David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to resume my speech. I was talking about the fact that the recent stock take of sustainable diversion limits has shown that we are on track to meet our environmental targets. This has been made possible by the long-term vision and the approach taken by the Howard government in 2007. One of the key elements of that was that, rather than buy back water to give to the environment, we were far better off in terms of achieving an outcome for communities, for the environment and for our economy to look at how we could use water more efficiently.

Speaking as a South Australian senator, I can say to the Senate that South Australia has led the way in Australia for many years in terms of efficient water use. We have had to. We are the driest state on the driest continent in the world. We are down the end of the river system. We have consistently made very good use of the water that has been available to us. I am pleased to see that, of the $10 billion that was put towards that 2007 plan, $6 billion was allocated to achieving efficiencies in water infrastructure so that the water that was available would be more effectively used. Whilst the approaches of different political parties have ebbed and flowed—pardon the pun—I particularly note the approach of the Greens, which is just to buy it all up. We cannot afford to do that. If there is a smart way that we can support our community, support our economy and support the environment, we should be doing that.

Some $2.1 billion of South Australia's $15 billion annual production comes from the Riverland and Murraylands region, from irrigation. Just to give you an idea—and these figures come from the Bureau of Stats agricultural commodities report of a couple of years ago—some 37 per cent of the state's vegetables come from that area, as well as 58 per cent of the state's fruit production, 52 per cent of the total value of grapes, 18 per cent of the total value of cereals and grains, 99.9 per cent of the total value of oranges, 58 per cent of the total value of potatoes, 28 per cent of milk, 89 per cent of almonds, and the list goes on.

In South Australia, we see the impact on our economy and our communities. From people like the Mitolo Group with the Comit Farm—large potato and onion producers—right through to the small family owned blocks, whether they are in traditional stone fruits, citrus or moving into things like almonds, it has a huge impact.

That brings us to this current legislation. Clearly the thing that our communities and particularly business people need is certainty. One of the ways we can give them certainty is to say that, if we can be smart about how we spend money and improve the efficiency of the system, we can achieve the target so we can cap what we will buy back for the environment. So the focus of this legislation is to impose the 1,500 gigalitre cap on water purchases in the basin.

There will still be the natural variability. There will still be droughts and floods. There will be times when we have more water than we need and times when we do not have enough water. But if we can mitigate the impact of those extremes, in terms of water catchment and efficient water use, then we increase certainty. If we want to remove the political uncertainty of having governments step in and buy water, which prevents irrigators from using it efficiently and puts it purely into the environmental system, then we are well-served to take the approach that supports all three elements: our environment, the communities that rely on the businesses and the environment there, and those businesses themselves. It is important to realise that the 1,500 gigalitre cap is not a target; it is a ceiling. It will be set in legislation, and we will stand by that.

Our approach is to be very transparent in that, so there will be reports on how much water is actually purchased. But what we have seen is that by applying the principles of the 2007 legislation—that long-term plan that Mr Howard and Mr Turnbull brought in at the time—we have been able to achieve significant savings for the environment and make water available for irrigators.

Recently, last month, Round 5 of the On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program looked at investing farm infrastructure in one of the basins. It returned 20 gigalitres of water to farmers, but 77 gigalitres of water to the environment. This approach is environmentally responsible and it is responsible in terms of supporting our economy. Most importantly, unlike the Greens, the coalition believes that our communities who live in the river basin are equally as deserving of our support and priority as the environment and every other aspect. We are part of this nation. I know the Greens tend to see us sometimes as some kind of an incursion that should be stamped out and removed from sections of our land, but we are part of this country. Our communities and our industries, well-managed, are a sustainable part. I am pleased to support this legislation which provides certainty for those communities and the people who want to invest in those businesses. Importantly, we have demonstrated as a result of the stocktake of the SDLs that reported just last month, that we are also providing a good outcome for the environment.

