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

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this Water Amendment (Review Implementation And Other Measures) Bill 2015, and I might make some comments on the shadow minister's contribution. I do acknowledge that he is supporting this bill and I do agree with him that the stakeholders, in the basin, are looking for a resolution and completion of the plan.

I will disagree with him about the portfolio going to agriculture. Quite frankly, in the eight years that I have been here, it has only been under the directorship of Minister Joyce that we have started to see some practical outcomes and support for this. Unfortunately, I have been witness to ideological decisions made, here. Undoubtedly, the biggest one was prior to the 2013 election when there was a 450 gig allocation made without any scientific backing at all.

I acknowledge that the Murray-Darling Basin does need to have respect for nurturing agricultural communities and the environment from one end of it to the other. I speak with some authority on this as someone who represents 25 per cent of the basin and, with voters willing, after the next election, somewhat more than that from the Lower Darling to the Queensland border. Those rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin are the lifeblood of those communities.

The shadow minister mentioned the importance of engaging the Aboriginal people in those areas. I do agree that the river is very important to those constituents of mine. There is no greater example of this than the community of Brewarrina where the historic fish traps are located. The whole focus of Brewarrina and the other river communities is that river. It is the lifeblood of the town.

This bill, basically, is implementing the 23 recommendations of the review of the Water Act. I will not go into all of them, but a significant one is the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the CEWH, having the ability to trade in the water market. I certainly do not see this as the CEWH becoming a proxy licence holder for Commonwealth water. Far from it. But it is important that the CEWH has the flexibility to trade surplus water and use those funds for other measures that will benefit the basin. At the moment, the CEWH is restricted by having to use the money gained from water sold to purchase more water, which belies the real purpose of selling the water in the first place.

That will be a major change. It will also put some flexibility into the system. In my eight years, here, I have heard countless speeches on the state of the Murray-Darling Basin, and they have been driven through the eyes of ideologues. The part of the basin I represent is an ephemeral system. The rivers in the northern basin are ephemeral rivers. Traditionally, they go from periods of flood and high flow to periods of low flow and, in some cases, no flow. We need to remind ourselves that we are dealing with an ephemeral stream and no two events, in the basin, are the same. There is great expectation, as water is running over weirs in the Warrego River in Queensland, that this water can make it through to New South Wales and give some relief to the Darling River in western New South Wales, because no two rainfall events are the same.

A system that does not have the flexibility to review what is working and what is not has a negative effect and makes it very difficult for stakeholders to work their way through the issues we need to deal with. A lot of the assumptions that were made back in the early days of this reform process were merely assumptions. Now, as we are 10 years through the process, we have data to put against those assumptions and review whether those assumptions were correct and, if they were not correct, whether we need to make some changes and finetune things.

One thing for sure is that we need to have maturity with our approach to this. This is not about South Australia versus Victoria versus New South Wales versus Queensland. We all rely on the health of that river and we all should have some understanding of the system. In my area several of the major rivers are terminal; they do not run into the Darling. They are isolated. We should have acknowledgement that it is not a connected plumbing system and that it is complex and that it changes on a regular basis. We do have iconic environmental assets, of which the shadow minister spoke. In my part of the world we have the Macquarie Marshes and the Gwydir wetlands. These areas have great significance and are of environmental importance, but it should not be one versus the other. There is no reason why water cannot be used for production, amenity, Aboriginal cultural purposes and also for environmental purposes. The water can be reused as it makes its way down the system, and we should have the flexibility to recognise that.

This legislation follows on from legislation, introduced by the minister before Christmas, that capped the buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres. I need to reinforce that that is a cap—it is not an aspiration; it is not a target. That legislation and this legislation having bipartisan support and a genuine feeling of cooperation to get to the end of the plan with reasonable outcomes is very important because at the moment there has been a lot of talk—in this place in particular but around Australia—of the growing world population and of the free markets that we have opened up in countries to our north in Asia and there is a great amount of interest in investing in agriculture. But unless there is some security attached to water within the bounds of climatic variation, unless there is some security that people can purchase land and purchase water with a degree of competence that, all things being equal, they will be able to use that water to produce food or fibre, then investment in regional areas is going to be somewhat curtailed.

I believe that the communities in the basin—and I can speak for the ones in my area—are reformed to the back teeth. They have had enough of reform. They went through a period of state government reform before this plan was enacted. It was conceived 10 years ago. They have gone through 10 years of this and, quite frankly, they have had enough. They want some certainty. They want to be able to focus back on how they are going to produce what they need to. They need to focus on having sustainability in their communities, and communities in my area such as Warren, Moree, Bourke, Narrabri and many others have had huge effects from the loss of water. At the moment plantings of irrigated crops in the Parkes electorate are very minimal because our storages are very low. This is more a result of the drought than anything to do with the basin plan.

I very much support this process. I am committed to working within the communities in my electorate. After the next election, should I be successful in contesting my electorate, I will be representing the community of Broken Hill. I also acknowledge that that community has very serious issues with a safe and regular water supply and that my colleagues in the New South Wales government who are responsible for supplying urban water are working very closely with that community at the moment to find a resolution that will give some comfort to the residents of Broken Hill. They have my full support in that.

We are on our way to having a plan in place. This bill will allow for five-yearly reviews so that we have the flexibility to make the changes that need to be made. I would like to acknowledge the people in my electorate who have been actively involved in this process. They have done it in a magnanimous way. Some peak bodies are my irrigator groups. I have members of the community that are involved in other reviews on the social and economic benefits

They are taking their jobs very seriously to make sure that we have a plan that is fair and sustainable and that looks after the communities, the environment and agricultural production. This bill has my complete support.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. I believe it is an important first step on the road to a better Basin Plan. I am delighted to follow my colleague the member for Parkes, who, as he just explained, will get the support he talked about wanting to get. I know he will be the next member for Broken Hill and he will, like me, fall in love with the far west of New South Wales—the far west that he does not already know—and also come to appreciate the real difficulties that are being faced by people on different parts of our river systems when it comes to how we best support our communities in the context of this Basin Plan. The redistribution in New South Wales will see me take on the areas of Griffith, Leeton, Narrandera, Coleambally and Hillston and I am very excited about that. I am sad to lose the territory that I have just talked about. I believe the electorate of Farrer will indeed become the home of irrigated agriculture.

