HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:47): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes the likely release in November of the draft basin plan by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority;

2. Notes the concerns of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists about the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s basin plan process;

3. Notes the important work and findings on water reform prepared by the Goyder Institute commissioned by the South Australian government;

4. Notes that South Australia’s position at the end of the River Murray exposes our state to serious risk of harm unless there is a commitment to river flows that are sufficient to ensure a healthy river system;

5. Recognises that the basin plan is the single biggest opportunity to reform the management of the Murray-Darling Basin and ensure a healthy river, healthy productive communities and a long-term future for irrigation in the basin; and

6. Calls for a guaranteed minimum sustainable river flow to ensure a healthy, working River Murray that is based on the best available, peer-reviewed science.

Securing a healthy River Murray is a critical issue for South Australia. In October last year, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released the Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan. This was a comprehensive body of work backed by considerable peer-reviewed science, and it was supposed to chart a course for a major change in the management of the Murray-Darling system towards long-term sustainability.

The guide recognised that change was inevitable. It attempted to quantify what were the long-term average sustainable diversion limits for the basin that would ensure the long-term health of the river and the communities that rely on it. The guide was mostly welcomed by all sides in South Australia. Collectively, our community recognised that as the people at the end of the line we were most at risk if the river struggled. However, following strong reactions from vocal elements in upstream irrigation communities, the work that informed the guide was undermined, and a new process was set in train that emphasised a political rather than a scientific-based response. This led to a significant change in personnel, including the resignation of the chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Since then there have been delays, with the loss of the urgency that came from the daily reminder of the drought that had gripped much of the basin over the last decade. Most recently, reports have emerged of new sustainable diversion limits that are significantly lower than what the scientists have consistently told us is the minimum required. The Greens share the concerns of all South Australians, who are deeply worried that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's forthcoming draft basin plan will not guarantee enough water flows to ensure a healthy, working river.

These concerns are also shared by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. For almost a decade now the Wentworth group has been a trusted and active voice in the debate over the future of the Murray-Darling system, yet just over three months ago they walked away from the Murray-Darling basin plan process in frustration at the direction it was taking. I was keen to find out why, and I knew that this information would also be useful to others, so yesterday I organised a briefing for all South Australian state and federal members of parliament here in Parliament House, and I acknowledge that many legislative councillors turned up, as did a number of members of the other place and federal MPs. The briefing session yesterday featured two speakers and I will outline briefly for the benefit of members some of the things that they had to say to us. These presentations were both extremely timely and pertinent, and I would like to capture some of the issues that they raised.

The first speaker was Tim Stubbs, who is an environmental engineer, and he leads the Wentworth group on water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. In that capacity Tim Stubbs has led the Wentworth group's call for independent, peer-reviewed science to form the basis of the plan. In the session yesterday he posed the question: why is it so hard, because it shouldn't be hard to get this right? He pointed out that the ducks were, in fact, aligned—the planets, if you like, were aligned. He pointed out that we have national legislation in place that enables us to manage the Murray-Darling Basin as a whole and also the fact that $8.9 billion has been committed and there has also been a commitment from the federal government to bridge the gap for any extra costs.

So the challenge for us is to work out how to best achieve the requirements that are set out in the federal Water Act. I think we have to acknowledge that we do need to make changes and, in fact, we do not have a choice about not making changes. We need to be honest about the level of change that is required. We have the money available to take the action that is necessary and we also need to have a proper debate in the community about how to maximise the use of that money so that it is spent in the best interests of the environment and for local communities.

One question that was raised by Tim Stubbs in his presentation was how we managed to lose 1,000 gigalitres of water. The original figure from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was that an amount of 3,856 gigalitres would be needed to sustain the environment of the Murray-Darling Basin. The South Australian government, in addition and separately, also commissioned the Goyder Institute to do similar research. They used different scientists and a different methodology but they came up with about the same answer, that is, a sum of water in the high 3,000 gigalitre range.

Now we find that there are public statements from federal environment minister Tony Burke indicating that the likely figure of allocation to the environment is about 2,800 gigalitres, that is, 1,000 gigalitres less than the amount that the peer-reviewed science was telling us we needed not that long ago.

We also have concerns that this lower amount, the 2,800 gigalitres, will, in fact, drop even further, because there will be various pressure points and various discounts that will be applied to that figure. If we go back to the original figure that the Wentworth group is now calling to be reinstated, that of 3,800 gigalitres, we know that, even with that amount, important environmental assets will be lost.

Professor Quentin Grafton, from the Australian National University, did some work recently. It was highly respected work and earnt him a Eureka prize. He showed that it was possible to guarantee 4,000 gigalitres for the river at a cost of only $6.5 billion. I say 'only $6.5 billion' because there is nearly $9 billion that has been allocated to the task and, on that analysis, there would still be 7,500 gigalitres left for irrigation, so we would still have a thriving irrigation industry. Instead of taking that approach and using the money to best effect, the government and the authority are taking the easy political option, and this option will not lead to a healthy working river and we will not be getting good value for our money. If we end up with only 2,800 gigalitres, South Australia will be dudded even more than other states because the tab will be picked up by the environmental assets in other states. Other states will make sure that their environment is looked after, and, by the time the water gets to South Australia, the environmental flows will be largely gone.

It is also worth pointing out that an emphasis on spending money on infrastructure upgrades is a very poor solution in that it delivers much less water for the amount of the spend. We only get 600 to 700 gigalitres via infrastructure upgrades (which is far short of what is required), but it will consume the bulk of the money. The question that needs to be addressed is: what is the best spend for our dollar?

