Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak today on the Water Amendment Bill 2015, the main purpose of which is to impose a statutory limit of 1,500 gigalitres on Commonwealth surface water purchases—otherwise known as buybacks—across the Murray-Darling Basin. This bill, its history, its future and indeed the future of all water policy in the parliament are very important to me as the member for Farrer in so much of the Murray-Darling Basin. I represent a large portion of the New South Wales Murray River and a large portion of the Darling River, and for all of the time that I have been a local member water has been the No. 1 issue for me. Whenever the inflows into the system reduce or there are changes in government policy, there is a response, and that response is often powerful and passionate. It always reflects one thing: the determination of the communities that I represent to continue to farm, to continue to be users of water and growers of food, and to represent and fight for irrigated agriculture. It is something that I have always done. I know it is something the member for Riverina, sitting here next to me, has always done. I know it is something that we will both always do in our respective electorates. This bill has quite a bit of history attached to our time in opposition and my time when the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 was introduced. At the time, a lot of conversations were had between members of the then opposition, and I advocated very strongly for a cap on buyback because we had seen the non-strategic, non-targeted buyback by the Labor Party and the effect it had had on basin communities. That is the main subject for discussion today in this bill, and it is important to reflect on what Labor's policy did to the communities that I represent. It divided communities; it tore communities apart. Effectively, it said: 'Here are government dollars to buy your water to take you out of production. It doesn't matter where you are; it doesn't matter what you are doing; it doesn't matter what your own investment on-farm has been.' And you, as the farmer, were then always under pressure during times of drought—which we were in—from your bank, from your lender. They would say: 'Suddenly your balance sheet has been transformed with this asset that is water. We'd like you to sell it, and we'd like the money so you can pay off debt. And that's all right, because you can still carry on your farming enterprise. Perhaps you can go to dry land; perhaps you can buy temporary water. But overwhelmingly, this is money that you owe.' The effect of this on agriculture and on communities was devastating, because there was no pattern. Many people came to me at the time and said: 'If the government had said, "We want this much water—let's work with you on how we strategically obtain it," then of course we would have been very unhappy about that, but we would have worked with the government.' But instead the Labor Party in government just said, 'There's the tender—go for it.' And communities were crippled as a result.

Going back to the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012 and leading up to its introduction into the House, the conversations I had with my colleagues and with the now Prime Minister were around: 'Let's fix this buyback issue so that future governments can put some confidence into basin communities.' In part, I explained what we would do in my remarks at that time. I said:

We will also move an amendment that says that expenditure on farm infrastructure works cannot be used for buybacks, and the total amount of buybacks will be capped at 1,500 gigalitres. That means that the gap that exists between the water that is being bought back now and 2,100 gigalitres, which is a baseline figure that people will, reluctantly, as a second-best solution, accept, is all that can be bought in a market buyback. We will cap the total amount of buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres and we will require that actions to remove constraints and those needed to achieve this potential 450 gigalitres—

that, of course, was the constraint strategy—

recovered under this account must satisfy an improved or a neutral socioeconomic test—in other words, no socioeconomic disadvantage.

They were my remarks then, and I am very proud that the amendment I foreshadowed three years ago is coming to fruition in the House today in this current amendment to the Water Act.

Every season is different in the Murray-Darling Basin, and this season is not shaping up to be a great one. So I am grateful that this buyback legislation is here, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass it. I commend the work of the parliamentary secretary in advocating the necessity of passing this bill in the Senate and, obviously, I look forward to hearing Labor's position, having no idea what that might be.

In being here today to talk about the Water Amendment Bill 2015 and its importance and, again, the underpinning of confidence in irrigated agriculture that I know that it presents, I will make a couple of further remarks. Firstly, we have had an independent review of the Water Act. It was conducted in 2014 and the final report was published in November 2014. In relation to the issue of a cap on water buybacks, the report notes that a number of submissions raised the commitment made by the Australian government in the 2014-15 budget to limit water purchases to 1,500 gigalitres and suggested that this limit should be legislated in the act. Other submissions indicated a concern that the 1,500 gigalitre cap could impede the Australian government's ability to bridge the gap. The panel noted that it is a decision for the Australian government as to whether this commitment should be legislated. We resisted those who said otherwise, and here it is. I also note, as does the Bills Digest on this measure, that the Department of the Environment website indicates that the government is still considering its response to the recommendations of the review. I know that further legislation is expected, and indeed is listed, for introduction in the 2015 spring parliamentary sittings. There is more, I believe, that needs to be done and that my communities believe needs to be done. I want to mention that this bill today is putting in place this buyback cap, but more can still be done.

