Debate resumed from 8 August, on motion by Mr Turnbull:
That this bill be now read a second time.
We all know that the health of our rivers is deteriorating. We all accept that our rivers have been overallocated. Most of us accept that climate change is real and that we will need to get used to even less water in our rivers, and we all agree that something must be done. That is why federal Labor has consistently supported greater national leadership on water policy and water reform. Since the 1980s Labor has called for national leadership, and in government we legislated for a greater national role in water policy. It is for that reason that Labor supports the Water Bill 2007. It is not perfect, and more work has to be done, but it is a step in the right direction. The Water Bill is a step towards fixing some of the Murray-Darling Basin’s long-term problems. It gives the Commonwealth greater control over water planning for the basin and should help deliver greater water security. The Water Bill provides the framework to enforce the sustainable cap on diversions from the basin and puts in place a planning process to manage the basin into the future so that we can restore the system to health and secure the ongoing prosperity of the communities that rely on the system. Labor supports the bill because it provides greater Commonwealth leadership on water policy.
In December 2006 I circulated a discussion paper titled Protecting our precious natural environment and water supplies. This was the first Labor discussion paper under Kevin Rudd’s leadership. The core of Labor’s approach and the rationale of that discussion paper were to focus natural resource programs on national priorities, streamline decision making and make sure that it is water that flows rather than red tape. Over 2006, Labor made strong, consistent policy statements on climate change and water.
Of course, 2007 is an election year, and in January we saw the Prime Minister act desperately, after ignoring water issues and climate change for over a decade. It took an election year to get any response from the government about the water crisis. We know that in 2006 the Howard government undertook secret taxpayer funded opinion polling on climate change. We now know that the polling was provided to an advertising agency as part of the brief for the government’s taxpayer funded climate change facelift. The polling showed that 94 per cent of respondents agreed that the climate was changing and that the number of respondents who believed the government had the prime responsibility to act had almost doubled between 2003 and 2006. Of course, that was the time that the government changed its rhetoric on climate change. It is clear that the only thing the Prime Minister is concerned about is the changing political climate, not climate change itself. The government had to appear to be doing something, so they chose to appear to be doing something on water.
On 25 January the Prime Minister announced his $10 billion National Plan for Water Security. That was more a headline than a policy. Labor had been calling for greater national leadership on water policy from day one. Therefore, we provided in-principle bipartisan support for the Prime Minister’s plan. Of course, we raised concerns; many groups did. Farmers, irrigators, environment groups, state governments and commentators all raised concerns. Critics of the lack of detail emerged across the spectrum and included the National Farmers Federation and the irrigation industry. There was general consensus that the Prime Minister got the direction right in January, but the detail was sorely lacking. Indeed, it was a headline looking for a policy. There were no funding details, no time lines and no governance arrangements. There was no consultation with the states, the national water commissioners, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, the NFF, irrigators or environment groups. There was no proper scrutiny by the departments of Treasury or Finance. There was not even consideration by the cabinet. Since 25 January, I understand there have been more than 62 versions of the legislation. There have been reports of very different approaches to the legislation appearing in drafts and then disappearing just as quickly.
Throughout this period federal Labor have been constructive in our approach. We gave in-principle support to the national approach whilst recognising it was reasonable and indeed necessary and responsible for all stakeholders to scrutinise the National Plan for Water Security and to ensure the details were correct. After legislation was drafted and redrafted and many meetings were held, it is unfortunate that negotiations broke down between the Commonwealth and Victorian governments. It would have been better for the Commonwealth government to have worked constructively with the Victorian government to reach an agreement. Over June and July, we were indeed optimistic that the Commonwealth and Victoria would resolve their differences. That was certainly the public message coming out of discussions. For reasons best understood by the Prime Minister, it became politically convenient to establish a line of conflict between the Commonwealth and Victoria and force the issue.
But the blame game is not in the national interest; the blame game is a game for losers, and the price is paid by the Australian people, who deserve better. It is a lost opportunity that we have second or third best legislation for the Murray-Darling Basin because drafters were focused on making sure the legislation survives the High Court and less focused on the survival of the river system itself. Previous federal governments have cleared bigger hurdles than those faced by the minister and the Howard government. I listened closely to the second reading speech by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and noted with some surprise that the minister said:
This Water Bill is the first water reform program introduced into this parliament in 106 years.
No, minister, it is not. The legislation you have stewarded into the parliament has merit, but the bill is not the Commonwealth’s first water reform program. Indeed, as far back as 1915 the Commonwealth chaired the negotiations for the River Murray Waters Agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Modern national water reform began with the historic Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in June 1992, led by the Keating Labor government, and the landmark Murray-Darling Basin Act 1992. The other parties to the historic bipartisan Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in 1992 were the Fahey Liberal government in New South Wales, the Kennett Liberal government in Victoria, the Brown Liberal government in South Australia, the Goss Labor government in Queensland and the Follett Labor government in the ACT.
If one casts their mind back to the politics and issues of the late 1980s, one has to give credit to the Keating government and the state governments for the work that they did. There was a bipartisan agreement and things moved forward under the leadership of the federal Labor government. The major public debate over salinity in the basin really captured the public attention in the 1980s and the early 1990s. I remember that debate. There was a recognition that the river’s problems extended across state boundaries and that a national approach was needed. Out of discussions, the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was struck and the Murray-Darling Basin Act was passed. But, of course, the hard work did not just stop there. Rather than put the cue in the rack, work kept going and in 1994 the historic COAG agreement on national water reform was struck.
The current water debate can be traced back to the 1980s and 1990s when the Hawke and Keating governments put national water reform on the COAG agenda. After a very long gestation period, this provided the foundation for the 2004 National Water Initiative. I would like to table two documents: one is the COAG communique from February 1994 and the other is the COAG communique from July 2006. I seek leave to table those documents.
Leave granted.
There is a striking similarity between these two documents. The problems in the Murray-Darling Basin did not go away, but things certainly slowed down under the federal Liberal-National coalition government. There were 10 long years between the COAG agreement in 1994 and the National Water Initiative in 2004, which of course is why it is so extraordinary that the minister was prepared to argue that this was the first water reform from the Commonwealth in 106 years.
I also do not think it is fair of the minister to overlook the National Water Initiative and the National Water Commission Bill 2004. That legislation established the National Water Commission and the $2 billion Australian Water Fund. It was major legislation at the time for the coalition government. But, of course, we know that, up until very recently and just three years after it was founded, less than half of the $2 billion was actually committed to much-needed water projects. More recently, Labor have been critical that in the May budget just one-half of one per cent of the $10 billion water plan, just $53 million, was allocated for the coming financial year. A mere $15 million was allocated in 2007-08 to deal with the issue of overallocation. The Commonwealth government should be purchasing overallocated water entitlements, and as the Prime Minister, on 25 January, said:
We could muddle through as has occurred in the past, but frankly, that gets us nowhere. Without decisive action we face the worst of both worlds.
Common sense tells you that, given the immediate water crisis, funding should be front-end loaded; economic sense tells you that it will cost less to deal with the overallocation of water entitlements sooner rather than later. Labor have noted on many occasions our concern with the lack of funding details for the government’s water announcements. Again, with this bill, I am surprised there is neither any new detail on appropriations nor more details on how the funding announced in the budget will be put into programs.
The head of the Treasury, Ken Henry, the senior economic adviser to the government, has expressed serious reservations about government policy development in relation to water and climate change. Treasury was excluded from the development of the 25 January $10 billion National Plan for Water Security, and it appears the Water Bill and programs flowing from it are being kept well and truly away from the Treasury. The lack of funding for programs and the lack of detail for spending show a serious weakness in the Prime Minister’s water plan, and that the government is not really ready to take the urgent action that is required to address the water crisis. Labor believe that the water reform process must continue so that we properly fix the overallocation of water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to ensure harmony between environment and consumptive use and help address the impact of drought and climate change on water supply.
I think something quite interesting has been revealed by the debate over how to resolve the overallocation of water. It is clear that the real division over water policy in Australia is between the reformers on one side and the blockers in the National Party on the other. The National Party are the handbrake on national water reform. There is a conflict between the national interest and the interests of the National Party. The coalition, by definition, has been incapable of resolving this conflict. Following the script written by narrow sectional interests, the blockers in the National Party have continually undermined the $10 billion water plan.
Since the announcement in January, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile; the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran; the member for Maranoa; and Senator Barnaby Joyce have all publicly undermined the plan. National Party members oppose the plan to address water overallocation and they are resolute that buying back water entitlements should only be done as a last resort. This directly contradicts the Prime Minister’s commitment made on 25 January, when he said:
We are prepared to invest up to $3 billion in buying back water entitlements and assisting irrigators in the unviable or inefficient parts of schemes to exit the industry.
The dismal failure of the tender program for water efficiency, which closed on 14 February, highlights the failure of the National Party’s approach. From a budget of up to $200 million, just $765,000 was spent—less than one per cent. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources stated on 19 June 2006 that the government ‘would not be seeking to acquire more than 200 gigalitres’. Did the tender acquire 100 gigalitres, 50 gigalitres, 10 gigalitres or even one gigalitre? No, it did not. The program acquired just 454 megalitres, or 0.2 per cent of its objective. One wonders why they even bothered. They hardly troubled the scorers. More money was spent on administration than on purchasing water. The government refused to acknowledge that the program was a failure. Perhaps that is because the minister for agriculture is really opposed to dealing in any way with overallocated water entitlements. The National Party are at the core of the water problem, and they are also at the core of the Howard government.
Climate change will directly affect water supply, temperature and the frequency of extreme weather events, and there is no question that all areas of Australia will be particularly affected. For Australia, the key climate change impacts on water supply, on our cities and on agriculture will be less rainfall and increased evaporation. Water problems will intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia.
For Labor, water supply issues and climate change are two sides of the same coin. Without a strategy for climate change, you do not really have a strategy for water. As a nation we must take action on water and climate change every year, not just in election years. We will not get climate change solutions from a government full of climate change sceptics—as we saw from the four government members in yesterday’s report—or climate change deniers. No wonder the head of Treasury, Ken Henry, has expressed serious reservations about government policy development on water and climate change.
Labor believes that the Commonwealth’s water bill is a step towards fixing some of the Murray-Darling Basin’s long-term problems. It is critical that all levels of government work together in the national interest. The Commonwealth’s method has been to implement a basin-wide approach to managing the basin. Labor agrees with this. Under the bill, the Commonwealth will establish a new, expert Murray-Darling Basin Authority to develop and oversee the implementation of a basin plan for water management. The plan will include: a new sustainable cap on extractions of surface and groundwater in the MDB, a salinity and water quality plan, an environmental watering plan and trading rules. The bill sets out processes for accrediting the catchment level water plans prepared by basin states under their existing legislation to ensure that the outcomes of the basin plan are achieved.
I note that the Commonwealth approach is to honour its commitment to existing catchment level water plans for the life of those plans and related instruments, many of which do not expire for several years. Labor supports that approach. We must improve water security and planning while at the same time helping water users to adapt to less water and climate change. Of course, it is possible that the long-term average sustainable water diversion limit or cap for the water resource plan will have to be reduced. That means that there will be compulsory water entitlement reductions under clause 77 of this bill, but it is an open question as to how this will be different from compulsory acquisition. Under clause 77 of the bill, when that cap is reduced it appears that the water entitlement holder may receive compensation for that reduction. Clause 77 sets out the way in which the liability for that compensation will be distributed. I note that clause 255 of the legislation does not authorise the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements. But doesn’t clause 77 do just that? Clause 77 sets up a mechanism for paying out irrigators for a legislative reduction in their water entitlement. It appears to me that that is a distinction without a real difference.
The bill will establish a Commonwealth environmental water holder to manage environmental outcomes for the new water holdings purchased by the Commonwealth under the new funding programs of the national plan. Through the Bureau of Meteorology, the level and quality of information on water will improve. This will help our understanding and our ability to manage water resources on a sustainable basis.
Labor is concerned that, because of the haste to develop and pass legislation in an election year, the Water Bill 2007 represents a second-best solution on national water reform. That has been agreed by the government, including by the minister. The representative of the Victorian Farmers Federation said the following at the Senate hearing last Friday:
We have some concerns about the creation of the bureaucracy under this bill. We have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. We still have the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. We have two ministerial councils, a community consultative council and an officials committee.
He continued:
There is the National Water Commission. I am concerned that, at the end of the day, somebody pays for all that bureaucracy and it may well be irrigators who wear a fair bit of that cost.
Labor wants water, not red tape, to flow in the Murray-Darling Basin. The overlapping and unclear decision-making structures are a symptom of a rushed piece of legislation in an election year. Labor deplores the government’s failure to consult in good faith with state governments and other stakeholders over the bill and, most importantly, the related intergovernmental agreement. A key element of the national plan remains for basin states and the ACT to sign an intergovernmental agreement committing them to refer powers for an eventual basin-wide management structure and to work cooperatively to implement all aspects of the Commonwealth’s Water Bill. The development of the IGA is critical to the effectiveness of the basin plan.
Labor is very concerned that the IGA was not provided to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill and that it has not been given to state governments, to stakeholders in the basin or to members of the House of Representatives who are expected to vote on this bill. The yet-to-be-released IGA will govern federal and state relations, guide investment and ensure water plans function properly. I agree with the National Farmers Federation statement last week:
The principal outcomes of the Prime Minister’s National Plan for Water Security cannot be effectively delivered unless Federal and State Governments can agree on the strings attached to federal funding.
Federal Labor is worried that, as a result of unilateral changes foreshadowed by the Howard government regarding the operation of the IGA, the effectiveness of the basin plan and future water management in the basin may be unnecessarily affected.
While the bill is a step forward, there is confusion and doubts about several key issues. Why do we have both a Murray-Darling Basin Authority and a Murray-Darling Basin Commission? How will compulsory water entitlement reductions under section 77 work, and how are they different from compulsory acquisition? When will the government circulate the all important intergovernmental agreement? What will the risk sharing arrangements be with the states, and why should the states carry more risk than was agreed to with the Prime Minister in early July? Those issues of risk sharing and compensation have been major issues raised by the New South Wales and Queensland governments. Premier Iemma has written to the Prime Minister suggesting that he honour the agreement that was given by some of the state governments early on to this national plan. It would appear that this bill is written deliberately to place pressure on all of the states to sign up to the original referral of powers; otherwise, funding will be held back. It is not an appropriate way to punish states that were prepared to refer their powers and engage in a truly national plan, which Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and the ACT were prepared to do. The other concern is: why are the water needs of towns and cities in the basin and the other downstream consequences of water planning not dealt with in the bill?
I am proud that, when Kevin Rudd talks about a national water plan, he talks about a water plan for all Australians. In order to promote sustainable water use, Australia needs clear targets and benchmarks for environmental performance. Water in Australia is overallocated, undervalued and misdirected. The National Water Initiative must be the foundation of water policy implementation. This is the case for the Murray-Darling and it is also the case for the rest of Australia. Water for urban areas, where 18 million Australians live, must be high on the Commonwealth government’s agenda. Australia needs a national perspective on water issues. Labor support the bill, but we see a whole lot more that needs to be done. There is a critical role for the Commonwealth in developing urban infrastructure, which includes urban water supplies.
Past Commonwealth governments were critical in delivering water infrastructure through pipes and sewerage to our outer suburbs. It is time to renew the Commonwealth’s engagement in our cities. Australians want real solutions to our water crisis. We need this legislation for the Murray-Darling Basin, but we need to develop it further and we also need a national urban water strategy which is comprehensive and supports major infrastructure and individual household measures.
Labor has a plan for major new projects, a plan to fix existing infrastructure such as leaky pipes, and a plan for households. We must ensure security of water supply for all Australians regardless of whether they live in our rural and regional communities or our towns and cities. Labor has a 30 per cent waste water recycling target by 2015. We will provide the support and investment to help achieve that target. Tackling the nation’s water shortages is all about securing Australia’s economic future and prosperity. Across Australia in rural and urban areas water has been overallocated, undervalued and misdirected. This bill is a positive step towards addressing part of the national water problem, but more needs to be done.
I will conclude with a reflection on the bill and the national water policy debate. It is just over two years since I was appointed shadow minister for water in June 2005. This was an innovative appointment given that, at the time, I had no-one to shadow as there was no minister for water. A journalist questioned the decision and declared it a strange appointment. The journalist asked me, ‘Why do you need a federal spokesperson for water? Isn’t that a state government responsibility?’ Two years on it is incomprehensible that any government in the future will not have a minister for water sitting in the cabinet room, and any opposition will not have a shadow minister for water.
The rise to prominence of water as a national political issue has been aided by human activity on two fronts. On the negative side, human activity has significantly contributed to climate change. On the positive side, human intellectual activity will provide the policy response and solutions as we more forward. Nature itself has been reminding us of its innate power. Climate change has reminded all of us, with the exception of the sceptics in the Howard government, that we survive by the grace of nature and that our very short lived presence on earth is minuscule compared with the power of our natural resources and, in particular, water. When water is in trouble, we are all in trouble. Our absolute dependence on fresh water to survive should never be taken for granted. This is important legislation before this parliament.
Labor, in spite of some of the reservations that we have had since the announcement on 25 January, have been constructive and will continue to be so during the conduct of this debate in the House of Representatives and the Senate. But we are concerned about the continuing issues which remain outstanding. We are concerned with the haste in which this bill has been finalised and the haste of its public debate, where it was introduced into the parliament only last week and will be voted on in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That truncated process has allowed very limited input from the public and from community interests. Of course the government would argue that because an election is around the corner there is a need to do this quickly; I would argue that it should not have taken an election year to have legislation such as this before the House. I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The Water Bill 2007 is a very important piece of legislation. It goes to the very core of our national purpose and—I do not think it would be too strong to say—of our national existence. It is highlighted by the circumstances of our climate at this time, and I think there is no better time for it to be introduced into the parliament. I am sure we would all wish that it could have been expedited over a shorter time, but no doubt many of us are aware of the reasons that it has not been able to come to the parliament until this point.
In some pre-emptory discussion, before I come to the content of the bill, I will make some overall statements and address some of the member for Grayndler’s comments. He mentioned the hastiness in which it has come to the parliament and the lack of public debate and deplored the government’s failure to honour this approach. I think the people of Australia would have a very different view, remembering that the Prime Minister brought the National Plan for Water Security before the Australian people on 25 January 2007. The circumstances of the states, particularly Victoria, are well known to the Australian people. It is not my purpose to revisit them here, but I think they are well known. I pay due respect to the Keating government for the COAG initiative of 1992 leading up to 1994. That was an important national initiative; the great pity is that we have not moved more rapidly.
We can talk about climate change at great length, and I am sure we will—and we already have—in this place, around the nation and around the world. Suffice to say for my purpose, being much more of the practical ilk, I will talk in terms of a severe drought and not get caught up in the politics of climate change, because there are much more pressing issues.
I was raised in one of the driest areas of this country. The closest part of the Murray River to my home is some 400 kilometres away by road. But nevertheless the Murray-Darling system is a vital part of South Australia’s existence. To go to the electorate’s specific issues, the pipeline from Morgan supplies water to Yorke Peninsula and now to Eyre Peninsula, since the building of the new pipeline from Iron Knob to Kimba. Water from Kimba, I understand, can gravitate to Ceduna and Penong, well to the west, some 350 kilometres from Kimba. So the Murray River, even at this very severe time, is being asked to do more and more.
Some of the statistics from the second reading speech of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources are quite remarkable. There has been something like a fivefold increase in demand on the Murray-Darling system in the last 70 or 80 years. It is a huge increase, so we should not be too surprised that we are here discussing this today. For all the politics of it, there is this wonderful piece from Alfred Deakin, when, in 1886, while he was Chief Secretary in the Victorian government—and I am sure the irony of that will not be lost on the House—he introduced, quoting from the minister’s speech, ‘innovative and, in the minds of many, radical reforms to water management in that state’. I quote Alfred Deakin:
The water legislation of this country, fortunately for us, has proceeded upon one line of continuous and consistent development … The present proposals of the Government—
Remember that this was in 1886—
however large they may appear at first sight, are after all, only the necessary consequence of what has gone before …
There is nothing new in history.
