HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: MURRAY-DARLING BASIN (VOLUME 1)

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:02): I move:

That the 26th report of the committee, on Murray-Darling Basin (Volume 1)—The Fellowship of the River, be noted.

This is the first of an anticipated three volumes. This volume has a working title of 'The Fellowship of the River'. The working title of the next volume is 'The Two Rivers', we think, but we do not know; and I am not going to let members in on what the last one might be. The Fellowship of the River is by way of a general overview of the activities of the committee, and it also raises a few of the issues we hope to explore in more detail when we get into the later reports.

I have to say that all the members of the committee have been extremely diligent in getting involved with finding out information about these important issues, and they have been diligent in undertaking site visits. We have travelled as a committee as far as the Queensland reaches of the Murray-Darling Basin, and we have been to places such as Cubbie Station. We have been in New South Wales, and we have been to Griffith, Coleambally, Deniliquin and Shepparton. We have been to the Riverland, and we have been down to the lakes.

We have really covered a great deal of the territory, and we have spoken in every one of those towns. Our attitude has always been (and I am sure that other members of the committee who are in the chamber today will agree with this), 'We are here to hear your story. We just want to know what's going on in your community.' Before we can make some intelligent findings of fact and make judgments or recommendations about what South Australia should be doing in regard to River Murray issues, we have to actually hear what people have to say. It is no good if we form our opinion and then hear the evidence. It has to be the other way around: we have to actually hear what people have to say.

I have to say (and this really ties in with the name of the report, The Fellowship of the River) that this misery—and it is misery—that is being experienced involves not only people up and down the river, and not only people in South Australia. It is not limited to the people who live down in the Lakes, and it is not limited to the irrigators in the Riverland: it is spread up and down the length of the Murray-Darling Basin.

It is true that in a given year at a given time a particular section might be a little better off than another, but anyone who suggests that there are some people living in the Murray-Darling Basin who are luxuriating in more water than they know what to do with and are hiding it all from us is unfortunately misguided, because that is simply not the case.

We have discovered that the misery that is going on up and down the length of the river has actually, for the first time probably in the history of Australian European settlement, resulted in people up and down the river starting to understand each other's problems, and that is a very important step forward.

A lot of the people do not like what they are finding out; they do not like what is happening to them and they do not like what they are finding out about what is happening to their brother and sister communities elsewhere along the river and in other states, but at least this fellowship, or common understanding of the scale, breadth and depth of this problem, is starting to permeate everybody up and down the river. The narrow, parochial view of things, which is simply 'what is going on in my town', 'what is going on on my block', 'what is happening in my orchard', is starting to be replaced by a broader, more sophisticated understanding of what is going on.

This report does not attempt to offer solutions to many of the complex problems which are sitting there. Really it is only giving an overview to the parliament of what the committee has already established and the sorts of issues that we will be exploring in greater detail as we go through the process further.

I can say that two things are very clear already to the committee. These two things are operating together and having a compounding effect on one another, and that is why we are having the problem we are having. The first of these things is the fact that we are in a prolonged drought. This is not one of the years that is not quite as good as another; this is a very bad year following many other very bad years. In fact, if you want to look back at the historical records, you would have to go back to the time of the Second World War and, before that, to what they called the Federation drought to be able to find a period of time during which the inflows into the Murray-Darling system were anywhere near as poor as they are now, and it is quite arguable that this is worse than those two episodes.

Of course, if we are going back as far as 1940 or 1900, the amount of water being taken out of the system by irrigators and other users was considerably less than it is now. That brings us to the second compounding effect: absurd over-allocation across four jurisdictions of water out of the basin. No state is immune from this criticism. We have done probably better than most, but the fact of the matter is that each state has treated the bit of the river that runs through its territory as if it was the whole river and, as long as it was going into its jurisdiction, it did not much matter how much went out of it.

You could pump and pump, you could irrigate and you could open up large areas for irrigated farming like Coleambally, for example, which only came onstream in the 1970s. Some of the Queensland water allocations are as recent as the 1980s. We spoke to the Cubbie Station people. People need to know that Cubbie was originally a cattle property. Cubbie sits in the flood plain of one of the major feeders of the Upper Darling. That part of the world is used to having periods of prolonged dryness and then episodes of intense downpours which result in flooding.