The history of why we have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan is well known, and I think it is understood that we recognise that the basin is the lifeblood of so many communities. It is the food bowl of our nation. We need to use its resources sustainably to ensure the survival and prosperity of the environment for future generations. This plan is about governments working with the people of the basin to make sure that our farmers and communities are viable and sustainable for the long term. Our government's key difference in approach—I have reflected on the cap, which is something Labor would never have done—is that investment infrastructure is our primary method for recovering water to improve the basin environment. We have already secured over two-thirds of the 2,750 gigalitres of surface water we need to meet the sustainable diversion limits in the basin plan, and the cap we are introducing today is not a target, but a cap. It is a ceiling—a limit set in legislation. We will stand by it and we will continue to prioritise funding that invests in our community's future.

There have been many concerns expressed by speakers today, and that is appropriate. The circumstances in the New South Wales Murray, particularly around the towns of Deniliquin, Barham, Wakool, Finley, Jerilderie and Berrigan on the New South Wales side of the border, are not particularly happy ones at the moment. Very strong statements have been made to me over the last couple of weeks. I am pleased that I have taken those statements and the distress that many farmers are feeling right here, right now, to both the parliamentary secretary and the Minister for the Environment, and I thank them for the very understanding hearing which I have been given and their undertaking to continue to focus on what more can be done.

It is interesting. As I said, I have talked about an area in the New South Wales Murray—and time will not permit me to talk more about the Menindee Lakes and the lower Darling, important though they are—because there is, I think, something of a crisis in the New South Wales Murray when it comes to water allocations. The opening general security allocation for the season at the moment is zero. The planes are waiting on the tarmac to sow rice. The farmers are anxious and waiting for an allocation that allows them to start their program for spring and summer, but, with a zero allocation, that is not possible. Farmers are calling me and saying, 'We don't understand why, with such large reserves of environmental water in the dams and storages in the upper Murray, our allocation is zero. While we recognise that "general security" means just that—you can't guarantee the amount of water you'll get—can we be certain that the Environmental Watering Plan is working?'

This is a big project. It is a project that needs strong, focused explanation to the people of the basin. I know, and it is often said, that farmers are environmentalists. Of course they are. When they see environmental water being used to good effect and they see a positive return for the environment where they are, they give that a tick. They understand that. When they are not so certain about the watering in a particular area or they hear—and often it is anecdotal, I know—feedback that says it has happened but it is not really working, they quite rightly get angry and upset. We therefore need to make sure that not only do we have a meaningful Environmental Watering Plan but we have a strong engagement with communities, a focus on how that plan should look and a reflection back from communities about how it might be changed to ameliorate local effects and about what local people actually think of it.

I have met the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, a gentleman called David Papps. I have had some really good conversations with him. I know that he was in Deniliquin, in my electorate, yesterday. I look forward to him being part of that ongoing explanation, and I recognise too that he is constrained by the Water Act.

We probably do need more. We need something that allows communities who are starting the season with a zero per cent allocation but who by the good graces of government have significant infrastructure investment, both on and off farm, to be able to use water. The other thing that has been explained to me and that I have seen since the plan started to take effect a few years ago is the temporary water market. I mentioned previously how you might sell your permanent water. You might pay off debt. You still have your land and you still have your farm; you can buy water and grow crops. In theory that would be really good, except that the price of temporary water is so high at the moment that, when you do the sums, you actually would not do that at all. You might do nothing. Is the market working effectively? I am not sure that it is working as effectively as it needs to, and I know that there are adjustments that will need to happen as this very big, comprehensive, ambitious Murray-Darling Basin Plan happens. But I also want to make very clear that the local concerns that I am hearing are demonstrating a strong level of unhappiness.

On Friday I am going to bring Neil Andrew, a really good person—I am delighted that he is now Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—to these areas to have a look. We will go down the Edward-Wakool system. We will talk to landholders. We will meet landholders, and we will receive the explanations that I know people want to give to the authority.

There were some comments by an Italian fruit grower in Menindee recently mentioned in the Barrier Daily Truthand, as I said, I have no time to talk about Menindee, but I would love to do that another time. He talked about all of his fruit-growing years in Menindee and looked back with happiness on what life had given him. He said: 'Some years the water was there; some years the water wasn't. When the water comes down from Queensland, everyone is happy. When the water doesn't, everyone is a traitor.' I think that picks up the real difficulty of managing so many diverse interests across an area as wide as that of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But I want to end where I began and say that I believe passionately in the rights of those who have irrigated agriculture enterprises to continue to farm, to continue to grow food, to continue to be prosperous and to continue to be happy.

See this speech in context