I turn to the bill itself. The Water Bill 2007 gives effect to a number of key elements of the Commonwealth government’s $10.05 billion National Plan for Water Security, announced, as I said earlier, by the Prime Minister on 25 January 2007. It will enable water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin to be managed in the national interest, optimising environmental, economic and social outcomes. Its key elements include an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the functions and powers, including enforcement powers, needed to ensure that basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way. There are a whole lot of subpieces of that general intent, and I do not propose to go through all of them in the discussion today except to touch on the environmental watering plan, a Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to manage the Commonwealth’s environmental water inside and outside the basin, the role of the ACCC for pricing issues and a much increased role for the Bureau of Meteorology.
The new arrangements bring greater certainty for water users. They will give effect on the ground via accredited state plans. This means that the nature of existing water entitlements is not affected by the bill, and nor are existing state water shares. The legislation locks in the government’s commitment to respect existing water resource plans, most of which do not expire until 2014. The substantial funding of $10.05 billion available through the program will have a positive impact on regional communities by reconfiguring irrigation infrastructure so as to use water more efficiently and productively. Time permitting, I will mention the general financial breakdown, which is well known to the House and well known to many throughout Australia.
With regard to the timing for the new arrangements, it is anticipated that the new authority will commence operations in early 2008 and that the basin plan will be completed within two years of the authority’s establishment. It will complement the National Water Initiative, which was a very important initiative of this government. We should not lose sight of that, because that has been very much part of this parliament, being a pre-election promise in 2004. The community water grants—the larger-picture allocation of capital—are water improvement initiatives that are already very much happening on the ground throughout Australia. I am sure there is not a member of parliament who would not have many electors who are very pleased with this government’s National Water Initiative.
There will be discussion—in fact, it came up in the speech of the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler—that, somehow or other, this legislation is a second-best option. There is no way that that charge can be levelled. There can always be improvements; you could make that judgement about any piece of legislation. But, with regard to the national interest, this is very much at the cutting edge of what we need and have to do in water through much of Australia. I make the point that, should Victoria change its mind in the future, it could go somewhat further. Time permitting, I will come to that in more detail later.
The government has not reneged on its commitment to the states that there will be no net increase in costs as a result of the national plan. I will not go into the individual details but simply say that the Commonwealth has put an enormous effort in. I think that, if you go behind the scenes, strip away the politics and try to overlook the fact that there is a federal election not many weeks away, the states—that is, apart from Victoria—which have traditionally had responsibility for water in the evolution of our federation, will acknowledge that this legislation is vital to our national interest and an excellent model for water management in the Murray-Darling Basin in the years ahead.
The constitutional basis for the legislation, of course, comes up in this debate, and the Commonwealth has made its position clear. It believes it has the appropriate authority and that a constitutional challenge, should there be one, is something that will be dealt with at the time. All I need to say is that the Commonwealth is confident of its position.
In the time left, I will talk about stakeholder consultation. The Basin Community Committee members will be appointed on the basis of expertise. The committee will consist of a chair and up to 16 other members. The committee must include at least one authority member and at least eight individuals who are representatives of one or more water users. ‘Water user’ means a person who is engaged in irrigated agriculture, is engaged in environmental water management, uses water for industrial purposes or uses stock and domestic water.
With respect to this groundbreaking water security plan, part of the $10 billion will be allocated as follows: $3 billion to address overallocation; and $3.55 billion for the improvement of off-farm distribution efficiencies for each state as they sign the intergovernmental agreement on water. I understand it poses a real implementation challenge for Victoria. I know there has been some rethinking on the matter by those who do not want to miss the boat on this very important part of the plan—the off-farm distribution efficiencies.
I know from personal and practical experience the remarkable difference that such efficiencies have made in a specific part of Victoria that I am very familiar with, where they went from an open channel system to pipes and reticulation from the river to the various storage systems that have been established over the last 20 or 30 years. So this is not new; this has been happening for some time, but it makes a huge difference. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that this is a vital part of the plan.
An amount of $450 million—a very large amount—is allocated for water information, and $617 million for on-farm investments in irrigation efficiency. So we have off-farm and on-farm measures which bring the figure for the farm-specific part of the plan to over $4 billion. There is also $70 million for ‘hot spots assessment’—to identify where water losses are occurring in irrigation infrastructure across Australia.
In terms of national importance, this matter has been discussed for many decades. Even during my time in the parliament, some people from my own state have been advocating for this measure. The current Minister for Ageing, Mr Pyne, has been an advocate for many years for such a national response to the water issue. I applaud him for his tenacity in raising the issue from the perspective of my own state.
I come from an area where, throughout my life, we have just about always had too little water. For much of Australia, that is not the case. Most of Australia has always taken this resource for granted. The opportunities that come from this great drought and the difficulties with water availability are obvious. The timeliness of this legislation is very apparent. This government should be remembered as the government that actually implemented this measure. Previous Labor governments can be given credit for attempting, through the COAG agreements, to introduce this type of major national initiative, but the implementation of it was always going to be the tough part.
I thank the minister, and I congratulate the Prime Minister, because our national wellbeing is obviously very reliant upon this measure. I cannot think of a better way of investing $10 billion, for our long-term future and for our children’s future, than by this legislation, which will ensure our national water security.
I relish the opportunity to speak in this second reading debate on the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. The Murray-Darling Basin is at the economic heart of Australia. Its environment is central to the health and productivity of the nation. As Paul Keating, our former Prime Minister, said on 21 December 1992:
The Murray-Darling is Australia’s greatest river system, a basic source of our wealth, a real and symbolic artery of the nation’s economic health, and a place where Australian legends were born. Nowhere is the link between the Australian environment, the Australian economy and Australian culture better described.
As the records of Charles Sturt’s early voyages through the Murray-Darling show, it is a river system that has been literally transformed—often, regrettably, to the detriment of its health—over a century or more.
The Murray-Darling Basin occupies 14 per cent of Australia’s total area and is the nation’s main food source, producing some 40 per cent of the value of our agriculture and with a population approaching three million people. It contains Australia’s longest rivers and many of our most important wetlands, as well as some of our most precious but threatened flora and fauna.
Unfortunately, the Murray-Darling Basin is under severe threat from a range of factors and impacts. Water extractions have increased fivefold from the 1920s to the present. We are taking, and have taken, a lot of water out of the system. Invasive weeds and pests, as well as salinity, are also significant threats. Finally, there is the impact of climate change. In 2006, just 1,317 billion litres flowed naturally into the Murray system—almost 25 per cent less than the previous minimum of 1,740 billion litres in 1902, the final year of the famous Federation drought.
Last Friday, in his evidence to the Senate environment committee inquiry into the water legislation, one of Australia’s leading water experts, Professor Peter Cullen, said he feared inflows into the Murray-Darling system have dropped by 40 per cent compared to long-term averages. Professor Cullen went on to warn that the Murray-Darling system needs to adapt to the long-term impacts of climate change—that is, to a drier climate over the basin, and a hotter climate as well.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its 2007 fourth assessment report, found that annual stream flow into the basin is likely to fall 10 to 25 per cent by 2050 and 16 to 48 per cent by 2100. These are significant predicted falls. Report after report has identified climate change as a genuine threat to the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, but still, as of now, we do not have a thorough climate change adaptation plan for the basin. In fact, a recent report of the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council called for priority to be given to developing an adaptation plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. Yet it is has not happened.
When it comes to the state of the environment there is no question that the rivers, the wetlands and the other precious environmental resources of the basin and other areas are now experiencing extreme stress. The 2006 State of the environment report tells us:
Overall, the state of the inland waters environment in the southern and eastern part of Australia is not very healthy. Significant areas of major inland and coastal catchments are degraded (including vegetation, aquatic habitats and water quality), the pressure on water resources continues to be high, and many indicators show that aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity are degraded across large areas of the continent.
The truth is that the government’s much vaunted Living Murray Initiative has virtually gone nowhere. To be a healthy, working river, the Murray River needs 1,500 gigalitres more water per year, in the view of an expert review panel appointed in 2001. But to date all we have seen is an approval to purchase 20 gigalitres.
The government’s failings in other areas of environmental policy have also been adversely impacting on the basin. For instance, the government has no national wetlands program. The government’s support for the stressed Ramsar wetlands, which it has international obligations to protect, has been minimal. In fact, the 2006 State of the environment report and the annual measures of Australia’s progress reports from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that on nearly all the measures of Australia’s environmental health we are going backwards.
The State of the environment report confirms that Australia continues to lose ground in protecting our natural environment. Greenhouse emissions are set to rise by some 27 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020; Australia has lost 56 per cent of its vegetation in river systems and wetlands; and, critically, the last five years have witnessed lower than average rainfall over eastern Australia. In the west, which is a long way from the Murray-Darling Basin but is experiencing the same kinds of stresses and pressures, Perth’s water supply catchment is yielding 50 per cent less water than in the years before the mid-1970s.
The 2006 Measures of Australia’s progress report indicates that Australia’s biodiversity has declined in the past decade, and that is very worrying and very troubling. It shows that the number of terrestrial bird and mammal species listed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable rose by 41 per cent between 1995 and 2005, that in 2000 about 5.7 million hectares were assessed as having a high potential to develop dryland salinity, and that in 2000 about one-quarter of Australia’s surface water management areas were close to, or had exceeded, sustainable extraction limits.
The truth is that these statistics show clearly that the state of Australia’s natural environment has worsened considerably over the last 11 years. That is the legacy of the Howard government’s period in office—a dismal legacy of degradation and decline. Overlaying all of this is the government’s failure to comprehensively tackle climate change. A government that was serious about climate change would have developed a plan to substantially cut Australia’s greenhouse pollution, and it would have prepared Australia for the dramatic impact of climate change. A government that was serious about climate change would have developed a climate change adaptation plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. This has not happened. Notwithstanding the statements—sometimes, I have to say, the boasts—of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources on the record of the Howard government, the fact is that there is virtually no track record on climate change and a poor track record on natural resource management.
I take the opportunity to address for a moment or two natural resource management. I note that in 2004-05 the Australian National Audit Office reported on the administration of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. This was an instance of the Audit Office examining closely where these key environment programs were going and how much progress, if indeed any, had been made. The Audit Office found that the $700 million program had been characterised by ‘delays that have had flow-on effects for all stages of program implementation’. So the necessary urgency that needed to accompany the delivery of these programs has simply been lacking.
The 2006 State of the environment report to which I referred earlier also found serious shortcomings in the Natural Heritage Trust. In particular, the adoption of indicators by regional bodies funded by the NHT has proved problematic, with a lack of data and the appropriate indicators that are so necessary. The Audit Office found that projects funded from the first round of the NHT, from 1996-97 to 2001-02, were at too small a scale to have much impact and few projects have impacted on sustainable agricultural production. Notwithstanding the very good efforts of people in the community to apply themselves to the business of delivering programs which will see a significant improvement in the conservation and management of our national resources, very few of the projects actually impacted on sustainable agricultural production.
The State of the environment report also expressed concerns about whether enough funds were being invested on the underlying causes of biodiversity decline, particularly in priority areas such as excluding invasive species and reversing the impacts of past land clearing. The message from this Audit Office report was clear—that is, the Howard government has not been taking the focused and measurable action that is required to restore Australia’s environment to health.
In his Senate committee evidence last week Professor Cullen identified two specific things that need to be done in helping the Murray-Darling Basin adapt to a dry climate. The first is to accelerate implementation of the National Water Initiative. The second is to improve governance of the Murray-Darling Basin. Labor has been calling for the accelerated implementation of the National Water Initiative for some time and, with regard to the governance of the Murray-Darling Basin, Labor supports the need for greater Commonwealth leadership in water policy, and consequently supports the Water Bill.
However, while supporting this bill, we are concerned that little practical action is being undertaken by the government. In the May budget just one-half of one per cent of the $10 billion national water plan money—just $53 million—was allocated in the coming financial year. A mere $15 million was provided to deal with overallocation in 2007-2008. These sums are insufficient to deal with a problem of this magnitude.
In relation to the Water Bill itself—as has been noted already by the member for Grayndler and I am sure will be noted by other members on this side of the House—this began essentially as a reaction to the very high levels of concern that the Australian community had about the impacts of drought both on the environment and particularly on the Murray-Darling Basin itself and the long-running problems that were occurring in the basin in terms of water, water health and access to water for communities. It was an exercise essentially in its initial gestation conducted on the back of an envelope, where Treasury and the cabinet seemed to be completely out of the loop, notwithstanding that it ultimately represented the most significant legislative intervention in the Murray-Darling Basin and is of major significance to the environment of the basin. It needs to be put on the record that this was a poll-driven response to a significant policy area, not a policy-driven response that came about because of a commitment that this government had to reform the basin. It is a matter of regret that on such an important issue we now have groundbreaking legislation being rushed through in such haste.
The government has failed to consult in good faith with state governments and other stakeholders—and I understand that state governments and key stakeholders, including the National Farmers Federation, were not even provided with a copy of the final bill before it was tabled in the House. That is a contemptuous approach to bringing legislation of this magnitude into the parliament. We have waited 13 years to get to this point, and now the government is ramming the legislation through in a week.
National water reform—let us put it clearly—has been a long time coming. It has taken a long time for the Commonwealth to start to address the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin, despite clear warning signals about the health of the river system from scientists, river users, communities and others for many years. National water reform began with the historic bipartisan Council of Australian Governments agreement of 1994. The water reform framework proposed an integrated approach to address environmental degradation of river systems, including strategies such as allocation of water to the environment, ecological sustainability of new developments, institutional reform, protection of groundwater and so on. This was a bipartisan agreement with support from all Australian governments, including the Fahey Liberal government in NSW, the Kennett government in Victoria, the Brown government in South Australia, the Goss government in Queensland and the Follett government in the ACT. In 1994, COAG agreed that:
... action needs to be taken to arrest widespread natural resource degradation in all jurisdictions occasioned, in part, by water use and that a package of measures is required to address the economic, environmental and social implications of future water reform.
Thirteen years later you have to say there is still widespread natural resource degradation in all jurisdictions.
There are some useful environmental features in the Water Bill 2007, but more work is needed to enhance the protection of the environment and the environmental features of the basin, especially in the face of the increasing impacts of climate change. It is our view that the bill is a second-best solution for national water reform. I note that the Prime Minister in his keynote speech of 25 January outlined the national water plan and stated:
... water acquired by efficiency measures or direct purchase can both provide greater security for water users in dry years and provide substantially greater environmental flows in later years.
So a key test of the Water Bill will be the extent to which it delivers substantially greater environmental flows.
The bill requires the basin plan to give effect to relevant international agreements, and this provision is welcomed by Labor. However, given the track record of the government in meeting its obligations under various international environment agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change and in supporting the effective management of Ramsar wetlands, one has to be sceptical as to the level of real commitment that will come from this government. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the definition of ‘environmental assets’ of the basin which are to be protected and restored under the ‘environmental watering plan’ includes Ramsar wetlands.
Professor Cullen observed last Friday that in relation to climate change scenarios we are likely to see step-by-step drying out of the basin, occasionally interrupted by higher rainfall events. In these circumstances we have to help the natural systems of the basin achieve greater resilience. Australia’s native fish, for example, can survive long-term drought conditions by sheltering in riverbed pools or refuges, but in order to identify thresholds and refuges the best available science is required to build the resilience of the system, and the bill should refer to the need to use the best available science in determining the sustainable diversion limit. Determining the sustainable diversion limit is a critical element of the Water Bill as a consequence, and I am concerned that provisions in the bill for determining the sustainable diversion limit do not seem to take account of the need to protect the environment in low-flow years.
The provisions in the bill for environmental watering plans do require the setting of targets. But you cannot have targets without time lines. You need targets, time lines and milestones. I am concerned that there appears to be a lack of clear provision in the bill to regulate, for example, flood plain harvesting and associated land use and other activity causing overextraction. We know this is a major problem in the Darling Basin, where the Darling River is in a worse state than the Murray River.
Finally, there is a critical need to ensure that there are adequate flows right through the system to the Murray River mouth and to the internationally significant Coorong. The Murray-Darling Basin has reached a parlous state, and, because of climate change, its prospects for the future are grave. After 11 long years, the Howard government has not taken its national environmental responsibilities seriously. It has frittered away billions of dollars in unfocused small projects and has neglected national environmental priorities such as the state of our unique biodiversity and sensitive wetlands.
Added to this, the Howard government has ignored climate change. Yesterday, the government revealed its true colours with four government MPs outing themselves, along with previous government ministers, as climate change sceptics. We say again to the Australia public: a Howard government full of climate change sceptics cannot deliver climate change solutions. If you do not have a plan to tackle climate change, you do not have a plan to address Australia’s water crisis. It is as simple as that.
The condition of the Murray-Darling is critical. This Water Bill is a start but much more needs to be done. Labor has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed for real national water reform—in particular, a cooperative and constructive approach with state governments to assist water reform and investment in urban and rural water infrastructure, full implementation of the National Water Initiative principles that were agreed to in 2004, and returning sufficient water to the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure the long-term health of all rivers, wetlands and connected groundwater systems in the basin. As a result, the health of communities and businesses that rely on the health of those rivers will increase as well.
The Murray-Darling Basin is at the heart of our nation. It is central to our economic, environmental and cultural future, and we are committed to the task of achieving the vision of a healthier Murray-Darling Basin. (Time expired)
I am pleased to speak on the Water Bill 2007, which is the most far-reaching legislation we have seen in the area of the Murray-Darling Basin for over 100 years. Since Federation, the allocation of water resources has been a matter for the state governments. This is something that has not served the Murray-Darling system well. What we now see is a river where allocations are reduced and salinity has increased. This has highlighted the need for the $10 billion national plan for water security. While it is disappointing that Victoria is not prepared to refer its powers, there are a number of things in this bill that will be quite far reaching in setting a sustainable basin-wide cap on both surface water and groundwater use, and also in having a basin-wide environmental watering plan. These will be an enormous step forward compared with the status quo. Also, there will be more consistent market regulation and much better information from the Bureau of Meteorology.
I remain hopeful that Victoria will one day change its mind. For the last six months Victoria has refused to refer its power, which would have allowed the Commonwealth to have an operational role in directing the flows within the southern Murray-Darling Basin. I think that that would be an improvement for water security. I speak as someone who represents an electorate in Adelaide. The concern of people in Adelaide is related to the future security of their water supply. Depending on the year, between 30 per cent and 80 per cent of our water supply comes from the River Murray. The rest comes from the reservoirs. The fact that we have had two droughts in the last five years highlights the need to have a plan for future water security. In Adelaide, no reservoirs have been built in the last 40 years. The city has grown enormously during that period. I support the first steps that are being made to look at having a desalination plant for Adelaide as well. Everyone knows we have now gone through two severe droughts. It is important to plan for the future so that we will have security for our water supply into the future.
One of the things that I am very pleased to see in the bill is that South Australia’s existing share for the River Murray system is unchanged. That will continue to be determined under the Murray-Darling Basin agreement. That is very important to people in South Australia. What I find in talking to people—and there is no doubt that over the last year or two people were very engaged on the whole issue of water—is that they are not interested in who is responsible or in shifting blame. They want to have the issue resolved. They do not care who runs the Murray-Darling Basin; they care about the future health of the Murray.
For over 100 years the Murray-Darling Basin has been managed as four separate entities. If we had an unlimited water resource in the Murray, maybe it could be managed in this way. Unfortunately, it is not an unlimited resource and the recent droughts have highlighted the way that this resource has been mismanaged. Continuing to manage it through four separate entities is clearly not sustainable. Having had four states competing for this resource over 100 years has left it in a critical condition. You cannot have four states, one territory and a Commonwealth government all running the Murray-Darling Basin. The management of the Murray-Darling Basin needs a new direction. That is why the Howard government proposed the national plan for the Murray-Darling Basin.
