Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

If we are serious about adapting to climate change, we have to look at re-engineering structures like the Menindee Lakes and making them deeper and covering less surface area. In a sense, you can create water because you do not let us much water evaporate from the system. I appreciate the member for Kennedy, who is an expert on northern waters and other land use and social issues. He is well read on these issues and someone whose counsel I always consider when given.

Speaking of climate change, I have not supported the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that is before the parliament at the moment. It is quite meaningless to have a five per cent target. It is pointless rearranging the economy to achieve a five per cent objective. I know that there are provisions in there such that if the rest of the globe comes on board we move out to 25 per cent.

I have a private member’s bill on a similar issue before the parliament which has higher requirements in carbon equivalent emissions reductions than the government’s bill. One of the things that is in my private member’s bill—and I have talked to some of the bureaucracies in the building from time to time about this—is that there be a calculation of the impact of climate change on run-off within the Murray-Darling system. We are constantly being told that climate change is going to impact on run-off and water within the system, and that is used as justification for the buyback of water within that system. I am told that the amount of run-off could be up to a 30 per cent reduction—obviously that percentage varies—on 1990 levels. That will have an extraordinary impact on the Murray-Darling system and the things that the member for Farrer spoke about will become much more amplified. Some suggest that climate change is just a myth and it is never going to happen. The question I would pose—and we are all very concerned about what is happening to agriculture in the Murray-Darling system—is: what if it happens and 30 per cent is the reduction in run-off? The significance of that for the irrigation industry, food production and the farm sector is just catastrophic. People who are suggesting that this should just be ignored and we should hope to God that it does not happen should be a little bit more considerate of the other side of the debate and consider what if it does happen.

One of the ‘what ifs’ that is there—and this is an assumption that the rest of the globe is not going to do anything about this issue—is that we who live in the Murray-Darling system are going to suffer the brunt of other people’s emissions and human induced effects. One of the things we should do is to calculate those effects. The climate scientists are saying—and I think the member for Kennedy would verify this—that some parts of Australia will get more rain because of the human induced carbon emissions atmospheric condition. Other parts will get less rain and the Murray-Darling system, particularly the southern end, is going to be one of those areas, which will be a human induced problem.

What is wrong with fixing both those problems by shifting some of the water in North Queensland into that part of the component that is driven by climate change within the Murray-Darling system? Theoretically, people would like to think that if we take control of our emissions we reduce the problem and everything will go back to nature. One of the things that I would like the government and the parliament to consider is, if that does not actually happen, how we repair the human induced damage to the Murray-Darling system. The only way I can see to do that is to bring water into it. The fairest way to do that would be to bring it from the source that is being created by the same human induced conditions, from the areas that are going to get more. Obviously, the ocean will be one of those sources. We are told we are going to have more water in the oceans because of the ice melt. I happen to believe that, others do not, but we will all be dead before we find out who was right. Some of those structural things need to be looked at; otherwise, we run the risk of destroying one of the great food bowls of this nation.

The member for Kennedy, who will give one of his brilliant speeches a bit later in this debate, will I am sure talk about the proportion of water in the north. I know he does not like praise, but praise is due to him from time to time, and I enjoy his speeches. He does make a very significant point about these massive amounts of water. People say Australia is a very dry nation, but the Fitzroy River in Western Australia, for instance, has the second highest inflow into an ocean of any river in the world. We are surrounded by water. Some people in Adelaide say they need someone from Tamworth to give up their water so that someone in Adelaide can have a drink. Adelaide is on the edge of water: they just have to take the salt out and drink it. There is plenty there and there is more coming apparently if climate change has anything to do with it in the future.

The other issue I raise is land use. Essentially, to manage drought we have to look at land use for the future. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources. The committee will be going to Tamworth next week and we will be looking at some of the issues up there, particularly the innovative issues such as no-tool farming techniques, some of the pasture technologies out there now and GPS technologies, such as Tramtrac. The issue I raise with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is that when he is formulating drought policy for the future he will need to look at the things that are naturally drought-proofing some of our farmlands and try to promote those. I think the member for Parkes would agree that no-tool farming is one of those issues that actually creates additional moisture in cropping technologies. It should be promoted and there are other technologies that should be promoted as well. (Time expired)

See this speech in context