A number of water allocations were made by the Queensland government for that particular tributary of the Darling. Those were then agglomerated by the owners of Cubbie Station. They put about 12 different allocations together at some considerable expense to themselves. They then invested hundreds of millions of dollars in turning what had been a cattle station into a huge, unbelievably sophisticated agricultural factory, which is the only way I can describe it. The physical scale of Cubbie Station is absolutely unbelievable.

The sophistication of the methods they are using, the gravity feed of the water, the retention basins they have for water in that property are absolutely mind-boggling. When we visited that property some months ago we had a look at some thousands of hectares of irrigated wheat. I did not realise there was such a thing, but there is. There is irrigated wheat at Cubbie Station, and they advised us that they expected to harvest 1 per cent of Australia's entire wheat crop on that single property. We saw them with bulldozers and earthmoving equipment moving sufficient dirt from a spot so that they could put up a storage depot. They were not going to put it in silos; there was going to be much too much grain for that to be possible.

Cubbie is a good example of what happens when governments do stupid things. If there is a villain in the Cubbie story it must be the Queensland government. It is not the farmers who were given an allocation (or who bought an allocation), went to the bank on the basis of the allocation, borrowed money and then put a lot of hard work, time and thought into working out how they were going to do this massive project, and then went ahead with the project and made business decisions about what crops they would grow and how they would grow them. It is easy to target those farmers, but they are not the villains. The villains are the people who offered those farmers the opportunity of going grossly into debt using an allocation of water that was unsustainable. They are the villains of the piece, not those farmers.

The other thing I would like to say about this whole business is that, when I came into this chamber, I think in my maiden speech (which all of you, of course, remember very well and which you have read several times), I referred to a number of things, including the River Murray, and I made some remarks then about the stupidity of growing cotton and rice on the Murray-Darling system. I have to say that if there is one thing that has happened to me since I got here it is that I have learnt that I was wrong in making those remarks.

I was wrong in making those remarks for a very important reason, and it is that if you are a farmer there are a couple of variables you work with. One of them is: how much land have you got and what is its productive capacity? The second one is: what crop are you going to put into that land? The third one is: how much water have you got to look after that crop?

Mr Pengilly: The fourth one is: how well do you get on with your bank manager?

Mr RAU: Perhaps. The point is that you can give the farmer two of those things but you cannot give him all three. The point is that if you are a farmer and you have 100 hectares and a given amount of water, and that is enough water to grow turnips, rice, cotton, sorghum, wheat or whatever, you will get onto the internet and work out what the commodities exchange in wherever it is—Chicago or somewhere—is paying for all those different commodities. You will work out that, for the given amount of land and the given amount of water, the best dollar return you will get is crop X.

In a particular year that might be cotton, it might be rice or it might be turnips, but the point is, again, do not blame the crop. The crop is not the problem. The farmer is doing only what the farmer has to do, which is to combine the resources the farmer has—namely, earth and water—with the best productive crop in terms of a return for his investment—simple. The problem is that because part of that equation includes a completely unsustainable, improperly costed water allocation, that whole process is possible, because if that farmer did not have the water allocation in the first place the option of growing turnips, cotton or rice would not even be there.

The alternative would be: do I graze cattle? Do I graze sheep? Do I put alpacas out there or do I take tourists on camel rides? There will be no question about growing anything. The reason there is a question about it is the water allocation. To come back to the point I am trying to make: first, do not blame crops, as they have nothing to do with it; secondly, do not blame the farmers, as they have nothing to do with it; and, thirdly, do not blame people sequestering or hiding water in special reserves somewhere up and down the river.

Yes, there are bits and pieces of the river better off than others, but overall the river is in a terrible mess everywhere. Just accept the truth and the reality of what is going on. Two things are compounding each other: a prolonged drought and stupid, unsustainable government policies across four jurisdictions going back probably the best part of 100 years. It is only now that the awful truth about that is being rammed down everyone's throat, and communities in every state involved in this whole business are feeling the pain of it. Trust me, they are feeling it everywhere.

So, we are pleased that the commonwealth government is trying to do something about this, but for God's sake, when we are talking to people around the place about what this issue is about, do not blame farmers or crops. Blame the people who should cop it: people like us, legislators or members of governments for the past 100 years in four states who have done things entirely unsustainable in relation to allocation of water out of the Murray-Darling Basin.