We have an opportunity to speak up for what we do, how well we do it and why we need to continue to have the access to the infrastructure that enables farmers and farming families to be innovative, to grow food, to do it differently than their fathers and their grandfathers did, to come up with new ideas for new investments, to add value to a commodity and to transport that to market. We have seen that so successfully with the rice industry. I know there are increasing plantings of cotton in my area and also in the area of the member for Parkes. Clearly the vertical integration of our agricultural industries is something that does add value, that does employ people and that does grow jobs. It is interesting and it is fascinating to acquaint yourself with the many different farmers, their families, their livelihoods, their histories and their contribution to this nation.

I am sometimes very sad by the lack of understanding on the eastern seaboard. If you look at New South Wales, it is very much defined by the Great Dividing Range and that is indeed the city-country divide. I am sad that there is such little understanding of what happens on the western side of the range. Even in my 15 years in parliament, I have noticed that that trend has only increased. We are facing a challenge when it comes to the implementation of the Basin Plan because when we talk about it in this place, when the member for Parkes talks about it, when the member for Barker—who will be in after me, who represents irrigators in South Australia and who is in doing a fantastic job in his electorate and I say that with my Minister for Health hat on—talks about it and after the contribution we heard from the member for Murray—also a great friend of mine across the river in Victoria—we get a sympathetic hearing but we do not always feel that we are getting our message across, not just in here but out there in the wider population, because 85 per cent of Australians now live 50 kilometres or closer to the coast.

I talked about vertical integration and the rice industry and I am very sad that recently we lost 50 jobs, most of them in the Deniliquin rice mill and some of them in Leeton. Sunrice is indeed an iconic Australian company. It punches above its weight in world markets. During the drought the way it kept its brand alive was truly remarkable. So when you buy your Sunrice packet, you might not always have Australian rice in there but you know that you have the quality that you have come to expect and you also know you are supporting a great Australian company.

So because of principally low water allocations this year, we do not have the rice crop that we had last year and those jobs have had to go. Whenever you lose jobs in rural areas, the effect is much bigger than it is anywhere else and indeed it is big enough in the cities as well. While I am sad, I am not despondent about the future; I am optimistic about the future. I know that while we had low allocations this year, those allocations can increase next year. We have had 100 per cent allocations before and we will again. The lack of inflow into the catchment has been the primary reason for general security allocations in the New South Wales Murray River system being around 12 per cent. That is not enough. While some farmers were able to run a dryland program and did very well because cattle prices and prime lamb prices were pretty high as were the prices for other cereals. They did not, in many cases, use their water to grow a rice crop. They sold it and, while the sale price might have been reasonable, effectively, that production went down the river to somewhere else.

There is always good and bad when it comes to reform. The good in the freeing up of the water market does mean that your water has a value. You can sell it on the temporary water market and you can realise a reasonable income from it. That, as I said, is a good thing. The bad thing is that you do not grow a crop—the jobs in the rice mill are not there. You do not have something happening on your farm that is producing income for Australia and your community tends to suffer as a result because activity becomes depressed. We are not happy with the state of affairs with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in my area and we want the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the architects of the plan to deliver the flexibility that I know is in there.

Some people are asking that the plan be torn up and thrown away or paused. I do not support that. I support some aspects being placed, if you like, in a holding pattern while closer observation is made of the effect that some things are having—particularly the constraints management strategy—on those who have their farms along the river, who are simply looking at being flooded by this delivery of water further downstream. We need to take a close look and do that in a sensible way. But there has been a massive coming together around this plan, and all of the pain that it has caused needs to be worth something. We will get there. We will get to a point where farmers and communities can feel that they are confident in what is being done—often, they feel, to them—by government.

I have a simple measure of when this will be achieved. It will be when people can say they have confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, they have confidence in its policies and they have confidence in what is happening around them on their farms, in their river systems, in their local land services—and that simply is not the case. So I simply stand here as a local member reporting those feelings, those passions, those views and those concerns. But, again, I am optimistic. We will work with local communities. Yes, there will be changes to the plan, and some of those changes have been foreshadowed in this water amendment bill, and I support all of them.

My communities were consulted very strongly. They had the opportunity to have their say, and there is broad support. I thank the Minister for Agriculture and Water, because he has taken a close interest in this bill and in what we might do next. I do not want communities to say, 'Okay, governments have done what they are going to do. That is it. They think it is all sorted,' because I know it is not. So this is an important first step, as I said, on the road to a better Basin Plan—one that does not give everyone everything that they want, because it never can, when you consider the variety of needs in the basin. But I know that I can agree with my colleague the member for Barker, who represents South Australian irrigators, and I can agree with a lot of people in the city of Adelaide, and they can agree with us. What national governments have to do is to capture all of these views and put them together in one place.

There needs to be recognition that the massive social upheaval that has happened in irrigated agriculture in parts of the basin has changed the face of these communities forever. People have accepted that, but we need to acknowledge what it has done and we need to acknowledge the changes that have been wrought upon families and their farms and of course their finances. We have to acknowledge that it has not been easy. When we are in a position to make some changes to the plan, in consultation with the authority or through the authority—because it is, after all, an independent body that manages these things—then we should stand ready, and we do, to support that.

