Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I noted the speech by the member for Grayndler. While it purported to mainly refer to the Murray-Darling Basin, the member for Grayndler spent a great deal of time on Iraq and climate change. I might just make a couple of comments in passing on those two issues. On Iraq, of course, aren’t we all wise with 20/20 hindsight. It is quite incredible. I remember clearly the time when Saddam Hussein was accused of having weapons of mass destruction. Not only did the United Nations think so but Mr Butler, who was then the United Nations weapons inspector, thought so, all the intelligence information indicated it, and the Leader of the Opposition thought so. But of course now, when things are a little bit different, we have a different view and we are trying to rewrite history. If we have a close look at it, everyone can have 20/20 vision in hindsight.

On the issue of climate change, there seems to me at present to be a scare campaign being run by the Labor Party trying to link climate change to drought. There is no discernible link between climate change and drought, but the reason they are mounting this campaign is very clear: one of the biggest concerns that we have in Australia at present is based in our cities. Because state governments have not done the planning over the years, all of our major cities have water shortages, with level 4 and level 5 water restrictions. So it is easy to plant the seed into someone’s mind that this is all about climate change where, in fact, there is no link between drought and climate change.

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth—and it has been since long before Europeans came here. I think we have to start to understand the natural management of this country. That is the reason that I think there is a lot of wisdom in having one authority run the Murray-Darling system. There is also a lot of work that must be done to make sure that that system is run efficiently and correctly. Probably in the short term we might get some of that wrong, but in the long term we have to make sure that we get it right.

Most members here would know that I was the Minister for Water Resources in New South Wales for five years. I was on the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council for five years. I would have to say that in its first 10 years the Murray-Darling council did a lot of very good work. John Kerin was the chairman of the Murray-Darling council when I was the minister in New South Wales, and I think he did an admirable job.

The emphasis in those days was on salinity and drainage because the quality of the water going to Adelaide was of concern, particularly to Adelaide. I think Adelaide threatened to sue other states—that is what started the Murray-Darling council. There was a concern because natural flows of salt were going into the river. If you go back and read your history, which I do not think many people do in this place, it would show that the early explorers commented on salty water in the Murray River. There were natural flows of salt going into the river, so the Murray-Darling council decided to attack those issues.

Also, I think you will find that the Murray-Darling council did a lot of work on drainage, because we know that putting water on the land, particularly arid land, causes problems with salinity. To their credit, the rice growers in the irrigation areas did a lot of laser levelling to make sure they used less water in the growing of their crops. When I started as the minister in New South Wales, most of the horticultural crops were flood irrigated. I believe you will not find a horticultural crop today that is flood irrigated. They have all gone to microjet and drip irrigation. Some of that is because of policy change, I would say. There is no doubt that in those days in New South Wales all of the irrigation areas were controlled by the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission. I used to call them the ‘feudal kingdom’ because they owned everything. They told producers what they could do. They told grape growers how many grapes they could grow, how many waterings they could do and how many hectares they could have. That was all deregulated, which allowed more efficiencies and more efficient use of water. So many of these things have been taking place.

The Living Murray scheme, which the then leader of The Nationals introduced, again tried to bring back some of the flows into the river. When I started as minister in New South Wales, the policy, as the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources said, was that no water would reach the sea—the same as the Colorado River in America. I was the first to introduce environmental flows. So we need to manage these things correctly.

Let’s put it in perspective. Not only is the Murray-Darling Basin home to 80 per cent of Australia’s irrigated agriculture; it is the home to 60 per cent of Australia’s agriculture. Some of that is dryland farming, obviously, but it is the home to a lot of the agriculture that we have in this country. So it is very important that we address these issues.

In New South Wales in particular—and I spoke to other states—we knew we were losing a lot of water in the transmission along our channels. I think the estimate at the time was 30 per cent. The Mulwala Canal, which is the main canal running down to the lower Murray—a very big canal which was built with horses and scoops—runs across country where you intercept sand and gravel. Where you find those sand and gravel beds, of course the water soaks through very quickly. There is no doubt that if you can seal those channels you are going to save a lot of water. I did not have the money to do it. This Prime Minister has had the vision to put forward some money that can seal those leaky channels.

We also knew about the Great Artesian Basin, which is an enormous resource to Australia and has filled over millions of years. Because we found some natural upwellings and decided we would drill bores and get that water, it has all been flowing away. We are losing it. It only moves at about four millimetres a year underground, so it is something that you have to protect. We started capping those bores. More money to cap those is a very big step in the right direction.

New South Wales was the worst offender on licences. I was the minister in New South Wales. Licences were handed out like confetti during the 1950s in New South Wales with no regard to what water might be used, because there was not a lot of irrigation in those days. Even when I was minister, we used to call many of the licences ‘sleepers’ and ‘dozers’ because they had not been developed, and there are still many licences that have not been developed today. They are the licences that are likely to be willingly given up to reduce the potential of drawing on the water resources.

I think this is a very big step in the right direction; it is visionary. The amount of money that has been put forward is very substantial and it can do quite a lot to help the water resources in this country, but we have to learn to manage it according to the country. It is a very dry country and we need to read history to ensure that. To help the workings of the House, I will leave my speech at that.

See this speech in context