The National Plan for Water Security—a $10 billion, 10-point plan—was released by the Prime Minister on 25 January 2007. This is the plan that Victoria refused to sign up to. It is a lifeline to a dying river system. This plan would see the Murray-Darling Basin Commission reconstitute as a Commonwealth body, reporting to the federal minister for the environment. Functions would be carried out in consultation with all basin governments and the community to set caps on the use of both surface water and groundwater and to ensure that the caps are not breached. Of the $10 billion, almost $6 billion would be committed to modernising irrigation infrastructure, both on- and off-farm, to save water and increase efficiency of water use. Due to years of competing state interests, another $3 billion has been put aside to go towards addressing the overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin. Assistance would be provided to help relocate non-viable or inefficient irrigators. The lifeline required a referral of state powers to the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, we saw Victoria’s interests getting in the way of the national interest and the greater good of the Murray-Darling Basin.
The New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and ACT governments understood that the current arrangements for the management of the Murray-Darling Basin had not been effective, and they embraced this proposal. Victoria, on the other hand, has not and insists on a special deal with separate Victoria-specific arrangements. The Australian government does not accept Victoria’s arguments for a special deal, which would undermine a basin-wide approach and perpetuate a fragmented management system for the Murray-Darling Basin. After almost seven months of negotiations to no avail, to avoid further delays in the rollout of this important reform the government has introduced this legislation, using its constitutional powers to ensure a whole-of-basin approach.
The Water Bill gives effect to a number of key elements of the $10 billion Plan for Water Security. The bill will enable water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin to be managed in the national interest, optimising environmental, economic and social outcomes. There is an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority, with the functions and powers, including enforcement powers, needed to ensure that basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way. Water trading rules, such as basin-wide caps, water quality and salinity targets and environmental water provisions will be managed by the Australian government under this proposal. Setting a sustainable basin-wide cap on both surface water and groundwater use and having a basin-wide environmental watering plan are enormous steps forward compared with the status quo. These reforms will be strongly supported by more consistent market regulation and through improved information from the Bureau of Meteorology.
Under the Commonwealth’s powers we can achieve the majority of the outcomes that were being negotiated under a referral of powers model. Unfortunately, the proposal will not include jurisdiction over river operations, as I said before, because Victoria has declined to refer its powers on this issue. This is a great pity as a lot of water could be saved by coordinating a national approach to river operations. In addition to the national plan that was announced in January, on 30 July 2007 the Prime Minister announced that a further $3.55 billion will be provided for the improvement of off-farm irrigation systems, river operations and storage programs. It will be available to the states that agree to sign an intergovernmental agreement. If Victoria does not participate, it will miss out on that investment.
I was very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition was unable to get the Victorian Premier to sign up to this deal. We were led a long way along the path by the previous Victorian Premier. It looks like the current Victorian Premier has taken the same approach. If there were ever an example of where we could see a leader of the Labor Party acting in the national interest, it would have been in intervening to get the Victorian Premier to put the interest of the Murray-Darling Basin first and the interest of Australia’s water security ahead of Victoria’s interest. A lot of factors have led to this situation, but the important thing is that we take this action to improve the Murray-Darling Basin.
This Water Bill, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill, the setting up of the Future Fund and the Higher Education Endowment Fund that will be introduced into parliament soon are all examples of how this government is planning for the future in the areas of higher education, water security and protecting children. The Water Bill also provides an example of the government’s commitment to addressing the impact of climate change. Not only do we need to play our part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions—and over the last 10 years the Australian government has spent $3.4 billion in this area, with a whole range of initiatives like the global initiative on forest and climate—but we also need to prepare for a warmer and drier climate, particularly in south-east Australia. One of the features of the Australian climate is that we have an extremely variable rainfall. The old line from Dorothea Mackellar about droughts and flooding rains is very apt for Australia. We have had two particularly severe droughts over the last five years. The important thing is that we pass this bill so that we have more certainty in the allocation of water and more security for our water supply in the future. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in this debate on the Water Bill 2007 because of the significance of this issue, to indicate that, whilst we support this bill, we believe it does not go far enough and to try to give some assistance to this government as to where it needs to go from here. Water is the lifeblood of any nation, and you, Mr Speaker, in your electorate would fully understand that. The vastness of our nation and its system of governance demands that we have a national approach to not just reviving our scarce water resources but also sustaining them into the future. Despite the challenge that this government has had with the worst drought in recorded history in this country, and the significance of that, it has only been within the last 12 months that this government has become slightly serious about addressing the problems of water, its supply and its sustainability. It has never understood the problem and it has never sought to address it properly and in a lasting way. Only now, belatedly in its term of office, does the government begin to deal with it. Like on so many other issues, this government has been behind the eight ball. Whether it is the question of climate change, of connecting our nation with fast speed broadband or of water, what has really been the hallmark of this government’s period in office is the fact that it has squandered the opportunity presented to it. This nation is going through its longest most prosperous run in economic history, the basis for which was laid by a Labor government. This government has squandered the opportunity to invest in and secure the future for this nation.
The second reading speech of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources is very instructive. In the final paragraph of the speech he says:
This Water Bill is the first water reform program introduced into this parliament in 106 years.
It of course is not. It certainly is the first thing that they have done in their 11 years of office, but let me remind the House of what Labor did in relation to water when it was in office over the previous 13 years. It was Labor that led the way with the historic partnership between governments and the community with the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in 1987. That agreement was revised in negotiations involving me, as the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy at the time. There was a new agreement in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin and new legislation—an act of parliament was introduced and passed in 1993.
At the time, Queensland was not a full member of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or of the initiative or of the agreement. It became so in 1996, but Labor, during the operation of that agreement, ensured that Queensland was always involved in the deliberations of the council. They were in 1987, 1992 and 1993. It was Labor that also, as a result of the agreement, established the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. It was Labor at the federal level that established Landcare in 1989—the greatest grassroots-led movement in the world to address natural resource management and land degradation, and it involved, in partnership, community activist groups in identifying the opportunities and their solutions. Of course, it was an agreement that was supported by the National Farmers Federation and the environmental movement—the member for Kingsford Smith was involved at the time. Labor was able to bring all of those groups together and develop a grassroots-led movement to come to grips with solutions.
It was also Labor in 1992 that negotiated the first ever national drought policy. I happened to be the primary industries minister at the time, and I undertook those negotiations. I had to negotiate with hostile state governments. With the exception of Queensland, not one of them was a Labor government. Yet, just as with Landcare, we were able to overcome the difficulties and negotiate a lasting agreement with the other side of politics. That is not the hallmark of this government when it comes to this water policy. It has botched the negotiations, and I will come to that a little later.
It was Labor that introduced national drought policy, and it was also Labor that drove national water reform commitments in the historic bipartisan 1994 COAG accord on water, its allocation and its sustainability. That was the Labor way. Again, I was involved in that COAG meeting. Again, it was Labor having to negotiate with Liberal state governments. We were sitting at the table with the Fahey Liberal government, the Brown Liberal government in South Australia and the Kennett Liberal government in Victoria. We had the Goss government, and the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Chief of Staff to the then Premier Goss, was also involved in those COAG negotiations. And we had Rosemary Follett and the Labor government here in the ACT. But Labor understands what it means to negotiate with the other side of politics. We actually believe in bipartisanship and carry it out. This government mouths the words, but it cannot give effect to them.
I go through that to indicate the fact that, when the minister—and he is not in here at the moment—says that this is the first real effort at water resources management by a federal government in 106 years, he is wrong. Labor not only showed the way when we were in office; we continued it in opposition. I remind the House of this, because I was Leader of the Opposition at the time: I proposed in this chamber in my budget speech in reply the establishment of Riverbank—you might remember it—to be a bank for the purposes of investing in the infrastructure of this nation to save water and to take those savings and put them back into environmental flows. We also proposed the environmental flow trust, which was to be an independent body for the purposes of taking from Riverbank the savings and putting them back into environmental flows. That was a Labor initiative in 2003. We proposed bipartisan support at the time, Prime Minister. We proposed that to you to pick up, and you ignored it. Just imagine how much further down the track we could have been today if that initiative had been embraced. They talk bipartisanship but they do not mean it; it is only Labor that has been committed to this process and only Labor that will deliver.
Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Mr Speaker, I seek indulgence to convey to the House the member for Calare’s situation. Peter has asked me to simply thank you all for the expressions that you have given, not only the members of the parliament but the staff of the parliament, the media and the broader Australian community. I pass on those thoughts from Peter. I have been speaking to him on a number of occasions. He is preparing for a battle—he has had plenty of those in this place—and he is very positive in relation to the battle against cancer. He would like all of you to know that he does thank you for those feelings that have been expressed. He said to me that they will be not only a great comfort to him but a great support in the challenge that is ahead.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I know that I speak for every member of the House in passing on to the member for Calare our sincere and genuine good wishes. Cancer is a terrible disease; it afflicts many Australians. We hope that his fight against it is successful. We very much have his welfare and that of those close to him in our thoughts and prayers at this time.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence and on behalf of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, I endorse the remarks made by the member for New England and by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government. Peter Andren is known to all of us in this place. Whatever our political disagreements may have been with him from time to time, all members would be united in this: he is a person of integrity, he is a person of great decency and he is a person who has always sought with courage and conviction to bring forth his views into this parliament. He has never been a person to have taken a backward step when it comes to those things to which he is deeply committed. As the Prime Minister has said on behalf of all of us in this place, we wish him and his family well in what will be a big battle ahead for him. Our thoughts and our prayers are with those who are near him and with Peter himself.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in his constant opposition to Labor’s policy to provide fairer indexation to the pensions of our most severely disabled war veterans?
I agree very much with the initiative of the minister that was expressed in the budget, which significantly increased the support to those veterans.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the measures the government has taken to improve support for Australians living in rental accommodation and public housing? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for Greenway for her question. I can inform her that the Commonwealth spends about $2 billion a year in rental assistance to help families and pensioners pay rents. Over the next five years the Commonwealth will spend about $5 billion on public housing. That is money which will go to the states and the territories to construct public housing at subsidised rentals. Of course, the best thing you can do to help families is help them get into work and help them to get an income to pay the rent.
I have been asked about alternatives. I was interested to read a proposal that was announced yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition to give an $8,000 tax break—$6,000 from the Commonwealth and $2,000 from the state—for the construction of new properties which would be rented out under market rents. In passing, I note that the generosity of the tax breaks is not matched by the reduction in rent. The tax break is worth about $150 a week. On a $400 rent the rent cut would be about $80, and on a $300 rent the rent cut would be about $60. So you are paying a very significant tax break for only a portion thereof to find its way into the hands of a renter. But it was said by the Labor Party that 3,500 properties would qualify in the first year, 11,000 in the following year and 25,000 in the third year.
Last night on the news the Leader of the Opposition went out to a property to tout this policy. He touted the policy with someone who had been selected by the Labor Party to go on the evening news. I know that because I have the email which the Labor campaign workers sent out asking for a volunteer to be part of this photo op last night. The person whose house it was was somebody called Rosanna Harris. The Leader of the Opposition said this—and this was carried on all of the news bulletins last night—‘What’s the rental on a place like this?’ Rosanna Harris said, ‘$260 a week.’ Kevin Rudd said, ‘$260’ so you’re effectively going to get 50 bucks plus off each week.’
That was entirely false. Rosanna Harris will get nothing off her rent. Rosanna Harris will not qualify for any part whatsoever of this scheme because this will only apply to new construction from 2008, and any person who is currently in a rental will receive no benefit whatsoever. Not only did he deceive Rosanna Harris but, of course, there is no show without ‘Punch’—the old member for Lilley was out there. It is a wonder he did not have 50 bucks in a brown paper bag for Rosanna Harris.
The ABC news carried Kevin Rudd again making this false claim to Rosanna, ‘If you’re here on $260, you are effectively going to get 50-plus bucks off each week.’ That was false. That again was a completely false statement to Rosanna Harris. And ‘Punch’ backed it up by saying to Rosanna Harris, ‘Hopefully, it gets you off the merry-go-round where you are paying so much rent you can’t afford to do anything else.’ Rosanna Harris will not get any cut whatsoever under this policy.
It is possible that the Leader of the Opposition does not know his own policy. The people of Australia are entitled to wonder why he would go and announce a policy which he did not understand. It is also possible that he does understand his own policy and it is possible that, notwithstanding that, he took the calculated decision to deceive not only Rosanna Harris but also every renter who would have been watching last night’s television.
This is a repeated pattern we are now seeing from the Leader of the Opposition. There is a stunt today but, after the cameras have left and after you start analysing what he has actually said, you will find that it is not quite truthful; it is not quite accurate. It is like when he said he was going to monitor grocery prices. After the cameras had left, he had to concede he would not do anything to bring them down. It was like his promise to monitor petrol prices. When you got to the bottom of it, he conceded he would not do anything to bring them down. Running a country is more than stunts on the evening news and it is more than the kind of false promise that was made to Rosanna Harris last night. The people of Australia deserve the truth and the Leader of the Opposition ought to apologise for misleading Australia last night.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to his claim yesterday that Labor’s announcement of a tax credit to boost construction of affordable rental properties was ‘terribly inefficient and wasteful’. Given the Treasurer has done nothing to improve housing affordability, who should the Australian people believe: the Treasurer—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Sydney has the call.
Mr Speaker, would you like me to start again?
The member for Sydney will continue.
or the Housing Industry Association, the Real Estate Industry of Australia, the Industry Super Network, the Property Council of Australia and the Australians for Affordable Housing—all of whom have endorsed Labor’s policy? Why doesn’t the Treasurer actually come up with a policy to help the half a million Australian households suffering rental stress?
Let me make this point: if Labor were worried about the half a million people which it is talking about, why does it have a policy which will not do anything except in four years time for 50,000 people—one-tenth? If Labor were worried, why would it offer a tax break, which is, as I said, $150 a week, which on a $400 rental could give a benefit of $80 and on a $300 rental a benefit of $60? I call that wasteful. Who pockets the difference? Have you ever thought about this proposition? Who pockets the difference between the $150 tax break and the $50 decrease in rent? Have you ever thought about that proposition? Who pockets the difference? The 100 bucks does not just disappear; it does not go into the ether. It does not end up in a brown paper bag on its way to the Democrats. It is there.
The last point I will make is this: if the member for Sydney is really worried about renters, perhaps she could go back, now that the cameras have left, and speak to Rosanna Harris and explain to Rosanna Harris that, although Rosanna was used as a prop last night on the national news, the promise that was made to Rosanna by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Lilley and the member for Sydney was false. I will tell you one thing you could do for Rosanna: you could tell Rosanna the truth. That would be a big improvement.
Mr Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any threats to the performance of key sectors of the Australian economy? What impact will this have on Australia’s economic future?
I thank the member for Moreton for that question. Before going to the substance of it, can I take this opportunity, on behalf of everybody in the House, to wish the Treasurer many happy returns of the day.
Hear, hear!
The Treasurer turns 50 today. It is a milestone for anybody. I think he can be very proud of what he has achieved in his 50 years. Amongst other things, he has undoubtedly been the best Treasurer this country has had. I think he should be very, very proud of the contribution he has made to the economic fabric of this country in occupying that position for longer and with greater distinction than any of his predecessors.
There are threats to particular sectors of the Australian economy, and those threats come from the possible implementation of the policies of the Australian Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition is only too ready to identify with certain economic policies of the government; although, he would have you believe, when he identifies with them, that he supported all of the measures that were adopted in order to bring about the strong economy we now enjoy. He would have you believe that he was hand in glove with the government in bringing about the strength of the economy that we now enjoy. That strength is overwhelmingly due to such things as industrial relations reform, fixing the Australian waterfront, implementing A New Tax System, paying off government debt, privatising assets that the government was running inefficiently and putting the budget back into surplus. And yet, astonishingly enough, although he now identifies with the results of that work, he opposed every attempt made by the government to achieve those reforms. The Leader of the Opposition wants to have it both ways. He wants the easy ride of the surplus, but he did not want to support the hard yakka to get the budget back into surplus. In fact, along with his mates in the Labor Party, he ran interference on all of our reform attempts from the moment he entered the parliament in 1998.
These reforms have contributed mightily to the fact that we have a very strong economy and the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years. The member asked me: are there threats to particular sectors? There are threats. There is a particular threat coming from the possible implementation of the Labor Party’s industrial relations policy. The Econtech report released last Friday shows that, if Labor’s plan to re-regulate the industrial relations system is made into law, interest rates will rise by 1.4 per cent and over 300,000 jobs will be lost. On page 44 of the Econtech report it identifies the industries which face the biggest risk from Labor’s policy. I quote from the report:
The largest percentage losses in output in 2011 are in the trade-exposed industries of manufacturing which falls by 11 per cent ... mining down 8 per cent, agriculture down 7 per cent and transport down 7 per cent. These trade-exposed sectors are particularly affected by the loss of international competitiveness from the combination of a wages breakout and lower productivity.
They are the words of a respected, independent economist. They are not my words, they are not the Treasurer’s words and they are not the finance minister’s words, although we certainly share the negative assessment of Labor’s policy. They are the words of Econtech, a respected economic consultancy.
I would advise the Leader of the Opposition to listen to a member of the board of the Reserve Bank, Mr Graeme Kraehe, who is also the Chairman of BlueScope Steel. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition would argue that Mr Kraehe is doing other than exercising his independent responsibility as a member of the Reserve Bank board. This is what Mr Kraehe had to say:
The industrial relations reforms of last year are an essential step in securing the kind of workplace performance Australia needs to meet the challenges of international competition ...
The threat of major changes to the reforms that have been made fuels union expectations of a resurgence of their power and undermines the confidence of business.
They are the words of a member of the board of the Reserve Bank, a respected Australian businessman.
I say finally to the member for Moreton that we have come a long way in the last 11½ years. We have come a long way in the last 20 years. We have embraced many reforms. It would be a sad indictment of our stomach and capacity for reform if we were to turn our backs on one of those reforms and threaten much higher interest rates and the loss of some 300,000 jobs.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Hear, hear!
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given that today is the Treasurer’s 50th birthday, will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and, after 11 long years, invite the Treasurer and Mrs Costello to dinner at the Lodge tonight?
I am afraid my diary is full for tonight because I am going to the Treasurer’s drinks party.
Any night will do, Mr Speaker!
Order! The member will resume his seat.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members are holding up their own question time.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the government works in partnership with local communities to deliver the infrastructure they need? How important is consultation with local communities?
You’ve got to be joking!
I cannot see them, but I can hear the sound effects from the corner over here.
Mr Crean interjecting
I thank the member for Blair for his question. Unlike the last question from the Labor Party, it was a very serious question. Over a number of years, we, through our local members like the member for Blair, who is an outstanding representative for that part of Queensland and who listens to the local constituency—
Mr Crean interjecting
Order! The member for Hotham is warned!
I have visited his electorate with him. People really enjoy and appreciate the representation they get, because they know they are not getting listened to by the state government in Queensland. The member for Blair raises a very important issue. Over the years, particularly through the AusLink funding programs, we provided a number of very important funding programs for local authorities to improve their infrastructure, their economies, their economic structure and, therefore, the social fabric in those communities, particularly in regional Australia. One such program—and I know the member for Blair has been a great supporter of it—is the Roads to Recovery program, which delivers funds directly to local government to enable them to fund local road and bridge replacement projects that they need in their local areas. The reason we took the decision to do this in 2001 is that we believe in local government and we believe that they are the closest level of government to local communities. They understand the aspirations of those local communities.
Since 2001 we have delivered $2.1 billion to local authorities across Australia; 25,000 local road projects have been funded by local government authorities with funding under the Roads to Recovery program. We announced in the budget this year that we are going to continue this program through to 2014. So between now and 2014 there will be a further $2.36 billion available for local road projects across Australia. This is serious investment in Australia’s infrastructure, which I have often said is not just the major highways or the major port access roads but also the local arterial roads in all those communities across metropolitan regional Australia. Because of the good economic management that we have delivered in Australia, we can afford to spend this money and provide this funding to local authorities. But, most importantly, we believe they have the ability to be able to do that because they are the closest to those local communities.