So I am really pleased that the minister is just finding a date to come and talk personally to my communities and hear from them directly, even though, having had the portfolio in opposition, he is familiar with our needs and where we are coming from. I am pleased that the new CEO of the MDBA, Phillip Glyde, took the time to come through some of my communities, principally Deniliquin, recently. It was about his first week in the job—he had not even got his feet under the desk. That was terrific, and it was terrific that, as he sat down with the various groups that I asked him to meet, he said: 'Give it to me straight. Tell me what you have not liked. Tell me about your interactions with the authority. Tell me what it has meant to you and where you think we could improve.' I do not think I have seen a CEO with his guard down to the extent that Phillip Glyde had on that day, and we really appreciated it.

As I said before—and it is not an easy thing to say—we do need a change of culture at the MDBA. We actually need the people who work in areas quite remote from the basin to spend more time in the basin. It would be great if some jobs could be located there. I know that is not always going to be possible. We certainly need those people to spend some more time in the basin. Their consultations have not always been good ones, and sometimes it is a challenge and sometimes they need to spend a bit more time listening and a bit less time talking. Their consultations need to be more meaningful and they need to explain, to understand and to take these messages back, because, if the authority takes messages back to the agriculture minister, with that can come the impetus for change, can come the requests that we are making. This is not about us and them, and it cannot be, but it is about improving the lot of the people that I represent.

I talked about confidence. The confidence that we need could come, for example, from an audit of what is going on with the environmental watering system, because the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, constrained by legislation, less constrained after these water amendments pass—again, that is a really good thing—is responsible for the watering plan. When you go through all this pain that I have talked about, when you go through this massive social adjustment, you want to know that the water that has been bought by the Commonwealth, that is being retained and that is being delivered across the basin is actually delivering the positive environmental outcome that underpins the policy in the first place. That will go a long way to providing the confidence that we need.

I am very committed to our local land services playing a role in that, because they work in the basin; they live in the basin. They are foresters, fishers. They are absolutely networked with our farm communities. They know everyone. They know the history. They are not there as a partisan group; they are actually, in the best possible way, a disinterested party when it comes to allocations, to productivity, but they understand the geography and the landscape and what works and what does not work when it comes to the important issue of environmental watering. We cannot go through all this and not have the environmental tick that we know we need. It would be a mistake to think that the people I represent do not want to see healthy rivers, healthy systems. But, my goodness, they want to see healthy communities, and they deserve the investment that this government is making. There are a lot of dollars attached to this process. The minister has talked about them. They deserve that investment to work for them, to deliver them a future for their children, a future that they can be confident is a bright one.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In reflecting on the contribution the Minister for Health just made in her capacity representing irrigators, I note that it is great that we are now at a place with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement where we can agree much more often than we disagree—and that is both with colleagues interstate and also across the divide. It ought to be remembered—constituents in my electorate remember this because this is so important to them—that it is seminal that this agreement has been negotiated by those opposite, and my constituents are grateful for it. We are in an environment, in this space at least, that is bipartisan—and it should be, because this river and its communities are so important.

I support the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. I have reflected many times in this place on the vibrant agricultural capacity of my electorate of Barker. In my first speech in this place I said that Barker is an electorate that has given so much and asked so little in return. The engine room of regional South Australia, if you like, Barker produces over 50 per cent of the valuable agricultural produce of that state. Barker is an electorate gifted with abundant natural resources perfectly suited to agricultural production. Through the efforts of migrants such as my own parents, a vast and productive agricultural sector has thrived across the region that I have called home since my birth. From the volcanic regions of the South to the Riverland in the north, human enterprise and Australian ingenuity has harnessed these natural resources and delivered to the world a broad spectrum of first-class agricultural products.

Be it on the universally renowned floor of the Barossa Valley or the vast expanses of the plains of the Murray lands and Mallee; Barker delivers some of the very best produce to the world. Be it grain, vegetables, fruit, timber or livestock for meat and dairy, Barker continually delivers. In communities like Angaston, Waikerie, Penola, Karoonda, Loxton, Lucindale, Meningie and Lameroo, Barker delivers. The undying industry that typifies the actions of the residents of my electorate is an inspiration to me. I have often said that I would be Barker's voice in Canberra and not Canberra's voice in Barker, because, as I said in my first speech, Barker is an electorate that has delivered so much but sought so little in return. Decisions made here in the national capital with respect to water management have the capacity, as we heard from the Minister for Health and other members, to have an intense impact on our parts of this vast nation.

As the son of irrigators, I understand the importance of effective management of water resources, as do farmers and producers across my electorate but particularly in river communities. I share their frustration with the often opaque labyrinth that is the bureaucratic system of water management in our country. Water management specifically in the Murray Darling Basin is an issue of the utmost importance, particularly for my constituents who derive their income from it. The debate surrounding water management in this country is particularly difficult to access even if it directly affects you or your business—the layers of bureaucracy can seem suffocating. Further, it is an issue that many in metropolitan parts of this nation do not fully appreciate the significant impacts mismanagement of water can have on food and water security in our urban centres. Adelaide is a perfect case in point.

Given my electorate is a regional one which derives much of its enterprise from the agricultural sector it is unsurprising that the management of our water resources is one of my primary concerns in this place, especially given my electorate's position at, effectively, the end of the river—beholden, if you like, to those upstream. As the member for Barker, effectively I am the member for the River Murray in South Australia. That is why I am actively engaged on the issue of water management and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and that is why I am encouraged that we have the plan and that we are working to ensure it is implemented on time and in full. In this regard I have to acknowledge my friend and mentor Neil Andrew, who has taken the chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—and a better man in that position there could not be. Of course he was also Speaker of this place in his capacity as the member for Wakefield. I have spoken about our delicate place in the ecosystem of the river. That is because we are at the end of the basin and we are beholden to the water management architecture of the basin and particularly the upstream system. All members in this place can agree that our water resource is one of our most precious resources in this nation, and indeed Australia is often touted as the driest inhabitable continent on earth.