I see no reason to support the amendment from the Greens, when we have proven that we are on track to get that sustainable triple-bottom-line outcome for the environment, community and business. I support the bill. I will not be supporting the Greens amendment.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Water Amendment Bill 2015. This debate is one that has engaged the minds of many over many decades, in fact leading all the way back to 1863, which was when I understand the very first conference on the Murray was held. Thirty years later, the South Australian Premier, Charles Kingston, at the federation convention that was held in 1897 expressed the hope that a solution might be found and:

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

Following that hopeful commencement and plea for the federal parliament to be involved in making sure that the states share this amazing resource as an asset in their communities we saw more than 100 years of fractious debate.

I endorse many of the remarks of colleagues who spoke before me in this debate. It is quite a remarkable thing that in November 2012 the Basin Plan became law and had the effect of creating a coordinated approach to water use across the basin's four states and the ACT. Achieving an outcome like that involved an awful lot of give from many active participants in the debate. I am very well aware that the matter is still not settled in the community and that people look at this plan as it is exists at this time with ongoing interest. Hopes that a genuine triple-bottom-line benefit to the entire community, the environment and to business can be reached remain high.

But at tricky times, such as now with this legislation coming through this parliament, we are always going to be tested about how strong the bipartisan commitment to this can be. I am pleased on this occasion that Labor does recognise the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin in particular, not only as our nation's food bowl but as a vital piece of natural infrastructure that blesses this continent. We support the passage of this bill which seeks, in particular, to put on a cap of 1,500 gigalitres to make sure we return some of that water to the river.

I can remember doing a project about the Murray-Darling when I was in year 4. We are not all good spellers all of the time, and it is with some embarrassment that I put on the record that I spelt 'Murray' without an 'A'. In my year 4 spelling I missed the 'A'! It made me pay a lot more attention to the title of works that I put in after that day! I never made that mistake ever again, and it was a great learning experience for me. But for the people of the Murray-Darling Basin there has been a lot more than a missing 'A', in the sense of how much they have been consulted about what has been going on. There is a yearning in that community to continue to be at the heart of further consultation around this piece of legislation.

The Murray-Darling is a mighty river system that supports around 40 per cent of our agricultural production. I was in the chair yesterday when Senator Canavan made his remarks about the complexity of a river system. I think he might have said it was not simply a hose connected at one end, where water goes in one end and comes out the other end, in a way that some people from the city might expect water to flow. The complexity of the river is a vital consideration for anything that is to occur moving into the future. It is certainly the focus of life for communities that lie far from its banks and, of course, it is of deep cultural importance to the Aboriginal nations and the communities of the basin. The health of the river channels themselves, and the flora and fauna they support, are vital not only in their own right but for the economic and social wellbeing of basin communities that have been established in these regions over many years.

The so-called triple bottom line—the environmental, economic and cultural objectives—is sought by the Basin Plan, and Labor recognises the government's wish to provide the certainty that these basin communities require by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases, and we will support the passage of this legislation. I am pleased to say that, in developing our response to the government's proposal around this legislation, Labor has consulted with various stakeholders. We note a continuing divergence of points of view about this issue and about other issues going forward in terms of the management of the river. We have carefully considered their advice and opinions, and at this point in time we do support the government's position. We have also given careful consideration to the position of the basin states—New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria—and it is important to note that, with their support, things could continue to move in the right direction.

The report into the Water Amendment Bill 2015 handed down by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee this week says:

... the 1500 GL per year limit ... will be of significant benefit to farming and irrigator communities in the ... Basin.

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. There is bipartisan support at the federal level and it has the support of all basin states. Given the support of those states for this reform, as was the progress that has been made to date in recovering water for the environment, Labor will not oppose the bill.

In short, Labor supports the people of the basin, the towns of the Riverina and the farmers and the growers of the Murrumbidgee. Labor supports the people on the land and recognises the issues at the heart of their community. For many Australians who live on the edge of this great continent, water is simply too often something that just comes out of a tap, but, in the Riverina, for which I am the duty senator, water is the lifeblood of the community. It is certainly the subject of pub talk and rumour. Comments such as, 'Did you know that so-and-so sold his water and he's taken a couple of years off?' is not an uncommon conversation; it has been happening over the years.

