Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Water Amendment Bill 2008, which amends the Water Act 2007 and gives effect to the intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform, which was signed by the Prime Minister and the first ministers of each of the basin states—that is, the states of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland—and the Australian Capital Territory on 3 July at a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. In particular, the bill brings the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission together as a single institution, to be known as the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It establishes a Commonwealth-state water management partnership. It strengthens the role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in regulating the water market and water-charging rules within the basin and provides arrangements for critical human water needs.

We face two of the most significant and challenging events that we have faced in decades and, for some of us, possibly that we will face in our lifetimes. I am referring to the great challenge of climate change and the collapse of the financial markets across the world, both with consequences far beyond what is immediately apparent—both, however, with many common characteristics. The collapse of the financial markets and the collapse of the environment that we had become so dependent on are both largely caused by human greed. We are living beyond our means financially and beyond what the current environment can sustain, pushed along by an out-of-control capitalist economy.

Governments around the world have effectively handed over control of the economy and control of the environment to the global multinationals, leaving the democratically elected governments with the responsibility of managing the social consequences and the economic catastrophes such as those we are presently experiencing. What is equally the case is that, in respect of both the environment and the financial markets, those consequences were both predictable and foreseen by many, yet governments for too long ignored the warnings and sidestepped their responsibilities because they placed short-term political survival ahead of good governance.

The mismanagement of the River Murray draws together the consequences of government inaction, human greed and climate change. Thousands of native trees, horticultural trees and large areas of wetlands are now dead. One has only to look at the Lower Lakes in South Australia to see the devastating effects it has had down there—and might I say I certainly welcome the Rudd government’s commitment of $326 million for the Lower Lakes.

The river’s productive capability has plummeted, threatening both Australia’s export capacity and food security. Hundreds of small businesses along the Murray are struggling to survive, with many already having closed their doors, and farmers are being forced off the land, leaving the work they know and understand. Family breakdowns and even suicide are occurring far too often among rural communities and certainly in communities along the Murray.

Let me address the issues of government inaction, greed and climate change separately. I will begin with climate change. Climate change has caused a noticeable change in rainfall patterns across Australia, with the Murray-Darling Basin catchment area experiencing a marked decline in rainfall in recent years. In particular, in the last two years for which figures are available, inflows have been about 50 per cent of the previous lowest on record. Winter inflows this year were about 670 gigalitres or the fifth lowest winter inflows on record. I quote an article written by Asa Wahlquist in the Australian on 11 October relating to the drought we are experiencing:

The long drought affecting southern Australia is officially the worst on record.

Bureau of Meteorology head of climate analysis David Jones said the 12-year drought that was devastating southwest Western Australian, southeast South Australia, Victoria and northern Tasmania was ‘ very severe and without historical precedent’.

…            …            …

Inflows into the Murray system have been critically low, with new records continuing to be set. Inflows in the two years to the end of August were just half the previous record low, set in 1943 to 1945. Storages in the Murray-Darling are now at 28 per cent.

The next part of the quote is very interesting because it is so significant:

The Australian Alps, in north-eastern Victoria and southern NSW, have recorded their lowest three-year rainfall on record. This area is critical to the Murray River. It covers less than 1.5 per cent of the catchment, but on average provides 39 per cent of the water flowing down the Murray River.

These figures do not simply reflect normal cycles in weather patterns but, based on available scientific evidence, are more likely to reflect what we can expect in future. The quantities of water captured and stored in the Murray-Darling Basin in recent decades and which we have come to rely on will simply not be there in the future if present rainfall forecasts are correct.

Let me turn to the impact of overdevelopment and the demise of the Murray-Darling system. In recent decades we have seen the expansion by tens of thousands of acres of the agricultural area under irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin. The expansion was essentially driven by wealthy capitalists and cashed-up managed investment funds schemes that invested in cotton, rice and huge vineyard plantations. Their interest was driven by profits or tax minimisation with little regard to the environment or the economic impact on smaller landowners. To compound the matter further, they set up their own water catchment schemes, interfering with the water inflows into the Murray-Darling system and depriving farmers further down the river of the water they have come to depend on to survive.