I thank all members of the committee for their tremendous support and for the work the committee has done, and I also thank Knut and Patrick, who have always been a tremendous support to the committee. I commend the report to the house.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:16): I rise to support the comments made by the chairperson of the committee. It has been a most educational exercise to visit many of these communities along the river. The chairperson is absolutely right: there have been the most irresponsible government policies from both sides of politics by the states in the administration of the river system. No thought has been given to the long-term effects of some of these allocations. When one looks at the policies, there appears to be a view that there were unlimited sources of water. No-one took the trouble to think that it was a finite resource. This system is unique and needs very careful management.

It is absolutely clear (and I am not one to hand over state powers) that there was no alternative but to have one controlling body to have the overall say in the allocation and management so that long-term, responsible, sustainable policies could be put into effect. The people who are suffering—some in my electorate—through no fault of their own are the victims of what has taken place. Their economic livelihoods have been destroyed. They were given an expectation that they would always have sufficient water so that their crops and plantings could continue to be economically viable, but that has not happened.

The economic effects in the Riverland in South Australia are such that we have not seen anywhere near the long-term result. These hardworking, diligent people seeing their plantings die must face an horrendous problem on a daily basis. When we go right up through the system, the chairperson is absolutely right: if people are given an incentive to grow a crop, they will do it, and the ones to blame are those who gave out the allocations. Instead of having the courage to make some tough political decisions, which should have been made in the past, they went along to buy short-term political gain and have now created long-term political pain—there is absolutely no doubt about that.

The time has long since passed, and we really have to bite the bullet and say that, if we are to protect these industries in future, some tough decisions must be made because insufficient water is coming down the system and insufficient money is available to help these people get out, if they want to get out. There have been all sorts of problems because people have been prevented by silly planning laws from subdividing their house blocks.

One of the things our inquiry has done is give some of us a far better understanding of the problem. We have not quite finished our inquiry, and it has been a most useful exercise. I sincerely hope that in the future this committee continues its inquiries into the long-term structures which will be needed to be put into effect to protect people in the Riverland because, unless ordinary members of parliament have a proper understanding of these issues, Sir Humphrey will, if we are not careful, pull the wool over our eyes or we will have competing commercial interests that will be given benefits that they should not have.

At the end of the day, this has been a most interesting exercise for me, and the interesting thing is that each group thinks someone else is at fault. That was what I found amazing. The people in Victoria were not wrong: it was those across the river in New South Wales, and so it went on. At the end of the day, someone will need the courage to say, 'This is what we have to do,' otherwise the lakes will never fill with water again, and that will have a detrimental effect on the people of South Australia. That is why we have to reduce our reliance on the River Murray system.

I am in favour of having adequate and effective desalination plants established in South Australia. It can be done efficiently. I know what has happened at Coober Pedy, where the community has lived on desalinated water for a number of years. The council has run it efficiently and it has been very effective. There are very few alternatives and, in my view, the quicker we get on with it, the better, because we cannot continue to pump all that water out of the river. Members should go to Morgan in my constituency and see the amount of water that is pumped out of the river, and when you go a bit further you see the vines are dying. The options are going to be expensive, but they will be absolutely necessary, and we do not have very much time.

At the end of the day, it is not an option, in my view, to do nothing. Action has to be taken, otherwise those remaining producers in the river system will continue to suffer. I am firmly of the view that we have a responsibility to do whatever is possible to ensure that the Riverland has a viable economic future. That is in the interests of the people of this state, and it is our role to participate in a constructive, fair, reasonable and sensible debate.

So, the inquiry of the committee has been most satisfactory, as far as I am concerned, and it has been educational. I want to say in conclusion that it is absolutely essential that the committee continues this sort of work well into the future in the next parliament so that parliament as a whole can be better informed on the difficulties facing the Riverland community. I support the motion.

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (11:23): I fully endorse the comments of the two previous speakers: the member for Enfield (the presiding member) and the member for Stuart. As both of them have expressed, this was a highly satisfactory investigation into a very difficult topic. I recommend that all members of parliament read the reports we are going to put out (this is the first of them), because I think it is a very clear overview of the issues.

