Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

I will begin by indicating that the opposition recognises the government's desire to provide certainty to basin communities by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases. On that basis we will not be standing in the way of this government initiative.

As with the Basin Plan itself and many aspects of it, there are conflicting points of view on the issue of water purchases versus infrastructure measures as the best means of achieving the outcomes of the Basin Plan. Labor has consulted with various stakeholders and with people with divergent points of view on these issues, and we have very carefully considered all of those views. We have also carefully considered the position of the basin states and, again, on that basis we will not be opposing this bill. Again, given the support of the basin states, we will not be standing in the way of this bill in the interests of bipartisanship—which has always, of course, underscored the strength of our progression to the point we have reached today.

The bill proposes to amend the Water Act 2007, to impose a duty on the Commonwealth not to exceed the 1,500 gigalitre limit on surface water purchases in the Murray-Darling Basin at the time of entering into the Water Purchase Agreement contract. Secondly, it amends the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 to provide increased flexibility in the recovery of some 450 gigalitres of water through efficiency measures funded under the Water for the Environment Special Account.

The success of the Basin Plan has always rested on the bipartisan support I referred to. At the federal level, that has been very important, and of course we have strived to—as best we can—extend that to the states. Again, given the support of the basin states we are happy to support this proposition today. As many in this place will know, disagreement over the management of our most important river system and the food bowls which rely upon it actually predates the Federation. In the early years, the importance of the basin to agriculture in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales led to the construction of numerous dams, weirs and locks. By the late 1960s drought, the overextraction of water for irrigation and rising salinity began to put the health of the Murray-Darling system on the radar of politicians and users alike and—of course—of the community more broadly.

By the drought of the early 2000s—otherwise known as the millennium drought—it had become clear that much more needed to be done and that politicians needed to act. Under the Howard government, the National Water Initiative was agreed and the Water Act 2007 was passed through this parliament. So both sides of this place can take credit for the significant reforms which have taken place in recent years. Now—in part at least, if not entirely—thanks to the good work of the former minister for water, the member for Watson, we have a plan that is restoring our rivers to health, supporting strong regional communities and ensuring sustainable food production.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has enjoyed bipartisan support—as I said—at all levels of government and across the political parties. Importantly, it has also had the support of farming, environmental and Indigenous groups. Not everyone has had their way, of course. Restructuring and reform in such an important area as this is always very difficult. I suppose it can be said that the bill before the House tonight is about redressing the issues still held by some of those basin communities in particular.

The Basin Plan brought into force in November 2012 will set basin-wide sustainable diversion limits and return 2,750 gigalitres to the environment. Basin states are required to prepare water resource plans that will give effect to the sustainable diversion limits from July 2019. Under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, up to 650 gigalitres can be provided through supply measures and projects that deliver environmental outcomes with less water. Proposals for these supply measures are, I understand, in varying states of preparation and assessment. There is a bipartisan commitment to bridge the gap between what these supply measures can provide and the 2,750 gigalitres to be returned to the environment. On top of the 2,750-gigalitre target, an additional 450 gigalitres will be returned to the environment. Funding was provided through legislation in 2013 for this additional 450 gigalitres, which must be obtained through projects that ensure no social or economic downsides for basin communities, such as on-farm irrigation projects. There is $1.78 billion in the Water for the Environment Special Account, including $200 million for the removal of constraints identified in the constraints management strategy.

To date, more than 1,900 gigalitres has been recovered for the environment. This includes more than 1,160 gigalitres of water through water purchases, over 600 gigalitres through infrastructure investment and over 180 gigalitres through other basin state recovery actions. This is water that can be used at appropriate times and where it is needed to improve flows and help restore health throughout the system. Already, we have seen successful water releases overseen by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the state and regional water management agencies. Importantly, there has been significant Commonwealth investment in ensuring that farms remain productive as the plan is delivered. Indeed, $2 million a day is being and will be spent on efficiency and infrastructure measures out to 2019.

Progress on these environmental objectives is very significant. The system includes approximately 30,000 wetlands, over 60 species of fish, 124 families of macroinvertebrates, 98 species of waterbirds, four threatened water-dependent ecological communities and hundreds of plant species supported by key floodplains. It is obvious that this is a very important system to Australia. The health of the river channels themselves and the flora and fauna they support is not only vital in its own right but also vital for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities.

Also related to the environmental needs and environmental flows, the Aboriginal nations and communities in the basin want and should have access to the flows they need to ensure the continuation of their culture and their social and economic wellbeing. Aboriginal people feel a deep connection to their land and the waters that flow through and across them. This needs to be recognised and provided for, not as an exercise in imperial patronage but by ensuring Aboriginal people are empowered through water rights.

I now want to turn to agriculture and its implications, which of course is of paramount interest to me. It is well known in this place that the basin supports around 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. According to ABS figures, in 2012-13 the basin accounted for more than 50 per cent of Australia's irrigated produce. There are some fascinating figures here that will surprise some in the House who have not had the opportunity to look at these issues in such detail, and I of course exempt the member for Riverina from that group. Almost 100 per cent of Australia's rice, 96 per cent of Australia's cotton, 75 per cent of Australia's grapes, 59 per cent of Australia's hay, 54 per cent of Australia's fruit, 52 per cent of Australia's production from sheep and livestock and 45 per cent of Australia's dairy come from the basin. Around two million people live and work in the basin, in communities ranging from centres with fewer than 1,000 people to large urban centres, such as Wagga Wagga, in the member for Riverina's electorate. A further 1.2 million people depend on its water to survive. All of this agricultural production and the two million people living in the basin rely on a healthy, functioning river system.

Many people in Australian agriculture do not have the benefits and advantages of a river system or an underground water system. Many of them, well into their third year of drought, are starting to understand the challenges of that more and more. With the growing prediction of another El Nino, we fear relief is not coming any time soon. It is now almost two years since the Prime Minister and his agriculture minister went to Longreach to tour around affected areas of that part of the world and therefore almost two years since the Prime Minister announced his first tranche of assistance for drought affected farmers. Two years on, sadly, the farmers are still wondering what it is all about.

Various attempts at utilising concessional loans have been abject failure. As much as they might like to, few in this place would challenge that proposition. As at April less than half of the money allocated for the Drought Concessional Loans Program has been taken up—much less than half, in fact—and less than three per cent of the drought recovery loans had been allocated. That latter point should not be too surprising to many in the House, because the title indicates that they are drought recovery loans and very, very few people in those parts of the world would consider themselves, or be deemed to be classified, as in recovery mode, unfortunately.

The tragedy of this is that the outcome goes beyond the obvious failure of the policy. In fact, farmers have been misled to believe that the government is providing all this drought assistance money when that is certainly not the case. The government has been claiming that up to $790 million is being provided or put on the books to assist drought affected farmers. But this is a bit of a cruel hoax. It makes the six o'clock news okay, but it has not helped the farmers. Why hasn't it helped the farmers? There are a number of reasons. Farmers either have not been able to qualify for the loans or, because of the nature of things, find that the loans do not extend to them any real benefit. In other words, the differential between the loan rates is often not sufficient to motivate them to go through the pain and the grief of the bank relationship and the paperwork—and of course many of them just do not qualify for the loans, particularly, as I said, those drought recovery loans.

In my view, the misrepresentation got worse recently when the government had the audacity to inflate the value of its agricultural white paper by including in the white paper the total value of every loan that might be lent out—or might not be lent out—over the course of the next 10 years. Have a think about that. It was the total value of the loans. If I loan the member for Corio $100—

See this speech in context