Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the national water plan, and will the states benefit by supporting this plan?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question and for the very considerable assistance that she and many of her constituents have given us in the preparation of the Water Bill 2007, which I trust will pass through this parliament this week. This will in large measure implement the National Plan for Water Security in respect of the Murray-Darling Basin. It will enable us for the first time to effect this historic change to the way water is managed in our most important river system.

The government looks ahead; it has a vision for the future—not simply beyond an election or five years, but decades into the future—to ensure that the Murray River and its tributaries in the Murray-Darling Basin are managed sustainably. Honourable members opposite scoff. It is that sort of contempt for the environmental needs of our biggest river system and for the sustainability of irrigated agriculture that has characterised Labor Party policy on water for decades. That is why long-term reform is overdue and it took the courage of this government to undertake it.

For the first time we will have a basin run as one, with a Murray-Darling Basin Authority that sets an enforceable basin-wide cap on sustainable diversions. We will have a working water market and consistent water pricing; we will have a basin environmental watering plan and an environmental water holder that will purchase and deliver environmental water. This is the most fundamental reform of water management in our history and it took the vision of this government, looking decades into the future, to offer that to the parliament.

The state governments have an enormous amount to gain by supporting this water reform plan and signing the intergovernmental agreement that this government will offer them. It is a great pity that alone of the basin states Victoria chose not to support the comprehensive water plan. That is why we are legislating now relying only on our constitutional powers. The consequence of Victoria’s not supporting the IGA will be that the federal government will not invest in the off-farm water infrastructure belonging to state government authorities in Victoria. The Victorian government estimated last week that the cost of upgrading its ageing and very leaky water infrastructure was $2 billion, but it has committed only half that amount. By its own admission it is at least $1 billion short. If it refuses to sign the IGA on the misguided, politically driven agenda it is pursuing it will deprive itself and the communities that depend on that infrastructure of this substantial injection of Commonwealth funds.