As the presiding member mentioned, we went into this with open minds. Obviously, we have our roots here in South Australia and are particularly concerned about our own people, but we went in with open minds in terms of what the issues are that affect all the communities right through the river system. What are the options, what should be done, and what is a constructive way forward from what is, in fact, as the presiding member said, a terrible mess?

As the report describes, we met with about 100 different people over that time, from the upper reaches of the Darling River right through to the Murray Mouth. We heard many stories. We saw evidence of the economic and social dislocation and the environmental degradation that has occurred along the river, from top to bottom.

Our title, 'The Fellowship of the River', is interesting. While I agree that there is certainly an increasing degree of understanding by people along the river of the entirety and the interdependence aspect of the problem and any solution, there are still many examples of people feeling under threat, angry and at a loss about their own situation; and this is entirely understandable.

I must say that I was incredibly impressed with many of the witnesses. We met and spoke with many farmers along the way, and I was incredibly impressed with their knowledge, business acumen, planning, ability to problem solve and desire to do the best for themselves, and understand that the best for them had to go hand in hand with the best for the river and the environment. I was very impressed with their understanding. So there was a group of farmers, generally, with tertiary qualifications and a clear understanding of those sorts of approaches. On the other hand, we had examples of the old style farmers—I guess, the little guys—who were angry, unsure and uncertain of their future, feeling like they were being done over and really not knowing where they could turn. I saw those two extremes.

The committee had the opportunity to hear from some very highly qualified academics. We were lucky to hear from the late Professor Peter Cullen, who died a few months after he had spoken with us. I know some other members of the house attended that session by Peter Cullen, and one of the most interesting things he said which has stuck in my mind from the first evidence he gave to the committee was about the rice farmers.

He raised the issue of the rice farmers and how often people down here were blaming those farmers and saying that they should not grow rice. He said that we would have to come to terms with a new environmental regime and a new climate and that we would have to change our crops to suit the climate. He said, 'Don't blame the crop,' which is what the presiding member said a little while ago. He said, 'Don't blame crop. Farming is a business and people need to be able to grow what they can sell. The issue is getting the water allocations right.' Therein, of course, are the two great problems.

There has been incredible over-allocation, caused by everyone doing their own thing over many years. Of course, those over-allocations occurred at a time of plenty. In the same way we have done this time and again; we have over-allocated in a time of plenty and then there is drought; either a cyclical drought or drought exacerbated (as I think) by climate change, which is heralding a whole new deal in terms of the availability of water and its consequences for our communities.

I just mention, too, that, coming from South Australia—the driest state in the driest continent—I was astounded when travelling through New South Wales and into Queensland at how much water they have. It is just amazing seeing all the other rivers compared to South Australia's only having one river. New South Wales, in particular, has all those other river valleys feeding in—and Victoria, to a degree.

I came away from Cubbie Station really gobsmacked in terms of how you could actually do something to the extent of using technology to create a massive food production factory. I know that the Hon. Caroline Schaefer (being from the Eyre Peninsula) was astounded at the irrigated wheat crop that they had—all the same size, huge paddocks, all evenly growing and beautifully lush because they are irrigating it. She asked them when they were going to be harvesting this wheat and they gave a precise date. They knew exactly when they were going to harvest it. Everything about it was precise, including monitoring the water and its growth.

You have to say that, perhaps in the future, that is what farming and global food production will be. I do not blame Cubbie Station either. They have also obeyed the laws; they have followed what was happening in Queensland. The issue is that we have to come to terms with the over-allocation problem and the climate. It will not be easy and it will cause dislocation—it already is. We are already seeing that in our own Riverland and our own lower section of the river.

The problem will not be easily solved but it has to be solved. I think every one of us in this house needs to keep an eye on what is going on. I agree with the member for Stuart that this committee—and it has a brief in its terms of reference on the River Murray—needs to continue this work over the coming years, because it will take 10, 15, I don't know how many years. It will not be fixed in the short term, but it must be fixed.

The final point is that, the year before last on one of my study tours, I went to Europe to look at the clean-up of the River Rhine. I saw what the Europeans have managed to achieve in a huge river system that crosses different languages, different countries, countries with terrible industrial problems at various stages, and flooding. They have made substantial progress in terms of that river. They are doing the same with the Danube.

