Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I also seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's 2017 Basin Plan evaluation, considering the debate that has occurred in this chamber over recent times, I find it interesting that there's not too much interest in speaking to the report at this particular point in time, as it's being delivered to the chamber. The controversy and the impact on the implementation of this plan by the disallowance that was passed through the chamber only a few weeks ago can clearly be put into context by having a look at the recommendations and what is in this report. It was quite interesting, at estimates a couple of weeks ago, when we sat and we started talking about what this process actually is and what it has already achieved, even though we are only in the very early stages of the implementation of the report, as opposed to the broader delivery of what's occurring.

Yes, there are pluses and minuses, and there have been some problems along the way. Let's not forget that, in this process, we are transitioning from a circumstance where there had been a certain level of regulation and oversight of the Murray-Darling Basin, a system that has been fought over for over a century. In fact, the creation of the Commonwealth was delayed by issues surrounding water, going back into the beginnings of the creation of the Commonwealth. It's not as if it's an issue where you can't get an argument if you're looking for it. We are at water recovery of 77 per cent, as the report says, and there have been over 750 environmental watering events in the last four years, but the report is also acknowledging that there is still some work to be done.

It was interesting at estimates, when we considered what was happening in the basin and when we were talking to the authority, to think about where this process stood and to consider that it was something like growing a tree, which takes a long time. One of the issues that needs to be considered as part of the implementation and delivery of this program is that it is a long-term scheme and its full effects are not going to be felt not just for a few years but, in some circumstances, not for decades. It takes time for the repair to have an impact and it takes time for the reforms, obviously, to come into place.

It's a bit like how a small tree has only a certain amount of shade that it can cast. It's not until a tree grows for something like 60, 70, 80 or even 100 years that it develops its full canopy, and then you can see the full effect. That's a pretty apt description for where we are in the context of the implementation phase of the Murray-Darling plan. There's a small tree in the ground. It still needs a stake to support it, and, to some extent, that stake is the support of this parliament. It needs the support of governments to make sure that it is sustainable, its objectives are met and those objectives can be fulfilled.

The withdrawal of support by the parliament a few weeks ago undermines the planting of that tree. As was discussed after that quite unfortunate event in the chamber a few weeks ago, we now have to rebuild that support and the elements that sit around it. What is at stake in the development of that is not just what's happening in the here and now; it's not just about a particular political argument that might be of interest to someone here in early 2018. We're trying to put in place not only something that deals with the impacts of over 100 years of utilisation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin but also a plan that will have an impact over the next 100 years. I think that's quite important. I seek leave to continue my remarks in respect of the report.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned.