Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The Water Amendment Bill 2015 effectively amends the Water Act 2007 to impose a statutory limit of 1,500 gigalitres on voluntary water purchases across the Murray-Darling Basin as part of the restoration of 3,200 gigalitres of water to the system.

This year marks the 100th anniversary since the signing of the first River Murray Waters Agreement in 1915 and the formation of the River Murray Commission two years later, in 1917. The importance of the river system to Australia's future was well understood by our forefathers 100 years ago, when Australia's population was five million, and well before the establishment of the basin irrigation communities, including the soldier settlements that were developed after World War I and World War II. Indeed, towns like Murray Bridge in South Australia, South Australia's Riverland region, Mildura, Swan Hill, Shepparton, Griffith and so many others along the river, grew subsequent to World War I and World War II.

Today, the basin is home to some two million Australians, of which 1.2 million rely on the water to survive. It covers an area of about one million square kilometres. It accounts for 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural production and over 50 per cent of Australia's irrigated produce. It also produces 100 per cent of Australia's rice and accounts for 96 per cent of Australia's cotton production and 75 per cent of Australia's grape production. Importantly, it is still home to a substantial number of Australia's Indigenous people, who live along the river system. The basin is equally a national environmental asset, being home to some 30,000 wetlands and hundreds of species of fish, birds and plant and animal life.

The reality is that the 1915 agreement was not effective in securing the health of the basin or the livelihoods of the basin communities, as was evident from the effects of the decade-long millennium drought which began in the late 1990s. As a member of the House committee that visited and met with basin communities in 2010 and in the early parts of 2011, I saw firsthand the disastrous effects on families, on whole communities and on the environment that mismanagement of the river system had caused. I saw farmers who had gone broke, the economies of towns collapsing, with numerous businesses closing down, and environmental assets, including Ramsar-listed wetlands in South Australia's Lower Lakes, reaching catastrophic conditions. Given the severity of the millennium drought, even the best basin plan would not have averted some of the dire consequences that we saw. However, a responsible plan would have lessened the consequences, perhaps would have prevented the parochial bickering between the states that occurred at the time and certainly would have provided a much clearer direction and more certainty for the hundreds and perhaps thousands of growers who were directly affected by the drought.

The basin plan that was brought together by Labor under the leadership of the membership for Watson, who was the relevant minister at the time, ensured that, finally, after about 100 years, there was a science-based plan agreed to by each of the states, the ACT and the federal government. It was a plan that was also based on extensive community consultation, including with the Indigenous communities, and discussions with scientists, growers and environmentalists. It was a plan that had the input of all of the people who had a stake in the basin system. The critical outcome of the plan, as I saw it, was the return of 2,750 gigalitres of water to the system and then the return of an additional 450 gigalitres to the environment, subject to there being no negative impact on communities. In total, 3,200 gigalitres of water would ultimately be returned to the river system in the years ahead.

This bill does not change the 3,200 gigalitre target. What it changes is how we get there. I personally accept that we can reach the 3,200 gigalitre target with a 1,500 gigalitre cap on voluntary buybacks. Already, 1,900 gigalitres has been returned, with some 1,160 gigalitres having been returned through water purchases and 600 gigalitres having been returned through infrastructure improvements.

During the work of the committee, I was always of the view that most of the returns should come from efficiency measures, even though, initially, it may be more expensive than securing the water through buybacks. In the long term, however, securing the water from efficiency investments makes much more sense, because it does not constrain productivity by taking water from farmers or cause the exit of farmers from the land, in turn affecting the viability of regional communities. Furthermore, it makes no sense at all to continue wasting water because of the use of inefficient irrigation systems. Work over recent years has shown that achieving the water returns through efficiency measures is possible. Both on-farm and off-farm water savings measures can be found across the basin. Indeed, the work of the committee identified many opportunities for water efficiency investments that could be made. Those, from memory, appear in appendix E of the committee's report.

No group understands better or has invested more money into efficiency measures than our farmers. They understand that water efficiency is important to their future. From open-furrow irrigation systems, the farmers have invested in highly efficient sprinkler systems, dripper systems, moisture-monitoring equipment and expensive land-levelling processes that avoid water wastage through run-off. Having made those investments, often running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, those irrigators are entitled to some certainty about their future, and that is why the basin plan was so important.

However, we should not become complacent because the drought is behind us, because good rains have restored the general health of the basin in recent years and because farmers themselves have learned from the drought and made important and necessary adjustments. We do not know when the next drought will come, but at some stage, I suspect, it will. When it does, basin communities will be much better prepared because of the work done in recent years and, in particular, because we now have a basin plan in place. Of course, the plan needs to be constantly reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted as required. That is exactly what this bill does. It looks at where we are at right now and it looks at what is possible in the years ahead and how we can change from achieving that 3,200-gigalitre target through water purchases to achieving it through efficiency investments.

There is no doubt in my mind that food production will continue to be a major economic driver for Australia in the coming years. It is a subject that is often referred to in this place and a subject referred to when we talk about the growth of Asia and indeed the global population. Global markets create export and growth opportunities for Australian food producers, particularly because of the clean, green, good-quality food Australia produces. That point was well made only last night by Taiwan's trade minister when he addressed a gathering here at Parliament House. Additionally, the now-lower Australian dollar, global population growth, the rising middle class across Asia, the loss of existing agricultural land in other parts of the world, water shortages in other parts of the world and water and land pollution in other countries, combined with Australia's agricultural expertise and CSIRO research, all add to Australia's natural advantages and growth opportunities in food production.

I want to divert for just a moment to talk about the water shortages that are occurring in other parts of the world. In China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, the water systems are already stressed. In many parts of the USA, the water systems are already stressed. It is clear from an analysis of what is happening around the world that water shortages in years to come are going to have a severe impact on the ability of nations to continue to produce food, including Australia if we do not manage our water systems better. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is doing exactly that. It is a national effort at managing one of the nation's most important water resources better than we have done to date. Yes, there has been some pain in getting to this point, but we are getting there, and if we need to finetune it, as I said only moments ago, then that is what we should do.

There is no better opportunity, given the water shortages that are emerging in other countries of the world, for Australia to capitalise on the opportunities that food producing offers this country. We already have communities that are established, where infrastructure is already in place and where the farmers have settled in and have the know-how, the skills and the ability to increase their food production. And we should give them every opportunity to do so, not only because they have already made substantial investments in their properties and their farms but because it is in the national interest for us to do that. The Murray-Darling Basin has it all in terms of the infrastructure that has already been established there. Water security is the single thing that will provide the greatest confidence to the growers who are already there.

In closing, I want to speak very briefly about the importance of the system to South Australia. Because South Australia is at the end of the system, we are very reliant on water inflows and extractions that occur upstream, particularly in the states of New South Wales and Victoria. We saw, at the height of the drought, the absolute devastation that was caused to the Lower Lakes and to Riverland communities, including Renmark, Berri, Barmera, Loxton and Murray Bridge, as a result of no water being available to many of the growers there. These communities were all established about 100 years ago—in fact, straight after World War I in most cases; Loxton was established after World War II. But they are communities that have for decades and decades existed through their reliance on the River Murray water system, and they are communities made up of real people. Some 30,000 people live in what we call the Riverland area of South Australia—real people who have put their life savings and their work into their properties. They too have entitlement to continue to have water security. It is sometimes disappointing to hear comments made about the fact that the water falls interstate and that therefore the first rights to that water should go to the people who live where it falls. That is certainly the interpretation I draw from some of the comments I hear.

The other point I make is about a question that is occasionally asked: what is the point of allowing water to flow through the Lower Lakes and out to sea and seeing it just go to waste? A river dies if it does not flow. We saw the emergence of that at the height of the drought. Two things happen. Firstly, the waters from the sea come inwards and the salt levels continue to go upstream further and further. We saw them moving upstream right through to I think Blanchetown in South Australia, which is probably halfway up the river system in South Australia. The second thing that happens if the river does not flow is this: each year, through the Murray Mouth, somewhere between 1.5 million and two million tonnes of salt are washed out and carried out to sea; if the river does not flow, that salt remains in the system, and slowly the whole system dies. So it is important not just because we want to try and preserve and save the environmental assets of the lower lakes; it is important for the whole river system to ensure that the flows continue because, if they do not, everybody loses out. So to those people in the eastern states who think it is simply a waste of water to see it flowing out to sea I say: 'Think again.'

As the member for Hunter made clear when he opened the remarks on behalf of the opposition with respect to this legislation, we support this legislation. It is legislation that largely keeps intact the plan to return 3,200 gigalitres of water to the basin, and that is, in my view, the key target that we should be aiming for.

See this speech in context