The one thing they do not have is a problem with drought. They have plenty of water; in fact, too much water sometimes. However, they have managed to overcome a huge number of barriers—different countries, different languages, as I said, different development rates, etc.—and have these schemes working. I think we can do it here.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:34): I will not speak for very long, but I was quite impressed with the contribution from the presiding member of this committee. Listening to him, I think he is a great chair. It was a very good assessment of a very serious problem, and I certainly will be reading that speech again and also using it. It gives me great confidence knowing that, within the government, there are people with ability, knowledge and the strength to say what needs to be said. Why is he not on the front bench as minister for water and the River Murray? I think that members on this side of the house (and I am looking at the member for Hammond and others) could work with him to achieve a much better outcome for South Australia and make advances in addressing this serious problem.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Why aren't you on the front bench—

Mr VENNING: It's not the time.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I will talk about that afterwards, if you wish. There are reasons for that. It may be for similar reasons that the member for Enfield is not. Maybe we have been a bit strong with our criticisms; maybe we have served up a few ministers or two in our time here—and maybe the member for Stuart would also elaborate on that matter. I think it is time that we had a person of his ability. The guy has a lot of ability and he talks a lot of common sense, and I always listen to what he has to say. However, the government does not have the capacity or the wisdom to say, 'We will go across the factions and put him on the front bench.' It really should do so, especially in times of crisis. The fact is that he remains on the back bench, and that is just not right. I also commend the member for Stuart: as a member of the committee, he has made a very good assessment of the situation. I commend him on the work that he has done over many years.

This is a very good committee, and the work it does is excellent. I am a strong believer in the committee system here in parliament. I think we should put a lot more emphasis on our committees, because that is where the groundwork is done. This is the outreach of the parliament. The committees are often the only part of the parliament that people see, away from here out where the action is; at the coalface, so to speak. I say to this committee: well done. If we could serve on multiple committees, I would be on this one as well. However, one cannot be on everything.

I also commend Knut Cudarans, who was mentioned in the speech. When I was the presiding member of the ERD Committee for seven years he was the executive officer, and his professionalism and capacity were certainly noticed and appreciated by me—and that is still the case.

As has been said, this is all about the over-allocation of water and each state not thinking of the other states' part of the river. We all know that, and the member for Enfield expressed it extremely well. Why can we not address this problem? I believe that John Howard, when he was prime minister, knew what he had to do. With the $10 billion that was allocated, he wanted to establish an independent Australian committee. We remember the trumpeting and grandstanding of the Premier. He did not agree with the prime minister: he had a better idea—and I have cut out all the headlines—all the grandstanding—at the time, and I will quote them all back to this house. However, we have achieved nothing: we have a totally unworkable situation. We have not advanced at all.

Here in Adelaide we have been talking about weaning Adelaide off the River Murray. So, what effectively has been done under the Rudd-Rann administration? They have allowed Melbourne to go on the river. What sense does that make? It just defies any common sense at all (and I will leave it to the member for Hammond to elaborate further on that). I think it is a shame.

This issue is above politics, because it really affects all of us. We are all affected by it in one way or another. It is a shame that we sit here and grandstand and carry on and then we hear a speech like that from a member of the government. I do not know why we cannot get together and advance this matter to come up with a solution. As I said, I am very concerned about why we are unable to do so. We all now know what the problem is, but we do not seem to be able to address it. I think it is high time that we forgot the politics and forgot the game. Let us address the real issue and get fairness and equity back into the river. Let us think of the river first and the irrigation allocations second.

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:38): I was not going to speak on this motion, but I would like to follow on from what the member for Schubert said about politics. I would like to remind him (and we have the minister, the member for Kaurna, in the house) that, back in November 1999, we formed a select committee on the Murray River. This came from the opposition and, in fact, it was the government of the day that pooh-poohed the idea of having a select committee. We spent a considerable amount of time preparing a report. At the time, the members of the committee were David Wotton, Dorothy Kotz, Kris Hanna, Karlene Maywald and Mark Brindal. It was an extensive report, and I do not know whether the minister wants to say anything about it.

Back at that time we saw some of the things that were happening up and down the river, and various recommendations were made as to what could be happening. I must say that, as someone who had not travelled much out of Norwood, I was interested to see what was going on up and down the river. Some people had very good practices. In fact, even back in those days, some people were using computer-operated systems to water their crops. We also looked at some of the cotton farms and olive growing, where they had put in drip irrigator systems which were being marketed worldwide as a very good initiative. However, there were also people who still had very bad practices who were still using overhead systems. The sluices were old, and there was no measurement of how much water was being taken out of the system.