In 2005-06, 7,720 gigalitres of water was used in the Murray-Darling Basin for agricultural purposes. Of that, 36 per cent went to rice or cotton. Figures for the following year show that, in respect of cotton and rice, there has been a notable decrease in water allocated. In fact, for cotton production the water allocation has almost halved and with respect to rice it has gone down from 1,250 gigalitres in the year 2005-06 to 239 gigalitres in the year 2006-07. I did not have figures for the last year but I expect that decline would have continued in those two years. Those figures are interesting because the large investors created an oversupply of produce which, in turn, brought down prices and made it even more difficult for struggling small landowners to survive. In the end, those wealthy landowners became victims of their own greed, with properties like Toorale being placed on the market and questions being asked about the future of Cubbie Station.

I now turn to the action, negligence and incompetence of governments in recent decades. When it comes to inaction, negligence and incompetence and the Murray-Darling Basin, the Howard government stands condemned. In respect of the Murray River, I want to quote something said in this House in 1981 by the then member for Hawker, Ralph Jacobi:

What is done to one part of the river clearly affects conditions elsewhere, yet this elementary fact has been ignored by State and local authorities for more than 100 years. The rapid decline of the river in its lower reaches after 80 years of federation is testimony to the failure to understand the interactions of the river on a basin-wide basis.

He also said:

Much has been said about salinity, silting, pollution and other river problems, but it is extraordinary and scandalous that so little research into the cause, nature and effects of these problems is undertaken. After 100 years of thoughtless exploitation, the viability of the River Murray system as a resource is in jeopardy. Honourable members will recall that recently it even ceased flowing to the sea. If present trends continue, it is only a matter of years—or even less if there is prolonged drought—before this river and its tributaries, which supply most of South Australia and many thousands of people in New South Wales and Victoria with domestic water, become not merely unpleasant, but quite undrinkable, and practically useless for irrigation.

That speech was made over 26 years ago and 26 years later you could reproduce those words because they are as true today as they were then. What is more damning is that nothing was done in the interim. In more recent years, when the water issues of the Murray-Darling Basin were becoming critical, the Howard government blamed the state governments. It was a typical tactic of the Howard government to shift the blame on to the states. The reality, however, is that the former federal government, the Howard government, had an equal responsibility in the management of the Murray, but the Howard government did not act because the Liberal and National Party members could not agree among themselves on responsible management strategy for the Murray and it was easy politics to blame the states. If we look at the comments of members on the opposite side from across Australia, we keep getting conflicting views about what is a sensible strategy to manage the Murray. Other speakers have made reference to that, and I certainly will not go on about it right here and now.

When the Murray became an election issue in the lead-up to the 2007 election, the Howard government found its new-found responsibility and quickly hatched a $10 billion election plan without even running it past Treasury. Like the global financial crisis, securing Australia’s water supplies transcends party politics and transcends state politics. Water is not a luxury and it is not an option; it is essential to life, to our food production, to our economy and to the environment.

Over recent months I have spoken to farmers along the Murray in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. My last conversation was only on Saturday night. I have been down to the Lower Lakes in South Australia and attended a rally there. I have listened to the pleas of literally hundreds of people who have raised their individual concerns about water security with me.

The $12.9 billion water plan put forward by the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, is a sensible long-term management plan for Australia’s water supplies and particularly for the Murray-Darling system. Securing the water needs of the Murray-Darling Basin and maintaining the productive capacity are dependent on essentially two things: firstly, reducing the amount of water being extracted—and we can do that by improving the efficiency of irrigation methods, bearing in mind that at the moment 1,500 gigalitres a year are lost through evaporation—and reducing the area under plantation; and, secondly, increasing the inflows into the Murray, which could be done by reducing the amount of water that is diverted from the Murray and prevented from reaching the Murray. Diverting water from other catchments into the Murray could also be considered. Lastly, we could always hope for more rain. Sadly, the available scientific data tells us that additional rainfall is unlikely and the situation may even worsen. That is the option we have no control over. However, we do have control over all the other options.