I am proud to say the coalition has a strong track record of delivering water reform for the benefit of the nation, and the bill before the House is part of that continuing tradition. Under the Howard government, the Council of Australian Governments agreed in 2004 to the National Water Initiative, laying the foundation for nationally consistent water planning and management for rural and urban use. In 2004! We were talking about the need to manage the River Murray in the national interest prior to Federation, so that was a significant step. We saw then that more coherent policies in this space balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes. In 2015 the current government continued this tradition through the establishment of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. It is a fund which is directed at building and upgrading dams and pipelines and it undertakes the management of aquifer recharge. The fund is one which will aid in securing the nation's water supplies and will deliver strong economic benefits for Australia, while also protecting our precious environment.

I am fortified by the actions this government is taking in delivering the most significant water infrastructure program in Australian history. We are investing a whopping $2.5 million a day in the future sustainability of irrigated agriculture right out to 2019, and $13 billion has been committed to basin initiatives between now and 2024, with the majority of funds assisting irrigators and communities to make more efficient use of the basin's water resources in the production of food and fibre. This government attaches the gravity that effective management of our water resources demands. Many of us on this side of the parliament, including me, appreciate the very high value of water through firsthand experience working the land.

Our commitment to more-effective water resource infrastructure represents the biggest investment, in real terms, that has been made by the Commonwealth since building the Snowy hydro scheme, which of course was an important infrastructure project in and of itself. This investment is already delivering excellent results for both on-farm and off-farm infrastructure projects, with more than 10,000 individual irrigators benefiting from infrastructure renewal and upgrades.

The legislation before the House complements our investment in the Murray-Darling Basin water infrastructure through delivering more-effective management. The two go hand in hand. Of course, we require that most desperately. This legislation moves us towards a more effective management of our water resources. It does this through making the legislative amendments required to implement the government's response to the Report of the independent review of the Water Act 2007. This bill draws on the findings of the Water Act review, which employed a comprehensive consultation process across our electorates. The process was conducted in the basin states of Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and my very own state of South Australia. Drawing on the experience of a broad range of stakeholders, the consultation process engaged key industry groups, environmental organisations and basin Indigenous groups for their perspectives on an exposure draft of the bill.

Consistent with the recommendations of the Water Act review, this bill will deliver for farmers across the basin states. It will implement measures to ensure environmental water resources are managed as efficiently and effectively as possible; it will deliver a more transparent and effective water market; it will ensure better evaluation and monitoring of the social, economic and environmental effects of the Basin Plan; and it will achieve a net reduction in the regulatory burden on farmers, through cutting unnecessary and inefficient red tape and regulation.

The coalition is working with industry to identify further options to improve the transparency of the water market, something I am sure the member for Murray will address in this House shortly. Ultimately, this government aims to deliver a transparent market that delivers better access to water at a reasonable cost rather than a system that impedes access to water allocations, as occurs in some cases under the current arrangements. This government is pursuing an improvement in the quality and availability of market information for water users across the basin through measures within the legislation that is before the House. We are also committed to bringing forward legislation this year to establish a foreign ownership of water entitlements register and, in so doing, delivering more transparency to our water market.

Importantly, this bill comes on the back of a decision and legislation in this House to cap water buybacks at 1,500 gigs. We heard from the Minister for Health how important river communities are, how important it is that they remain vibrant and that there have to be sustainable levels of economic activity within those communities. The Water Amendment Bill 2015, which came before the House late last year and, thankfully, was passed in both places, is a significant fillip in that regard. It is of course a cap, not a target, but it provides some certainty to communities that we will not see wholesale buybacks, which effectively operate as kryptonite to communities, in my view. Nothing is truer than that buybacks kill communities.

In addition, the Water Act review and its recommendations highlighted an inconsistency related to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. If he—or she; obviously, it is 'he' at the moment—as the largest water holder in this country were to trade in his water, or the Commonwealth's water, the income from that trade would need to be put towards buybacks. Of course, given we have indicated a preference to avoid buybacks, that was inconsistent. I am pleased to say that that is no longer the case. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder can now enter the market, provide water into the market in times of high flow, thereby, we hope, putting downward pressure on the price of that water, and the revenue that is derived from that transaction or that temporary trade can be used for works and measures, not dedicated specifically to buybacks. I commend the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources for having consulted and heard the backbench and for coming to that decision.

The residents of my electorate of Barker sent me here to advocate for their interests, and I thank them for that privilege every day. This legislation is not a silver bullet. I am sure the member for Murray would agree with that sentiment. We are not going to solve the many challenges facing the management of water resources in the basin through this bill alone, but it is a step in the right direction. Implementing the measures within this bill will improve the practical operation of the Water Act to better support the economic, social and environmental benefits of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

As many farmers across Barker and, indeed, across all the basin states will attest to, the journey to this point has been a long one and it has been difficult. Sadly, there is more work to do. I acknowledge that we still have much, much more work to do. But I am heartened by the coalition government taking a measured and responsible approach to reforming our water resource management. I welcome further reform in this space as we continue to strive for better outcomes for our irrigators. I will continue to fight for a better future for farmers from Loxton to Renmark, from Mannum to Murray Bridge and, indeed, right across the basin—not just in my electorate but, in the national interest, the length of the river, throughout the Murray-Darling Basin.

I said when the minister for agriculture took responsibility for water, when the portfolio responsibilities changed, that I would maintain a watching brief on behalf of the people of South Australia. I continue to do that, but I am pleased to report to the House that this is a positive step, most certainly in the right direction, and I congratulate and thank the minister. I welcome his continued commitment to acting in the national interest throughout the basin. I commend this bill to the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to stand to speak to the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. There are some elements of it which are long overdue, in particular the whole business of making sure the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is able to sell its water onto the irrigators market without it having to go into the irrigators market to buy back more water. I strongly believe that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder has deliberately only traded several times, despite the urgent need for that water to be placed back in the irrigators market, because he knew how much distress would be caused by CEWH being seen to further erode the viability of irrigation systems and farm properties by clawing more water out of that productive part of the system.