As David Wotton said, South Australia was ahead of the other states at the time. We actually had put a cap in place and were doing some very good things. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission was put in place, so some things had happened. However, it is frustrating to think that, nine years down the track, we are still talking about what should be done, what should not be done and what we need to do in the future to save not only the ecology but also the lifeblood of many people within the country. I commend the report, and I commend the chairman for this initiative. I look forward to much more being done so that we do have a viable river in Australia.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:41): I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the 26th report of the Natural Resources Board—sorry, the Natural Resources Committee, I should say, not 'board' (I do not think the board could do anything so extensive), entitled 'The Fellowship of the River'. I commend the committee for having looked right throughout the basin. The basin is very diverse, but the management of the basin is also very diverse and therein lies the problem.

I agree with the member for Enfield that allocations have been handed out willy-nilly in the past. I have certainly had feedback from people who were the recipients of some of these allocations in northern New South Wales, and they said that 15 or 20-odd years ago, when this water was being handed out, it was just handed out like lollies and people grabbed it with glee. So, I do agree that it is not the farmers' or the irrigators' fault.

The legislators gave out this water and over-allocated the system. The planning has never been carried out in a fully holistic way throughout the basin. The northern basin is still going forward even after the so-called reforms of the last year. It is still unregulated above the Menindee Lakes, and we have the heavily regulated southern system, which obviously has tributaries that feed the Murray, the Murrumbidgee and the Goulburn.

However, there are many rivers and many tributaries that feed the upper reaches of the Darling: Culgoa, Warrego, the Minor Balonne and a whole host of rivers and creeks that feed through that flood plain country. People talk about climate change and climate variability, but what we have seen in the last couple of years is most of the rain falling in the northern basin up in Queensland, where thousands of gigalitres of water has been captured.

I have mentioned in this place before that, between 1995 and 2002, Queenslanders expanded their capacity up to 3,000 gigalitres of storage. You see it either when you talk to people up there or on programs, and it just goes to show what happens with irrigation and people's attitude. The member for Enfield was right when he said that everyone is very parochial about their water.

A guy in Queensland who was interviewed on a program on the ABC was asked whether he had ever taken any water illegally. He sort of grinned and said, 'I might have borrowed a bit.' That sort of attitude just does not get the system anywhere. Even Nathan Rees, when he was water minister for the state Labor government in New South Wales, went up to the Macquarie Marshes and said, 'We will control any more illegal banks that go in, but what has happened before this we won't worry about.' There were thousands of kilometres of illegal banks and diversions that can divert water out of the system.

I went through the area (and it is on my travel report) in July last year. I went through Bourke, Wilcannia and Tilpa on the way up there, and then flew up to St George and had a look at the vast amount of water that had been captured in that northern basin. Why did they capture it? Because they were allowed to by the government. However, that has accelerated the situation in the Riverland and the Lower Lakes with a lack of water coming down the system.

Previously, before there were so many diversions in the system, we used to get 15 per cent of our water out of the Darling. Now, apart from that, from the over-allocation that happens above the Menindee Lakes, the lakes are heavily manipulated so that we will never get any water past there because of the trigger levels to share the water between states and the parochialism of New South Wales. Once again, we have a state which, yes, is only standing up for its rights, but one has to question why it has to store 285 gigalitres for two years in the Menindee Lakes to make sure that Broken Hill gets 20 gigalitres.

This is where the infrastructure money, from the billions of dollars that were first promised by the Howard government and then taken up by the Rudd government to go into infrastructure spending should be spent: on upgrading infrastructure and installing pipelines where it is more vital. The problem I have seen (and I had a look at some figures this morning) is that only a paltry few million dollars have been allocated over the past few years on the infrastructure spend in the eastern states.

It is interesting to note from conversations with people involved in water locally that they are finding that the cost of lining the big channels and putting some of these channels into pipes sounds as if it is getting prohibitive, but only prohibitive in the eyes of the people who are doing it. I think the problem is that this is where most of the savings can be put back into the river, and that would assist irrigators; it would assist people who rely on the system for stock and domestic water, and also the environment.