It was on a visit to Griffith early last month that I was able to learn firsthand of the myriad issues that affect our rural communities. I say once again that members of the community who came forward and spoke to me at a range of places over the course of that weekend continue to pay intensely close attention to the action of water flows in the river. They are certainly watching what we are doing here in the parliament today. I hope that, when I return to Griffith to speak with people, they will continue to provide me with the feedback that I need to understand better and better what they see happening as a result of the government's actions.

I do have to say, though, that, apart from the conversations which were frequently around water and the Murray-Darling scheme, I have also learnt that many people in the community of Griffith in particular feel that they do not have a voice and that what concerns them is falling on deaf ears. Many articulated very clearly that, after more than four decades of representation by the National Party, their ballot has been taken for granted. It is as if they say, 'Thanks for the vote. We'll see you again in three years.'

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was a topic of discussion with just about everyone that I met, including the Mayor of Griffith, John Dal Broi. He spoke very passionately about the issue of water at the heart of his community. He is on the front line of debate that continues about the best way to manage the challenges of bringing this plan to fruition with that triple bottom line outcome being delivered. His conversations were a mixture of enthusiasm and frustration about the future of the town and the region. Like dedicated dwellers of Griffith, he envisions a thriving in community that is built on the confidence that what they do actually matters to the nation. He was incredibly proud, as were so many of the members of the community, of the produce that they give to the Australian nation and overseas through rice, cotton, wine and fruit. Indeed, they talked about the Orange Festival with glowing acclaim. I will have to put it on my bucket list of things to get back to, because it was such a place of pride for the community.

Mayor Dal Broi envisions a possibility for Griffith that, sadly, is clouded by the attitude of the federal government, not just with regard to water, where concerns continue to be expressed, but also with the fact that people in Griffith need access to a range of services and provision and certainty from this government. It is not just the water that is an issue in Griffith. Sadly, we have seen a very mean-spirited federal government that seems to think that the bush can afford incredible cuts. This is an insult to the community as they are undertaking a transition in their economy with this significant change to water that feeds the irrigation and wetland farming of that area. They are being asked to take more than their fair share of burden from government cutbacks.

Mayor Dal Broi presides over a council that will have $1,752,083 less in its coffers over the next four years, thanks to Prime Minister Abbotts ill-advised four-year freeze of the indexation of federal assistance grants. That is a significant amount of money into the community. Down the road, at Wagga Wagga, the council will be $3.66 million worse off and at West Wyalong, the Bland Shire Council will be short-changed $2.4 million by the freeze. For a community that is struggling with the transition that the water scheme is impacting on them, this is an insult added to considerable injury for many. In fact, the grants that have been cut will rip more than $18.9 million away from the Riverina electorate. In a committee of that size, where they are already concerned about the changing nature of the economy as the population moves to adjust to the changes that the water scheme has impacted, they are very concerned about seeing shops closing on the main street of Griffith and they are very concerned about the flow-on in terms of youth unemployment.

This is a community that is also seeking opportunities for education and employment, raising young people with a quality of life that is certainly guaranteed for many in the cities. So when you factor in other policies that have been advanced by Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne, you can pretty well drop the idea of a degree or any further education from plans for the future for many young people in this community. Many young people are devastated because they are fearful that they are going to end up with $100,000 worth of debt before they get out with their degrees—$100,000 millstones around their necks. If students had aspirations to go to one of the sandstone universities, it could be even more than that. This is a layering of impediment and disadvantage on the community of the Riverina and the bush. These sorts of opportunities need to be given more generously to people in the regions who are away and facing the challenge of trying to get to cities to go to university.

I had the pleasure of having a coffee with a number of high school students from the Griffith region and I felt with them the same enthusiasm and mix of hope that I felt with many of the students that I taught in my years as a teacher on the Central Coast. I met with Marian Catholic College's captain, Alanah Jeffrey, and vice captain, Francine Barbaro, Griffith High School captain, Vanessa Myers, and Rotaract director, Jenna Rogato. These are truly remarkable young women—very intelligence. They had pride in themselves and their schools, and they did their schools and the communities that they represent in their senior leadership roles great justice by raising a number of issues. Certainly, they talked about water and they will be very interested in this piece of legislation that is going through the House.

