Question Time

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (14:22): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Water and the River Murray regarding the Murray-Darling Basin.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee last week, executives from his department referred to a list of projects being considered by the department to meet the 450-gigalitre efficiency measure. Is the minister in a position to outline a list of the projects and their current status in terms of commencement dates, proposed water efficiency savings, etc.?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:23): I thank the honourable member for her most important question. This goes to the heart of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement for our state. I forgot to say that there is a little bit of confusion out in the community in terms of what the Liberal Party's position is on the 450-gigalitre provision. I am very pleased to say that, in all her public statements—at least, those I have heard—the Hon. Michelle Lensink gets it right whereas her parliamentary colleagues in the other place certainly don't.

The 450 gigalitres is essentially the important part of the agreement that got South Australia over the line. It was the component that of course the Eastern States didn't like too much but then South Australia didn't very much like the 650-gig downwater component either. In the spirit of compromise at the time, as I understand it, all the states in the Murray-Darling Basin jurisdiction decided to hang together rather than hang separately. That situation has now changed somewhat because the Eastern States see an opportunity for themselves essentially to try to rip the plan apart, take the bit they like—the 650 downwater—without actually—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: They can't do it without changing the act.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It's legislated.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Michelle Lensink says they can't do it without changing the act. That is not true, of course, because it requires them to put up projects and this is the thing the Liberal Party doesn't understand. At this point in time, the way the agreement works and how the states have cooperated around the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement is that states put up their own individual projects which get assessed by rather rigorous methods that were established by the CSIRO and other independent, learned advisers. Those plans are assessed and then voted on by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and, of course, ultimately, MinCo gives its sign-off on that.

So, states put up their own projects. The Hon. Michelle Lensink acknowledged as much when she asked me what projects South Australia are putting up. She needs to understand also that South Australia doesn't put up projects for New South Wales or Victoria, as much as I would like to write those projects for them because there have been none forthcoming whatsoever, and this is the key point of difference.

South Australia is the only jurisdiction to date that has even gone out and done a pilot program on the 450 gigalitres which need to be delivered by 2024. I understand there was a vague commitment by New South Wales to participate in a pilot program that went nowhere. No pilot program eventuated, I am advised. We have seen nothing of it. Certainly, not even Victoria even pretended that they had an interest in delivering a pilot program. For them, it was a push back to the never, never.

The important thing to understand is South Australia has gone out—I think through the NRM, but I stand to be corrected on that—looking for private sector partners to develop the ideas that will deliver water for the 450 gigalitres in a way that is socio-economic neutral or indeed beneficial, as we have seen has been the case in terms of SARMS funding where we have developed new industries around irrigation and the technology that's supplied to irrigators, and also the complicated computer monitoring and the controlling which can be done from a central location. Those programs are in fact returning water to the river, making agriculturalists and irrigators much more productive and more efficient and, by the way, also establishing a new industry in terms of supplying that technology, updating it regularly and providing the infrastructure to local communities.

That's the essence of it. It is something that we have been pushing for in terms of those pilot projects. Nobody has done it, but the efficiency programs to deliver those 450 gigalitres are something South Australia is very keen on. It's also well to remember that we have had in South Australia very high levels of irrigator efficiency from our irrigators. They have been doing it for a number of years, as I said.

On the pilot landholders, under the pilot as I understand it in South Australia, landholders can receive funding to upgrade irrigation infrastructure or for other on-farm, water efficiency activities. In return, irrigators transfer the water savings they are confident of achieving from the project to the commonwealth. The pilot that we are engaged in will help to ensure that the efficiency program is well designed to meet the interests of our irrigators and their communities, and compliance with a listed requirement of socio-economic neutrality will be an important part of this, which I mentioned at the outset.

I am advised we are also thinking about other opportunities, including urban water efficiency projects that might meet the stringent requirements laid out in the agreement. Any other irrigation efficiency programs would have to be developed by working closely with our irrigation stakeholders just as we have done up to this date.

It's also important to understand that, because of the historical efficiency that irrigators have engaged in over 50 years, the low-hanging fruit in South Australia is simply not as abundant as it will be in New South Wales and Victoria in some places where they've still got open channel irrigation. There are great efficiencies that can be achieved in those Eastern States if only they were to step up.

The other conundrum in all this is this money is designed to go to irrigators themselves to make them more efficient. Why on earth would Barnaby Joyce and the federal Liberal government be standing in the way of irrigators getting their hands on that money that was put aside precisely for this purpose—to establish the 450 gigalitres and to do it in a way that is socio-economically neutral or beneficial to communities? As I said, we have been able to show this through our SARMS projects in various guises of increasing irrigation efficiency for our landowners and our agriculturalists up and down the Murray.

We don't expect—and it is important that we all note this—that there will be a similar apportionment of the 450 as there was in terms of other water in terms of downwater because, simply put, South Australians have been very, very efficient irrigators for the best part of 50 years. The low-hanging fruit now primarily exists in New South Wales but also in Victoria, and that's what that money is designed to do: to provide works and measures that will provide water back into the channel and be delivered in a way that benefits the environment of the river and benefits the long-term sustainability of the river for all our communities up and down the Murray, not to mention also those communities that rely on the Murray for drinking water.