John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

As somebody who was very involved in this in the early days, I certainly want to speak on the Water Amendment Bill 2015. The whole issue is about providing water security into the future, and I would like to take time to reflect on the importance of a strategic plan for the Murray-Darling Basin and what it means for all those directly affected. I guess we are all well aware of the debate raging around the best plan for the basin, and that has changed at various times over the years. It is vital that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan be implemented in full, on time and effectively.

In this whole debate on drought, rain and everything else, I cannot believe how often it seems to be forgotten that communities right across the basin, particularly Calare communities, rely on that water source for various reasons. The legislation to cap water buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres will ensure certainty for farmers, for businesses and for the communities along the Murray-Darling Basin who rely totally, in some instances, on that water for the community, for their livelihood and, as it were, for their existence. It is no accident that, before Europeans got here, the kangaroos, the native people and everybody did not stray very far from the rivers except in very wet years. That is why there are more kangaroos in Australia today than there were then, simply because we have put water where the rivers do not. That is why the rivers are such a big deal to everyone.

There are actually three watersheds in Calare. There is the Sydney Basin on the eastern side, around Oberon and down through Lithgow. It is rather surprising to realise that water actually flows through the mountains—not west from them but through them to Sydney. We also have the Lachlan, which is probably the biggest part of the catchment in Calare, and the Macquarie. The Lachlan starts off in my colleague the member for Hume's electorate, flows into Wyangala Dam and down to Cowra, Forbes and Condobolin and out into the member for Parkes's electorate, and ends up in Sussan Ley's electorate. As to where it ends, I am pretty sure I am right in saying Senator Bill Heffernan, or his family, is probably the recipient, if it flows that far. This is something that Senator Wong could never get. She hit the Lachlan harder in her buybacks than any river pro rata in the whole basin. I used to say to her when I was the shadow minister, 'Why are you buying the livelihood of the Lachlan when it actually only gets into the system about two years in every hundred?' About one in 50 years the Lachlan actually runs into the Murray-Darling Basin out of its own borders, as it were. Of course, we also have the Macquarie. We get more irrigation in Calare from the Lachlan. Once again, the member for Parkes is a recipient of the Macquarie, with most of the irrigation. But still we have the Bogan running through us, and that is all part of the Macquarie system. The watershed runs quite a long way, up towards Oberon, and, of course, goes down through Warren, Nyngan and all of those towns until it also—much more frequently than the Lachlan—is part of the Murray-Darling system.

The catchment of the Lachlan is eight per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin and it is enormously important to my electorate. This legislation is integral to the coalition's plan for water security in Australia. It is a plan that will have real benefits for all stakeholders. Farmers in my electorate deserve to know where they stand. They deserve to have certainty and to know that there is not going to be something happening which will make water unavailable. Agriculture is obviously the catchments' main industry—40 per cent of the state's agricultural production, actually. The Lachlan and Macquarie Rivers irrigate land along the rivers, seeing the production of fruit, vegetables, cotton, fodder crops and cereal grains, and there are dairies, feedlots and piggeries that depend upon these rivers. The legislation ensures that these producers will be able to rely on the water source into the future. It is a strategy that will ensure viability today, tomorrow and into the future.

I think it is forgotten sometimes that back in 2007, when we took the emergency measures that had to be taken, without the dam system, those rivers would have been dry. There were quite a few times, I have no doubt, that the Murray would have stopped running without the dam system. I think people have to remember that that was a one-in-100-year situation. You can only go so far in cutting out people's ability to use water simply because at some stage in 100 years there is going to be a severe water shortage. Without storage, there is absolutely no doubt that not only the environment but everybody else will run out of water at some stage. I think the way that nothing has happened about water storage in many years in the Murray-Darling Basin and elsewhere is pretty shameful.

As I said, the legislation ensures the water availability into the future, its viability and its strategic, long-term ability to look after our those communities, be they farming or whatever else. The government is delivering on its pre-election commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin communities by introducing this bill. I appreciate the previous speaker saying that the opposition is agreeing with us on this. But we are determined to prioritise water recovery efforts through investment. The original plan was to get the water savings through efficiencies, through working with the community, particularly with farmers, to be able to make efficiencies, save water and share the savings. That went into Senator Wong deciding she had to buy all the water in Australia rather than do it by efficiencies and savings. But where we are at today—I think we all have to agree that enough is enough. We have to look after the environment: no argument. But we also have to be very aware of the people who depend upon that water for livelihood, for community, for urban issues, for manufacturing, for everything. Water cannot be our master; it must be part of the community.

Mechanisms will be in place to ensure the caps are in force. The government reports progress on water recovery on the Department of the Environment website, and this practice will endure following the passage of the bill. We have a commitment to long-term water viability for everyone. You cannot satisfy everyone up where the water is gathered and you cannot satisfy everyone totally down the other end, so everything has to be a compromise. When something as precious as water, something that none of us can exist without—whether it is for lifestyle, whether it is for production, no matter what it is, at the end of the day we all need it; at the end of the day we cannot go without it. And if you live in a city you are a recipient of the benefits of that water, what it produces and the quality of what it does.

I am not going to say very much more except that this is a necessary piece of legislation, because those who live with it and use it need to have certainty. They need the ability to get water back where necessary when it is spare. The environment, I think, has been well looked after in all this—far better than most people would have thought it would be. As I said, everything has to be compromise between the needs of everybody but at the end of the day none of us is going to exist without water and what it produces. I commend this bill to the House. I appreciate very much the fact that we are agreeing on the Water Amendment Bill. I just hope that in 100 years time when we next have a drought—I think the Lachlan in six years out of seven had no allocation at all. We have to have a future. We have to have water. I commend this bill to the House and I thank the opposition for working with us on it.

See this speech in context