But this piece of legislation does not exist in isolation from other government policies. Students in the Riverina are very concerned about the impact of these cuts on their local community and the limitations on what their futures might hold, with the $100,000 debt sentences hanging over their heads. Alana Jeffrey has even taken it upon herself to establish—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order on relevance. I share with the senator the concern for the impact on basin communities, but if the senator really had their interests at heart, I think they would want to see this bill passed, so could I ask you to bring her to the question—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Canavan.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that was not an effort to shut down, it looked an awful lot like it. In a way that exactly shows the contempt for the community that was expressed to me. They think: the Riverina, it is always on our side; we can count on those folks; it does not matter how much money we cut out of that community; we can take it away, and we could take it away from every council on the ground, and they are too dumb to even figure out that they have been cut. I have seen some of press releases that go out into the area, out in the seat of Farrer and out in the seat of Riverina. They try to pull the wool over people's eyes, but under this government they know that they are getting a dud deal that is ripping money right out of their community—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right. Order on my left.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They know that they have been taken for granted. With the amounts of money that I have just articulated disappearing from the councils—I will state again, $1.7 million from the federal assistance grants gone from the seat of Griffith at this time of vital transformation in their local community—they will not forget that this government is trying to ignore them, take them granted and take money out of their communities. They will not forget that this is the government that is trying to put $100,000 worth of debt around the necks of young people in the community who have hopes and aspirations for a great education. They will also not forget, because students like Alanah Jeffrey, who has established a social justice league, have gathered together young people to discuss what matters in a way that is quite different from what was exposed in Senator Canavan's false point of order. It was about what they could to help others, not to shut down conversation but to liberate conversation, to generate ideas, to create a vision for the future for the people of that town.

One of the things that those students expressed to me as a very significant concern—it was not just the students, it was a number of employees in the town—was the impact of drug and alcohol abuse in the community, particularly at the moment ice, which is a discussion that is current in our communities. One of the things that they were very concerned about was people who are trying to get access, particularly in regional areas such as Wagga Wagga and the Riverina, to the sort of treatment that is necessary when somebody finds that they have an addiction. This community could actually be persuaded, if they were not paying very close attention, that the Abbott government intends to do something about that practical problem that they face. But, no, what they are actually getting is a lot of sound and fury, a lot of sound bites and media grabs that are talking about the 'ice crisis', and all while they are taking money away from the services that are provided. There are 16 services in the flexible funding pool, and all of them have been impacted by miserly decision making from this government.

While the Labor Party welcomed the National Ice Taskforce and the $20 million campaign for the National Drugs Campaign, we believe that people actually need to get the health services that they need. Fighting the ice epidemic while pulling money out of the very programs that aim to prevent drug use is not a response that is satisfactory for the people of the Riverina. This is the height of hypocrisy, and the Abbott government talk about so many of these matters but continue to pull money out of regional communities

In the time that remains to me this afternoon, I want to reiterate that we, the Labor Party, recognise the government's wish to provide certainty to the basin communities by placing a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on water purchases. I sincerely hope for the people of Griffith that this does ameliorate some of the concerns that they raised with me. I also want to acknowledge that in further visits to the region I hope to meet more extensively with the local Indigenous owners of the land. I know that Aboriginal people everywhere across this country feel a deep connection to the land and the waters that flow through it and across it, and this needs to be considered and provided for. Not by imperial patronage, in the way that the Liberal Party and the National Party does so often, but by actually ensuring that Aboriginal people are empowered through water rights and that they continue to be consulted as this program of change for the entire Murray-Darling system continues to be implemented. The voice of the Indigenous people across all of the lands that that covers is a vital part of the way we need to move forward together.

I will leave my remarks there and I thank you for the opportunity to be a voice for the people of the Riverina who have for too long been taken for granted by the National Party.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Water Amendment Bill 2015. The Murray-Darling Basin is home to 2.1 million people, and a further 1.3 million people are dependent on its water supply. While nearly half the basin population live in urban centres, the vast majority of land use in the basin is for agriculture.

What we do as federal legislators has a disproportionate impact on the economic health and wellbeing of this country and on the social and economic wellbeing of basin communities. Part and parcel of this is giving people certainty.

Over the last 12 months, I have travelled more than 6,000 kilometres across the basin, from Yea and Molesworth in the upper Goulburn in Victoria to Goolwa and the Murray Mouth in South Australia—to Cohuna, Cobram, Seymour, Boort, Numurkah, Tongala, Yarrawonga, Kyabram, Lake Charm, Swan Hill, Mildura, Benjeroop, Stanhope, Murrabit, Deniliquin, Barham, Koondrook, Kyalite, Rochester, Tatura, Colbinabbin, Bridgewater, Serpentine, Kerang, Lake Meran, Shepparton, Collingullie, Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Leeton and Finley, just to name a few! I also went to many places that do not even show up on the view from a satellite passing overhead. But there are communities there, there are people, who are affected by our decisions—in this instance, notably, by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I have heard stories of people walking off farms because they have become unsustainable. I have seen the subsequent collapse of small businesses and the effects on towns and communities. I have met with community leaders and school principals, and heard their concerns about the dwindling number of families and, most importantly, the effects on children in their schools, families and communities. But, over recent months, one message to me has been constant: please support the 1,500-gigalitre cap.

This cap was an election promise by the Abbott government, which is now more than two years through its term. This legislation has been a long time coming. Farmers need certainty. Our rural and regional communities need certainty.

There is of course much I disagree with about the so-called Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I was pleased to initiate a Senate inquiry into the plan earlier this year. I was even more pleased that Senator Leyonhjelm offered to be its chair. That committee is now underway. This legislation is a small, positive note in a sea of otherwise troubling developments related to the plan. It has my support. Thank you.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I will be supporting the Water Amendment Bill 2015, with some reservations. In my first speech in this place, on 27 August 2008, in the middle of the 'drought of the century', I spoke about the crisis that the Murray-Darling Basin was facing, the crisis facing the Lower Lakes at that time, where some commentators declared the environmental disaster in the Coorong and Lower Lakes as reminiscent of the devastation of the Aral Sea in the former Soviet Union. I also talked about a 1999 report that Phillip Coorey, now Chief Political Correspondent for The Australian Financial Review, wrote about in the Advertisera leaked CSIRO report that said Adelaide's water would be too salty to drink on two days out of five by 2020 unless there was a major shift in water management along the Murray-Darling river system. I think it is fair to say that there has been a major shift in water management. It is not perfect, but I do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and that is why I am supporting this bill.

I do indicate that I think that Senator Rhiannon's second reading amendment is not unreasonable—that you need to take into account the science and the evidence in terms of the impact of measures on sustainability of the river system, as well as climate change issues such as climate variability. All these matters need to be taken into account.

Back in 2009, I unambiguously supported reforms to the river system that, as a result of negotiations with the then Rudd government, led to a fast-tracking of $500 million in water buybacks, $200 million for river communities and $200 million for stormwater harvesting for urban areas, which I think was a very sensible and good move. And, in the end, I think both sides of the political fence as well as my crossbench colleagues thought that they were positive measures.

The Water Amendment Bill 2015 is yet another marker in the long, arduous and winding journey of water reform in Australia. It imposes a statutory cap of 1,500 gigalitres on Commonwealth purchases of surface water across the Murray-Darling Basin. The government's rationale for this measure is certainty—certainty for communities, certainty for farmers and irrigators, and certainty for the environment. By legislating a cap, any purchasing activity from the 1,500 gigalitres must be carefully planned and must be for strategic purposes. The government states that this cap on Commonwealth water purchases will bridge the gap under the Basin Plan to 1,500 gigalitres across the Murray-Darling Basin. The balance of water recovery measures will be focused on infrastructure upgrades, efficiency projects and environmental works and measures.