I want to discuss some of those matters and begin by addressing the question of reducing the amount of water being extracted. The most effective method of achieving that objective is to install more efficient water distribution and irrigation systems. Open channel irrigation systems are totally inefficient and waste precious water. Of course, installing new pipelines and farm irrigation systems will not happen overnight, so buying back water allocations from willing sellers needs to occur as an interim measure. In the long term, however, we should endeavour to maintain as much of the Murray-Darling Basin food bowl as possible because of the basin’s food security and economic value.

We should also aim to reduce the reliance of urban communities and cities on the Murray. Desalination, water harvesting, damming and wetland projects in urban water run-off areas should all be considered. If you need a good example of what is possible in that regard, you only have to look at what has been achieved in the city of Salisbury over the past 30 years. Through the establishment of both dams and some 50 wetlands located throughout the city, Salisbury Council has developed a system capable of harvesting and reusing most of the rainwater that falls within the catchment area. Water that is not immediately required is stored in underground aquifers and extracted when required later on. This is often referred to as ‘stormwater harvesting’. The name itself is a misnomer because in times of heavy downpours much of that water does escape. That is the time when you cannot catch it all. The system in Salisbury currently enables that community to harvest, clean, store and reuse billions of litres of water each year.

I welcome Minister Penny Wong’s announcement only last week of an additional $6.5 million towards the Waterproofing Northern Adelaide project, which includes work in the cities of Tea Tree Gully, Salisbury and Playford. A joint entity has been established between those three cities to manage the water-harvesting work that is currently taking place.

The wetlands in Salisbury were complemented with an $8 million dam at Cobbler Creek and a series of smaller dams so that stormwater could be held back at times of heavy downpours and then gradually released into the wetlands. Fortunately, most of their annual rainfall comes down in the form of steady rain and the system is able to collect it.

Of course, evaporation and soakage losses in the shallow wetlands are quite considerable. That is why it is misleading to suggest that all of the water that runs through a catchment area—whether in Salisbury or elsewhere—could be reused through these systems. It may be collected, but it will never all be available for reuse. It is wrong to say that places like Adelaide could source all of their additional water requirements through constructing wetlands. As someone who has been associated with the city of Salisbury wetlands from their inception some 30 years ago, I find it amusing when I hear commentary from the new-found self-proclaimed experts, including some politicians, who have emerged in the past year when it comes to the topic of wetlands.

Assisting farmers to move off the land should be a measure of last resort. Our priority should be to assist them to remain on their farms and to remain viable. The Murray-Darling Basin accounts for about 40 per cent of Australia’s agricultural production and agricultural industry. The farming communities in the Murray-Darling Basin not only contribute to our export income but sustain millions of dollars of economic activity in each of the towns along the Murray. Many of these towns will simply die if more farmers leave the land. Where will those people go? They will go into the cities and coastal towns, which are already bursting at the seams and in need of billions of dollars of infrastructure and with housing at unaffordable prices. It is not in the long-term national interest to abandon billions of dollars of agricultural infrastructure and country towns, nor is it in our interest to become dependent on imported food products, even if they are cheaper, when we have no control over how those products are grown and for how long we will continue to be supplied. That is why any assessment of diverting waters from other catchment areas should never be dismissed.

One objection I hear to water diversion schemes is the environmental impact to the coastline where the water is currently discharging into. I ask those people: what about the environmental damage to the Murray-Darling Basin if it dies, as we are seeing with the Lower Lakes? Furthermore, those who raise the environmental objections are generally the same people who advocate water-harvesting and reuse schemes. Urban water-harvesting schemes also prevent water from discharging into the coastline but with the net result being a healthier coastline because the highly polluted waters no longer enter those coastal waters.

I also have real concerns with the water-trading arrangements that have resulted in recent years. Smaller farmers who have no cash reserves and possibly have a mortgage to pay off simply cannot afford to pay for additional water to get them through while the water restrictions are in place. The risk of crop failure or a fall in market prices for their commodity makes borrowing additional money to grow their crop far too risky. I believe that all water buying and reallocation should be controlled by the new water authority and not simply left to market forces.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context