Premier Beattie in Queensland does not believe that. He is bullying councils, forcing amalgamations on them, stopping them from having any public commentary about it and, in past legislation, has actually moved to close down any comment by local mayors and local councillors. But we read in the paper today that he has also closed down and stopped any comment from Labor Party candidates throughout Queensland in federal seats. This is interesting because it runs a bit opposite to what the Leader of the Opposition would like to see. He says that he supports local government in Queensland. He believes that they should have a say, he believes they should have been consulted, but he has not been able to do anything about it. Now Premier Beatty is forcing amalgamations on local councils. He is closing down the mayors and the councils and not allowing them to have a say or to seek the view of their local community. He has stopped federal candidates in all those seats in Queensland from having a say. I can guarantee the members opposite that the members for Blair, Leichhardt, Lindsay, Herbert, Dawson, Hinkler and Wide Bay will all have a say, even if the Labor candidates are not allowed to mention local government amalgamations.
We are now seeing who is running Queensland and who has the influence in this federal election, and it is not the Leader of the Opposition. But we also found out in today’s media that the Leader of the Opposition has got form on this issue because, when he was a senior bureaucrat in the Goss Labor government in Queensland in the early nineties, that was when the last round of local government forced amalgamations occurred. That was under the stewardship of the Leader of the Opposition when he was working for then Premier Wayne Goss. And guess what? There was no consultation then either. There were no referenda held about those forced amalgamations either.
The Leader of the Opposition has not got the ticker to stand up to Premier Beattie on this issue and represent Queenslanders properly and give them a say. We have seen that he does not have the ticker to stand up to Joe McDonald. He has been able to kick his brother out of the Labor Party. He has been able to kick Dean Mighell and Kevin Harkins out, but he does not have the ticker to stand up to Joe McDonald or Premier Beattie on this issue, and if he cannot do that he cannot lead a government in Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer’s statement about his 2004 election campaign spending spree when he said ‘he ordered everything on the menu—entree, main, dessert and the vegetarian option’ and that he is worried about the sustainability of the government’s spending commitments? Does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer’s statement and will the Prime Minister promise not to repeat this pre-election spending spree this year?
The Treasurer made a lot of statements in 2004 and they were very effective. The one that I treasure the most out of the 2004 election campaign was when he pinged the member for Lilley for not only trying to falsely allege that our $600 family tax supplement was not real but actually promising the families of Australia that if he became Treasurer after the 2004 election they would be $600 a year per child worse off. I invite the member for Lilley to ask me another question on the Treasurer’s statement—and I can think of quite a few more that would embarrass him and do him a lot of damage.
My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen recent comments on the risks of rolling back industrial relations reform? Would the Treasurer explain what the effect of this rollback would be on the small businesses, individuals and families in Wakefield due to its impact on the economy and interest rates?
I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for his question. At the moment the Australian economy is strong. It is strong because we have more Australians in work than ever before. We have unemployment at a 33-year low. We have GDP higher than it has ever been before. We have real wages which have increased some 20 per cent. In these circumstances, where we are as close to full employment as we have been in 33 years, you do tend to get price pressures in the economy.
The task of managing the economy from this point forward is going to be the task of managing a strong economy and keeping inflation in check. Absolutely critical to that great task over the years which lie ahead is industrial relations policy. Let me quote Ian Macfarlane, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, in August 2006. He said:
Obviously, it makes the job of [managing] monetary policy easier, the more deregulated the labour market is. If you get pressure in one part of the economy—in the past the fact that wages had risen there would be used as a persuasive argument for it to be carried right across the country, the comparative wage justice argument—it’s easier to have hot spots without the hot spots moving throughout the economy.
The governor of the bank was saying that where you have parts of the economy which are hot, either because there is profitability or because there is labour shortage, if you do not have a deregulated labour market those hotspots move right across the economy and they put pressure on inflation. As was always the case in Australia, the boom leads to a bust. Because this government has put in place Work Choices with Australian workplace agreements—because this government has improved industrial relations—those hotspots do not move their way across the economy and push out inflation, and as a consequence we are not being subjected to the same bust as we normally would have at this period of the cycle.
There would be nothing more damaging to the Australian economy than to turn our back now on industrial relations reform and to roll back to the way in which we were let down in this country in the years gone by. This is where Labor is a complete throwback. Labor is wanting to throw back not just to the industrial relations system of 2000, or even to the industrial relations system of 1997; Labor wants to throw back pre-1993. It wants to go back to pattern bargaining, awards, the abolition of AWAs and centralised wage fixation. Nothing could be more damaging to where the Australian economy is at the moment than to have that throwback from the Australian Labor Party.
The Leader of the Opposition has a wonderful capacity to get economic policy wrong. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that when we reformed the tax system the Leader of the Opposition said it was fundamental injustice—the great day in 100 years where fairness in the Australian nation ended. Always one for pompous rhetoric, the Leader of the Opposition, when this government reformed industrial relations, had this to say. This is when we reformed the industrial relations system which, since it was reformed, has led to 390,000 new jobs. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said in the parliament:
If these laws remain in place in Australia, Australian families will look back to these days in November 2005 as the time when parliament legislated fairness out of the Australian way of life.
Three hundred and ninety thousand new jobs later, I do not think many Australians are looking back to November 2005 with a fondness and demanding we return there, just as there are not many Australians wanting to go back pre-2000 to the old wholesale sales tax, the state taxes and higher income taxes. The thing about the Leader of the Opposition is that he has been persistently wrong on economic policy. He has always made pompous rhetorical boasts. He has no part in taking any credit for the modern Australian economy. If it had been left up to him, it would never have occurred. And, if it is left up to him, the objectives that we have in the years to come will never be achieved.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his Treasurer’s comment this morning that Australia’s inflation rate is ‘the level that we want’. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Reserve Bank has forecast that prices will continue to rise by around three per cent? Prime Minister, why after nine back-to-back interest rate rises does your Treasurer believe families facing inflation at the top of the Reserve Bank target band is the level that we want?
It is a bit rich for the Leader of the Opposition to ask me a question about today’s inflation rate. As I understand what the Treasurer said this morning, he said it was within the band agreed between the government and the Reserve Bank—
Which you wanted to sue over, incidentally.
which, as the Treasurer reminds me, the Labor Party wanted to sue us over.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister has the call.
I will accept service on your behalf, Mr Speaker. That question reminds us, of course, that there is, as the bank has identified, a need to make sure that the policies we have at the present time bear downwards on inflation. That, of course, invites yet another examination of the industrial relations policy of the Australian Labor Party, because the industrial relations policy of the Australian Labor Party, as identified by Econtech, would be bad for the level of inflation in Australia and consequently lead to an increase of 1.4 per cent in interest rates.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of the link between security and political progress in Iraq? Are there any other approaches? What is the government’s response?
First of all, I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question and for his interest. I appreciate it very much. There is of course a vital link between security and the reconciliation process in Iraq. It is the view of most analysts that you do need some degree of security in Iraq for reconciliation to proceed. It is our view, by the way, that the reconciliation process has been proceeding too slowly. It is the view, though, of the Leader of the Opposition that, without security, reconciliation will proceed—that the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq will lead to reconciliation. Most people would agree with the proposition that if foreign troops immediately withdrew from Iraq then the consequence would be blood-letting which would make the blood-letting in Darfur minor by comparison. It would be a simply horrific circumstance. The Labor Party rightly support intervention in Darfur to stop bloodshed and they rightly support intervention in Afghanistan to defeat terrorism and stop bloodshed, but for party political reasons they support withdrawal from Iraq, which will of course lead to massive increases in bloodshed.
Yesterday the Labor Party’s candidate for the electorate of Eden-Monaro said that our troops were just involved in ‘a flag-waving exercise’. I did think that was shameful and I said so. The Leader of the Opposition, to be fair and to his credit, dissociated himself from the remarks of the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro. He said that he had ‘nothing but respect for our troops in the field’ and he had nothing but respect for the job they do. He repudiated the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, but a little research found that the member for Barton, who is the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, and the member for Hunter, who is the opposition spokesman on defence—
Opposition members interjecting—
I know the opposition are interested to hear what those two gentlemen do. They put out a press release on 2 July which said:
But increasingly evidence suggests the Howard Government’s purpose for having these combat troops in Iraq has more to do with symbolism than military strategy.
These two honourable gentlemen said the same thing as the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro said, and if the opposition leader had any sense of leadership he would also repudiate the remarks made by those two members of his frontbench. The fact is this: these soldiers in the south of Iraq are doing a brave job and an important job, and we should be proud, not just of the soldiers but of the job they do. I refer to an AAP report in which Lieutenant Dan Wright was quoted, which said he:
… leads a troop of up to six vehicles on patrols which run from 12 hours to four days and could range across … al Muthanna or Dhi Qar province.
This, he says, is hard work in desert conditions.
‘When we are out there for a number of days we really need a couple of days back here to recover,’ … Lieutenant Wright hasn’t yet needed to open fire, which he attributes to a combination of diplomacy and intimidation.
This is what he said:
‘We are a much better-drilled opponent. We like to think we present a hard target and by doing that they are not going to attack us because they know they are going to come off second best.’
For the government, they are not the words of somebody who is doing a symbolic job; they are the words of a brave man doing an important job. The member for Barton and the member for Hunter should be repudiated for saying precisely what the Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro said—for taking exactly the same attitude to our troops. Ultimately, the Labor Party needs to explain what it wants in Iraq. What is its vision? Is its vision victory for terrorism? Is its vision conflict, civil war and bloodshed on a grander scale than Darfur? Is that the vision of the Australian Labor Party, or does the Labor Party want a struggling democracy to survive and people to be able to live stable and prosperous lives? The Labor Party should be careful in what it wishes for. I would have hoped that a major political party in this country would support peace and prosperity in Iraq, not options which would turn it into a bloodbath much greater than the bloodbath in Darfur.
My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s statement this morning that he would like to deal with the climate change challenge. Treasurer, why until this year was climate change not mentioned in any of the previous 11 budget speeches? Isn’t it the case that the Treasurer’s 2003 cabinet submission on emissions trading was blocked by the Prime Minister? Treasurer, isn’t it too late for an 11th-year pre-election climate change makeover?
I think it was the 1999 budget where I put $100 million into the Australian Greenhouse Office.
And then you shut it down!
Order! The member for Grayndler!
I am sorry, but this was the government that put record funding into the Australian Greenhouse Office.
And then you folded it.
This was the government that went on to set up the greenhouse challenge. This was the government that established the Natural Heritage Trust and then the National Action Plan on Salinity.
Mr Garrett interjecting
The member for Kingsford-Smith!
This was the government that probably put more money into the environment than any other government in Australian history. I do not think that is challenged. Perhaps we could go back and have a look at the Hawke government. The high point of the Hawke government was Graham Richardson standing out at Wentworth, as I recall, and promising a million trees. The member for Grayndler is shaking his hand. Don’t shake your hand; I know Graham Richardson was a good factional friend of yours, Albo—a close personal friend. There was Richo, trampling on the fauna, trampling on the flora and promising to be a good environmentalist.
But that was the record of the Hawke government. We funded the Natural Heritage Trust, the National Action Plan on Salinity and the Greenhouse Office. We are the government that has launched an emissions trading scheme that I think is the best anywhere in the world.
Mr Garrett interjecting
Order! The member for Kingsford Smith is warned!
We are the government that has introduced photovoltaic rebates; we recently announced water tanks for every school; we have rebates for solar power. Mr Speaker, the more I think about it, this has been the greatest environmental government in the history of Australia.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House on the government’s plan for a Commonwealth funded, community controlled hospital at the Mersey in Latrobe, Tasmania. Why is it important to preserve public hospital services at the Mersey hospital? Are there any alternative policies, and what is the government’s response?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He is not going to give up on this issue, and the Howard government is not going to give up on this issue—
Ms Vamvakinou interjecting
Order! The member for Calwell is warned!
because the people of Devonport, Latrobe, Kentish, Sheffield and Ulverstone deserve their own hospital. They deserve a general hospital suitable for a community of that size. They should not have to go 60 kilometres up the road for any general hospital admission for an acute condition.
The problem is that the Tasmanian government wants to destroy the Mersey hospital, as it has been known, and the Howard government will not let it do this. We have a clear and straightforward plan to preserve the Mersey hospital. The Commonwealth will fund the hospital, the community will control the hospital and the hospital will deliver the range of services that it has safely and effectively delivered for many years at that site.
Mr Kerr interjecting
The member for Denison is warned!
I regret to say that so far the Tasmanian government has totally refused to say how much money it is currently spending at this hospital, how much money it intends to spend and how many services are currently being delivered. In addition, the Tasmanian government is trying to bully hospital staff against talking to Commonwealth officials. I say again that the Tasmanian government should not try to sabotage this proposal out of hurt pride, because this proposal amounts to $45 million a year more for health services in north-western Tasmania.
The federal government is serious about this. I can inform the House that today I have written again to the Tasmanian health minister, enclosing a detailed implementation plan for this hospital’s transition to community control. I have warned her against a politically motivated rejection of this plan. She should not reject this plan because she thinks that is what Kevin Rudd wants. On this topic, as on so many others, the Leader of the Opposition does not know what he thinks or what he wants. I quote from a letter to the Mayor of Burnie in which the Leader of the Opposition says to the mayor:
Labor is currently in discussion with the Tasmanian Government about its clinical services plan, with a view to announcing our plans for hospitals and health services in Tasmania in the lead-up to the federal election.
What a pathetic cop-out from the Leader of the Opposition! It is slippery, it is fake, but it is so typical of this man, who is the least experienced person ever to present himself for national leadership in this country. He has never even run a local council, let alone a national economy.
The people of north-west Tasmania know what they want. They want decisions and they want answers. They do not want more waffle from the alternative Prime Minister of this country. I table my letter to the Tasmanian minister, I table the implementation plan and I also table this pathetic document from the Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Is the minister aware that Australia north of a line drawn from Rockhampton to Karratha contains around 40 per cent of our arable land and three-quarters of our water while containing, except for a very narrow coastal strip, only one per cent of our population and agricultural production? Would the minister not agree, in the light of the overtaxing of water resources in southern Australia, that successive governments have miserably failed to achieve any balanced national development? Finally, could he assure the House that water development will take place in Northern Australia, particularly the ‘self-funding’, ‘fully researched’ projects such as Richmond Dam, and that these projects will not, for the nth time, be studied but will this time actually be built?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member is correct in saying that the bulk of Australia’s water resources are in Northern Australia and that it has only a very tiny fraction of our population and a tiny fraction of our agriculture. Water planning in Australia has been bedevilled, particularly in the last three decades or so, by a lack of long-term vision and long-term planning. There has been a tendency to make very short term political decisions in order to seek a particular electoral result on a particular occasion and to deny the type of long-term vision that the country needs.
Nobody is more experienced at this sort of short-term thinking and the consequences of it than the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, it was the Leader of the Opposition who decided, together with his then boss, Mr Goss, who was then the new Premier of Queensland, not to build the Wolffdene Dam in 1989. That was a classic case of the problem of short-termism you see right around Australia. There was a long-term problem. The honourable member talks about the long-term challenge of agricultural development in Northern Australia. It has to be met with a long-term response. South-east Queensland had the long-term challenge of water shortage and a growing population. It had to be met with a long-term response. But, when put to the test, the member for Griffith failed dismally. He made a short-term political decision and condemned his neighbours, the community in which he lives, to the devastating drought which they are experiencing.
The contrast between the short-term thinking of the Leader of the Opposition and the long-term thinking of the Prime Minister and this government could not be more stark. The National Plan for Water Security looks decades into the future—not a few years but the rest of this century. We are endeavouring to set up the most efficient use of Australia’s water over many decades to come. We have established a Northern Australia task force whose task it is to examine the potential for further land and water development in Northern Australia. This is a long-term job. The reality is that water projects are always controversial. They always take a long time to build. The environmental issues are always complex and take a long time to examine. But you have to start somewhere. The member for Griffith would know the great Chinese saying, ‘The journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step.’ The problem the member for Griffith has demonstrated is that he does not have the character to begin the first step. Without that type of leadership he has no capacity to be the Prime Minister of this country.
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on how the government’s workplace reforms are contributing to a stronger and more productive economy? What are the risks of any alternative policies?
I thank the greatest ever member for Hasluck for the question. I feel a little disappointed that I did not get the title, but I know I have a lot of successful predecessors! An Econtech report has found that if the Labor Party is elected it will cost 300,000 jobs in the Australian economy, and interest rates will increase by 1.4 per cent. That is because the Labor Party wants to roll back the industrial relations reforms of this government. It would be the first significant roll-back of a major economic reform by a government in a generation and it would not come without cost: interest rates up a further 1.4 per cent and the loss of 300,000 jobs. That is because the Labor Party policy is about rolling back our reforms beyond 2006—beyond our reforms to the waterfront, beyond our 1996 reforms, even beyond the Keating reforms—and going back to pre-1993 reforms.
I came across an interesting article in the Canberra Times today. I never thought I would be standing here quoting the Canberra Times. The article is a repeat of what was said 10 years ago and reads:
The Australian Labor Party has formally declared it will be dumping many of the industrial relations policies of the former Keating government.
Opposition spokesman on industrial relations Bob McMullan said the approach of the next Labor government to industrial relations would be “distinctly and noticeably different”. He said the new approach would differ significantly from the approach of the former Keating government, making a deliberate turn away from enterprise-based arrangements and a return to collective bargaining underpinned by the traditional award system. The ALP would in future be pursuing industry-wide arrangements.
Pattern bargaining is back. That is what they said 10 years ago and that is what they say today. What would be their motivation for winding back a major reform in the economy for the first time in 30 years? The Labor Party’s policy, as we know, is written by the ACTU, it is owned by the ACTU and it is funded by the trade union bosses—and 70 per cent of the Labor Party frontbench are former union officials. There is concern in the broader community. Listen to this, Mr Speaker. It is reported today that one commentator with an expert knowledge of the unions said that the Labor Party’s policy is all about heading towards compulsory unionism. He stated:
It consolidates the power of the unions and of course it will be those unions linked to the Labor Party.
You might think that this is a right-wing commentator, Mr Speaker, someone with an opinion more in the Adam Smith mould than any other, but this person went on to say:
I don’t see much in the Labor Party’s policy for union members to get overjoyed about. I do see a lot for union officials to get overjoyed about in terms of opening up right of entry access.
Those are the words of the head of the Australian Nursing Federation in Western Australia. He is saying that the Labor Party’s policy is all about the union bosses. It is not about the members of the union; it is not about the workers of Australia. The Labor Party’s industrial relations policy is all about the union bosses. The President of the ANF in Western Australia said he did not want to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars to effectively support Labor’s industrial relations policy because it would shore up power for unions linked to Labor. This is not some flippant right-wing commentator or anyone else who, in a dispassionate way, may be passing an assessment on the Labor Party’s policy; this is a senior union official saying the Labor Party’s industrial relations policy is all about the union bosses. That is why they want to roll back industrial relations reform. It is not about the workers because, for the workers, wages have gone up since our industrial relations reforms. It is not about those most vulnerable in the community, because, for those people, the number of jobs in Australia has increased dramatically—387,000 new jobs, 84 per cent of them full time, since we introduced our Work Choices reforms. It is all about the union bosses; it is for the union bosses—the same union bosses that will take control of the Labor Party, the same union bosses that control a weak Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall that, in the last 24 hours, his government’s backbench has described him as ‘the greatest Prime Minister Australia has ever had’, the Prime Minister has described the Treasurer as ‘the greatest Treasurer Australia has ever had’, and the Treasurer has described the government as ‘the greatest environmental government that Australia has ever had’? Prime Minister, is there any claim to greatness that the government has yet to thrust upon itself? And is this why the Prime Minister maintains his claim that Australians have never been better off?
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The Prime Minister has the call and the Prime Minister will be heard.
I think there is one claim to greatness that I would not make of myself or any of my colleagues, but it is a label I will place upon the Leader of the Opposition, and that is that, of all the leaders of the Australian Labor Party I have faced—and I think he is the sixth leader of the Australian Labor Party I have faced—he is the greatest contortionist. What he has been able simultaneously to do is to wrap his arms around policies that he has spent all of his time in parliament opposing. It is a pretty energetic and great achievement of political contortion to say that there is not a sliver of difference between the economic policies of the government and the economic policies of the Australian Labor Party when you opposed taxation reform, you opposed paying off $96 billion of debt, you opposed industrial relations reform, you opposed the privatisation of Telstra, you opposed putting the budget back into surplus—and so the list has gone on. And yet now the Leader of the Opposition would have the Australian public believe that the launching pad for his assault on the government of this country is the very policies that he spent all of his waking hours in opposing. So, if we are handing out descriptions of ‘greatest’, he has to be the greatest political contortionist I have faced in the office of Leader of the Opposition.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members are holding up their question time.