I agree with the member for Schubert: if we get enough water down here for the environment everyone will get on. We have a massive problem throughout the whole system where allocations are not even throughout the system. With high security water, the allocations are 100 per cent below the Menindee Lakes, 95 per cent on the Murrumbidgee and 35 per cent around Mildura, and what did we get? Eighteen percent or about 100 gigalitres of water out of all that is available in the Murray-Darling system.

It is said that 4,000 gigalitres have been extracted this season for irrigation, and our irrigators get 100 gigalitres. One has to wonder where is the fairness and equity in that. We have seen Riverland irrigators who have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trading in water from the Murrumbidgee and other areas. We have seen people in the Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek area (and I will speak about this later in another motion) who have had to invest millions of dollars to access water which they used to get under their water licence straight out of the river because of the situation of the Lower Lakes being destroyed by the lack of flow and the high salinity that is building up.

I note the comments earlier about Cubbie Station. Cubbie Station is not on its own up there. Yes; it is there only because it is allowed to take the water. Yes; it may have spent a lot of money on infrastructure, but it spends only $3,700 a year to access close to Sydney Harbour's volume of water, which is 500 gigalitres. I think its licence is about 450 gigalitres. That is a vast amount of water.

I note the issues up and down the system. I have seen the devastation around Mildura and Bourke, but I have also seen the thousands of hectares of irrigated wheat. Irrigated wheat, to a dryland farmer (which is my background) just does not quite mix. I can understand why they are growing it, because I believe they are under financial pressure. In fact, a floodplains grazier at Wilcannia indicated to me that with a megalitre of water he could turn out $60,000 worth of organic lamb, but a megalitre of water will only churn out $150 worth of cotton.

As the member for Schubert indicated, we have seen, at the worst time in history, over-allocation exacerbated by drought and governments building a pipeline to Melbourne to take up to 110 gigalitres per annum of extra water from the system. This is one of the fundamental flaws of the new agreement. The tributaries are not taken in as a whole. The northern basin is not taken in for the mighty amounts of water that I believe will come in there and have done in the recent past into storages in the north. With the struggle that our system is having, especially when you think about the needs of the environment and that, apart from carryover water and what they can purchase, our irrigators have been starved to about 100 gigalitres of water, it is just outrageous to put in another city to take more out of the system. This just exposes the whole flaw moving forward.

Time expired.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:51): I would like to say thank you to all of the members who made a contribution in relation to today's debate. I am not sure whether I should be thanking the member for Schubert, although he did say some lovely things about me. I appreciate very much what he had to say, but I have to say to him that, for his wishes to be anywhere near likely to come to fruition, he might need to come across here so that he can either move or second the proposition that he was advancing a little while ago. It was very nice, anyway; thank you for that.

As you can see, though, from the members of the committee who have made contributions, we have all benefited tremendously from this exercise, and we are all genuinely trying to get to the bottom of it, find out what the facts are and get rid of some of the furphies and red herrings that seem to be around this debate.

In their contributions both the member for Schubert and the member for Stuart made it clear that the idea of blaming crops is not an appropriate thing. Of course, coming from two people who are involved in agriculture in an intimate way, as both of them are, that is a very important contribution. I know that the member for Little Para and I said similar things, but we do not have the background that those members do. That is really important.

The blaming of people and the blaming of communities up and down the river is ultimately not productive. We should be big enough as legislators and members of parliament to cop it exactly where it belongs, which is on our shoulders. We are the ones who made the mistakes, we are the ones who did the over-allocation, and we are the ones who have perhaps over-engineered the river system to the point where any similarity between the River Murray and a natural river system is purely accidental. We are the ones who have done all of that and, as the member for Stuart said, we therefore have to take responsibility for digging ourselves out of the mess that we have created. That is going to be expensive and painful, and it is affecting communities up and down the river.

Again, I appreciate the contributions of all who have spoken. The member for Hammond has very strong views about his constituents, and I know he holds them very sincerely. Indeed, he has accompanied us on some of our field trips. I sympathise deeply with the people in the member for Hammond's electorate, because they are having awful trouble at the moment. All of us hope that that can be remedied as soon as possible but, unfortunately, that will be rain. Rain is the thing that we need, and until that comes I guess our remedy will not be there. As I said, thank you to all of you who have contributed to the debate. If you get a chance, at least cast your eye over the report. I think you might find it interesting.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT