Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 from last year. As I think all of us in this place know, disagreement over the management of our most important river system and out most important food bowl predates Federation. The first conference on the Murray was held in 1863, many decades before Federation. The Federation Drought brought the new states together in Corowa in 1902, which eventually led to the River Murray Waters Agreement in 1915 and the formation of the River Murray Commission in 1917.

The imports of the basin to agriculture in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, particularly following those reforms, led to the construction of a number of dams, weirs and locks throughout the system. By the late 1960s, drought, the over-extraction of water for irrigation and rising salinity began to put the health of the Murray-Darling system on the radar. Fast forward to the drought of the early 2000s, the Millennium Drought, and it was clear that more needed to be done. Under the Howard government, the National Water Initiative was agreed by the parties and the Water Act was passed through this parliament in 2007. And now, thanks in significant part to the former minister for water the member for Watson, we have a plan that is restoring our rivers to health, supporting strong regional communities and ensuring sustainable food and fibre production through the basin.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan had bipartisanship support at the federal level in this parliament as well as the support of all the basin states—South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT. Importantly, it also had the support of farming, environmental and Indigenous groups. Since the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's inception, over 1,900 gigalitres of water has been recovered for the environment. This is water that can be used at appropriate times and where it is needed to improve flows and help restore health throughout the system of the rivers. Already we have seen successful water releases overseen by the independent Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder as well as the state and regional water management agencies. Importantly, there has been very significant Commonwealth investment in ensuring that farms remain productive as the plan is delivered.

Two million dollars a day is being and will be spent on efficiency and infrastructure measures out to 2019. This is not just a significant amount of money; it is a significant commitment to the Basin Plan and to the health of our rivers and the ecosystems and regional communities that that river systems supports. Not everyone obviously got everything that they wanted from the plan but it does retain significant support throughout the system.

Handing the water portfolio to the National Party and to the agriculture portfolio has been another serious blow we think to Malcolm Turnbull's environmental credibility. This was a decision that was resisted by four successive Prime Ministers. Prime Ministers Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbott all saw the importance of ensuring that the implementation of the Basin Plan was overseen by officials and scientists in the environment portfolio rather than the agriculture portfolio. The best way to ensure our limited and precious water resources are properly allocated to our food and fibre production in a sustainable way is to have water policy based on science and productivity rather than on Barnaby Joyce's leadership campaign or abandoned or sold off as part of a political horse trade. That is why Labor is committed to retaining the water portfolio with the environment portfolio in our shadow ministry.

It is important that we all understand the environmental needs of the rivers within the basin system to ensure sustainable communities and sustainable food and fibre production. There are approximately 30,000 wetlands in the basin, over 60 species of fish, 124 families of macroinvertebrates, 98 species of waterbird, four threatened water-dependent ecological communities and literally hundreds of plant species that are supported by key floodplains. The health of the river channels themselves and the flora and fauna that they support are not only vital in their own rights but vital for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities.

The Aboriginal nations and communities in the basin also want, and should have, access to the flows that they need to ensure the continuation of their culture and their social and economic wellbeing. Aboriginal people obviously feel a deep connection to their land as well as the waters that flow through and across those lands and this needs to be recognised and provided for, not as an exercise in patronage but by ensuring that Aboriginal people are empowered through governance and water rights.

When environmental water is released into the river and over the wetlands Aboriginal expertise needs to be sought and needs to be heeded. The deep knowledge of Aboriginal people about our river systems means that they have vital advice to give our water managers that if heeded can add great value to the work of those managers. Groups such as the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations and the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations have a lot to offer us if we listen. Engagement with Aboriginal people in the basin cannot be done simply as a tick a box exercise. Proper ongoing engagement will benefit all of us.

This bill implements a number of recommendations from the review of the Water Act that was conducted through 2014, including: firstly, to allow the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to invest in non-water environmental activities so that the holder is not restricted just to water; secondly, to provide for greater incorporation of Indigenous expertise in the governance of the Murray-Darling Basin water resources for the reasons I just outlined; thirdly, to implement five-yearly reviews of the social and economic impacts of the Basin Plan; and, finally, to implement a number of minor administrative and technical amendments.

Concerns have been raised that these changes could create a slippery slope towards the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder buying significantly less water. The opposition are seeking the detail of those regulations that will be in place to ensure that a significant majority of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's expenditure will still be on water. We are also concerned that adjustments to the purchasing parameters of the Environmental Water Holder may have unintended and detrimental consequences on the spending patterns or commitments of other parties to the Basin Plan.

There is no definition of 'environmental activities' to assist in the assessment of non-water purchases. While the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is required to operate consistently with the Basin Plan and its environmental water objectives, this still may have the potential to be broadly interpreted. Labor will be monitoring the appropriate balance between flexibility in the water holder's activities and clarity regarding what activities might be contemplated under these amendments.

There are adjustments to the timeline of key review points and milestones in the Water Act and the Basin Plan which the opposition thinks broadly make sense. There may, however, be some practical issues with reporting on environmental outcomes as long-term watering plans will not have been in place for long prior to the reporting date. Delivering interim results will be important for transparency and for public confidence. By this stage water recovery will have been undertaken for nine years and the environmental outcomes achieved should be made publicly available to the fullest extent possible. Stakeholders as well as the signatories to the Basin Plan want stability on continuity around the Basin Plan and these changes, if well managed, should not adversely impact those objectives.

The success of the Basin Plan rested, as I said in my opening remarks, on the support particularly of both major parties in this parliament as well as the agreement of all the basin states—South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT—as well obviously as very deep engagement, not always easy engagement, with the full range of stakeholders: irrigators, farmers, environmental groups, Indigenous communities and many more. An important driver in Labor's support for this bill and some other amendments to the Water Act that were proposed by the government last year is the agreement that the government has obtained to these measures from all of the basin states in order to maintain that political consensus—as I said, the two major parties in this parliament and the governments of all of the basin states—for the ongoing implementation of a plan that is overwhelmingly in the national interest.

Labor supports retaining a bipartisan approach to the implementation of this plan, but I want to reiterate that we do not support the water portfolio's shift to the department of agriculture—a shift that is very difficult to analyse other than it being a shift driven by base political motives on the part of the new Prime Minister trying, at that time, to cobble support for his new administration and new government.

Stakeholders from both irrigator and environmental groups have expressed concern about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan becoming politicised to the point of detriment, and they have asked that there be no major changes to the plan that would disturb the political consensus I talked about. These stakeholders have told us that what is most important for them is stability, predictability and consistency, so we do not propose to hold up this legislation that we broadly support. We will though—for the reasons I have already outlined—be seeking greater clarity around some of the points I addressed, and we will be closely monitoring the progress of these amendments.

Labor supports this bill. Labor does not support the water portfolio's shift to the department of agriculture. We are convinced that the health of the Murray-Darling Basin is not Minister Joyce's overarching priority in taking on this portfolio. We will continue to monitor his administration of this very important national reform, but the opposition will support the passage of this bill.

See this speech in context