The issue of efficiency measures is a subject close to my heart. We know that, for over 100 years, before the earlier plan started by the Rudd government and continued by the Gillard and Abbott governments, there was not an adequate approach in terms of water reform and that there were some in upstream states who treated the basin as a bottomless well. With little or no thought for those upstream or downstream, some states appeared to simply take what they needed—

Senator Canavan interjecting—

Some states—let's not talk about Cubby Station, Senator Canavan!—took what they needed and exploited this natural resource in an unsustainable manner. South Australia, being at the end of the system, was the first state to become aware of the problem. Reduced water flows because of overuse upstream, particularly in a time of drought, meant that South Australian farmers had to invest in efficiency measures long before anyone else—as long as sixty years ago.

But this incredible foresight turned out to be many irrigators' Achilles heel. When the previous government announced measures to improve on-farm efficiency, many South Australian irrigators found they were ineligible because they were already too efficient. In effect, they were discriminated against because they took action long before anyone else to address unsustainable levels of water use. That is why it is important that the management of water use in the Murray-Darling Basin includes a number of measures.

The cap on Commonwealth purchases is one measure. But where the cap is concerned, and before any Commonwealth money is spent, this question must be asked: is this the most efficient use of government money in the context of the environment and river communities? In order to ensure spending efficiency is achieved, the cap must be monitored. We must ensure we are getting the most bang for our buck and that this 1,500 gigalitre limit on purchases is achieving its intended results, including environmental results. I therefore welcome the fact that the government will be providing regular updates about purchases made through the cap in the Water Recovery Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin.

Another provision of this bill must also be subject to continued scrutiny: the proposed amendment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which aims to increase flexibility in the recovery of 450 gigalitres of water through efficiency measures. These efficiency measures will be funded through the Water for the Environment Special Account. Under the government's proposal, these efficiency measures must result in neutral or improved social and economic outcomes in order to receive funding. Describing the beneficial effect of investment in infrastructure projects, the Victorian Farmers Federation in its submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill stated:

Recovering water through infrastructure investment instead of buybacks also has positive impacts on the supply chain. Where farmers are able to maintain their productivity this helps to protect on-farm employment and jobs in milk factories, wineries, fruit and nut processing plants as well as sustaining jobs in transport and marketing. Keeping jobs in small and medium sized towns is critical to the economic and social survival of regional communities. These long term benefits are also supported by a short term boost to local economies as contractors are employed to construct the infrastructure projects.

Those sentiments from Victoria are very much mirrored by South Australian communities, particularly in the Riverland, who understand the benefits of certainty for their river communities.

The Australia Dairy Industry Council has quantified, in dollar terms, the benefits of water buyback versus investment in infrastructure. According to research it conducted in 2012, water buybacks can actually result in reduced economic activity in the area. Investment in infrastructure, on the other hand, increases economic activity. The one caveat I have in relation to what the dairy industry says is that you need to have a viable river system in the first place, which is why I will be supporting Senator Rhiannon's second reading amendment. You need to take into account the science, because unless you have a viable river system there will not be anything to build on in terms of viable economic communities. We know from the evidence given to this inquiry that economic activity with efficiency measures can make a real difference in sustaining populations and economic activities in communities.

The government must acknowledge and address concerns raised by the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations that infrastructure upgrades impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and important cultural landscapes. Many indigenous communities have a long history with the land around the Murray-Darling Basin—in fact, one that extends tens of thousands of years. They are particularly vulnerable to the encroachment of new infrastructure projects on culturally significant land. That is something that of course must be taken into account in the context of how this money is spent.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council has done an analysis of the multiplier effect of investment in infrastructure which shows that such measures can be more expensive per megalitre than buybacks. Furthermore, there are warnings that the aim of 450 gigalitres in water savings may not be met by infrastructure upgrades. The SDL—sustainable diversion limit—Adjustment Stocktake Report published in August this year warned that:

Better engagement is required between the Commonwealth and the states to resolve a number of issues where different views about the performance of various on-farm efficiency driven programs exist …

I therefore urge the government to carefully examine the uptake of infrastructure projects and to monitor not only the water savings but the cost effectiveness of those savings.

