Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 373, which I asked on 17 March.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am afraid I have no information on that issue with me here today. I will endeavour to ascertain the answer to that question.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

I point out that this question is in fact two months overdue; it was asked three months ago. My office contacted the minister’s office and advised that I would be asking when an answer would be forthcoming. It was my understanding that it was coming soon. I am sorry that Minister Wong does not have an explanation, but I will nonetheless make a few points about this question, because it is not the only one which is outstanding from the government for a very long period.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There are too many people moving around the chamber and too much talking. Senator Allison, you are entitled to be heard.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question goes to some very important issues, including water efficiency and the very disturbing trend of taking water from the agricultural sector and putting it into the wasteful urban environment. Projects such as the Traveston Dam in Queensland and the southern Murray-Goulburn river pipelines are examples of this. We are talking here about proposals by the government that are worth billions—$13 billion over 10 years is the commitment by the federal government to projects like this and buybacks.

The purpose of my question is to find out just what work the government has done on benchmarking, on data and on statistics that have been collected. And what sort of analysis has taken place of water efficiencies, targets and alternatives to some of these massive projects that are currently on the books? It seems to me that policy is being developed and expenditure is being made in a vacuum and that these questions on notice go to the heart of the rationale for those expensive infrastructure projects. Of course, once the projects are in place there is no incentive for conservation or recycling initiatives, which we all know are much cheaper and much more sustainable in the long term.

I wrote to the minister on 4 December and I do not appear to have an answer to that letter, either. It seems that the government has not done this work—and that would be shocking if that were the case—but, if it has done the work, why not answer those questions? What benchmarks and assessments of water-saving potential have been undertaken? What is the current market, technological and theoretical water efficiency of Australian cities? How would such an analysis inform water efficiency targets? What water efficiency targets are being considered? How will the analysis of the targets inform national water policy? There are many questions within this question, but they are questions I would expect a government, prepared to spend $13 billion on water, to have answers to.

As I understand it, $1 billion is to be spent on the north-south pipeline from the Eildon Reservoir to Melbourne in order to deliver 75 gigalitres to the city. Eildon Reservoir is almost out of water. In May it had just a 14 per cent capacity, and the irrigators who use the water from Eildon Reservoir are simply not getting any water for their farming activities. We hear about spending on the efficiency of irrigation systems. But many people are saying that it just does not add up and that surely you make the savings in water first and then export whatever water farmers and the river no longer need. Instead of that, we are putting the cart before the horse. I expect that this is being done as a knee-jerk reaction to very low water storage in Melbourne and that the state and federal governments have not done the preparatory work which you would expect to be done for such massive infrastructure projects.

The water travelling along pipelines will require massive amounts of energy just to pump to Melbourne. As I said, the question is whether alternatives have been assessed, and I do not think they have. In fact, it is pretty clear that they have not. The state government will no doubt get help from the federal government to build its $3.1 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi. That will produce 150 gigalitres of water a year and cost $550 million, paid each year to private partnership contracts for 35 years, irrespective of whether Melburnians use the water. I do not think there is any doubt that Melburnians will use the water. There will continue to be wasteful uses of water because efficiency measures have not been put in place in the cities, any more than they have in irrigation systems in the country. There are no standards being imposed on industrial processes, on appliances. But thanks to the Democrats we have a rating system. However, that should have been converted into a standard system so that the amount of water that is currently wasted in urban areas is cut back. That would be far more efficient and effective than the massive projects that are being proposed.

Furthermore, the federal government plans to spend $3 billion on buying back water licences. This has been heavily criticised by various people who have looked very carefully at the question of buybacks and at how much water there is available to buy back and what impact it will have on the river. A report published by an Adelaide company on 2 June said:

… the Federal Government’s plan to save the Murray Darling basin river system won’t get back enough water.

The report further said:

… the plan to return 1,500 gigalitres to the river system, through a combination of buying farmers’ water and upgrading infrastructure, will also distort the water market and put some producers at a disadvantage.

And further:

… based on water trading patterns now, even if the Government bought up all the water available, it wouldn’t be enough to improve the health of the river system.

So here we have it: a number of groups, like Your Water Your Say in Wonthaggi, arguing strongly that water efficiency should be the first option, not the option that you have after you supply water that is desalinated. We have massive amounts of money being promised and expended in these areas and no real sense that this is being done on a careful assessment of the problem—on a serious look at all of the alternatives—or that this will actually work.

I am disappointed that the government has had three months and there is still no sign of an answer—although my office understood from conversation with the minister’s office that this question was imminent, so presumably it is sitting on the minister’s desk waiting to be released. I am disappointed that on such an important issue—an issue where decisions are being made pretty much on a daily basis, from what I can see—this kind of analysis, assessment, benchmarking and targeting has not taken place. If it is just another ad hoc approach to spending lots of money then I think Australians are going to be very, very disappointed.

Question agreed to.