My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Would the minister inform the House of any new information which highlights the water scarcity issues facing urban areas?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I well understand that, like all residents of south-east Queensland, he has very great concern about growing water scarcity. The Water Services Association’s latest report reminded us of the grave challenge that urban centres face in terms of water provision. Around Australia, with the sole and honourable exception of Perth, large cities have neglected their water infrastructure for many decades and, as a consequence, with growing population, greater demands on water supply, lower levels of rainfall and, in particular, lower levels of run-off, we have had the inevitable consequence of severe water shortages.
When a small country town runs out of water—and we are all familiar with those that have done so and no doubt are doing so now—often it is possible to truck water in as an emergency measure. But, when a city of millions of people runs out of water, it is nothing short of a catastrophe. And that is the situation that some of our major cities could face. It is certainly the situation that Brisbane could face.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke a moment ago about the title ‘the greatest’. Let me say this: he has made the greatest contribution to south-east Queensland’s water scarcity. He is the drought-bringer. He delivered that. He had an opportunity to deliver—
Mr Tanner interjecting
Order! The member for Melbourne is warned!
The Leader of the Opposition had a choice. He had a choice in 1989: the government of which he was a part had a choice to build a dam which would have droughtproofed south-east Queensland—and they wimped it. They said, ‘No, we won’t build it,’ but then they did nothing else.
One of the other things that the Leader of the Opposition is very good at is asking himself questions. He is always asking himself questions. He goes on the television and instead of waiting for the interviewer to ask him the question he says, ‘I ask myself why I am so clever,’ and then tells us why he is, and he says, ‘And I ask myself why my policies are so persuasive,’ and then he answers that. What about this question for the Leader of the Opposition? Why doesn’t he ask himself this question—because he will not answer it when anyone else asks it: ‘Why did we not build the Wolffdene Dam?’ Why did he and Wayne Goss not build the Wolffdene Dam? Why did they deny the reality that the area of Australia which was the fastest growing in our nation was, so obviously, going to need more water? Why did they deny it the prospect of more water? And why does he have the gall to stand here and pretend that he has the character to be Prime Minister of this country?
My question is to the Minister for Environment and Water Resources, and I refer the minister to his previous answer. Can the minister confirm that the Queensland Liberal Party moved in the Queensland parliament a motion demanding that planning and construction of the Wolffdene Dam not proceed ‘in any way, now or at any time in the future’. Can the minister explain to the House why the Liberal Party opposed the planning and construction of the Wolffdene Dam?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! If the minister chooses to answer the question, he may.
I cannot explain whether that statement is correct—there is no-one here from the Queensland Liberal Party. But let me accept—
Mr Speaker, in order to assist the minister I seek leave—
The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
I am seeking leave, Mr Speaker.
The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
I am seeking leave, Mr Speaker.
The member will resume his seat or I will deal with him. Does the Manager of Opposition Business wish to raise a point of order?
No, Mr Speaker. I am seeking leave.
The Manager of Opposition Business may raise a point of order but he may not seek leave. He will resume his seat immediately or I will deal with him.
I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under standing orders does it not say that you can seek leave at any time?
No; that is not a point of order and it does not say it under standing orders.
Mr Albanese interjecting
Mr Speaker, with respect to this place, I draw attention to the gestures made by the member opposite towards the Speaker of the House, reflecting on the Chair. I would like you to take into account his hand gestures at the end of that comment.
The member will resume his seat. I have ruled on the points raised by the Manager of Opposition Business and I do not intend to revisit them.
As I was saying before the honourable member opposite went into a sort of paroxysm of St Vitus dance, leaping up and down, I cannot confirm whether this was the view of the Queensland Liberal Party. Oh, he has got it again!
Mr Speaker, I ask that whatever that was be withdrawn.
I withdraw the reference to St Vitus dance.
The minister has withdrawn.
I cannot say whether that is an accurate reflection of what the Queensland Liberal Party said.
Opposition members interjecting—
But we know that the Leader of the Opposition is very devoted to ‘echonomics’.
Order!
We know that he is trying to be a Liberal.
Mr Tanner interjecting
Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Melbourne continues to interject. He has been warned; he will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Melbourne then left the chamber.
We know now that the member for Griffith’s defence for not building the Wolffdene Dam is that the parliamentary Liberal Party in Queensland at the time was not in favour of it either. So we have had ‘echonomics’; now we have got ‘echohydrology’—we do not have any ideas of our own. But the fact remains that it is not just a question of not building a dam. Views will differ about a dam, about a recycling plant—they will differ about lots of things.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Holt.
Mr Gavan O’Connor interjecting
The failure of leadership of the member for Griffith—
Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Corio will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Corio then left the chamber.
The minister has the call and the minister will be heard.
The Leader of the Opposition’s defence for cancelling the Wolffdene Dam now apparently seems to be that the parliamentary Liberal Party did not want to build it. The people of Australia are entitled to expect leaders to lead and to form their own views. But, more importantly still, the failure of the Leader of the Opposition in cancelling that dam was that he replaced it with nothing else. It is one thing to say you do not agree with a dam or with a recycling plant or something else, but what he did then—
Ms Vamvakinou interjecting
Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Calwell has been warned; she continues to interject. She will remove herself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Calwell then left the chamber.
The minister has the call and he will be heard.
The failure of the member for Griffith’s leadership—which underlines the lack of character that he has and his unfitness to be Prime Minister of this country—was that, recognising the great need for a secure water supply that south-east Queensland had, he cancelled one viable option and then replaced it with nothing else. It is for that reason that south-east Queensland is in dire risk of running out of water. The member for Griffith is the architect of south-east Queensland’s drought. His complacency, his inaction, is the reason south-east Queensland is short of water.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to table the Hansard from the Queensland parliament of 3 October 1989 under the Cooper National Party government.
Leave granted.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to address the crisis in housing affordability.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
We are facing a housing affordability crisis in Australia, and the only people who do not seem to know it are members of the government. On every possible measure we have a housing affordability crisis in this country. We have over half a million people facing rental stress—that is, one in three families who are paying rent are paying more than 30 per cent of their household income on their rent. We have well over half a million people in mortgage stress, paying more than 30 per cent of their household income on their mortgage repayments. Families are paying more interest than ever before because their mortgages are higher than they have ever been.
The average house in 1996 was worth four years of the average wage. Do you know what the average house is worth now? Seven years average annual wages. We know that today 9½ per cent of gross household income is spent on interest repayments alone—almost 10 per cent of household income goes on interest payments alone. The government like to talk about the historically high interest rates under Paul Keating. They go on and on about it. They forget, conveniently of course, that interest rates were 22 per cent under Treasurer Howard, but they like to go back to high interest rates under Paul Keating. At the highest level under Keating, people were spending 6.1 per cent of the family income repaying their interest. What is it now? It is 9½ per cent, almost 10 per cent, of the family income. We also have almost 200,000 people on waiting lists for public housing around this country. So it is a crisis in any way you look at it.
The rate of homelessness is up. We have seen a 30 per cent increase in the number of homeless families in the last five years. We have seen $3 billion ripped out of the Commonwealth-state housing agreement, and now we have the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who is at the table, talking about privatising the Commonwealth-state housing agreement. He did not like the good media we were getting on Labor’s housing affordability summit, so he came up with some thought bubble: ‘Let’s privatise public housing—throw the whole thing open to the market.’ What that means is that people who are currently housed in public housing around this country will lose their homes. That is what the minister’s announcement means. We know that one in two people are turned away from emergency accommodation each night. Two out of three children going to emergency accommodation are turned away each night. There are 100,000 homeless Australians every night—half of them are under the age of 22 and 10,000 of them are children. We are told again and again that working Australians have never been better off, and at this time housing affordability and homelessness are worse than they have ever been in the history of Australia.
We also know that young Australians are quickly losing their dream of homeownership. Many young Australians have given up on the dream of homeownership. Many people in their 20s, 30s and even 40s have resigned themselves to the fact that they will never own their own home. In fact, it is not crazy that they have given up on homeownership. If you look at the average mortgage for the median priced home in Australia’s capital cities, you need over $115,000 a year of family income to afford the mortgage on the average home in Australia’s capital cities. Perhaps that is okay if you are two middle-income earners and you are both working full time—you might just get by. What happens when someone is on maternity leave? What happens when someone loses their job? What happens when Work Choices kicks in and you lose your penalty rates and overtime? It is not unusual that people have given up on their dream of homeownership. In fact, we have seen that the proportion of 18- to 30-year-olds buying their first home has declined from 48 per cent to 44 per cent between 1994 and 2004 and that the proportion of first home buyers as part of the market has actually declined from 21.8 per cent in 1996 to 17½ per cent earlier this year. We are seeing a drop in the proportion of young Australians looking at buying their first homes.
We know that more families are defaulting on their mortgages. That is because of nine back-to-back interest rate increases. There have been five back-to-back interest increases since this Prime Minister promised, everywhere—in his election advertising, in his speeches, in his interviews, at his lectern, on his billboards, on his website—that interest rates would stay at historic lows. What have we seen? Five increases since that promise. And we see the effects of it every day with the families who are losing their homes.
What can we do? Is this an impossible problem? Has the government given up because there is nothing governments can do to improve housing affordability? Of course not. With three levels of government working together and working with the private sector and the community sector, we can beat this problem. We can actually make housing affordable, particularly for first home buyers entering the market; we can improve the situation for renters who are facing historic high rentals because rental availability is so low; and we really can do something about social housing and homelessness. What it takes is some political will, and that is plainly what is missing here. We have no minister for housing. Sometimes it is the minister sitting at the table and sometimes it is Senator Scullion. Who knows who is responsible? Who makes this a priority for the government? Who stands up in cabinet meetings and says, ‘Hang on a minute, what you’re proposing is going to make housing less affordable in this country’? No-one. Who is responsible?
The first and most important thing we have to do for housing affordability is, obviously, to keep interest rates low. Everyone agrees with that. The government are very quick to start making promises about keeping interest rates low, but what about their policies? They have repeatedly ignored warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia that infrastructure and skills constraints will push up interest rates in this country. They are now reaping the rewards of ignoring those warnings. But keeping interest rates low is just one thing that we can do; we need to do more. That is why Labor have promised, if we win government later this year, a $0.5 billion housing affordability fund that will reduce the cost of new homes by cutting red-tape delays and consequently cutting holding charges and by reducing infrastructure charges that state and local governments are forced to charge for roads, libraries, parks and other amenities. So that is $0.5 million to help people get into the housing market. That is the first practical thing that we can do.
The second practical thing we have promised is in an announcement this week from Kevin Rudd that Labor will commit $603 million to a national rental affordability scheme that will help draw in $2½ billion worth of private investment. We know that the superannuation funds and the big institutional investors want to invest in affordable rental accommodation in Australia. They would do it if there were such a scheme—they have said they would do it if there were such a scheme. They do it overseas. Australian companies invest in these sorts of schemes overseas. We know it works; we have seen it work in other countries. The government could pinch our policy. I would be quite happy for them to pinch our policy because what we would see is 50,000 new affordable rental dwellings built with $2.5 billion worth of private investment. This would really make a dent in the affordability of rental accommodation.
There are a stack of people in the press saying that it would make a difference. We have Ron Silverberg from the HIA saying:
The measure is targeted sensibly and appropriately at new rental housing ...
And:
... it’s a positive move ...
We have Peter Verwer from the Property Council of Australia saying that it is a step in the right direction and:
Institutional investors hold lots of property in other countries, so there’s no reason why they can’t do so in Australia. In fact they’re very keen to do so.
We have the Real Estate Institute of Australia saying that the national rental affordability scheme is a ‘good start at addressing the rental affordability issue’. We have Gary Weaven from Industry Super Network and half-a-dozen different endorsements in the press saying that this is a step in the right direction.
Does the government say, ‘Why don’t we do something similar?’ The Prime Minister says, ‘Maybe it is a good idea; we will have a look at it.’ They have had 11½ years to look at this problem. How much longer do they need? Another 11½ years? This government have turned a blind eye while first home buyers are locked out of the market and while renters are paying more than ever before for their rental accommodation. Consequently, they are not able to save a deposit to go into their first homes because they are paying $300 to $400 a week to put a roof over the family’s head. How do you save a deposit when you are paying $300 or $400, or 30 per cent of your gross family income, on rent—or 50 per cent as some families are doing?
The $603 million leverages another $2½ billion of private investment. That is a substantial new investment. We heard from the Treasurer today a lot of carping ‘won’t work’ criticisms. Not once have I heard a practical recommendation from the Treasurer or the Prime Minister—I was going to say the housing minister, but of course there isn’t one—or from anyone on the government side to actually draw new investment into the affordable end of the rental market. We see investment in the rental market, but because people are mum and dad investors they are particularly interested in capital gain and they are looking for high-end investments—expensive investments—that are not going to help your average family in your average suburb.
Labor are also committed to a National Housing Supply Research Council to analyse the adequacy of land supply across the nation as well as rates of construction. We had a note from the Reserve Bank just yesterday talking about the critical shortage of new rental properties and what it is doing to the Australian economy. One of the reasons they give is that the number of houses and units being built is currently well short of estimates of underlying demand for new housing. Over the year to the March quarter, 147,000 dwellings were completed. They go on to say that they are not exactly sure how many we need, but it is probably around 175,000 a year. Because we have not increased the number of units and homes being built, this ongoing shortfall has meant that ‘the vacancy rate at 1.4 per cent remains close to its lowest level for 30 years’. We are also seeing that the annual increase in rents at 5.2 per cent is well above the rate of underlying inflation. One of the reasons for that is that we are not building enough new housing to keep up with historically high immigration rates. We know that we are getting well over 100,000 new immigrants each year under the Howard government. We also see that people are living alone and living longer, so we need more houses to be built all the time. One of the reasons why rent is so high and new home prices are so high is that we are just simply not building enough of them.
The National Housing Supply Research Council, designed to analyse the adequacy of land supply across the nation as well as rates of construction, will help us to determine where we need new building and what sorts of policies we need to make that happen. We have also committed to a national affordable housing agreement with the state and territory governments and with the Local Government Association.
I cannot tell people how tired I am of hearing the Howard government say it is all the fault of the states. One minute there is no housing affordability problem and it is all in our imaginations, and the next minute it is all the fault of the states. Well, it is one or the other, but let us go with ‘all the fault of the states’ for the moment. There is no simple solution to this problem. I certainly do not believe there is a simple solution. The government’s one simple solution that is going to fix everything is releasing more land in outer suburban areas. Land supply is part of the solution but it is not the whole solution. If we simply flood the market in outer suburban areas with lots of land, what you will see is a big drop in prices in a ring of surrounding suburbs, pushing homeowners in those areas into negative equity but having little effect across the rest of the market. So we are not going to get increased affordability across the rest of the country.
Pretending that there is one simple solution is so simplistic and so fuzzy headed. What has this government done to improve housing affordability? Big fat zero. The only thing the Treasurer could think of today was Commonwealth rent assistance—I think that was a Labor policy, actually. So big fat zero from the federal government on what it has done.
At the end of the day we have to improve housing affordability for first home owners. We have to improve the availability of affordable rental accommodation. We have to improve access to emergency accommodation and to community and public housing. To do that we need cooperation between three levels of government. We need a suite of policies targeted at the different areas and different aspects of affordability. At the end of the day the most important thing is that we see new homes being built, and this government has no proposal to see that happen. (Time expired)
Today we saw the Treasurer tear apart yet another ill-thought-out, ill-prepared and unfortunately dishonest Labor Party proposal, which they put on television last night. Yet again we saw the Leader of the Opposition in a can-do moment, sitting in someone’s kitchen lamenting the cost of a rental house; there he was, empathising. He is a great empathiser. He has empathised about fuel costs, he has empathised about food costs and he has now empathised about rental costs. But what has he actually done for the lady on television last night? What has he done for the pensioners? What has he done as the Leader of the Opposition, in the form of policy, that would help that lady? He actually misled that woman in her very own kitchen. Talk about the used-car salesman or the door-to-door salesman—be careful who knocks on your door! The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley—the fellow who would be Treasurer—knock on your door, slick back their hair and say, ‘I’ve got a deal for you: I’m going to make you $50 or $60 a week better off.’ That woman was sitting there thinking, ‘If I vote Labor I’m going to get another $50 or $60.’ When they left, the poor woman found that there was not one iota of truth in that. It was shown today to be what it was—a fraud, a con, nothing more than a set-up for a television picture, in the hope that, on the television news, they would get the equivalent of free advertising, where people would get the perception but not the reality of something positive being done by the opposition.
What’s your policy?
That is exactly what happened when the shadow spokesman for Treasury, the member for Lilley, got up and said, ‘We’re going to talk about the prices of fruit and vegetables and groceries.’ When he was actually asked the hard question, ‘Are you going to deliver lower prices?’ he said, ‘No, I can’t do that. But we’ve already got what we wanted—we got the headline—but we are actually interested in it.’ Being interested in things is not enough. It is difficult and challenging to run a billion-dollar economy, to keep it on track, and to give people jobs and security and affordable interest rates. By the way, Mr Deputy Speaker, do you realise that interest rates are lower today than they were at any time during the 13 years of the Labor government? Not once, not in one quarterly period, did they manage to get interest rates to the point that they are at today. Labor never got to that as their low point—not once. Their best in government for 13 years was not as good as the worst is today. What an extraordinary admission. So, when the Prime Minister stands up and says, ‘We guarantee to keep interest rates lower than the Labor Party,’ we know that we have delivered for 11 years straight.
That’s not what he said.
The member for Sydney has had her time; she will listen to the reply.
In fact, interest rates have averaged seven and a bit per cent. They averaged over 12 per cent under Labor. The member for Sydney stood up here today and said that 9.5 per cent of family income is what is required to service a loan. My God, what would it be at 10 per cent, at 11 per cent?
What a stupid argument!
The member for Sydney says ‘stupid argument’. What is stupid about running an economy into the ground, requiring interest rates to go up and having people thrown out on the streets? Fortunately, there are enough people out there who still remember what it was like. They say that to me all the time. They say: ‘Mal, I know what it was like on 17 per cent interest rates. And I tell you what: maybe some of those who sit on the front bench don’t, but I did; I had the pain of it.’ Or they say, ‘I had the pain of 26 and 27 per cent interest rates on my overdraft and I was trying to hold a job together.’ Is it any wonder there were a million people unemployed under the Labor government? Do you think they were people who were worried about house affordability? It was just a distant dream. It was something that the rich people thought about. The rich people, by the way, were those who had a job. Today these people have a job. Today they are actually building wealth for themselves, and they are doing it in an environment where the taxes that they are paying are lower than they have been in living memory.
Today, under a Howard government, the average Australian family—mum and dad and two kids—pays no net tax under $50,800. When the mob that sit opposite, the Labor Party, were last in office, if you were one single dollar over $50,000, you paid 48½c of tax and Medicare levy. It was a case of, ‘Half to the government, half to me.’ It is no wonder people did not want to add to the economy and take overtime. Today they do not have that problem. Today they put it in their hip pocket and make those decisions for themselves.
The member for Sydney said that we are always blaming the state governments for the affordability of housing. Let’s not blame anyone. Let’s state some facts. Let’s talk about the member for Sydney’s home town, Sydney, particularly the north-west. I refer to Boulevard of broken dreams, a report by the Residential Development Council, and the Property Council’s publication from January this year, Voice of Leadership. These are their figures, not the government’s. They are straight from the people that the member for Sydney was happy to quote. How do the people in Western Sydney cope with getting a house? What is driving up the costs in the electorates of the member for Lindsay or the member for Macarthur? This is what they have to deal with. When they turn up at the auction, they do not realise that what they are doing is pouring money into Mr Iemma’s Labor government at an unprecedented level. In the north-west of Sydney a house and land package is $570,240, with $50,000 in GST. Where does it go? Every last cent goes directly into Mr Iemma’s pocket under the Commonwealth-state GST regime. Is the Labor Party suggesting we change it?
