very time that the government should be partnering with local communities to deliver reform, these leaks to stakeholder groups and the media have just added to the angst and uncertainty. Why should Lateline get a copy of the plan before the people of Griffith? Why should the press gallery get a copy of the plan before the people of Renmark? Indeed, why should the opposition have a copy before the people of Dirranbandi?

I think that what was most remarkable about the minister's statement was that it barely mentioned the communities of the Murray-Darling. The coalition firmly believes that any Murray-Darling Basin Plan must deliver an equal balance between economic, social and environmental factors—that is, it must deliver a triple bottom line. Everybody accepted that the guide would have to be a social and economic disaster for regional Australia. That is why the government ran a thousand miles from it not long after it was released. It is up to the government now to regain the trust of the people of the basin. It is up to the government to prove that the draft that will be released next week is materially different from what was dumped on communities last year. But the minister has failed to do that this morning. There was no mention of how the government has listened to communities since last year. Only a few days before the plan's release, we still do not know when and where consultations will be held. Once again the government is keeping the people of the basin in the dark.

The plan that is released next week will be judged on some clear principles. First, the plan must return water to the environment, but the plan must be about environmental outcomes, not a number. The government must clearly show what the environmental benefits are and at what economic and social cost. Second, the plan must be based on an equal consideration of economic, social and environmental factors. It must deliver a triple bottom line. Third, the plan must provide a detailed plan for the economic and social future of basin communities and involve local communities in true consultation and engagement. Fourth, the plan must clearly show what environmental assets will be watered and when, and it must include a detailed environmental watering plan as required by the Water Act. Otherwise how can we decide how much water is needed if we do not know what we are to do with it?

Finally, the plan must take into account the natural limitations of water delivery in the basin. It is simply not acceptable to flood vast parts of private land for the purposes of environmental watering. The coalition will support a plan that can deliver on these outcomes. The problem is that the government is starting from a long way behind. They have lost the true trust of the people in the basin and they have lost the true trust of a vast number of Australians. (Time expired)