Motions

Water Resources Management

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:22): I move:

1. That this council—

(a) notes that it is in the best interests of South Australia for the commonwealth water portfolio to be separated from the agricultural portfolio and that it is held by a separate minister as it is in the South Australian government; and

(b) notes the history of gross mismanagement of water resources and the Murray-Darling Basin in this country.

2. That the resolution be transmitted to the House of Assembly seeking its concurrence thereto; and

3. On the House of Assembly’s concurrence, requests that the President conveys the resolution to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

I move this motion today because we in this parliament should all stand together against the watering down of our water rights. If we do not, our river may well die at its mouth. As we continue to hear the stories of mismanagement and corruption, even in this past 24 hours, it is abundantly clear that our river, our environment and our farming communities in South Australia are in trouble.

The explosive Four Corners investigation, 'Pumped', into the rorting of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan showed the rest of the nation what we in South Australia have been saying for far too many years. We have been, we are being and we will continue to be ripped off for as long as we have a water minister who is beholden to the top end of the country and indeed the top end of town.

The latest story is painfully familiar to us. Big corporate irrigators are exploiting the plan at the expense of downstream river communities and the health of the Murray River. As if that was not bad enough, we have a National Party water minister all but cheering them on. It is a joke, it is a disgrace and South Australia and the South Australian parliament should not stand for this.

What we wanted, of course, was a royal commission or an independent judicial inquiry so that we could get to the bottom of this and get justice—so that we could get water and justice for our river and for our communities—but instead we have been handed yet another parliamentary roadshow. A roadshow is probably the kindest way of putting it given the antics we have seen right here in Adelaide during the public hearings for this committee. Indeed, we have our own water minister in this place being denied the opportunity to provide evidence himself to the members of that roadshow inquiry.

We know how this normally goes. The big states and the big irrigators win out and we are left here doing the heavy lifting to keep the Murray flowing from source to sea. But what we have now here in this parliament is an opportunity to rewrite that ending. While Barnaby Joyce (no longer MP; Barnaby Joyce, citizen) takes a little while out of parliament—or depending on how his by-election campaign goes takes permanent leave of parliament—Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is the temporary caretaker of the water portfolio, so he now has a chance to show leadership and sort out the real dual allegiance issue.

My beef with Barnaby is not that he might back the Kiwis at the cricket: it is his inability to back South Australia. His allegiance in this case is quite clear and it is certainly not to the downstream communities, our state or our environment. What we need now while Barnaby has been temporarily benched is to make the rules of this game fair and to decouple the water and agriculture portfolios. This is why I am moving this motion and it is why I have brought it before parliament with some urgency. Imagine the strength of our statement if we stood together across both chambers for South Australia as a state parliament should and demand that the Prime Minister do the same. If we demand that he follow our example here today and have different ministers responsible for the water and agriculture portfolios, we would indeed rewrite the ending.

Another crucial consideration in this whole debacle is of course the fact that under the Coalition agreement, the Nationals hold the water portfolio. It is a secretive agreement and it must be made public, particularly the sections relating to the water portfolio. This deal directly affects the health of the River Murray while ensuring that a minister who does not care a jot about South Australian interests is in charge of the basin. That is why it is so important that at a commonwealth level this water portfolio is split from the agriculture portfolio, as it is in South Australia. The basin plan is vital but while we continue to see the other states blatantly try to rort the system and avoid their responsibilities to people and the environment, it is difficult to see it delivering the full benefits promised to those of us downstream.

With the ever-growing lack of trust between the basin states, it is vital that the Prime Minister now stands strong and delivers the exercise in compromise that is the basin plan. However, this will not be achieved with a water minister like Barnaby Joyce, who only cares about the interests of upstream irrigators. The Greens are committed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Australia is already seeing positive outcomes from the plan, including improved freshwater flows. These keep the Murray Mouth open and wetlands replenished, leading to healthier vegetation and increased numbers of waterbirds and fish. The plan has been a crucial step towards improving environmental outcomes for our water systems, but we must do more.

I want to remind members present that, as it stands, the plan only provides the bare minimum of water needed to keep the Murray Mouth open and the Coorong alive. It still leaves many wetlands and native species at risk. The plan was already a compromise. It was never good enough to begin with and gave us only that bare minimum amount of water to maybe keep the water from the river flowing. Demanding that the plan be delivered on time and in full is like begging not for a favour but for justice. While we here make that plea, we often note that the River Murray may well die from its mouth, but at the moment it is rotting from its head. With those few words, I commend the motion.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:28): I rise to support the motion and I commend the Hon. Tammy Franks for bringing it forward for debate. I certainly agree that separating the commonwealth water portfolio from the agriculture portfolio is not only in the best interests of South Australia, it is also in the best interests of the Murray-Darling Basin and the nation. Our nation's former agriculture and water minister is the best example of why these two portfolios need to be separated.

