Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

Labor will support the Water Amendment Bill 2015. Not only is there bipartisan support for this bill but it also has the support of the basin states. In saying that, I do have reservations about this bill, particularly because I think it takes away flexibility for the government of the day to ensure we reach the target of 3,200 gigalitres—a very important target that was developed by the previous Labor government to ensure that we bring the Murray-Darling back to health.

I have to give a big thankyou to the member for Watson. The member for Watson worked tirelessly to land what has eluded governments—from before we even had a federal government—and policymakers in Australia for centuries: he landed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and saw it brought into law. Charles Kingston, after whom my seat was named, saw the need to ensure proper management of the Murray-Darling as an important reason for Federation. He saw this incredibly important water system as one of the reasons we should federate.

For many years—decades and decades—state governments could not reach agreement about how best to manage this water system. For years and years states bickered and fought and did not manage this system in the best interests of the country. It took the significant drought of the early 2000s to focus the nation's mind. As a member from South Australia, I can say that it focused our minds quite drastically when it looked as though our state might run out of drinking water. Nothing focuses policymakers like the possibility of running out of drinking water.

That focus led to the commencement of a process which led to the Water Act. I give credit to the Howard government for implementing the Water Act and starting the process for coming to agreement, but it was the member for Watson who—despite the fact that there were some in the opposition at the time who were not supportive of the member for Watson and the work he was doing—landed the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and brought it into law. The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, was very divisive on this issue, running up and down the Murray-Darling system saying one thing to one community and then something different to other communities. But the member for Watson persisted, with the support of the Labor government, and landed a historic piece of legislation.

The previous speaker was coming from the perspective of the old dichotomy of agriculture versus the environment when it comes to the Murray-Darling. The drought in South Australia reminded us all that, if you do not have a healthy system, you do not have the water you need for agriculture. We saw that with the Lower Lakes, where farmers were not even able to use the water in the Lower Lakes because of its salinity and other major issues with water quality. The water was of no use for anything. It was of no use for the environment; the environment down there was dying. Species were dying—we saw pictures of mass turtle graves. But it was no good for agriculture either. So this concept that it is agriculture versus the environment is a false dichotomy. I have persistently said in this debate that it is not a choice between agriculture and the environment; it is a choice between a healthy river system and an unhealthy one. It is a choice between a system that is sustainable and can continue to deliver all those things our nation needs—agriculture, drinking water and a healthy environment—and a system that is dying and that cannot meet any of those needs. We need to move away from this false dichotomy of agriculture versus the environment. We need to frame the debate about the choice between a healthy river system and an unhealthy river system—and an unhealthy river system is no good to anyone.

In that vein, I was very pleased when the member for Watson and the Labor government arrived at a target figure of 3,200 gigalitres for return to the river and the policy of achieving that through a mix of measures, including water buybacks and infrastructure projects—on-farm irrigation projects as well as some other major river engineering projects. Interestingly, in South Australia, we also had a great program about urban water conservation, and indeed, to this day, in my electorate and right around South Australia, we have some wonderful wetlands that are harvesting stormwater and providing that as potable water for our communities. So the infrastructure investment that was put in by the Labor government has been significant and important.

As I said, my reservations around this bill are to do with allowing the government of the day the flexibility to ensure that we meet the target of returning 3,200 gigalitres to the river system. Putting a cap on the amount that can be bought back through water purchases does limit that flexibility. I am not suggesting that all the water to be returned must be returned through buybacks. Infrastructure is of course an important element to becoming more water efficient, and I was able to see firsthand how some of that smart water efficiency can work in the Riverland. Indeed, we can save a lot of water by becoming smarter in the way we use it. But I do have reservations around the fact that, as a result of this bill, the flexibility will not be there to ensure that, from a macro perspective, we reach the target. There are also concerns around the cost of some of these infrastructure projects and whether or not we can deliver the water savings for a decent price, and I continue to hold those concerns.

So there are concerns around this, and I certainly will be holding the government to account. As I said, this legislation will pass with bipartisan support, but that is not to say that I will not be keeping a very careful eye on this government's progress when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin's restoration and the fact that we do need to get to that target of 3,200 gigalitres.

Some of those speaking for the other side in this debate have suggested that this is purely to do with drought and that there is not a concern about restoring water. That is incorrect. There has been a historic overallocation of water from the river, and that is why the Water Act and the agreements between all the basin states have been so critically important to addressing those historic overallocations, so that, when we do have times of drought, we do not see a system that is dead. That is of great concern, I know, to all South Australians.

Looking back to the drought, there is no doubt just how close we got to losing the Murray-Darling system. Parts of it were in deep, deep distress. Now we are starting to see those recovering. I am so pleased with the efforts of the Commonwealth watering agency; it has done a great job in bringing many wetlands along the basin back to health. Let us face it: it is not just about the river itself; the wetlands and the many other subsidiary water bodies also have an impact on the river's health, and certainly the Commonwealth watering authority has done a great job of ensuring that we are managing the water that we are bringing back to the system in a way that is bringing the basin back to health.

But I will continue to monitor this because—while there is no doubt that this is incredibly important for the nation—as the state at the end of the basin, there is not a state that depends and relies more than South Australia on a healthy Murray system to ensure that our state continues to thrive. As I mentioned, although in South Australia we are desperately working hard to diversify our drinking water sources, we still rely on the Murray-Darling for our potable water and so we continue to work very hard at the health of the system. I am very pleased that, for example, the McLaren Vale region, which used to use mains water to irrigate its vines, has moved almost predominantly to recycled water from the local sewage treatment plant. That is quite an innovative way. It would be unparliamentary to use the slang, but 'something to shiraz' is what it is labelled. But, of course, we have great shiraz from the region and indeed many other great wines as well. That is the innovation that is happening when it comes to water use, but we need to make sure, of course, that our basin stays strong.

So I will be ensuring that we hold the government to account with this piece of legislation to ensure that, as a result of this legislation and the flexibility that is lost, we will find the best way to return water to the system and achieve the goal that we set out to achieve, and that is to reach the 3,200 gigalitres. So I will continue to monitor this and to hold the government to account but, as I said, as a result of the collective support of the basin states, the opposition will support the government on this piece of legislation. But I will be watching this very carefully to ensure that the government does not back away from the very important task of bringing the basin back to health. This is a task that has eluded governments for decades and decades and decades, right from the beginning of our Federation. I hope that this is not a sign of the government walking away from that very important commitment to bring the system back to health.

See this speech in context