Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion. Since the last sitting I have travelled the Murray-Darling extensively, right down to Murray Bridge. I've been to Wentworth, where the Murray intersects with the Darling. I've driven up the Lower Darling twice. I've been to Menindee twice, before the highly publicised fish kill. I've been across to Mudgee, up to Dubbo, through Brewarrina, Dalby, Goondiwindi and even to Tilpa, about 200 kilometres north of nowhere in New South Wales, where the river was as dry as a bone. We've seen the fish kills; I don't think we need to talk much more about them. I've seen bone-dry rivers.

When I left Dubbo two Mondays ago to drive north up into the northern basin, there was 1,665 megalitres of flow at Dubbo. A three-hour drive north on the same river, the flows were down to zero. The only thing in between was irrigators taking water for their crop. People say they have an entitlement, but what about the people downstream: the people at Brewarrina, who are desperately worried that they won't have any water; the people at Bourke, who are on the verge of not having any drinking water; the people at Walgett, not on the same river system but in northern New South Wales, who have no drinking water from the river because of the state it is in?

Since the last time I was here, we've also seen the Productivity Commission hand down a review on the state of the Murray-Darling. That review raises some very serious concerns about the risks associated with the 605-gigalitre SDLs and in relation to the 450-gigalitre efficiency measures. We need to have regard to what the Productivity Commission has said.

We've also had a royal commission report handed down. That report was quite scathing. That report suggested in no uncertain terms that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based on legally and scientifically flawed data. I think all of us who have regard for the rule of law in this place, and indeed for science, need to pay heed to what the royal commissioner has said. The royal commissioner also raised allegations of maladministration and political interference. Those are not my words; they are the words of the royal commissioner. And yet the response to the royal commission was disappointing at best. In fact, it was quite disrespectful in some instances.

I've just been looking at the resume of Mr Walker, an eminent QC. He was appointed for three years as the inaugural Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, a very important role in the context of national security. He ran a special commission into the Sydney Ferries Corporation. He was counsel conducting inquiries into the Casino Control Act in 1992. He conducted the Special Commission of Inquiry into Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals. His resume is quite deep with very important roles, and he is an eminent QC; a man of intellect. And yet some of the responses we saw to the royal commission report were very disrespectful—coming from government ministers. I understand that Mr Niall Blair, the water minister in New South Wales, and Mr Littleproud, the federal minister, both represent communities that have irrigators in them. Mr Littleproud, of course, represents the townships of St George, Dirranbandi, Dalby and Goondiwindi, all cotton-growing and irrigation areas. I would imagine that, if I were ever in the position that he is in, where as a minister he represents the Federation, I would be much more measured in my response to the royal commission and much more respectful. Even in South Australia we've had very soft responses from the Premier there, Steven Marshall. These sorts of responses are quite disrespectful of a royal commissioner, because people just don't want to hear what he has to say. Has anyone said the same sorts of things about Commissioner Hayne? People might have argued the toss, and are arguing the toss, about some of the recommendations that he's made, but they're not playing the man; they're playing the ball. That's the appropriate way in which we should be approaching the report of the royal commissioner.

Senator Hanson-Young stood up and criticised the irrigators, and the corporate irrigators in particular. I'm not going to do that, because they're not actually the problem. They are a symptom of the problem. They take water they are legally entitled to take because the system allows them to do that. I think we need to be careful about directing blame unnecessarily at irrigators. I might add—and we know this from the Four Corners show 'Pumped'—that there were some irrigators who were breaking the law. That is totally unacceptable, and some of them are actually before the courts right at this very moment. That's where they should be, answering charges under judicial processes, so there's fairness. We need to deal very swiftly with people who are taking water unlawfully. The situation we have at the moment is not about breaking laws; it's about broken laws. It's about us letting them do what they do.

I have foreshadowed that tomorrow I will introduce a bill into this parliament to ban the exporting of cotton. I have done so after my trip up into the north, seeing the expanding nature of that industry. Once again, they're not doing anything unlawful; they're doing what they are allowed to do. I've looked at this and said, 'Okay, if we can't solve this problem in a sensible and measured way then we need to look at perhaps more extreme approaches.' If we can't sit around and say, 'Let's deal with the recommendations of the royal commission in a sensible way,' then we might have to do something else.