What tipped the balance in favour of my supporting this bill was the attitude of the South Australian government. I do not think they could ever be accused of being a natural friend or ally of the federal government, but Minister Ian Hunter and his office have been very helpful to my office in indicating that they do support these changes, that there are sufficient safeguards in these changes for South Australia, that they do strike an appropriate balance and that there are monitoring mechanisms in respect of this. The fact that the South Australian government, given the history of negotiating in respect of this, is satisfied that this bill has appropriate measures to safeguard the health of the river system, the environmental health of the river system and the economic welfare of river communities tipped the balance in favour of my supporting this legislation.

The Murray-Darling Basin is one of our most precious natural resources. It is also the food bowl of our nation and the lifeblood of hundreds of rural communities. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we manage this precious resource in a responsible and sustainable way.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all of the contributors to the Water Amendment Bill 2015, which is focused on putting in place a statutory limit of 1,500 gigalitres on the Commonwealth purchase of surface water across the Murray-Darling Basin. The bill further amends the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 to provide an increased level of flexibility in the means to recover the 450 gigalitres of water through efficiency measures that can be funded under the Water for the Environment Special Account.

If I were to leave this Senate tomorrow—which is not my intention, for the benefit of anybody listening; I am sorry to disappoint you, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher—I would say that one of my, if not proudest, achievements would be the role that I played, along with many, many others, in relation to water reform in Australia. This was particularly so in 2007, when I joined this place as a member of the then Howard government, when I saw the passage of the Water Act. This was a groundbreaking piece of legislation and a major reform initiative of the Howard government in its final year in office. Then, in 2012, as one of the then opposition spokespeople on water matters with particular responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin, I saw the bipartisan support for the adoption of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that the Water Act provided for. Similarly, we saw bipartisan support for the establishment of the Water for the Environment Special Account. Today we see yet another step in the progress around water reform in Australia with, once again, bipartisan support for this piece of legislation.

I thank the Labor Party for the constructive way in which they worked with the Howard government and have worked with the Abbott government in this important area, just as we were willing to work constructively with them on this important reform when they were in office. I also acknowledge the constructive approach that many on the crossbench take to this matter as well.

It stands as a permanent record of disappointment that when the Basin Plan was adopted, a plan for the first time ever for a national approach in law to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin with the setting of sustainable extraction limits, the only party that opposed that plan was the Australian Greens. That remains a blight on the record of the Greens, who were the enemy—and appear to remain so—of good policy. It may not have delivered all they wanted, but this was very good policy and it is making a marked difference to the environment.

It is important to remember that just what that Basin Plan provides for. The Basin Plan sets in place a long-term average sustainable diversion limit for extractions from the basin of 10,873 gigalitres per annum. That represents a reduction of some 2,750 gigalitres per year from the 2009 baseline diversion level. To convert that into English for anyone who is listening, it means that there will be a substantial reduction in magnitude of around 20 to 25 per cent of the water to be extracted from the Murray-Darling Basin in the future. That water will go back to preserve the environment and to ensure the overall health of the basin.

Our side of politics has always been particularly concerned about not just the delivery of a healthy river system but also ensuring the health of river communities and the economies that those communities rely upon. That is why the Water Act has as its object the optimisation of the social and economic impact on communities as well as the environmental impacts. That is why, in opposition, we devised a policy that would see a cap on the level of water recovery undertaken by buyback.

It is very important to recognise that you can recover water by different means. You can recover it by simply going into the market and buying it back. You can recover it by undertaking major infrastructure projects that upgrade river systems and make them more efficient. You can recover it by making environmental watering activities more efficient. You can recover it by investing with farmers on their farms to make their use of water more efficient. All of those ways will get you licensed water holdings or water offsets to go against the Basin Plan targets.

As a coalition of parties, it has firmly been a view of the Liberal Party and the National Party that the most economically and socially responsible way for those river communities to recover water against the Basin Plan targets is to invest in infrastructure wherever we can. That is why in opposition we came up with the policy for a cap on buybacks of water licences of 1,500 gigalitres. I am delighted that today the government will hopefully see that cap put into legislation. By putting it into legislation, river communities can have the confidence that governments will have to invest in infrastructure to meet the Basin Plan targets that have been set.