Ms Plibersek interjecting
No, it is not. There we go.
The member for Sydney must be well aware that when the chair warns someone there are very few chances after that.
Secondly, there are state government taxes above $50,000, and stamp duty to the developer is $6,320. So every time they put the bid up—to $550,000 and then $555,000—$5,000 goes straight to Mr Iemma. The stamp duty to the purchaser is $20,240. So they put in another bid—straight into Mr Iemma’s pocket. Land tax is $3,471. The state infrastructure charge in Sydney’s north-west is $50,000. The bidding could have stopped at $435,000 but they are still going at $450,000, $480,000, $500,000 and $550,000. It settles at $575,000. Bingo, sold to Mr Iemma for $130,000. A Labor government gets $130,000 from the sale of the property. Who has to pay it? The poor people of these electorates. They look their families in the eye and say, ‘That’s what Labor has done to us: $130,000 of taxes ripped out of our pockets.’ At 8.25 per cent interest, they are going to have to find that money every year. That is just over $10,000—nearly $1,000 a month in interest payments that they will have to fork out year after year to the Labor government in New South Wales.
Turn your mind to Brisbane—to Redlands, down in the south-east, a beautiful part of the country. Property is a little cheaper down there, at $464,225. The one thing they have to contend with in Redlands that they have to contend with in north-west Sydney and south-west Sydney is a Labor government that is drunk on taking money in stamp duty at the expense of homebuyers. The hide of the Labor Party to stand up here and talk about housing affordability! Have a listen to this: in Redlands the price is $464,000 and the GST is $40,900—which goes straight to the state; stamp duty to the developer is $3,200 and stamp duty to the purchaser is $14,225. There is a lovely little sting in the tail. People say, ‘I think we can buy this property, darling; I think we can do it.’ They are about to do it and the bank manager says, ‘You have calculated stamp duty to the state Labor government, haven’t you?’ ‘What is that?’ ‘That is $14,225 of your hard-earned cash. By the way, you can put it on the never never and we will give you some interest for that and you can keep paying off Mr Beattie’—or Ms Bligh or whomever is going to be Premier up there in the next few months. Then there is land tax of $3,750. That totals $62,000 out of $464,000. Again, this whole process could have stopped at $400,000 but, no, it had to go another $60,000, which the poor punters from Redlands and electorates such as Bonner and Bowman have to find for these people to be able to fund the excesses of Labor governments in every state.
Whilst the numbers change from state to state, it is the same story. Have we heard one thing from the Leader of the Opposition or Labor’s housing spokesman about state taxes? No. Why? Because they are Labor mates. Anyone in their right mind will ask themselves in a calm, clear and concise moment: ‘Is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, going to have the strength to stand up to Labor premiers like Mr Iemma and Mr Beattie or is he just going to be a patsy? Is he just going to roll over and keep giving other state Labor governments money?’ I think anyone in their right mind would know, from the eight or nine months that Mr Rudd has been the Leader of the Opposition, that he will roll over to the unions and the premiers and give them what they want and scratch their backs. Who is the loser? It is the people who live in the electorates of Macarthur and Lindsay. They just think that it is property prices going up; they do not think it is the Labor governments, in their back pockets, ripping out taxes and making home ownership an impossible dream.
The member for Sydney said in her speech that the institutional investors would put money in if there were such a scheme. She is right. I was reading a brief during question time. This brief is the result of government policy that actually has been enacted. Over the last 10 years, we have been providing Commonwealth money, taxpayers’ money, to the states. We give the states $1,000 million in round figures every year for public housing. Over 10 years, that is $10 billion in round figures. So, of course, we would expect that there must be more public houses today than there were 10 years ago. That is a pretty logical conclusion.
Ms Plibersek interjecting
‘It costs nothing to maintain them,’ says the member for Sydney. They get rent, they contribute themselves, and then they get $1 billion from the Commonwealth. The real facts are that, under Labor stewardship, there are fewer houses, after a $10 billion injection from the Commonwealth government, than there were 10 years ago.
Some states are better than others. New South Wales has in fact gone backwards over the last five years. As I recall from the last figures we have, New South Wales has gone from having 140,968 houses in 2000-01 to 138,580 houses in 2004-05. So they have managed to lose around 2,500 houses—not a bad effort. If you are wondering where these figures come from, they are from the Housing Assistance Act 1996 annual reports. They are not my figures; they are from annual reports that tell you how many houses the state Labor governments have built and owned.
Mr Schwarten has been the minister up in Queensland since about 1998. He has declared war on me. Why doesn’t he declare war on state taxes and do something for the people of Queensland who want to have the opportunity to have a low-cost house? In 1998, Queensland had 57,752 houses; today there are 57,289. He has lost around 400 houses.
But who is the blue ribbon, world champion, gold medal winning minister? It is Mr Jay Weatherill, from South Australia, who is without a doubt the best Labor minister for losing houses. In 1996-97, South Australia had the proud record of having 60,698 public and community houses. By 2004-05, Mr Weatherill had managed to drop that number to 51,628. I am not reading that incorrectly. Even though we have given them hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr Weatherill and the Labor Party have managed to lose some 9,000 houses in that time. What an extraordinary feat!
What did the coalition say? We said, ‘Let’s go and test the market and see whether the market has any better ideas.’ I have here the first report from my department since I announced that policy and said, ‘Let’s just see whether someone can do it better than the state Labor governments.’ So far, we have had 274 organisations, individuals, local councils, community housing organisations and small, private companies, as well as financial institutions, express an interest in bringing forward this sort of valuable information to the debate.
A Howard government will always hold state Labor governments to account. It is not the blame game. It is about saying to state Labor governments: ‘You have failed the people that you are elected to support. You have not provided the housing. You are overcharging in taxes and charges.’ What we get here is the pious behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sydney, who not once will stand up for their constituents and say to the Labor governments: ‘Hey, enough’s enough. You can’t just keep taking it out of the back pocket of these families. They can’t afford it.’
You cannot continue to mislead the public. You cannot mislead the lady sitting at the kitchen table and tell her untruths such as: ‘You are going to get $50 or $60 from a Rudd government.’ She will not get it. That was a lie. You know it. It is time you came clean and did the right thing by the Australian public.
Minister, you will withdraw the word ‘lie’.
I withdraw. I say that only one party can be guaranteed to provide real housing opportunities: the coalition. (Time expired)
This is not a new issue. When we were in government in Queensland in 1988 the then Deputy Premier and I had lengthy discussions about this. It is a matter of supply, but it is not about the supply of houses. There are firms that build prefabricated houses. Some of them are quite nice houses now. I live in a Logan unit, which is a pretty humble house but it does the job. Force 10 International can produce a kit for probably $60,000 now. They can have a kit erected for some $50,000. So that is $110,000. There is no housing problem if a house costs $110,000. The housing problem arises because of the cost of land that is added to the $110,000.
As I said, this is not a new phenomenon. In 1988, we as a government looked at a system of spoke roads radiating out from Brisbane, Bundaberg and Rockhampton et cetera. Those spoke roads were to be high-speed roads. I am particularly talking about Brisbane. We looked at divided high-speed roads with speed limits of 120 kilometres an hour that would enable people to live a long way from Brisbane. Quite frankly, they could live up to 60 kilometres away and still get to work in 20 or 30 minutes.
What is the reason that this housing situation has arisen? I must strongly back the government’s contention that the responsibility sheets back to the state government. In Queensland we have the most extraordinary phenomenon. While most of Australia is reeling under a housing crisis, the Queensland government is proceeding to put footprints around every local government area in Queensland. You will not be able to subdivide beyond that footprint. They are in the process of restricting subdivision.
I have the honour of representing Mount Isa in this place. There is the most extraordinary situation in Mount Isa. You can pay $85,000 for a quarter-acre allotment in Mount Isa—let us say a 10th of a hectare—or you can go to the other side of the jump-up and pay much less. When you drive into Mount Isa there is a very big jump-up and you go in through a break in the jump-up. On one side of the jump-up, you have the city of Mount Isa. A block of land there costs $85,000. On the other side of the jump-up, a hectare of land costs $40—not $40,000 but $40! How can this extraordinary situation arise? It arises because of local councillors whose stupidity is beyond belief or who may have vested interests. If you own a lot of property in Mount Isa you do not want land on the other side of the jump-up to be opened up.
In Cloncurry, the mining company there wanted accommodation. We bless Charlie Sartain, the then head of the mining company, who is now head of Xstrata Copper worldwide. He was head at Cloncurry at the time. He said, ‘We will base the people here but you’ve got to give us some land. There’s got to be somewhere for them to live in Cloncurry.’ He did not want to fly people in, but he had no alternative because there was no housing in Cloncurry to enable him to house people there. I am quite sure they would have come into a land guarantee deal.
I do not want to criticise some of the councils in my own electorate, but they most certainly have something to answer for here. However, we are dealing with the background of the state Labor government. The government of Queensland really is a fascinating phenomenon. Here is a government that cannot deliver doctors who speak English. They cannot deliver the water supply to two-thirds of the population of Queensland. They announced blithely last Christmas that they would not be able to guarantee electricity supply to the Gold Coast over Christmas. What exactly can they supply? In housing they are actually moving to restrict, not facilitate, the opening up of areas.
We desperately require the local and state governments to get out of the way. They should allow a station property owner or an owner of any type of property to subdivide that land. You have to supply services. Quite apart from economic rent and supply and demand factors that have driven the price up, there is a separate factor altogether. If you want to put on that land curb-to-curb bitumen, curbing and channelling, floodwater drainage and sewerage, then you are notching back up over $50,000. But there is no necessity for that. In a country where you can fly an aeroplane from Kingaroy all the way across to Karratha and drop a series of atomic bombs and not kill anyone because there is nobody living there, it is absolutely outrageous that people are paying this amount of money.
In Cloncurry, the then mayor, Noel Robertson, because of the situation with respect to Xstrata, actually costed two-acre blocks with a median strip and bitumen with a water pipeline running beside it at $14,000 a block. The cost of two-acre blocks with a narrow frontage onto median strip bitumen was $14,000. Let us add the cost of the land to that—$50 a hectare—and you have very cheap land. It may not be as good as that. In the area that I represent outside of Townsville, which is now an area reaching up to 300,000 people, 15,000 acres was purchased for $650,000 some three years ago. Land is still enormously cheap in these areas. One of the reasons for that is the difficulty with subdividing and getting subdivisions done. It means that people are not going to buy properties for subdivision, because they know they will not be able to get the subdivision through in their lifetime because of local government and state government requirements.
I applaud the opposition today, who are going to lean upon the state government. We applaud their resolve, not their actions, because the only actions we have seen are from the Labor Party in Queensland, and they are heading in the exact opposite, 180-degree direction. If the ALP fail to win this election they can thank no-one else except the Premier of Queensland because, if it is possible to undo any chance the ALP may have had of winning this election, he most certainly has left no stone unturned in the pursuit of the demolition of his own political party.
But I do not come here today to criticise; I come here to say that the honourable member for Wentworth, now the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, and an Oxford don did a paper for the New South Wales government on housing affordability. It quite frankly said that the federal government had it wrong. They said that the federal government was continuing down the way of helping demand—increasing demand makes the price go up—instead of looking at the supply side. The supply side was being choked off by local government and state government laws. Those were the findings of that report. Their solution did not flow along the lines that we were working on in Queensland when the government fell in 1989—or, should I say, when Bill Gunn and I really lost control of the government whilst the Premier was going to Canberra. Therein lies the solution to the problem. But it is no solution so long as the state governments and the councils are allowed to continue with bumbling incompetence and maybe cold-blooded arrogance as far as the issue of subdivisions goes.
We would urge the government to look at the solutions provided by one of their own ministers. We would urge the opposition to continue to act with great aggression towards the state government, if in fact they are acting with any aggression at all. But if they are, we applaud them in that and would encourage them to keep moving down that direction. We have a desperate housing crisis in Mount Isa. People cannot live in the town. We have to fly people in for almost every form of employment because we simply have no land for people to build a house on and live there. It would also be nice if people in Mount Isa were able to have 10 acres instead of a quarter of an acre. (Time expired)
No-one has a monopoly on concern for those people wanting to buy a house. We are all concerned to see that young people and young families have an opportunity to buy a home of their own. We all want our children to be able to have access to housing at an affordable price. But we need here to separate the rhetoric from the reality. What we have heard from the other side is a lot of rhetoric but very little in terms of substance. If we are going to look at solutions to the issue, we need to understand the causes for the crisis, if there is a crisis in the first place. The member for Kennedy was quite right to say that the issue is a supply-side issue rather than a demand-side issue.
In looking at the situation and the facts, I want to turn to the very thorough and exhaustive report released earlier this year by the Property Council’s residential development council. It was a thorough report which analysed the causes for the expensive state of housing in Australia. I think this is very instructive in understanding the reasons for the situation and therefore what we ought to be doing to try to address the situation. The Property Council outlines five reasons for the high and growing cost of housing in Australia. The first is this:
Limited land supply, induced by restrictive land release policies of the state and local governments, is a significant driver of housing costs.
That is, the shortage of land due to the failure of the state governments and local authorities to release adequate land for people wanting to buy a home. For instance, the Property Council said that in 2003-04 in Sydney alone there was a shortage of over 3,000 blocks of land. There was a demand of 7,600 blocks of land and a release of only 3,500 blocks. It goes on to estimate that the shortage of land in Sydney is adding around $30,000 to the cost of blocks of land and therefore $30,000 to the cost of a new house-land package. So the first factor it identifies is inadequate land releases.
The second factor the Property Council identifies is government fees and charges. It says:
Government related taxes, fees, levies, charges and compliance costs are also adding enormously to the cost of new housing.
The Property Council says that typically this is adding in our capital cities anywhere between $50,000 and $100,000 to the cost of a new house and land package. In fact, in some parts of Sydney—in north-western Sydney, according to the Property Council—up to $100,000 and even $130,000 is added to the cost of a new house-land package by the charges, levies and costs of state and local authorities. This is outrageous, this is exorbitant and it is crippling the chances of first-home buyers of buying a home and getting a foot into the housing market. The council estimates that between a quarter and a third of the cost of a new house and land package is state and local government charges. It estimates that they can be greater even than the cost of the land itself—that you are paying more to the state government and local authorities than the actual cost of the land because of those charges.
The third cause the Property Council identifies is the state and local infrastructure levies applied to new homebuyers under a user-pays argument. It says that they are ‘adding significantly to the combined weight of government taxes and compliances’ and that, in many cases, they are far in excess of the actual cost of providing the relevant infrastructure. In other words, state governments are using their utilities—Sydney Water and Integral Energy, for instance—as milk cows for the state government. They are beefing up the cost of developing a new block of land by greater than the actual cost of development so that the surplus goes via those authorities, via those utilities, back into the coffers of the state government. In other words, as the Property Council says, new homebuyers are in effect being forced to subsidise community-wide upgrades of infrastructure beyond the cost of providing it to their own particular block of land and being forced to add to the coffers of the New South Wales government.
We have the outrageous situation in the Blue Mountains where Sydney Water has just announced that it will add $16,000 to the sewerage and water costs on a new residential block of land. That is, a young couple wanting to buy a block of land in the Blue Mountains have to pay not only all the surcharges, infrastructure costs, levies and stamp duties that were already there but an extra $16,000 on the cost of getting Sydney Water to attach water and sewerage to their block of land. That is an extra $16,000 that these young families cannot afford.
We have to ask why this is happening. It is happening because those utilities—Sydney Water, for instance—are being used as cash cows by incompetent state governments that cannot manage their own finances. They have to use every opportunity possible to get cash out of unsuspecting residents—in this case, unsuspecting homebuyers—to prop up their own budgetary incompetence. It is typical of what we see around the states and typical of Labor’s mismanagement. It is a warning of what would happen if we also had Labor in government federally.
The fourth point that the Property Council mentions is the environmental compliance costs. They estimate that anywhere between $14,000 and $25,000 extra has been added to the cost of developing a block of land or building a home. None of us would deny the importance of environmental issues, but we ought to see the state government taking some responsibility and not slugging new homebuyers for this.
The fifth point is that ‘systems of development assessment nationally are dysfunctional’ and that applications are taking longer and are increasingly complex, expensive and subject to unpredictable and undisciplined political intervention. So there are the reasons for the problem. As the report points out, new homebuyers are subsidising existing homebuyers in leafy suburbs such as Mosman and other suburbs on the North Shore. The solution, in the executive summary of this report, is simply this:
The remedies for the worsening housing affordability’s situation are relatively simple: fix the systems of development assessment; move away from heavily prescriptive and regulated restrictions on land supply so that the competition is created in the market and pressure on land prices is relieved; and decrease the tax and regulatory burden on new housing by moving from ‘user pays’ infrastructure levies to public debt for urban public infrastructure.
In other words, instead of the summits, the stunts and the spin that we have from the other side—
Ms Plibersek interjecting
The member for Sydney will remove herself under standing order 94(a). She has been warned persistently.
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.
The solution is very simple: the Leader of the Opposition needs to get on the phone to Morris Iemma and the other premiers and push them into reducing the taxes and infrastructure costs on new housing and land packages. Why doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition do that? Because we would not have television cameras filming the Leader of the Opposition on the phone to the state premiers; we only have television cameras filming when there is the sort of stunt that we saw from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The answer is simple: put pressure on the state premiers to reduce the cost of those charges, taxes and levies.
Let me come back to the question of interest rates. If on top of all these charges, levies, stamp duties and infrastructure costs we had the sort of interest rate regime that we had when Labor was in office, then we would have something to worry about. If we had interest rates still at the 12.75 per cent they averaged when Labor was in office, we would seriously have something to worry about.
Let us not just think about the past; let us think about the future. Look at the warning from Econtech about the impact of reintroducing Labor’s industrial relations policy. Econtech warn that, within the next couple of years, we would have interest rates going up by 1.4 per cent if Labor’s policies were adopted, if Labor were elected. On a mortgage of only $200,000—which is less than average—that 1.4 per cent interest rate rise would cost homebuyers an extra $233 a month. So homebuyers would pay an extra $233 a month if Labor’s industrial relations policies were introduced and, according to Econtech, we got that 1.4 per cent rise in interest rates. The cause is the state government costs and charges, and the fear is that Labor’s policies would push up inflation and interest rates and create a massive extra burden on homeowners in this country.
I expected better from the member for Macquarie. I was listening last Wednesday to the member for Macquarie speak in the MPI debate and he said this:
The promise that we would keep interest rates at record lows still stands.
If he goes back and looks at Hansard, he will see it.
Mr Bartlett interjecting
He is perpetuating the lies and deception of the Prime Minister and his party prior to the last election that they would maintain interest rates at record lows.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I take offence at the word ‘lies’ used by the member opposite, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.
I did not hear the word ‘lies’, but if the member used the word ‘lies’ he had better withdraw it.
He should have been listening.
Will the member withdraw it?
No. The speech of the member for Macquarie continued the very pious and sanctimonious contribution that was made by the minister, who promptly left the chamber after delivering his lecture to us. This is the same old mantra that is engaged in by the government. It shows how out of touch, stale and arrogant this government is. It is not dealing with the issues. The minister gave a very shoddy and shifty speech, giving us a pious lecture on interest rates under Labor. Did he or the member for Macquarie say anything in relation to the Prime Minister’s form when he was Treasurer and had high housing interest rates? I believe the cash rate then was about 22 per cent. Did he say anything about that? Of course he did not. Did he say anything about the dishonesty of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to this day—perpetuated last week and again today by the member for Macquarie—in claiming that they would keep interest rates at record lows? That still stands. No, of course he did not. Did the minister acknowledge that since the last election there have been five consecutive interest rate rises and that the government has failed in its promise to keep interest rates at record lows? Of course he did not. The minister, like the member for Macquarie, exonerated himself and then proceeded to leave the chamber in a typical out-of-touch fashion. The minister left the chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought the member for Lowe accused me of leaving the chamber.
