Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

I begin by indicating that the opposition recognises the government's desire to provide certainty to Murray-Darling Basin communities by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases. On that basis we will not be standing in the way of this government initiative. The success of the Basin Plan has always rested on bipartisan support at the federal level, the support of the basin states and at least nominal support of agricultural and environmental groups. Given the support of the basin states, Labor will not oppose the passage of the Water Amendment Bill, in the interests of bipartisanship and the stability of the Basin Plan.

The bill proposes to amend the Water Act 2007, to impose a duty on the Commonwealth not to exceed the 1,500 gigalitre-limit on surface water purchases in the Murray-Darling Basin at a time of entering into the water purchase agreement contract. Secondly, it amends the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 to provide increased flexibility in the recovery of some 450 gigalitres of water through efficiency measures funded under the Water for the Environment Special Account.

The success of the Basin Plan has always rested on the bipartisan support I referred to. At the federal level, that has been very important and of course we have strived to, as best we can, extend that to the states.

As many in this Senate would know, disagreement over the management of our most important river system and the food bowls which rely on it actually predates Federation. The first conference on the Murray was held in 1863, decades before Federation. More than 30 years later, South Australian Premier Charles Kingston, at the 1897 Federation Convention, declared he held out hope, and I quote:

… the Federal Parliament will be trusted with Federal questions of the gravity involved in the use of the waters of the Murray.

The history of conflict surrounding the provision of an overarching management framework for the whole basin also has its place in history, with recorded disputes among the colonies. At the 1898 Melbourne Constitutional Convention, the same Premier stated:

We ought to give the federal parliament which we propose to call into existence; the power—when it deems fit, to legislate on this question in order to remove this fertile source of conflict and friction between the colonies.

So despite the many conferences and conventions it took the severe Federation drought, which started in 1895 and was widespread by 1902, to bring the states together to come to some agreement on the management of the Murray. A conference in Corowa, in 1902, provided the catalyst, eventually resulting in the River Murray Waters Agreement, signed in 1915, by the governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth. This was followed by the formation of the River Murray Commission, in 1917.

The economic value of the basin's water resources to the states—South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales of course—has seen a legacy of construction resulting in a highly regulated system.

Since the early 1900s numerous water regulation structures, dams and weirs, were built. Almost not a drop of rain falls in the basin and gets to run unimpeded into the sea. Instead, water is stored in dams, weir ponds and modified storages like Menindee Lakes.

By the late 1960s drought, the overextraction of water for irrigation and rising salinity began to put the health of the Murray-Darling system on the radar of politicians and users alike and of course of the community more broadly.

But with increased regulation and an increase in surface water extractions, together with a drought in 1968, environmental impacts were starting to emerge. Water quality had deteriorated to the point that the first benchmark study of salinity, the GHD study, took place in 1970.

We fast forward to the drought of the early 2000s, the millennium drought, as it was clear that more needed to be done. Under the Howard government, the National Water Initiative was agreed and the Water Act 2007 was passed through the parliament.

And now, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the former minister for water, the member for Watson, since 2012 we have had a basin plan that is restoring our rivers to health, supporting strong regional communities and ensuring sustainable food production.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan—or the 'Basin Plan' as it has been referred to—has bipartisan support at the federal level and the support of the basin states: South Australia, Victoria, NSW, Queensland and of course the ACT.

Importantly, it has also had the support of farming, environmental and Indigenous groups. Not everyone has had their way of course. Not everyone got all they wanted from the plan, but it remains supported. The plan supports the very important environmental needs of the basin rivers. Within the basin there are approximately 30,000 wetlands; over 60 species of fish;    124 families of macro-invertebrates; 98 species of waterbirds; four threatened water-dependent ecological communities; and hundreds and hundreds of plant species supported by key flood plains.

So it is obvious that this is a very important, if not the most important, system to Australia. The health of the river channels themselves and the flora and fauna they support is not only vital in its own right but vital for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities.

Related to environmental needs and environmental flows is the fact that Aboriginal nations and communities in the basin want and should have access to the flows they need to ensure the continuation of their culture and their social and economic wellbeing. Aboriginal people feel a deep connection to their land and the waters that flow through and across them. This needs to be recognised and provided for, not as an exercise in imperial patronage but by ensuring that Aboriginal people are empowered through water rights. And when environmental water is released into the rivers and wetlands Aboriginal expertise also needs to be heeded. The deep knowledge of Aboriginal people of the river systems means that they have important, if not vital, advice to give our water managers that, if heeded, can add great value to their work. 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 as a 'tick-box' exercise: proper, ongoing engagement will benefit us all.

The Murray-Darling Basin also supports agriculture on a grand scale—around 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. According to ABS figures, in 2012-13 the basin accounted for over 50 per cent of Australia's irrigated produce, including nearly 100 per cent of Australia's rice, 96 per cent of Australia's cotton, 75 per cent of Australia's grapes, 59 per cent of Australia's hay, 54 per cent of Australia's fruit, 52 per cent of Australia's production from sheep and livestock and    45 per cent of Australia's dairy.

Around two million people live and work in the basin, in communities ranging from fewer than 1,000 people to large urban centres such as Wagga Wagga, with over 45,000 people. A further 1.2 million people depend on its water to survive. All of this agricultural production and the two million people living in the basin rely on a healthy, functioning river system. So, restructuring and reform in such an important area as this is always very difficult. I suppose it can be said that the bill before the Senate is about redressing the issues still held by some of those basin communities in particular.

The Basin Plan brought into force in November 2012 will set basin-wide sustainable diversion limits and return 2,750 gigalitres to the environment. Basin states are required to prepare water resource plans that will give effect to the sustainable diversion limits from July 2019. Under the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism, up to 650 gigalitres can be provided through supply measures and projects that deliver environmental outcomes with less water. Proposals for these supply measures are, I understand, in varying states of preparation and assessment at the moment. There is bipartisan commitment to bridge the gap between what these supply measures can provide and the 2,750 gigalitres to be returned to the environment.

On top of the 2,750-gigalitre target, an additional 450 gigalitres will be returned to the environment. Funding was provided through legislation in 2013 for this additional 450 gigalitres, which must be obtained through projects that ensure no social or economic downsides for basin communities, such as on-farm irrigation projects. There is $1.78 billion in the Water for the Environment Special Account, including $200 million for the removal of constraints identified in the constraints management strategy.

To date, more than 1,900 gigalitres have been recovered for the environment. This includes more than 1,160 gigalitres of water through water purchases, over 600 gigalitres through infrastructure investment and over 180 gigalitres through other basin state recovery actions. 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. Already, we have seen successful water releases overseen by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the state and regional water management agencies.

Importantly, there has been significant Commonwealth investment in ensuring that farms remain productive as the plan is delivered. Indeed, $2 million a day is being and will be spent on efficiency and infrastructure measures out to 2019. This is not only a significant amount of money; it is a significant commitment to the Basin Plan, to the health of our rivers and to our ecosystems and communities they support.

As I mentioned earlier, Labor recognises the government's wish to provide certainty to basin communities by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases. As with the Basin Plan itself, and many aspects of it, there are conflicting points of view that do need to be acknowledged on the issue of water purchase versus infrastructure measures as the best means of achieving the outcomes of the Basin Plan. Labor has consulted with various stakeholders with divergent points of view about this issue and carefully considered their points of view. I have listened to those points of view myself, and that is what an effective opposition does.

We have carefully considered the position of the basin states as well. Again, on that basis we will not be opposing the bill. Given the support of the basin states, we will not be standing in the way of this bill in the interests of bipartisanship—which has always, of course, underscored the strength of our progression to the point we have reached today.

For the opposition, there are two key imperatives for the success of the Basin Plan and these imperatives are the same for our approach to the cap on water purchases. These are bipartisan support at the federal level; and the support of all the basin states. Given that there is support from the basin states for this reform, as well as the progress that has been made to date in recovering water for the environment, Labor will not oppose this bill.

As I said, the success of the Basin Plan has always rested on that bipartisanship and, of course, on the support of those key basin states—particularly New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 has been a success story in and of itself. As I said in my second reading speech, I do pay tribute to the then minister, Tony Burke, the member for Watson, who did a tremendous amount of work to ensure that we are where we are today in debating this bill. He did a tremendous amount of work on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, on the issues raised by stakeholders and member states.

In considering the depth and detail of the bill before us, Labor will support it and vote with the government on this bill.