Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Hansard source

We've seen again why you simply cannot trust the National Party when it comes to water policy in Australia. It's worth remembering that, while the Liberal National coalition government was in power for nearly 10 years, they had 10 years to recover 450 gigalitres of water for the environment under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and they recovered two. They recovered two gigalitres out of the 450 gigalitres that was required under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. For the entire time that they stood idly by, we saw the environmental condition of the Murray-Darling Basin deteriorate—10 years of neglect—just as we saw in so many other policy areas under the coalition government.

Today, yet again, we see a stunt from the National Party on water policy. Well, on this one they're late to the party, calling for a royal commission regarding aspects of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. We know the only reason they've put this forward is that they know they're about to run a distant fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh in the Farrer by-election. The former leader, David Littleproud, admitted as much. Now they're coming late to the party, trying to make a name for themselves when it comes to water policy, ahead of a by-election where they know they're going to get flogged. That's what this is about.

This is not a sincere attempt from the National Party, just as we've never seen a sincere attempt from the National Party, to grapple with the very real environmental pressure we've seen the Murray-Darling Basin under, which of course is the biggest threat we see to the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Continued ignorance of the environmental needs in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a massive long-term risk to the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin. And what do we see from the National Party, who say they represent farmers? They continue to ignore the scientific reality that the Murray-Darling Basin is under immense environmental pressure and that that is a threat to the long-term future of the agriculture sector.

We've already seen, in the run-up to the Farrer by-election, one of the New South Wales independent members, Helen Dalton—I think her electorate is Murray—call for a royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We've seen a similar call from one of the Independent candidates in the Farrer by-election, Michelle Milthorpe. So, finally, the old National Party warhorse gets moving, in the last day of these sittings, before the Farrer by-election, and what do they do? They copy what everyone else is doing and say they want a royal commission—no originality, no ideas, no future thinking about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, just terror from the National Party when it comes to the Farrer by-election, because they've already given up the ghost. So they're now clutching at straws, copying policies that have already been announced by other candidates running in that by-election. That is what is going on here this morning—not a sincere attempt to grapple with the very real issues facing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the communities that rely on that water flow.

In contrast to the National Party, our government is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including meeting voluntary water purchase targets and delivering water efficiency and infrastructure projects. We don't believe it needs to be one or the other. If you listen to the National Party, they will say it needs to be only water efficiency and infrastructure projects, without water buybacks. Our view is that it needs to be both. They always ignore the fact that this government has put billions of dollars into funding water infrastructure upgrades and water efficiency measures in the Murray-Darling Basin. They are an important part of ensuring that the Murray-Darling Basin remains strong into the future, but so are voluntary water buybacks.

And Senator Canavan: I think this is the very first time any of us have ever heard him take an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin. Could that be because there's a by-election coming up in the electorate of Farrer? All of a sudden he's concerned. Senator Canavan is of course the man who said that farmers were not the core constituency of the National Party. Now all of a sudden he's worried about the farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. It's almost as though he's become the leader of that party all of a sudden and is worried about what's going to happen in that by-election!

The reality is that the latest Murray-Darling Basin Authority Basin plan evaluation report and Sustainable Rivers Audit tells us we are better off with the plan and that the water we've recovered for the environment is helping rebuild river health to secure the long-term sustainability of the basin, its industries and its communities. As I've said, rebuilding the health of the Murray-Darling Basin through a combination of voluntary water buybacks, water infrastructure projects, water efficiency projects and other measures is vital to the long-term future of the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin. Any political party that claims to be standing by the future of the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin would be supporting the plan, not trying to pull it apart, as we constantly see from the National Party. The plan has also increased opportunities for communities to be more involved in decision-making, with more transparency and accountability in the decisions.

As a government, we recognise that the basin still faces challenges, and our government will continue to work towards a healthy basin for all its users. We recognise that buybacks have had an impact on some communities. But that plan has also delivered water security to significant parts of the country, including in South Australia. There's a reason the National Party recorded less than one per cent of the vote in the South Australian election—because South Australians know that the National Party are complete vandals when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin, and South Australians treated them accordingly. It's an inconvenient fact for the National Party, but agricultural production in the basin has continued to grow while more than 2,000 gigalitres—four times the size of Sydney Harbour—have been recovered to put the system on a sustainable footing. Water recovery has been voluntary and farmers have been compensated when they've chosen to sell their water rights, with these funds able to support investment and growth in their properties.

Our government has made a record investment in supporting community transition under the Basin Plan, making $300 million available to support adaptation to a future with less water. We have also worked to prioritise non-purchase options, committing more than half a billion dollars to improve water efficiency through infrastructure upgrades like making irrigation networks more efficient for our farmers. The Basin Plan's original settings reflected a necessary step change to ensure extraction returns to an environmentally sustainable limit. The 2012 sustainable diversion limits were designed to balance productive water use with restoring the basin's long-term health. Achieving that step change requires a mix of water purchase, efficiency investment and sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanisms, including the 450-gigalitre program.

When it comes to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that body manages the Commonwealth's environmental water holdings and has achieved significant environmental outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin over more than a decade. This includes supporting native fish to spawn, birds to breed in wetlands and threatened frogs to expand their range. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which people refer to as the CEWH, manages the Commonwealth's environmental water holdings very efficiently. It also invests in complementary on-ground activities that improve river and wetland health and what can be achieved with the Commonwealth's environmental water. The CEWH has contributed funding for infrastructure to improve connectivity, the re-snagging of river reaches for fish habitat, the removal of barriers to fish movement and the installation of fish screens for protection from irrigation pumping.

In summing up, the government will be opposing this bill. It's a stunt from a desperate National Party, which, in 10 years of government, effectively tore up the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, failed to recover the water necessary for the long-term health of the basin and, in doing so, betrayed the farmers they say they represent. If we want to have agriculture continue and the communities that support that industry continue well into the future in the Murray-Darling Basin, we have to face up to the reality that that river system remains under great environmental stress and that situation is not going to be made any easier as a result of the impacts of climate change—something the National Party also deny is a reality. We cannot continue to sell the agriculture sector and the communities in the Murray-Darling Basin down the drain by continuing to ignore the scientific reality that this river system is under stress and that that is going to increase as a result of climate change. That's why we need to see through the plan, which involves a combination of voluntary water buybacks, investments in water efficiency and investments in water infrastructure. That is the way to secure the long-term health of the basin, the communities that rely on it and the industries that rely on that water. We will be voting against this stunt, which is all about trying to salvage the National Party's reputation in the Farrer by-election and copying policies that have already been put out there by a range of other parties who are much more up to the task of dealing with the future than the National Party.