Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I commend the opposition for their support for the Water Amendment Bill 2015 and thank the member for Makin for some of his wise words. He talked about a confidence, which I think is very important for irrigators. There are times when we need to amend legislation to make it better, so it is nice to see some bipartisanship around what I think is an essential topic—the water within the Murray-Darling Basin.

What is so special about the Murray-Darling Basin? Not only is it essentially our largest water supply but, complementing that large water supply, it also has the great soil. When you combine water and soil, that gives potential. When you put that with confidence and people, you create productivity and growth and wealth. Water is the key ingredient to growth and wealth in a very, very dry country. We do live in a very dry country, and we do need to have very good water management. If we look at the Murray-Darling Basin system over the last 100 years, we see that as we developed opportunities through the early 1920s and 1930s we saw that a great dream of turning water and labour into food could be realised. However, through the 1950s and 1960s a lot of allocations were attributed to people who wanted to extract water out of that system. It needs to be stated that, if you look over the last 100 years at Australia's average annual rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin, you can see that the 1950s and 1960s were the wet years. There is no doubt that there was an overallocation attributed to the Murray-Darling Basin. Then, as we saw things come back into the 100-year average, we realised that there is some work that needs to be done around trying to find that balance—a balance between good river health and extraction for food production and so that we can grow those communities.

I think the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a very rough attempt at that, and it is going to require amendments. It is going to require changes as we attempt to get it better. But, if I think through the issue here, it is all about confidence. If we can instil confidence in our irrigators—and producing food is risky—then we can instil better environmental outcomes. I will explain this: if you are not confident that you have certainty in your water then you are not going to spend what is sometimes hundreds of thousands or sometimes up to a million dollars in piping, in tape-and-drip irrigation and in better water management principles. If you are not confident, you are not going to invest in better genetics—be it genetics in horticultural crops or genetics in livestock. If you are not confident, you are not going to put in a new rotary dairy that is going to drive productivity, because you are nervous. What we saw when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan first came out was a stripping of confidence. There was a nervousness. I attended Murray-Darling Basin meetings—I was president of the Victorian Farmers Federation—and the question people were asking then was: 'Are you going to take away my water? You're not going to take away my water!' And it would become very adversarial. I think that robbed confidence.

Of course, we do have to find the balance between good environmental health and irrigation communities being viable, but we will not take away people's water. We need to instil some confidence, so attempting to put a 1,500-gig cap on buybacks is the first step towards restoring legislative confidence for our irrigation producers. It is saying that we still have a commitment to establish 2,750 gigalitres of water, we still have a commitment of 1,500 gigalitres of that being part of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, but we are going to achieve the rest by investing in major infrastructure, by investing in environmental infrastructure and by doing things that are necessary to get to that figure, but also growing our wealth and opportunities.

I see great wealth and opportunities in our region, but I also see that we need to put some rigour around how we manage the 1,500-gig cap of that Commonwealth Environmental Water Portfolio when we get to that level. The principle that an environmental entitlement is the same as an irrigation entitlement is very sound—so when things are wet we all have more water, and when things are dry we all have a little less. And it needs to be understood that we no longer have a natural system. We have a working river, but a working river does not necessarily mean it is an unhealthy river. If there is one thing I have learnt about irrigation communities, it is that they are often the great environmentalists. They are people who live on that river. They are people who are passionate about good river red gums. They are passionate about ensuring that our rivers have good fish life. They have great suggestions. If there is one thing I think we can take out of the lessons from a poorly-consulted Murray-Darling Basin Plan, it is that we need to listen more to irrigation communities and talk at them less. What we saw in those Murray-Darling Basin Plan meetings were very well-skilled bureaucrats speaking down to people who may not have been as articulate but who actually knew more than those bureaucrats would ever know, because the people in those rural irrigation communities—those country towns on the river systems—had generations of knowledge around the river system, and they have a lot to offer.

I think what we have learnt in our irrigation communities, because water is expensive, is how to manage it frugally. My hope is that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder will put a deemed rate on the 1,500 gigs that they hold so that they can then put some financial rigour around an environmental water holding assessment. For example, if they choose to water a wetland and they say that a megalitre of water to water that wetland costs $75 a megalitre, they can then say, 'We could water that wetland for, say, $300,000,' or 'Perhaps we could sell some of that water for, say, $50,000 and use some of the money from the sale of that water to build some environmental infrastructure to also achieve the same level of outcome in that environmental wetland.'