As a government, we are already doing that. We are pumping some $3.9 billion into the infrastructure of Murray-Darling Basin communities, investing around $2.5 million per day between now and 2019 to make farms, irrigation systems and environmental watering activities as water efficient as possible. Through all of that, we will be getting contributions that will get us towards the Basin Plan targets. I am very, very pleased that we are on track to see those Basin Plan targets met in full and on time by 2019, as was our election commitment.

There have been a number of contributions to the debate which I will touch on quickly. Firstly, there was the contribution by Senator Rhiannon, who seemed to suggest that somehow this legislation will undermine meeting the sustainable diversion limits. I want to be very clear that this legislation in no way changes the statutory responsibility the Commonwealth has under the Basin Plan to see those sustainable diversion limits achieved and enforced. This legislation is only about how we bridge the gap to those new sustainable diversion limits, not whether or not they exist or what they are. They exist in law. They are not being changed in law. We are simply looking at how they will be achieved.

Already around two-thirds of those targets have been secured. The government is committed to seeing the remainder secured in full and on time. The recent SDL adjustment mechanism stocktake report, which was released on 27 August, provides confidence that the gap to the Basin Plan targets can be bridged in full and on time without breaching this 1,500-gigalitre limit on buybacks. It found that a supply contribution of 508 gigalitres is plausible, and basin ministers remain committed to working towards a supply contribution of up to 650 gigalitres.

Senator Rhiannon also asked questions about some of the definitional aspects around long-term annual average quantities of water used and what that means. This issue has come up in Senate estimates a number of times. For the benefit of Senator Rhiannon and the Senate, the Department of the Environment calculates the amount of water taken or accessed under purchased entitlements or recovered entitlements as a long-term average annual yield at the time of purchase. This is used to translate entitlement volumes—the actual volume of water on a water licence or entitlement—into long-term diversion limit equivalents to allow for meeting the basin plan. Essentially, it is a calculation about the reliability of having water against that water licence. That is a sensible way of doing it because, as I am sure Senator Rhiannon understands, different water licences have different levels of reliability. Therefore, you cannot take a water licence at its face value. It is actually about assessing how much water you get back from that licence that matters most.

Senator Rhiannon also claimed that this legislation was contrary to the notion of open markets. I am very pleased and proud of the functioning water market that Australia has in the Murray-Darling Basin. Farmers are free to buy and sell entitlements within the limits of the cap at any time on an open market and trade them as such. The Commonwealth has entered that market at various times, but by having the cap in place and prioritising infrastructure investment we are ensuring that the Commonwealth is involved less in that market, distorting the market less and leaving it to function more fully for irrigators and that trading of licences.

Senator O'Neill, in her contribution, touched on many issues, many of which were not at all relevant to the topic before the chamber. She started by quoting Charles Cameron Kingston, a former premier of South Australia, on water management in the federation debates, as I also have done so many times in this place. The one thing I would say to Senator O'Neill is to be careful in talking about this topic. When I held responsibility for it I quickly learned that it was very important to make sure that you say the same thing to people downstream as you say to people upstream. It is very important to make sure that you have a consistent message on this topic because, as Mark Twain used to say, 'Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.' In this space we have seen that all too often. To take communities with you, you need to be consistent in your messages to them.

In closing, I want to pay tribute to the many members of the National Party and the Liberal Party representing Murray-Darling Basin seats who have lobbied to get this policy implemented. They have worked hard in that regard. They ensured that in opposition we committed to the 1,500 gigalitre cap and they have worked hard to ensure that legislation was brought forward. I acknowledge the support of many of the communities and irrigation stakeholders who have supported this, as well as the support of the state ministers, South Australia included, all of whom have worked together to ensure that they support this legislative package, just as they have done on other reforms previously.

In closing, I want to pay tribute to my successor in the water portfolio, Mr Baldwin, for securing that agreement of state ministers. It is to his credit that he brought them together and ensured that all were agreed and aligned around this important reform. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment by Senator Rhiannon be agreed.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.