There is no point of order.
Government members are calling points of order because they do not want to listen to the truth. The minister was the person who left the chamber, Member for Macquarie. As I said, he was allowed to leave the chamber. He was not prepared to listen. He did not acknowledge the five interest rate rises that have occurred under this Howard government. The member for Macquarie typifies just how out of touch and stale the government is by saying that it is going to keep interest rates at record lows, which it clearly is not. In my electorate of Lowe there is a tremendous crisis in housing affordability. I draw to the attention of the House my campaign to make the wider electorate aware of just how serious the problems are.
I have a constituent in my electorate by the name of Mr Rhys Brett-Bowen. Rhys is 24 years of age. He is on a moderate salary. He has a HECS debt of tens of thousands of dollars. He is living with mum and dad in Croydon Park and saving like mad because he wants to get a house. I joined Rhys and his father on a house-hunting exercise in my electorate. We went to Croydon to have a look at something that the real estate agent described as an ideal first home. It was also described by the real estate agent as a rough diamond property. You can be sure of that! It was also described as ‘an opportunity come knocking for a prospective buyer’ and a ‘renovator’s delight’. Well, it was an opportunity come knocking; it was an opportunity to knock this house down because the house had a collapsed roof, holes in the floors and termite damage. It went at auction for more than half a million dollars. It is little wonder that people like Rhys Brett-Bowen have no opportunity to get a house when we have had five interest rate rises and the government not honouring their commitment made to the people of Australia at the last election. Then we have to listen to the minister and the member for Macquarie engage in this blame game of blaming the states for everything. It is called projection. They will not accept any responsibility—(Time expired)
Member for Lowe, I understand that the Hansard is likely to record that you did use the word ‘lie’. Will you withdraw that, please?
If I used the word ‘lie’, I will withdraw it and just doubt the veracity of the statements made by the minister and the member for Macquarie.
Before I talk about the challenge of the New South Wales Labor government and some of its policies with regard to land—supply, access and, of course, levies and taxes—I would like to highlight the contrast between the state Labor governments and the federal coalition government. We believe that improving families’ access to income by effectively cutting them out of the tax system, increasing rent allowance and delivering better family tax benefits will improve the position of families as a result. Most importantly, we have the best opportunity in 33 years for a member of the family to get into the workforce. This definitely has an impact on their capacity to afford a home.
In contrast I will focus on the policies of the New South Wales state Labor government in particular. It has presided over the highest level of taxes and charges levied on the cost of a new home and the largest shortfall of broad-hectare land release provision of any state or territory. The member previously spoke about searching for a home and finding that the house itself was not worth much though the price of the house and land was close to half a million dollars. I think that highlights what I am about to say and confirms the argument that I and members on this side have been putting forward today. The number of new lots released, for example, in New South Wales 15 years ago was 7,931. Last year, in contrast, it was 2,780. That is a 65 per cent decrease. The average lot size in New South Wales 15 years ago under Liberal Premier Nick Greiner was 600 square metres. Last year it was 450 square metres. That is a 25 per cent decrease. The average price for a lot in New South Wales 15 years ago was $75,000. Last year it was $310,000. That is a 400 per cent increase. The New South Wales state taxes and charges and the large shortfall in the release of broad-hectare land are critical factors in that unnerving statistical picture.
At their core, New South Wales land and property taxes are not only restrictive but also inequitable. It has become more difficult to enter the property market in that state, and families and individuals have been driven out of the state to more tax-friendly environments. Local infrastructure levies applied to new homebuyers are now levied at a rate far in excess of the actual cost of essential housing infrastructure such as water and sewerage. For example, in Sydney total levies now average about $68,000. The actual cost of the infrastructure is around $1,700. So what happens to the difference? What happens to the $66,000? Where does it go? Does it go into state government coffers? What do they do with it? Maybe nothing. Environmental compliance costs have also added to the costs of new housing.
Order! The time allotted for this discussion has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Before question time, I had commenced my contribution to the second reading debate on the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 and was making the point that Labor has had not only a commitment to developing initiatives on water but also a strong objective. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you were a minister in attendance at some of the ministerial council meetings in which we had these discussions. Our commitment to bipartisanship, working with the states and securing agreement cannot be put in question. The contrast I was making was about the way in which this government has botched the negotiations on this water initiative.
Not only has the government failed to build on the framework that Labor put in place when it was in government, by way of both initiative and process, but it did not build on any of that legacy at all. In fact, if you look at the history of this government, you will see that until 2004—that is eight years of government—no new funding was made available, through this government or its budgets, for water. In fact, in the budget in 2003, the government cut funding to the water initiatives.
We heard in question time today the joke by the Treasurer, who claimed that this was the greatest environmental government in the history of the country. How out of touch and arrogant is it? If you simply look at the water initiatives, you see that we have a government presiding over the worst drought in recorded history and it actually cut funding in terms of water. The only time it made a commitment to new funding, short of this latest initiative that we are debating, was just before the introduction of the water fund. This was part of the Prime Minister’s ‘drunken sailor spree’—$60 billion spent in total by the government to get itself re-elected. The problem with the $2 billion Australian water fund is that it has not been spent.
So here we have a promise being made just before an election to get themselves into the frame of looking active, yet the funding has not been committed. Worse, not a single drop of environmental flow has gone back into the Murray, even though, at the same time as making that $2 billion commitment, they committed to putting 500 gigalitres back into the Murray. We say that the 500 gigalitres was deficient. We argued, and actually proposed, that it be 1,500 gigalitres. That was our policy. Not only did the government commit to merely going a third of the way; in the three years since, not one drop of water has gone into the Murray as a result of that commitment.
Here we are, three years down the track, with another election pending, and we have another commitment. But it is not $2 billion this time; it is $10 billion. It is five times as much—but, as we know, with all the wriggle room in the world by which the government, if it is re-elected, can get out of making that spend. We have seen the Premier of New South Wales complaining that they have been dudded on the infrastructure fund. We know of the problems in Victoria. We know of the difficulties that South Australia had in terms of whether there would be an independent body to make decisions about where the environmental flows were.
We have circumstances in which, for this great initiative that we all agree needs addressing—water—money is not the problem anymore. There was $2 billion three years ago that was not spent, and we now have $10 billion. Will it ever be spent, even if this government is re-elected? The problem is not the money. The problem is inaction followed by ineptitude in terms of implementing the strategy.
Let me go through the flawed process that leads us to this legislation that we are debating today. In November last year, the Prime Minister called a meeting of the premiers to get agreement around water. As we understand it, significant progress was made in that matter. Then, out of the blue, the day before Australia Day, the Prime Minister announced his $10 billion water initiative. No costings were released. There was a one-page document demonstrating that the cost was going to be $10 billion over 10 years. There was no time line as to when the money was going to be spent over those 10 years. We subsequently found out that Treasury had been excluded from the costings, and we now know the revelations from the departmental head, the Secretary of Treasury, and his concerns about this government’s fiscal profligacy. And there was no consultation with the stakeholders.
That is not the way to run a business of cooperation within a federation. Sure, it is important to have leadership and to show leadership—and the Commonwealth must show that leadership—but you also have to be able to take the states with you. It is not sufficient to take the lead. You have to take the states and the stakeholders with you. We did it. We showed it could be done. Even when we had to deal with Liberal governments, we showed it could be done. This government has demonstrated its inability to achieve that.
Then there is the process by which this legislation is being considered—one day’s debate. We had not seen the legislation until last week. There are 240 pages of legislation and 60 pages of explanatory memorandum. I said before that we support this bill as far as it goes, but there is still a long way to go. The issues that we say still need to be addressed are contained essentially in the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. Firstly, there has to be a truly cooperative approach with state governments, just as Labor was able to manage when it was in office. Secondly, there has to be full implementation of the government’s 2004 water initiatives. Where is that money? Why has it not been spent? Why aren’t the flows going into the Murray? That is a very important question when it comes to accountability. We have to fix the overallocation of water licences. We have to establish a coherent set of rules to ensure the problem of overallocation never recurs. Then we have to see the development of economic instruments to address the fact that water has been overallocated, undervalued and misdirected.
In addition, we need proper consultation with the key stakeholders. I know how important it is to involve the stakeholders and the local catchment management groups. When I was Minister for Primary Industries and Energy I saw this as the vital driving force by which we could implement initiatives that stacked up. Where the Commonwealth had to put the infrastructure spend in, but not the totality of it, it had to forge a partnership with state governments, local governments and the local stakeholders. It had to come to grips with issues of properly pricing water but doing it in consultation. We introduced a raft of initiatives. One initiative that comes to mind is the highlands irrigation project on the Murray in the Riverland area. We sat down with the stakeholders and implemented an important initiative for water-saving and proper pricing but with little cost to the stakeholder because of the efficiency of the infrastructure and the methods that we introduced. We did the same in Shepparton. In addition, we funded the significant covering and lining of open channels from which much evaporation happens—in fact, up to 90 per cent in certain parts of the country.
These important practical infrastructure initiatives will only happen if they are driven by the Commonwealth, but not where they are expected to be paid for by the Commonwealth alone. That is what true partnership is, and it has to involve the stakeholders. There has to be proper consultation and, quite frankly, it is only Labor which is truly committed to that approach. We are the ones who established Landcare and we are the ones who have constantly supported the catchment management groups. We do not see any of that involvement in the government’s latest initiative.
Sufficient water has to be returned to the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have talked about how inadequate this government’s actions have been in that regard. Finally, there have to be measures to ensure that industrial and urban water users adapt to maximise water efficiency. In this regard Labor have already put forward a significant policy whereby we would allocate money to the infrastructure to work with the stakeholders. There is also a $10,000 loan scheme to help households implement, in their own places, water-saving and efficiency measures.
This bill is supported. It does not go far enough. If we are to truly solve this problem we have to complete the unfinished business that Labor began. Labor is the only party committed to this. It should be given the opportunity to complete the job. (Time expired)
As always, I found the speech by the member for Hotham quite interesting. His speeches are a bit like those big Texas longhorn bulls which you see in the westerns. They have a point here and a point there but there is always a lot of bull in between. I found it very interesting that the member for Hotham came back to Labor’s promise at the last election, in 2004, to return 1,500 gigalitres of water to the environment. Unfortunately, the problem with Labor’s policy is that they did not actually say how they were going to save that water. They did not have the commitment—the money commitment that we are making here—to ensure they could save it.
To put it into perspective, 1,500 gigalitres is twice the amount that South Australia uses out of the Murray River every year—twice as much as we use every year for all our irrigation in the Riverland, the lower Murray, the Lakes area, Barossa and Clare, and of course Adelaide’s water supply. We use about 750 gigalitres per year, a little bit less now because of the water restrictions that have been put in. Labor promised to commit twice that amount without telling us where the savings were coming from. If we had delivered 1,500 gigalitres every year for the last three years, I can tell you that the Murray River in South Australia would be awfully dry. It would be a creek bed of ponds here and there. There would not be the water that exists in the Murray River had we committed 1,500 gigalitres to the environment without being shown how it was going to be saved. It would have absolutely devastated the communities in my electorate.
I have the honour to represent all of the Murray River in South Australia. It is a great river. I have been travelling on it for a week virtually every year for the last 30 years. It is my pilgrimage that I really enjoy. Unfortunately, this year I have not been able to do so.
We committed 500 gigalitres three years ago. In fact, I was part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry that looked into this very problem. When we got evidence from the head of the Murray-Darling commission, he told us that probably the best that they could physically manage would be 500 gigalitres to start off with. So we took the expert advice—all the things that Labor has been calling for and the states have been calling for. We took that expert advice because we believed that it was very sensible to start off with the 500 gigalitres. Now, my understanding is that the states have committed about half that through various savings. Unfortunately, the drought—which I have to say no government produces, welcomes or generates—has meant that that water has not been returned to the river yet. It will, when the flows come again, but it cannot be done when there is no water in the river to do so.
But I think it is worth pointing out that under the previous Hawke-Keating government not one drop of water was returned to the environment or to the Murray River. Not one drop. This is the record of the Labor Party in Australia. They talk big and do nothing. We have had Labor state governments all around Australia—and previous to that we had a few coalition governments of various persuasions—and it has certainly been a big issue in South Australia. We had bipartisan support, but unfortunately none of that was delivered under Labor. Not one drop was returned under Labor.
On the area that the member for Hotham was talking about—and I hope he has not got it wrong and thought about lowlands, because there is an area in the Riverland called lowlands—there was the Loxton rehabilitation scheme where under our government we changed those open channels into pipes in my electorate in the Riverland of South Australia. I think the saving there was something like 42 gigalitres, which every year used to either evaporate in the open channels or seep. The member for Hotham was right that up to 90 per cent savings can occur. I think the figure is right that we have 26,000 kilometres of open channels in New South Wales alone. Just imagine the savings we could grab there for the Murray River.
The $10 billion plan is made up of three areas. The first area is the $6 billion that we will put into better infrastructure, taking those open channels and putting in the pipes so we do not lose water from evaporation or seepage. If you look at a figure of $2,000 per gigalitre saved—and I have tried my best to find a benchmark figure—and you spend $6 billion, that means that we will save 3,000 gigalitres. That is four times what South Australia uses each year. We are saving 3,000 gigalitres. Half of that will be returned to farmers because of their input. This is the cooperative way that we are dealing with it—the cooperative way that the member for Hotham suggested was not happening.
I point out that it is pretty hard to cooperate with a rogue state like Victoria which has been time wasting for the last six months. Since the time that we announced the position, we have still not reached a cooperative position with Victoria—on the basis that they want to look after their own dungheap. I think that they are probably a bit more concerned about the income of the Victorian Labor government. So that has been a problem. This would have been happening much earlier if Victoria had cooperated like Queensland has, like New South Wales has, like the ACT has, and like my home state, South Australia, has. But Victoria has not been cooperating, and I am not sure how you are supposed to deal with that sort of rogue state in any other way than the way we have.
So, with the 3,000 gigalitres saved and with 1,500 returned to further production in agriculture, a total of 1,500 gigalitres is saved. Now let us come to the $3 billion that is being used to buy back where there have been overallocations—by state governments, I might add, not by the federal government—and I think that will be spent largely in New South Wales. At that price of $2,000 a gigalitre saved, that is a further 1,500 gigalitres saved. But guess what? Exactly the same amount will be used for production, so we are not affecting the producers of Australia. We are going to have in total the same amount of production from irrigation, but we are going to save 3,000 gigalitres every year forever and ever—four times what we use in South Australia each year alone. So that is a huge saving for the Murray River.
If you look at governments over the last 70 or 80 years, you will see that they have been reasonably successful in the way that they have managed the Murray River. I think it would be very hard to do the things that we did in the thirties, for example, when we put in the lock system. If we did not have the lock system, you could walk across a dry creek bed right now in Berri, South Australia. I have seen pre-lock pictures. If we had not put in lock No. 3, Lake Bonney would not be the great lake that it is.
As governments, over the years we have made some good decisions. Unfortunately, I think, they would be much harder to do now because of the environmental lobby we have got in Australia. But we have done some very good things. We have put the barrages down at the bottom of the lower lakes, which has ensured that the saltiness does not creep back up into the Murray River. It is with great pleasure that I am supporting the Water Bill 2007, because we are going to return 3,000 gigalitres extra into the river. It is going to be a long-term project—this is long-term thinking. This is 10 years of thought and it would not surprise me if we spend further into the future. Compare that with Labor; they did not commit a cent to restoring water to the Murray River when they were last in government. Let us get this into perspective. This government has acted. We are taking the responsibilities away from the states—they are the ones that have caused the problems. We are going to put money into fixing up this system because it is so important to the Murray-Darling Basin, which of course does not recognise state boundaries. I am very pleased to support what we are doing here.
My large electorate of Barker encompasses South Australia’s end of the Murray River. Wind your way from Swan Reach, halfway from the border, all the way down to the Coorong in the south, and along the way you will pass the Riverland—home to some of Australia’s best export oranges—and the Murraylands, where the trademark black and white holsteins dot the productive dairy lands. I am especially pleased that the South Australian end of the basin produces some of the best—if not the best—wine in the world. In a normal year, 25 per cent of Australia’s production comes from the Riverland, which the member for Hotham formerly spoke of. South Australia’s River Murray producers are hard workers. Dairy farmers along the lower swamps have spent thousands of dollars—money that was matched by this government and the South Australian government—to completely rehabilitate their swamps. They undertook extensive laser levelling works so that the efficiency of their irrigation was world standard. They upgraded the channels and the infrastructure that supplies water to the farms. This has been no mean feat. The sheer cost and expense of the project saw too many dairy farmers forced from the land. However, for the most part they have stuck through, all in the name of improving environmental and water efficiency on their farms.
Whether they are in the dairy, viticulture or horticulture industry, or any other for that matter, growers along the river in South Australia understand the vital importance of reducing water use in any way possible. This is a message that is being increasingly understood, accepted and acted upon. I am quite happy to say—and boast—that the irrigators in South Australia are leading the way with the world’s best technology in improving irrigation efficiencies. Given that South Australian farmers are at the end of the line, they could use and abuse the system and have no consideration for what is returned to the river from their farms, and they could take whatever they can. But they do not. The water that is piped from the River Murray in, say, New South Wales is the same water that is piped in South Australia and in Victoria. Just because the basin covers part of my great state does not mean that we pretend for a second that we have any more rights to it than any of the other states it passes through. Boundaries are insignificant. We are talking about one system. There is one basin and there is one River Murray regardless of how many state borders that system may cross. It seems obvious then that a holistic approach to managing the system is the best method. To do otherwise would be madness.
I wish to take this opportunity to publicly voice my utter disgust at the appallingly selfish attitude of the Victorian Labor government towards this issue. This government has spent tireless hours negotiating with the states and territories to achieve a referral of powers to better manage the Murray-Darling Basin as one single entity. Despite the support of water ministers from all other states, Victoria was too arrogant to look at the bigger picture beyond its state border for the greater good of Australia. Victoria’s argument for a special deal undermines the widely accepted idea that a basin-wide approach is the best method for managing Australia’s most precious resource. It underscores the very reason for the plan in the first place. We cannot have the states reserving their right to have the final say and impacting on everyone else at their whim.
Despite the stubborn attempts of the Victorian Labor government, the Water Bill 2007 now sits before us, making a historic step forward in the management of Australia’s water resources to ensure environmental health and certainty for irrigators. It implements the fundamental aspects of the $10 billion National Plan for Water Security that was introduced by the Prime Minister in January. This bill is the most significant water reform in over 100 years. This government will address the overallocation and overuse of water from the Murray-Darling Basin by state governments. It will improve water use efficiency and establish clear pathways to return all water sources to sustainable levels of extraction.
For years state governments have overdrawn and put their growers before those of other states. As the member for Barker, I know too well the effect that this has had at the end of the line in South Australia. Regular flushing of the Murray’s mouth has occurred at great expense. Wetlands dried out and many are now closed off in order to keep as much water in the Murray as possible. A weir has been planned for Wellington. I have spoken about that before in this House. I think it is the craziest idea I have ever come across in my nearly nine years in parliament. Something had to be done at a national level and I commend this government for taking action. The Water Bill 2007 enables water resources in the basin to be managed in the national interest optimising environmental, economic and social outcomes. It relies on the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers, with the original intention being that the bill would be reliant on referrals of power from all basin states so as to best address the broadest range of issues. However, agreement obviously could not be reached, so under this bill we will not have jurisdiction over river operations or flow interception activities as we do not have constitutional authority to legislate in this area. It is a shame we could not get Victoria’s cooperation.
Briefly, the Water Bill will: provide for a new cap on surface water and groundwater diversions; prohibit the compulsory acquisition of water entitlements; establish the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and a Basin Community Committee—the latter will include at least eight people who are or represent water users; set out how risks flowing from future reduced water allocations will be shared between the Commonwealth and the basin states; guarantee that the Commonwealth will honour state water plans for the life of those plans; establish a role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor and enforce water charge and market rules in the basin; and provide for the Bureau of Meteorology to collect up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information on water use and availability that will be critical inputs to the basin plan.
