Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Given the parliament's endorsement of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, does the minister have a view on statements from New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson opposing restrictions on groundwater use in the Basin Plan because of her concerns that it may impact on coal seam gas and coal developments on the Liverpool Plains and other areas? Is this further evidence of the need for the Commonwealth to act on independent bioregional assessments as part of an objective planning process?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for New England for his question. There is probably no area of water reform more complex, and where the science involves more variables, than underground water. In terms of the plan, there was a significant difference of opinion between what New South Wales officials believed was a sustainable use of groundwater and what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority believed was a sustainable use of groundwater. On Eastern Porous, which covers the Gunnedah area right through to Sydney Basin, there was a difference—not massive—of around 15 gigalitres; on Western Porous the difference was massive. Where the authority was recommending 116 gigalitres as being sustainable, New South Wales believed that figure should have been 222 gigalitres. In the community meetings no issue caused more unity between people who looked at it from a conservation perspective and people who looked at it from a production perspective than making sure we were careful on groundwater. What was said in the meeting in Adelaide and what was said in the meeting in Griffith, and the members of parliament who were present at those meetings will know this, indicated that the issue of groundwater was a very real concern and people wanted us to take a cautious approach on it.

The New South Wales government is asking us to not have a further scientific process to resolve this issue. I am not willing to agree to that, the environmental movement would not support that and irrigation communities would not support that, and it would be taking a risk with the Murray-Darling Basin that I am not prepared to recommend this parliament take. For that reason we have within the plan a scientific process to go through a full scientific verification over two years covering what New South Wales believes are the right figures and what the authority believes are the sustainable figures. If the scientific evidence ends up showing that the New South Wales figures are sustainable, then they would be allowed to go ahead. You can go through all the challenges that communities will go through to deliver a good outcome on surface water; but, if you take an unreasonable risk with ground water, the whole thing gets undone—and that is a risk that the government are not prepared to take, that we do not believe we could recommend to this parliament. While New South Wales might be willing to ask us to take that sort of risk without the scientific evidence, it is something that I could never recommend as a sustainable option for the Murray-Darling Basin.