We have had a federal water minister who was more concerned with ensuring that his political donors got the best financial deal and the most water from the nation's most important river system than ensuring its survival for all river users and, indeed, coming generations. This has been possible because he has had oversight of both portfolios. Decisions like the appointment of Ms Perin Davey to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, a former staffer to Nationals' Senator Ron Boswell and a member of the National Irrigators Council—which fortunately did not go ahead—were biased choices for what is a legislatively independent and expert authority.

Following the explosive Four Corners program, Mr Joyce rejected any suggestion that a full inquiry was needed into allegations that his political donors had illegally pumped billions of litres of water out of the Darling River for their own benefit. Instead, he attempted to mislead a pub of Shepparton locals that the problem was with the greenies and that the water portfolio better sat with agriculture, so he could ensure that his big cotton-growing mates could benefit from the water and the money flowing from the Murray-Darling Basin.

We also know that the National Irrigators Council wrote to Mr Joyce in October 2016, asking for the 450 gigalitres of water crucial to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, crucial to South Australia signing on to the compromise agreement, to quietly go away. That was in their letter to Barnaby Joyce. 'Mr Deputy Prime Minister, will you make these extra 450 gigalitres of water quietly go away?' Mr Joyce then attempted to do just that at the November 2016 Ministerial Council meeting.

He also claimed it was impossible to deliver the basin plan because of the effects on agricultural production. This is a functional example of the outcome of having the water and agriculture portfolios together. These are outcomes that affect our river and all those who depend on it.

This motion that the Hon. Tammy Franks has brought to us today also has a strong constitutional argument behind it. With the exception of matters covered by state referrals of power, the key elements of the Water Act 2007 introduced by the Australian government were based on its constitutional powers to legislate on matters relating to Australia's obligations under international agreements, such as the Biodiversity Convention and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. These obligations are primarily environmental in nature.

It follows then that the commonwealth water responsibilities and obligations are better managed, I would suggest, from within the environment portfolio. Such an approach would also be consistent with our current state practice. In terms of the history of the mismanagement of the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin, this is of course why we have a Water Act and a basin plan.

For well over a century, there have been agreements, policies and plans that sought to manage water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. It took the extended Millennium Drought for all states to finally recognise that, despite all these efforts, all these plans and all these policies, too much water was still being harvested and extracted from the basin for the river's long-term sustainability.

Under the Water Act and a basin plan, there is a requirement to ensure that basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way for all basin states, including of course South Australia. This includes returning the equivalent of 3,200 gigalitres of water to the environment from all other water users.

While South Australia supports the implementation of the basin plan in full and on time, this also needs to be backed up by effective compliance measures. If there is to be effective commonwealth oversight and leadership on compliance, then this is another reason why the water portfolio should be ring-fenced from those responsible for advocating for consumptive users.

From our perspective in South Australia, this is a no-brainer. This is what we should have been doing all along at a federal level. When the Prime Minister was the water minister and environment minister, the same logic that pertained under that Howard government, that pertained under the Labor government that followed, should be, we suggest, back in place now.

The decision to hand over both portfolios of agriculture and water policy to Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce was a failed experiment. It failed majestically; it has failed hugely for South Australia. I stand with the honourable mover, and I hope all members of this house, in asking the federal government to reconsider that position.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:33): I rise on behalf of the opposition to make some brief comments and indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' motion. I am not sure that one parliament can advise another parliament or prime minister or premier on the make-up of their cabinet; nonetheless, the opposition, unlike the minister opposite, are very proud of the fact that we have Senator Ruston, a local South Australian, who is the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.

We do not have her storming out of meetings, swearing and cursing, like the minister opposite. She tries to play a very good role for South Australia. I think we should be proud of the fact that we have her in the tent fighting for us, and that we, the state Liberals, join with her to continue to make sure that South Australia's interests are looked after and protected.

We are prepared to support this motion today. I think it is an opportunity to let everybody know that the state Liberals value the River Murray. We want to make sure that, when any future decisions are made, the Prime Minister is aware of what we feel and how we think that should be reflected.

As we all know, there are on all sides of politics some interesting times in Canberra. We may well see some reshuffles and some other arrangements change over the course of time in the next few months, so I think it is of some use to make sure the Prime Minister is aware of our thoughts. We are happy to support the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:35): Just briefly, I simply want to thank both the Hon. David Ridgway and the honourable minister Hunter for their contributions and support and note that this now, if it passes, goes through in a timely manner for the other place to consider it.

Motion carried.