For me, cotton is a crop that is grown and then merely exported. It is a water-intensive crop that is grown and exported. It is the equivalent of exporting water. That's a silly thing to do in a country that is actually the driest inhabited continent on the planet. It does not make sense. So I've put up what people might call an unpalatable bill, but it is sitting there hoping that we find a better solution, hoping we find a solution that balances out the needs of all the people across the river. We need to look at the river from a needs based perspective and we need to prioritise some of those needs. I have given the example before about what's happening in Dubbo, where all of the water flowing down a river is going to irrigators. I don't mind water going to irrigators, but all of it? And in circumstances where people are running out of river water to drink? We need to look at this properly.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan, born of unlawful and unscientific methods—according to the royal commissioner, for whom I have great respect—deals with the allocations of water, the total amount of water we can safely take from the river. The royal commissioner comes to the conclusion that it shouldn't be 3,200 gigalitres that we need to return; it should probably be a number starting with '4'. We need look at that again. An allegation has been made by a royal commissioner. We need to tackle that allegation. I would like to have both the state jurisdictions and the federal jurisdiction look at what is written and deal with it. If not, there's an awful bill that I have put up, which only requires passing by this parliament to be enacted into law. It is the total domain of the federation to deal with matters such as export. So we need to be looking at allocations. We need to be looking at the SDL projects, because we know from the Productivity Commission report that there is risk associated with the delivery of that 605 gigalitres. We need to look at the 450 efficiency measures. We know there is risk, and, where there is risk, we must manage it properly.

In February last year, we voted on a northern basin review. This chamber rejected the proposal to return 70 gigalitres of water from the river back to irrigators in the northern basin. Unfortunately, when it was brought back in May, it passed. So we allowed 70 gigalitres to be returned to irrigators, and just look at the situation we are in. It's not necessarily because of that legislation, but, looking at it beside the circumstances we find ourselves in now, I think that was a most unwise thing for the Senate to do. I said at the time that I was concerned about the size. I said at the time that the Senate was not well informed; we didn't have all of the data before us.

We need to look at the river system in terms of not just allocation but also what are the smart crops to grow. We need to look at it and ask: 'Is it right to grow cotton? Is it right to grow almonds? Is it right to grow permanent crops or seasonal crops? What is the right mix of those crops?' That's how we should be approaching this problem. Instead we have denial; we have conflict across this chamber and, indeed, across the community.

Unfortunately, there are too many vested interests in this whole process. On the first day I sat in this chamber, my first day as a senator, I lodged a motion for an order for the production of documents relating to the Murray-Darling. I have been fighting since I've been here for transparency. Indeed, the royal commissioner found that the whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is being implemented under a veil of secrecy. The Murray-Darling river is not a weapons system; it's not an intelligence operation. We need to be completely transparent in how we are managing that river and how we are spending taxpayers' money, and that is not happening at this point in time.

A claim has been made about political interference. That should alarm people. Indeed, I know Senator Hanson-Young is proposing a federal royal commission. We know that Bret Walker was fettered in his inquiry because the federal government would not cooperate with him, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority would not cooperate with him and other states would not cooperate with him. In a circumstance where questions have been raised as to governance, political interference and maladministration, it is appropriate that we look at things like royal commissions, because it doesn't matter what you do to fix the plan; if the governance structure is corrupted in some way, we just end up landing back in the same space.

Let's stop rejecting ideas; let's sit around the table with cool, calm heads and sort out how to fix what is clearly broken. It doesn't help that Senator Ruston stands and says, 'This is all political'. No-one has controlled the timing of the deaths of murray cod at Menindee. To suggest that somehow this is motivated by an election is, in my view, disingenuous. We've got dry rivers. We've got people running out of—please don't smile, Senator Canavan! We've got people in Walgett without water. I had a briefing the other day from a scientist down from the Coorong, and we've got problems down there too. We need to look at solving the problem. We don't need people with vested interests—I understand people represent their electorates, but you have to be mindful of national interest. We need to fix this. This is about the national interest; it's not about the Nationals' interest. Thank you.