You can see what I am getting at. By putting a deemed value on the 1,500 gigs and seeing it as a resource that belongs to the government we can then, over time, and with the knowledge of our rural irrigation and river communities invest in things like fish stairways, environmental infrastructure—the odd pipe and pump here and there—and actually achieve good environmental outcomes, just like we do with our irrigation infrastructure.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan does not currently allow the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder the freedom to sell water onto the temporary water market and then reinvest in environmental infrastructure. A change to allow this would provide an improved basin over a number of years, at little cost to the Australian taxpayer. It would also allow the government to work with communities on project suggestions, implementations and the restoration of some of the trust between governments and water users. I think that is something that really needs to be talked about.

I have a strong belief in the future of irrigated agriculture. I have a strong belief in the ingenuity and the mindset that is out there. I would like to reflect on some things that have taken place in my electorate, for example, the Hattah Lakes project, which has just been an amazing sort of thing to watch. Substantial money was put into pumps. Water was then moved through Hattah Lakes. It was given a watering and then it drained off those lakes so not only is it watered but it then freed up environmental water to come back and rewater other patches. There is some stuff that can be done and I think there are some great opportunities.

But one way of achieving the management of good environmental water is going to require those who manage the asset to be living in the communities where that asset is managed. I have a strong belief that, if you cannot look out of the window at what you are managing, you do not manage it very well. It does concern me that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is based in Canberra, as opposed to being based in those communities.

We can argue all day about where the spots should be located, but the more people you have living in irrigation, river towns and those communities who are managing the Murray-Darling Basin, managing our environmental water, the more organically they will feel the needs of that river system. If they can organically feel that, they will then, in turn, manage it better. Those who live in Wodonga, for example, have a greater understanding of the river health. Those who live in Renmark will understand the river health. Those who live in Mildura will understand the river health and those who live down in the Lower Lakes will understand the river health. Having that managed out of Canberra I do not think necessarily achieves the best outcome—no aspersions thrown against those who work in that department! However, by living in those communities you really do feel it.

The Murray River is a fantastic river and so is the Darling River. I think the challenge for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan needs to look beyond the 2,750 gigs as a number because, ultimately, river health is not just about a figure. River health is measured in many other ways. I think we need to be very careful that we are mindful of the constraints within the Murray system to achieve that amount of water, when there is no water coming down the Darling River.

The river is a natural river and there is the Barmah Choke, which will put restrictions on it. And we simply do not have the physical ability to take water out of Hume, all the way down to South Australia without having some constraint issues to tackle the Barmah Choke.

That is why I think there is a strong argument for further investment in Menindee Lakes. Menindee of course is a high-evaporation storage and there is no doubt about that. Its location is in a hot area. It is not far from where I live. When I am bored, I often get in my little plane, fly over it and have a look at it. Engineering works can be done there. Whilst it is not the greatest and most efficient storage, it is a storage and the last storage within the Darling River. Looking at how we can do some engineering works within the Darling River and Menindee affords us the opportunity, when the Murray and Darling join up at Wentworth, to ensure some surety around the Lower Lakes, and some security of water for the Riverland. And that is an area of prosperity that I want to see grow. I want the Sunraysia and the Riverland to really capture the opportunities that we have found through the free trade agreements, particularly around citrus, table grapes and almonds, which we are seeing expand. But the only way we are going to do that is to look at some of those engineering works. That will require real dollars from the government but, ultimately, the thing that separates us and should separate us as a great government is how we are prepared to invest in the major water infrastructure that will address one of the greatest challenges in the dry country that we live in.

I think we can do it. I think the best outcomes are only achieved when you work with real communities. And the best outcomes are only achieved when a level of bipartisanship and understanding is achieved in this place. It is pleasing that both sides of the parliament are recognising the need to put a 1,500 gig cap on the buybacks. It is pleasing that we recognise that when you instil confidence in people they will then invest, grow their business, grow their wealth, manage water better and we will get river health. That is why am really happy to speak on this bill. I look forward to it going through the Senate, being implemented and getting some confidence back in the Murray-Darling Basin and the communities who live there.

See this speech in context