In a system like ours, with floods and drought and an unpredictable boom and bust weather cycle, we have to ask whether we are better off building pipes and pumps or whether we are better investing money elsewhere. The problem, of course, with investing in pipes and pumps is that we are going to be rewarding some of the laggards in the irrigation industry who have not kept up to date with the most efficient practices and who are well behind the efficiency leaders in the industry.

The question has to be whether we are better off offering assistance to the best operators—the ones who are already operating efficiently. If we go with subsidising the laggards then we will have a perverse policy outcome by rewarding those people who least deserve it; and, of course, this should particularly grate with South Australian irrigators who have been far more efficient over many years than their upstream counterparts.

We can be much smarter. We also need to make sure that the timing of the allocation of water to the environment is based on sound science, and that means that we need most of the water for the environment in the wetter years rather than in the drier periods. Irrigators, on the other hand, and river communities need more water in the drier years. The reason is that the natural environment benefits most when the increased water flows are piggybacked on wet years in order to enable small and medium flood events to look after the wetlands of the basin, but we also must have a guaranteed minimum flow.

We need to reframe the debate. We need to focus on river communities more, and we should frame the debate around how we transform the communities along the river with healthy river flows being a side benefit. Ultimately, it is better, I think, to wait to get it right rather than to forge ahead with the suboptimal commitment that appears likely to be put on the table in just one or two months' time. As Mr Stubbs said yesterday:

This isn't business as usual. This isn't just another step. This is the single biggest opportunity to reform the Murray-Darling Basin so we have a healthy working river, healthy productive communities and a long-term future for irrigation in the basin.

I now turn to the presentation of Professor Chris Miller, who is a professor of social work and social planning in the School of Social and Policy Studies in the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences at Flinders University. Professor Miller has a background working on the challenges faced by communities when a large part of their industry base is removed as a result of change, so he is well placed to comment on the future facing irrigation communities in the basin.

It is unfortunate, I think, to note that, up till now, the water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin has all the hallmarks of not just failing the river but also failing the people who depend on it. As the professor pointed out to us yesterday, this does not need to be the case, and many of the components for a successful social reform are in place if only we had the courage to take the opportunity, and the basin plan is a real opportunity to tackle the sustainability of the irrigation industry.

Part of the debate needs to revolve around an honest recognition that the irrigation industry, in many places, is struggling through many different long-term structural changes, which include things that have not been in the debate much to date, such as an ageing workforce. As it currently stands, communities will be managing their own slow death rather than transforming for their survival, and that is where we need to change the debate.

The process so far has been very poorly managed. Much of the reaction was fear of change. When I say 'reaction', I am referring to images that we are all familiar with of irrigators burning copies of the Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan that featured on all the television news broadcasts and has been repeated many times since. It was fear of change that was driving those sorts of actions, and I think that the debate has not been well handled.

There are many good and wise irrigators who know that things have to change; however, even those irrigators are angry at the poor level of engagement by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and they do not trust that government will help them through this inevitable time of change. It was a valuable presentation yesterday and I would like to thank Tim Stubbs and the professor for the time they gave us.

The motion before us specifically notes the important work and findings on water reform prepared by the Goyder Institute for Water Research, which was commissioned by the South Australian government. Prior to the release of the guide to the Murray plan, the South Australian government had invited the Goyder Institute for Water Research to determine whether the proposed sustainable diversion limits would meet the South Australian government's environmental water requirements and improve, or at least maintain, water quality. The review was also to assess the socioeconomic implications of reductions in diversion limits to the major water users within South Australia.

There is a series of relevant reports on the Goyder Institute website, but essentially the synthesis of their work strongly supports the previous peer-reviewed work done by eminent scientists that the minimum diversion limit is in the high 3,000 to 4,000 gigalitre range. I should also point out that this is a bare minimum and, if we were really serious about looking after the River Murray and maintaining it as a working and productive ecosystem, we should be looking at even higher amounts.

Any decision about the future of the Murray must be led by the best available peer-reviewed science. The scientific experts have long argued that we need closer to 4,000 gigalitres and certainly not 2,800. Anything less will not be enough to deliver the health of the communities along the riverbanks. It will not secure a long-term future for irrigation and it certainly will not keep the Murray Mouth open—2,800 gigalitres simply is not a sustainable limit.

When an organisation as reputable as the Wentworth group walk away from a process, as they did with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, then it is a sure sign that the science is being sacrificed for politics. We must be very careful not to let recent rains, a recent return to wet conditions, blind us to the fact that what we are continuing to do to the River Murray is simply unsustainable. If the draft basin plan fails to include a science-based minimum sustainable river flow commitment, then we are destined to repeat this process all over again the next time that rainfall decreases across the basin. We know from other scientists, from climate scientists, that the predictions for southern Australia are for less rain, not more, and that means less water in the Murray-Darling and not more.

The Greens recognise that the basin plan is an enormous opportunity to reform the Murray-Darling Basin and we need to get this right. We need to think how history will judge the time that we are in. We have the legislation, we have the money, but do we have the political will to make the decisions that are necessary? So far the signs are not good, but the clear message from the Wentworth Group is that it is not too late to ensure a better outcome for our state, a better outcome for our river communities and a better outcome for the extraordinary natural wonderland that is the Murray-Darling River and estuarine systems.

So, I call on all South Australian state and federal MPs to do all they can to ensure that South Australia is not being sold down the river. Through this motion, I call on the Legislative Council to send a clear message that we expect a guaranteed minimum sustainable river flow to ensure a healthy working River Murray into the future. Most importantly, and I have said it several times now so that the message is not lost, the commitment must be based on the best available peer-reviewed science.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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