The Murray-Darling Basin is an extraordinary part of Australia. It is the biggest fertile crescent in the country. It supports millions of people. It is the most valuable and profitable part of the food and fibre production enterprise in the country. It is not exactly news to anybody that what we called the millennium drought was one of the longest and most sustained droughts of the history of Australia. It began, roughly, in about 1995 and finally dissipated in about 2010. In the middle of that worst drought on record, we in the coalition government under the leadership of John Howard introduced the Water Act 2007. The now Prime Minister was one of the chief architects of the Water Act 2007. He wanted to make sure, in fact the act was designed to make sure, there were key, deliverable, balanced social, economic and environmental outcomes for the Murray-Darling Basin. Those were extraordinary times. There was great distress as a consequence of the drought, but the Water Act 2007 was enacted.

The amendments we are discussing tonight have had a lot of exposure to the basin community. Most of these amendments received strong support from the basin community, but they do not go far enough, as most of us in this place have been commenting tonight. I am sad that it is only now after a number of years, when it was obvious we were amending the part of the act which required the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, if it traded, to have to buy back more water. That is a very important amendment, one that I wholeheartedly support. It is a fact that, despite a triple bottom-line outcome being required in the Water Act 2007, the amendment of item 13 of section 22(1) will provide that in addition to the five-yearly reviews of the water quality and salinity targets and the environmentally watering plan there will be a five-yearly review of the social and economic impacts of the Basin Plan. Such impact assessments are essential, and it is remarkable that we need to add those to the act now.

There has been some socioeconomic impact work done in the basin, but it has been poorly done. It has been done by vested interests, who came up with statements like 'willing sellers' when, for example, the environment minister of the day, Penny Wong, was active in the irrigators market offering tenders of up to $50 million. The banks saw this as a great opportunity to have some of their debt paid down if irrigators with unbundled water and land entitlements entered the market and sold their water off to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. No-one did any social impact assessment or economic impact assessment of the likely outcomes of, in my case in northern Victoria, some half of my dairy farmers being forced by their banks to sell all or most of their water entitlement. Where was the social or economic impact work to see what would come as a result of those farms no longer being able to rely on any water security? At the time, the water market was only some $40 per megalitre in the southern basin. It seemed possible to live on an irrigated property and depend on the temporary water market. Blind Freddy, if he had taken a social and economic impact assessment of the likely consequences of putting $50 million into a tender, uncapped and untargeted in the middle of the worst drought on record, would have had immediately an understanding that the prices of the temporary market would rise dramatically as the number of buyers in that market doubled and tripled while the water in the pool shrank.

Now in the Murray Darling basin some $5 million to $7 million in productivity is being lost per day. While we rightly talk about the good news of $1 million to $2 million being invested a day for the next several years in irrigation water infrastructure by this federal government, we have to weigh that up against the $5 million to $7 million in productivity being lost per day in perpetuity owing to the diminished access to secure water for farm enterprises and for food and fibre manufacturing. This has led to extraordinary concern about the very viability of irrigation systems, both in southern New South Wales and in Victoria, and even in South Australia.

Those buybacks were not from willing sellers—they were from forced sellers facing the worst drought on record and doubled debt. Because they occurred non-strategically, most irrigation systems in the basin are now faced with real concerns about stranded assets, less viability, higher costs for those remaining in the irrigation systems and no real end in sight, given that not much water is being traded back into the system. The market has been captured by speculators and others like the Victorian and South Australian governments, who have found buying and selling water into the irrigators market each year to be a very nice little earner, because it is cheaper than turning on their own desalinisation plants in Victoria and in South Australia. In the case of Victoria, Melbourne Water's 75 gigalitres cannot be accessed from the Goulburn Murray irrigation system any more. The pipeline is closed, but it certainly makes a nice little earner for the Victorian government when that 75 gigalitres is speculated with in the irrigators market each year.

Murray Irrigation, the West Corurgan Private Irrigation, Southern Riverina Irrigators, the Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association, Griffith Business Chamber, 'Speak up' Campaign, Goulburn Valley Irrigators and Communities, Release Water4food, food manufacturers association of Goulburn Valley—all of them have come to me and we have discussed together what can be done. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was cobbled together without enough science—with the government of the day dominated by environmentalists who had one thing and one thing only in their minds, and that was that irrigators had to relinquish as much water as possible to keep the mouth of the Murray open—and these irrigator associations, community groups and irrigation authorities are saying: how can we restore real balance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?

There was a publication very recently released called, 'Corporate Knights: the magazine for clean capitalism'—a rather unusual little document. I think one of the articles in it summarises very much the dilemma we have with the so-called experts or specialists who comment inappropriately about the natural state of the Murray-Darling Basin. For example, the article says:

Still, as the Millennium Drought wore on, the Murray-Darling river system was once again at the brink of collapse. 'It didn’t flow to the sea and had to be dredged for five or six years,' said Grafton.

This is Quentin Grafton, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy at the Australian National University. The article continues:

It was obvious that the first cap on extraction hadn’t managed to retain enough water during extreme drought.

The point is that the natural circumstance of the Murray River system is that it does not flow to the sea. In fact, when the first white explorers of the Murray-Darling Basin—Sturt et al—got to the sea at the bottom of the system in South Australia, they realised the boats they had been hauling for so many thousands of kilometres were useless because they were met with sand dunes.

If the mouth of the Murray was meant to be a continuously flowing channel, there would be red gum forests there, not waves of sand dunes. But it would seem that the so-called specialists in Australia have come to a conclusion that having the mouth of the Murray flow continuously and free without the aid of bulldozers is a surrogate for the environmental health of the basin as a whole. Somehow that free-flowing channel of the Murray River water out to sea is seen as a natural circumstance that wicked irrigators have chained through profligate use of water to grow food and fibre. I repeat: there is not a single stick of red gum forest at the mouth of the Murray. There are sand dunes and it is an ephemeral stream.

In natural conditions when it was a drought in Australia—and we are the land of floods and droughts and a climate that is one of extremes—the realities are people used to cross the bed of the Murray River and have picnics in the bed of the Murray river about every 10 to 15 years. In fact, the original Indigenous nations in the Murray Valley did not have their tribal countries end at the Murray River. That was not the border. They invariably crossed the Murray River, their tribal country, because they could so often walk across the Murray to reach the other side.

So I am concerned that we still today have this obsession with the idea—from some—that the Murray River is still in a bad way because irrigators operate and produce food and fibre for the nation and for exports. In fact, we now do have a serious circumstance where in my Goulburn Valley irrigation district I am looking at population and community collapse. I am looking at half of the irrigator water gone to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which carried over more than 450 gigalitres last year and over 300 gigalitres the year before because it could not use it for the environment; it simply had too much. Then I read this statement from Jamie Pittock, Associate Professor at the Fenner School of Environment and Society of the ANU:

… there’s still not enough water for the environment, said Pittock, pointing to Murray River’s ongoing struggle to flow to the sea and the challenging task set for environmental managers to craft an ecosystem that requires less water. 'It’s a triage program,' he said.

That is ridiculous. The Murray-Darling Basin is a managed system. It is a system that has suffered droughts and floods. It is a system that has brought prosperity to eastern Australia. Many farmers and irrigators are now on the brink of having to leave their properties because they can no longer access sufficient water for permanent plantings. If you are a rice grower, you wonder from year to year if you can put in a crop. This year it was a bad year and so unfortunately the rice mill at Deniliquin has closed with the loss of 50 jobs.

I have to say that this bill is addressing some of the problems with the Murray-Darling Basin and its plan. It does not do enough yet. It is a work in progress. But I commend our government for beginning the task. I commend this government for understanding the need for a triple bottom line approach. Irrigators are not the enemy of the environment; they are in fact the stewards of the environment.

I commend this bill to the House. But I say that it will be one of many we will be bringing into this place. I certainly ask for a little more serious and proper research and real science to be applied instead of hysteria and nonsense about a system, which has never been a fast-flowing Mississippi. Thank you.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I will commend the member for Murray for her diligent and ongoing work in the water space. Nobody has fought harder than the member for Murray for a good outcome as far as a triple bottom line approach to the woes that are the water debate. As I said, I certainly give her credit for the job she has done and that she will continue to do as long as she is a member of the lower house here in the federal parliament.

A bit of history and a bit of praise for a former Labor government—and this comes from the book Snowy: The People Behind the Power. I read from the introductory pages, where it says: 'The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act, No. 25, was passed through the Commonwealth parliament'—this parliament, but in a different place, of course, just down the hill—'on 7 July 1949, ending more than 60 years of proposals and speculation about the development of the water resources'—water resources, that is important—'in Australia's highest landmass. Establishing the snowy scheme was to be one of the last undertakings of the Chifley Labor government.' Good on that administration, which lost power to Robert Menzies's Liberals in December the same year but certainly began the work for what was, as the book points out, 'a remarkable and ambitious project which would mark a coming of age for Australia'. Indeed, it certainly did. The Snowy hydro scheme was the biggest construction project ever undertaken in Australia. It was the diversion of the Snowy waters from their path to the sea by means of tunnels under the Great Dividing Range. They would instead be channelled westwards to flow into the mighty Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers and irrigate the dry inland. We all know that the scheme helped the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the Coleambally Irrigation Area—those two fine food- and fibre-growing regions which I represent. They are in the Riverina electorate now. Unfortunately, due to the Australian Electoral Commission, they will be in the electorate of Farrer after the next election. I say 'unfortunately' because those areas have been in the Riverina boundaries since Federation in 1901—I mean, why would you leave them in the Riverina? But I am being a bit facetious.

Certainly, food and fibre growing is something that the Riverina does very well. In fact, I heard the minister at the table, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, say that the farmers of Parkes were some of the finest in this land. Of course he is right, but he has been to my area many times, doing a fine job as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, and he understands just how important a role Riverina irrigators play in this nation. I commend the minister for pushing ahead with the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015, because, as he knows, water is not always a popular subject in this place. He understands as well as anybody that the water amendment bill is a difficult topic. It is a difficult topic at the moment with the Senate, which sometimes needs massaging to get policy through. He understands that it is a difficult topic to get agreement on with the other side. We saw in the last parliament just how difficult it was with the guide to the proposed Basin Plan. I am not using props, but I have here just a few of the voluminous tomes that were produced, many of which ended up in flames at Griffith, and, some might argue, rightly so. Those fiery meetings—fiery by name; fiery by nature—proved a turning point in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's implementation because the Griffith farmers and those of the Riverina stood up and said, 'Enough is enough.' Without that advocacy and that passion, I doubt whether the plan would be in the state it is in now. Certainly, there was no triple-bottom-line approach to the plan in those volumes. Certainly, there was no social and economic consideration. There was plenty of environmental consideration—they are environmental documents—but there was, sadly, no concern and no consideration for the economic and social outcomes for those river communities which I proudly represent and the agriculture minister also proudly represents in his role as minister.

I was certainly heartened when he produced the Agricultural competitiveness white paper—stronger farmers, stronger economy last year. On page 33, there is a chapter entitled 'A fairer go for Australian irrigators'. Thank goodness that Barnaby Joyce was sticking up for the farmers; thank goodness that the National Party and those regional Liberals were sticking up for the irrigators—because we certainly did not see Labor and the Greens sticking up for irrigators in the last parliament. I hope that they get on board with this proposed legislation to show that farmers are important people. You will need a politician now and again; you will need a priest now and again; you will need a lawyer now and again; you will need a policeman now and again; but you need a farmer three times a day, every day, at breakfast, lunch and dinner. Without good water policy, without a fair go, those farmers are not going to be able to produce the food that we so desperately need. I see the member for Rankin nodding. He understands it—I am sure he does.

In 'A fairer go for Australian irrigators', in the Minister for Agriculture's publication, it says:

In recent years, Australian irrigators have made great strides in improving on-farm irrigation technology. These systems are delivering significant benefits in water-use efficiency.

Indeed they are. I was only too pleased to fly to Coleambally with the minister late last year to visit the Coleambally irrigation scheme and see just how every drop of water is being used to full effect. Unlike the environment, my irrigators—those the minister represents in his portfolio area—have to absolutely justify and account for every single drop of water that they receive. My goodness, they have to pay for it and then some, but they have to justify it, unlike the environment, where the Labor Party in the previous government wanted to just do these over-bank flows and had no concern about the poor old irrigator. All they wanted to do was water some so-called icon sites, which were part of these, as one would call them, ridiculous volumes that first came out in 2010 as part of the guide to the proposed Basin Plan, thankfully overturned by Griffith farmers.

This water amendment bill delivers on the Australian government's response to the independent review of the Water Act. This review was conducted by a panel of experts, and thank goodness this government consulted, because those on the other side never consulted when it came to the original Basin Plan—save perhaps for a few climatologists who thought that the rivers were never going to run and it was never going to rain again. Weren't they wrong about that! But it was conducted by a panel of experts in irrigated agriculture, business regulation, law and science. The response accepts all 23 recommendations made by the panel in full or in part. It follows on from the very sensible legislation as far as capping—and I heard the member for Barker and the member for Murray talking about this—the buyback at 1,500 gigalitres. That was absolutely vital legislation. In an excellent article in the Fairfax press, Colin Bettles reported on what a difference that legislation would make. On 9 September 2015, a watershed day—pardon the pun—he wrote:

Legislation to cap commonwealth water buybacks at 1500 gigalitres in the Murray Darling Basin Plan has passed the House of Representatives today.

We heard the member for Barker talk about how buybacks kill communities. Indeed it did. Many of those communities are still suffering. I know that Helen Dalton, an irrigation farmer from my area, as well as the president of the Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association, Debbie Buller, made a tour of the Menindee Lakes and other areas just recently and saw just how badly affected some of those areas were, courtesy of—and I use those words in inverted commas—the water legislation which we are trying to fix, which absolutely needs adjusting. This is what this legislation goes in part to do.

The 1,500-gigalitre cap on Commonwealth water buybacks, as Mr Bettles wrote, fulfils an election commitment from the Abbott government and will help provide certainty to rural and irrigation communities. And how important is that—we know that is vital. Mr Bettles' story even quoted the shadow agriculture minister, who said that the cap was necessary. But of course he then goes on to talk about the recovery of 450 gigalitres of water for South Australia. We all remember the time when the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, went to Goolwa and made that announcement just to keep the South Australians happy, because it was all about South Australia; never mind the upstream irrigators who grow the food and fibre that this nation and others need and want and is also going to help our export markets. Those are our export markets that were so valuably boosted by the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so valuably boosted by the preferential trade agreements brokered by Minister Robb—with South Korea, with China and with Japan—last year. To tap into those markets, to make sure of those export opportunities, we need to be able to continue to grow the food and fibre that have made our farmers as renowned as they are—as the agriculture minister talked about in question time today.

This bill complements the government's commitment to implement the Basin Plan in ways that optimise the social and economic outcomes. These are words we never heard from Labor, words that they did not care about in the previous government. We had the Independent member for New England going around on the bipartisan regional Australia committee. I was on that committee. We did a lot of talking, but we did more listening, for months on end to bring about a better resolution. We produced a report—quite a volume—with 21 recommendations. If anybody could have forced the issue, the Independent member for New England could have, because he was holding the government's numbers in the lower house, but Labor chose to do nothing. They chose, unfortunately, to ignore those irrigation farmers' pleas for help. So I am glad that Labor is on board with this. I am sorry to hear that so many Labor members have stood up and talked about how terrible it is that water is back in the agriculture portfolio. It is where it should be. Water should be in the agriculture portfolio; it is our most valuable resource. As Samuel McCaughey, one of the pioneers of Australian irrigation said, water is more valuable as a resource than any amount of gold. This nation is one of the driest continents on Earth and water is the most importance resource we have.

This is good legislation and I am looking forward to seeing it pass the Senate. It was brought into the parliament by the now member for New England, who is doing a fantastic job in his electorate, in his space of agriculture, with the National Party. I am pleased that this is before the House tonight. I look forward to hearing the minister's summing up. If passed, the bill will also provide flexibility, as the member for Murray said, for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to use the proceeds of water allocation trade on complementary environmental works and measures. That is good. We are actually going to use the proceeds where they should be used—not on more buybacks which are going to hurt communities, which are going to provide Swiss cheese effects to those river communities I represent, and under existing arrangements the CEWH is only able to spend proceeds of trade on purchasing water. That is a ridiculous notion. So I am pleased that the agriculture minister recognises that, and this is in this legislation tonight. I am pleased that Labor is getting on board—finally. I have been in this place since 2010 and I have heard very little coming from the other side as far as common sense is concerned when it comes to water. So finally they are getting on board, so that is good. I am pleased that they supported us when the 1,500-gigalitre cap on water buyback was put into place. Finally I hear some common sense from Labor. I will be very pleased now to hear the minister's summing up. It is good legislation from a good minister, and I commend the bill to the House.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity, as one of my first actions dealing with water legislation in this chamber, to deal with the issues of the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015. As was rightly pointed out by the member for Riverina, water is absolutely fundamental, not only to the economy of the people—around 2.2 million—who live in the basin but also to our nation as a whole. He also rightly pointed out that you can have all the gold you want, but you cannot eat it. You certainly require a feed—if you can get it, at least three times a day. Also, reflecting on the member for Riverina saying, 'You might need a priest once in awhile; you might need a solicitor once in awhile; you might need a policeman once in awhile,' all I can say is: I hope I don't see them all on the same day!

But to carry on: water is a precious resource for our communities and the economy and the environment, and it continues to be the critical input for agriculture. The Water Act 2007 underpins the management of our most important river system, the Murray-Darling Basin, in the national interest. I am pleased to be bringing forward my first bill amending the Water Act in my capacity as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The bill delivers on the Australian government's response to the independent review of the Water Act. The review was conducted by a panel of experts in fields ranging from irrigated agriculture to business, regulation, law and science. The government's response, which I tabled in this place on 3 December 2015, accepted all 23 recommendations made by the expert panel, in full or in part.

The water amendment bill makes the legislative amendments that are needed to improve and streamline the operation of the Water Act and to achieve balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes—and that is so important: to make sure that the social and economic outcomes are in balance with the environmental outcomes. The bill delivers win-win outcomes for agriculture, communities and their environment in a number of ways, including by enabling the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to use water-trade proceeds to fund environmental works. This is incredibly important. This is a change that shows that the profits from the CEWH do not have to just go back to buying licences, which would exacerbate the problem, but can be reinvested in environmental works so as to alleviate the problems that are caused by buybacks, which we all acknowledge have a direct correlation to social and economic detriment in communities.

Part of what we are doing is requiring five-yearly reviews of socioeconomic impacts of the Basin Plan. This is also vitally important. At the start of the modelling of the plan, we talked about a social, economic and environmental triple bottom line. We have to make sure that we deliver on that. We have got to reflect on the assumptions. We have got to reflect on the outcomes. We have got to take into account that we now have better knowledge because we are in a process where the purchases have been made, and we should be looking at what the effects were and asking: did they fit with our initial model?

We are ensuring a further review of the Water Act in 2024, at which point the full outcomes and impacts of the Basin Plan should be known. We are allowing the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to sell water in circumstances where allocations would otherwise be forgone—that is, in certain continuous accounting systems for water. This is also important. We must make sure that this vital asset—this massive asset held by the Australian taxpayer—is used for its purpose but also used in a prudent way so that, if water would otherwise be lost, it should be able to be sold to those who can use it, so as to underpin the economic basis of so many of our regional towns, especially in the basin.

The bill delivers all of these outcomes and, in doing so, underpins the government's commitment to support basin communities, businesses and the environment. As a further outcome of the review of the Water Act, proposed changes to the Bureau of Meteorology's water information arrangements will cut red tape by reducing the regulatory burden on the irrigation sector and state government agencies.

I would like to thank the members of the expert panel for their work in reviewing the Water Act. I would also like to thank state and territory governments and community and industry stakeholders who provided input into the review and helped to inform the panel's recommendations and the government's response.

The bill is a vital piece of legislation that will deliver sensible and balanced outcomes now and into the future. It builds on the government's commitment to sustainable agricultural production, healthy rivers and strong communities—a commitment that includes the most significant water infrastructure investment in Australian history and the 1,500 gigalitre cap on water purchases that was passed by the federal parliament last year. I must say how important that cap is, because it gives at least some sense of confidence that the government will not go on continuing buybacks.

That is a word that we have heard over and over again: people want security. In some instances they feel that more security is needed, and each step is making sure that we work to a process that understands that those in the irrigation industry are not just the farmers, the agents or the water traders but that they are also the people who live in the quiet streets of regional towns, whose houses' value has a direct correlation to the wealth of the area, and that the wealth has a direct correlation to the irrigation of the area. You cannot say to a person: 'We're not going to compensate you. We're sorry. How sad; too bad. The water's gone, so the value of your house has fallen through the floor, but we don't concern ourselves with that,' and then think that there is some form of social mobility or some model that can actually in reality pick a person up from a street in Dirranbandi or Shepparton or Deniliquin and somehow miraculously move them to a different place, into a new job and that everything will go along fine. No. What happens is: the capital base in their life, which they have worked hard for, is lost. Their employment opportunities in the industry that they are trained in are lost. So if their life is affected by reason of our actions as a government, those actions are certainly called into question. We will continue to work in partnership with basin state and territory governments, and industry and community stakeholders, in delivering balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes for the Murray-Darling Basin.

It is a great privilege to have—and I believe it is well suited to have—water and agriculture together, as they were. Over the course of the history of this parliament, it was always the place you would have expected to find them. It was only for a certain period of time, and for a purpose that is now clearly relegated, that they were split apart. Now that that purpose is predominantly over, they have been placed back together again, as they should be. I believe that, while I have tenure as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and into the future, they should remain as one.

What I do say is that it is vitally important that the role of water and agriculture be taken up by the opposition. No doubt we all acknowledge one thing that is an absolute truth: we are in an election year. We will be looking forward to the Labor Party, the Greens and the Independents working together and coming forward with a clear policy, a clear outline, for the Australian people as to what their views are in the agricultural and water resources space. Let's remember that our nation now relies more and more heavily on the outcomes of the soft commodities sector. We have clearly stated that agricultural exports are now the second biggest export after iron ore. They have overtaken coal and they continue to grow. This requires real attention by a group that sees themselves as the alternate government. This is a section of it. I compliment them on their bipartisan support of this.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.