The bill establishes an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The authority will report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and be made up of a full-time chair and four part-time members. Authority members will be required to have expertise in fields like water resource management, hydrology, freshwater ecology, resource economics, irrigated agriculture, public sector governance and financial management.
The bill requires the authority to prepare a basin plan for approval which will provide for a new, enforceable, sustainable and integrated cap on surface water and groundwater diversions to be developed as part of a basin-wide plan. This will be based on CSIRO modelling of future water availability, other social and economic studies and consultation with communities throughout the entire basin. The basin plan will also identify risks to water resources and strategies by which to manage them. Also, it will establish the requirements that the state water resource plan will have to comply with if it is to be accredited under the bill.
I stress that the basin plan will be prepared in full consultation with the states and their communities, unlike some other governments we heard about today and yesterday in the parliament. The basin plan will identify responsibilities for managing risks associated with reductions in water availability. This bill does not allow for favouritism or special deals, but it does provide for the future of the Murray River. (Time expired)
I rise to support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler. This is an issue with a very long history and the Water Bill 2007 represents yet another second-best step along a rather sad and very long road. After all, the colonial governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia met in Melbourne in 1863 to discuss a management plan for the Murray-Darling Basin—that was in 1863. There was no concrete agreement, just a conclusion that something should be done. After two major droughts, the River Murray Waters Agreement was signed in 1915. Then, as now, the catalyst for action was drought. The first meeting of the River Murray Commission was held in Melbourne in 1917. If you read the brief history of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission website, you will see that the Commonwealth and the states have been talking about the problem ever since. The states have been talking about it for nearly 150 years; the federal government and the states for at least 90 years.
In the 1980s it was recognised that, after more than 60 years, the River Murray Waters Agreement and the River Murray Commission were increasingly unable to meet the needs of the basin’s management and its growing resource and environmental problems. At that time important changes were taking place in water resources administration at both state and Commonwealth levels. Individual agencies within the separate states were finding themselves unable to tackle the developing problems of rising water salinity and land salinity, for example, for the very obvious reason that these issues, their management and any possible solution to them required actions which extended across state boundaries. Not surprisingly, we find that lots of reports were tabled during this period and many of them called for urgent action.
A new Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was signed in 1992 and the Murray-Darling Basin Act was passed in 1993. That was not an end to the matter; in fact, it was the catalyst for what was and should have been a serious beginning. No sooner had we begun than we stalled, because in 1994 another push for national water reform began. There are some very interesting contrasts between the way this water plan has been handled and that which was initiated in 1994. So long ago, it had the potential to achieve much, if not all, that this Water Bill is designed to do. In 1994 we had a historic, bipartisan, negotiated, agreed plan. It was led by the Keating Labor government and included the Fahey Liberal government in New South Wales, the Kennett government in Victoria, the Brown Liberal government in South Australia, the Goss Labor government in Queensland and the Follett Labor government here in the ACT. We found that governments across the political spectrum were able to cooperate, with nobody making unilateral announcements and demanding that everybody fell into line. There was leadership from the federal government, but it was leadership in pursuit of a cooperative agreement.
Contrast this cooperative approach with the current situation and the current rhetoric on federal-state relations, which from the Howard government’s perspective seems quite bizarrely to be predicated on the assumption that the Liberal Party will never win another state election. It is a bizarre set of circumstances—contrasting cooperative federalism and a centralising intention. For those who have a short-term view of history, it looks like a role reversal, with the Liberal coalition being the centralisers and the Labor opposition being for cooperative federalism. It is not about states’ rights. The only thing I heard the member for Barker say that I agreed with is that this is not about the rights of the states; it is about the outcomes for citizens of Australia. It is not about process; it is about results for people in Australia.
Look across the range of issues where federal-state relations are in conflict. It is not coincidental conflict; it is deliberate, planned confrontation for partisan political purposes by the Howard government—and I will come to that in a moment. We all know that the Howard government have been advised by Crosby Textor that one of the things they can do and hope to gain political benefit from is to pick fights with the states. That is what Crosby Textor has advised, and ever since that advice we have seen it being dutifully followed with initiative after initiative, confrontation after confrontation. We have, virtually, war declared on the states by the federal government—not about any grand alternative vision of the way the country should be governed but, rather, marginal seat by marginal seat, they go around the country trying to pick a fight with a state government here and a state government there in the hope that they might save a seat in this part of the country or that. It may be clever politics, but it is a hell of a way to run the country.
After all, there will be state and territory elections in 2008, 2009 and 2010. It is bizarre to believe that the strategy of the incumbent government is based on the assumption that they will not win any of them. I can say categorically that Labor’s strategy with regard to federal-state relations, as developed in opposition and as we intend to implement should we be successful at the election, does not rely upon the current coincidence of there being eight state and territory Labor governments. In personal terms that is a pleasure to me. I know those people and I enjoy working with them, but the whole structure is designed to be able to work irrespective of the political colour of the state governments.
The Council for the Australian Federation has been consciously set up by the states and territories to operate in a manner that will endure beyond the current coincidence of eight state and territory Labor governments, which is a temporary—from a Labor point of view very welcome—phenomenon. The Howard government’s position and their hostility to the states as a governing strategy can only operate on the assumption that they will never win another state election.
So we have a dramatic contrast. In 1994 we had a cooperative push for national water reform—Liberal and Labor state governments working with a federal Labor government. A report from the COAG working group on water resource policy had been commissioned in 1993, and this was presented to the 1994 meeting. That was 13 years ago. The report noted that, while progress was being made on reforming the water industry and minimising unsustainable natural resource use, there were other ongoing issues that needed to be addressed. The COAG communique from that meeting agreed that action needed to be taken to stop the widespread degradation of land and water systems and agreed that a package of measures was needed to address the economic, environmental and social implications of water reform. COAG endorsed a strategic framework that sounds remarkably like the framework that led to the Water Bill 2007: pricing reform based on the principles of consumption based pricing and full cost recovery; the reduction or elimination of cross-subsidies and at the very least the making of those subsidies transparent; a clarification of property rights; the allocation of water to the environment; the adoption of trading arrangements in water; and institutional reform and public consultation and participation.
That process across the political boundaries and across the federal and state boundaries was proceeding amicably until the Howard government came in and it stopped. For 13 years nothing has happened. The process was shut down until the eve of an election in which the Howard government’s advice from Crosby Textor is: ‘You need to be in conflict with the states. You cannot win the election on the merits of your propositions; you can only win by being seen to be battling the states.’ Crosby Textor’s advice makes that crystal clear. The advice says that the coalition needs to:
... emphasise that the Commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states.
That is the political strategy. That is the advice from Crosby Textor and it is being followed to the letter.
So we had 13 years of no progress, and then suddenly there is a unilateral announcement demanding cooperation. Because of that unilateralism, because of that coercive federalism, because there was no prior discussion and because there was no attempt even to reach an agreement until after the announcement had been made, we have not got an agreement. We are falling back to another second-best solution. From the comments made by Ken Henry to Treasury staff in April this year, it is clear that this year’s decision with regard to the Murray-Darling Basin was purely a political exercise dreamt up by the Prime Minister in an attempt to restore his sagging political fortunes. The Prime Minister knew that global warming had become an issue and that, as Crosby Textor said, the environment issue was favouring the Labor opposition, so he decided on a diversionary tactic.
It is not that action was not needed; it is long overdue. The problem is that coercive and unilateral action is less likely to work than a cooperative model—and, once again, it is proving to be so. All history and the experience of other federations tell us that unilateral, coercive federalism is the least efficient way of getting good policy outcomes, and this is just another example. An announcement was made for maximum political effect, but it was made in a manner that virtually guarantees that agreement cannot be reached and will not be reached. There is no precedent by which agreement is reached after such unilateralism, and we will drift towards a second-best outcome. History will be the judge as to whether this is good politics. It is not for me to make a judgement about that. The voters will make a judgement about that soon enough. It may well be the case, but it is a hell of a way to run the country.
This is what Ken Henry said in a speech to his internal Treasury forum. He said:
The government, our ministers and other agencies are under no compulsion to rely on our advice. In respect of water, that point is all too obvious.
When talking about the coming election, he added:
At this time, there is a greater than usual risk of a development of policy proposals that are, frankly, bad.
The Labor opposition has consistently supported and supports now, and I support, the need for greater Commonwealth leadership in water policy—it has been needed for a long time, and better late than never—and the need for a water plan, which ensures healthy rivers and security for water users.
Unfortunately, this announcement in January was the first in a series of examples of world’s worst practice in the management of a federation. It undoubtedly flows from Crosby Textor’s advice—and they are very good pollsters; they may well be giving very good political advice—but, in effect, the advice has led to the Prime Minister giving up on governing and spending his time attacking the states. We found it reflected in question time when either the states or the opposition were responsible for every problem. We were responsible for inflation and they even found that we were responsible for the drought in south-east Queensland. We have a very powerful Leader of the Opposition! I think he is a very capable man, but to have done that was beyond my estimation of his capacities.
The PM is playing the blame game on a larger scale and with more mind-defying leaps of logic than we have seen hitherto. The government’s advice shows how cynical and short term it has become. We are looking at policy being made on the run, which is inevitably bad policy. We have the extraordinary situation where the Australian, not renowned as a great pro-Labor journal, in a recent editorial on these issues to do with federal-state relations and the character of the interventions of the federal government, stated:
But if we had to give Mr Howard a plain-English report card on his performance it would be A for politics and E for policy.
It further stated:
... there is nothing in the conservative pantheon ... that Mr Howard won’t ditch in his quest for electoral success.
It went on to state:
The need for the commonwealth and the states to reduce bureaucratic overlap is urgent.
I am not quoting it all. If anyone wants to go back and look at it, they will find that I am quoting it in a manner that is consistent with the intention of the editorial. I do not think I am twisting its meaning, but it is too long for me to read it all. The editorial further stated:
Year after year [Mr Howard] and the premiers have used the Council of Australian Governments as an occasion for backslapping and photo opportunities while everyone turned a blind eye to the need for far-reaching reform.
It stated:
Mr Howard has had 11 years to address these matters and has little if anything to show for it. His ad hoc interventions in the Murray-Darling ... are worthy of support but they bear all the hallmarks of policy made on the run and are not a framework for reform.
… … …
The Australian believes that streamlining the operations of state and federal governments is a critical economic imperative if Australia is to compete in a globalised economy.
‘A for politics, E for policy’—I think that sums up exactly what is going on in federal-state relations at the moment.
I am sure we could all dream up our favourite list of marginal seat pork barrels. I think, with the exception of the member for Herbert, all of us in the chamber at the moment need to apologise to our voters for not making our seats marginal enough so that they could have someone fly over, open the floodgates and allow the dollars to fall out. I do not really apologise; I am very pleased to have a big majority. I have worked very hard to get it. But I sort of feel guilty, otherwise they would be pork-barrelling my electorate.
They are putting one of the Australian technical colleges in my electorate, but they are pretending it is in Queanbeyan. It has a plaque in Queanbeyan; it has a college in my electorate. They have announced that it is in Eden-Monaro, but actually all the students and the buildings are in my electorate, which is not a marginal seat and so they announced it is going to be in Eden-Monaro. I am sure they will have a little office with a plaque on the door saying, ‘This is where the Australian technical college is,’ but if you want to study you have to get in your car and drive to my electorate. That is as close as I am going to get to any of this pork-barrelling. But, if you are in a marginal seat, you would be getting letters from the government asking you to send in requests. ‘Please get on the list. There is an airplane flying over with a hold full of money and the Prime Minister has his hand on the lever. He can open it and it will come out in an electorate near you.’ We will all be waiting with increasing interest for the next round of desperate announcements.
Last week the WA Premier, Alan Carpenter, said:
What is happening now is the complete destruction of the relationship between the federal government and state governments. He—
Mr Howard—
is addicted to the office and all that goes with it, and he’s demonstrating the classic failure of people who get into that position. He’s putting his own interest first, his own interest ahead of the national interest and he’s prepared to say and do anything to stay in government.
The problem, broadly, with regard to federal-state relations is that it is going to have long-term, adverse consequences for the governance of the country if it is allowed to continue. It is in the hands of the electors. We live in a democracy. They may choose for it to continue. If they do, we will all have to accept that decision. That is what happens in a democracy, but it will be a cause for great regret, long term, for the governance of the country.
With regard to this particular matter and the water, the problem here is that we are heading for a second-best solution on water. With $10 billion on the table, we should have been able to obtain a much better result. A cooperative approach could have led to an agreement, but a unilateral announcement demanding compliance was always headed for disaster. I suspect that the Prime Minister wanted confrontation, because agreement would not have got him the conflict he needed. Irrespective of that, we are, sadly, heading for a second-best solution in an area where the best solution was possible. I support the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the member for Grayndler.
I rise to speak on the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. While there are many points that I would like to make today, there are some that I will make and some that I will not. I will begin by making the observation that the current water debate in Australia very much reflects a dawning understanding that, in an age when we think we can control and manipulate everything and manage it perfectly—or not manage it perfectly, according to which side of politics you belong to—the reality is that we do not control everything. We do not control the weather. As farmers often say, a lot of what we currently describe as a crisis has more to do with the fact that ‘the fellow upstairs has chosen not to send us reliable rainfall in recent years’. I think we need to sober up a little and recognise the reality that a great deal of the hysteria surrounding water at the moment stems from the fact that there is a shortage of water, which has nothing to do with any government, which is beyond the control of any government and which is, frankly, outside the purview of any of we mere mortals to greatly influence.
I am reminded of this when I look at the reporting we sometimes see in which people say that, despite all this effort, no water has been returned to the Murray-Darling and so forth. That is absolute hogwash. In fact, a great deal has been achieved—and not without considerable cost to a lot of people in electorates like mine who, through some pretty clumsy and unsatisfactory processes, have in fact surrendered a great deal of water. In the early days, they simply were not compensated or in any way recompensed for much of that water. The reason, though, that the sacrifices they have made have not yet been evidenced by increased flows of water through the Murray-Darling system is that there has not been any rain. So I place on record at the outset those two broad observations. Firstly, more progress has been made than has been acknowledged in even the august pages of papers like the Australian. I am a great admirer of that paper but, on water, whilst they have often enthusiastically covered the issues, they have not always fully understood what has been achieved and the effect of that out in the paddock. Secondly, when we talk of water crises, there is no use simply pretending that this is somehow the failure of governments. It goes well beyond that. In the end, we are all at the mercy of the elements. Australia is perhaps the most unreliable continent on earth for rainfall, and we remain, I think, the second heaviest users per head in the OECD. There are an awful lot of variables for any government to come to grips with. But governments, over quite a long period of time, have been trying to come to grips with these issues.
It is worth noting that, in 1994, certain agreements were entered into by COAG, but the member for Fraser might like to note that the great problem was that precious little was done about it. The states, particularly on the issue of clearly establishing what water entitlements might look like and how they might be compensable in the event of their impairment or removal, were sadly inactive—nothing happened. There is a reason for that. As a result of a very weak Water Act, put together in the early part of the last century, successive governments of all persuasions in New South Wales handed out far too much water. I suspect that the prospect of having to hand it back frightened the Treasury in that state to an appalling degree and they backed off. They started insisting that rights would not be acknowledged and not be conceded, and talk of compensation opened up legal issues that they did not want to touch.
The result of that was a lot of injustice and corresponding resentment and resistance from farmers and indeed small businesses and people who worked for them in country towns right across the basin. Their view was that they had done nothing wrong—they had used the water entitlements freely given to them by governments. Indeed, those entitlements, having been given out, often came with strings attached—‘use or lose’—and with taxation incentives to develop. So farmers everywhere in the basin did just that: they developed their assets and they created wealth, exports and jobs with those entitlements. So the broader community, having benefited greatly—and this seems to be a principle that was lost in New South Wales until, to his great credit, Craig Knowles acknowledged it—should reasonably have been prepared to share the burden, the real cost, of cutting back those water entitlements. The lack of understanding in Macquarie Street of some of the principles involved in that was, at times, astounding.
So we got to 2001, when I became directly involved in this, and the early versions of what has now become known as the Living Murray. The amount of water that was being talked about brought home to me the reality that, without a decent sharing of the burden, this would be catastrophic for country communities. I recognised that we really had to do something much more substantial to find a way forward that would break free of some of the ideology and emotional claptrap we got from the ‘deep Greens’, recognise the genuine conservation concerns of people who were looking to ensure the appropriate levels of quality in our water and the environmental health of our water systems, and recognise the legitimate interests of industries such as irrigation—not only those interests that were linked to the farmers who use the water, but also those that were linked to the communities and, indeed, the economy that benefited from them.
And so it was that after the 2001 election we set about the process that ultimately came to be known as the NWI—the National Water Initiative. It was very difficult in the early days. It is interesting to look back over this debate and recognise that at that time there was very little national interest in it. After one of the very high ranking officials, and his offsider, who came to help me with the National Water Initiative had gone away to look at it at the request of the Prime Minister and me—as I was then the Deputy Prime Minister—they came back to me and said: ‘We have to now concede that there is a major national economic and environmental interest at the heart of your concerns and the company needs to address them. When we started this we thought it was just a Nationals grab for money for farmers.’
On the basis of cooperation—and I must record here my appreciation for the work of Craig Knowles, who was then the minister in New South Wales—we started to put together what became known as the National Water Initiative. It had at its heart a belief that, without investment security for water users, you would compromise not only the economic outcomes from the use of that water but also the environmental outcomes. It was interesting that when we had the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics have a close look at the impact of investment security on investment, jobs and environmental outcomes, we found that the greater water security offered to Victorian farmers on the southern side of the Murray—which has the same Australians, the same banking and financial institutions, broadly the same soil and the same types of crops—created vastly different outcomes. They stemmed from the fact that water security on the southern side of the Murray was greater than that on the northern side.
What was the result? To illustrate it simply, if a farmer went to his bank manager and said: ‘I have a flood irrigation arrangement that is very inefficient and environmentally horrible. I am not getting a high value of production out of it. I want to move to a highly sophisticated arrangement that will use less water but will grow more. There will be less environmental damage. It involves hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expenditure,’ on the southern side of the river where the investment security was good, the banker would be likely to say, ‘Yes, you can borrow,’ but on the northern side the banker would say, ‘No, because we have inadequate security over your water.’ The point was understood and it was eventually picked up by the Wentworth Group, including the conservation representatives on that, and they were able to put that to the New South Wales government. It was then that we started to get a bit of movement.
Unfortunately, these things are seriously misunderstood even today. Yet, in reality, we have known since the industrial revolution that investment security is the key to investment. When you are using water, the proper valuation of water and the capacity to trade it and to move it to where it will do the greatest good are vitally important not just for economic outcomes but for environmental outcomes. Again, I urge the commentators, the armchair critics, the politicians and the people involved in this whole debate to recognise that core principle.
We have come a long way. A senior irrigator in my electorate, a lady I have some respect for, came to me the other day. We were talking about the problems of securing decent compensation for groundwater users in the Namoi, which is an issue that has now been resolved. She made the comment that we have come a long way, because no-one now thinks that governments can take water away without paying properly for it. In other words, there is security. That will drive investment. That will drive a whole range of desirable outcomes in the future, which is to be greatly welcomed.
I must gently remonstrate with the minister. He made the observation in here when he introduced his bill that this was the first legislation introduced into the House in relation to water for 106 years. That is obviously not correct. I will jog his memory. The National Water Commission Bill 2004legislation introduced here by me on 18 November 2004—was all to do with the establishment of the NWI and the National Water Commission. Indeed, as the government’s own notes say, the National Water Initiative remains the blueprint for water reform in Australia. It is, in other words, the foundation stone. All of the legislation that we are debating at the moment—the $10 billion, the intergovernmental agreements and so forth—are about implementing the blueprint of the National Water Initiative. That is what it is about. I draw some comfort, pride and satisfaction from that and I ask that it be generally acknowledged that we have come a long way.
The key elements of the National Water Initiative include: the water access entitlements and the planning framework; water markets and trading schemes; best practice water pricing—which, wherever possible, should be left to the marketplace; integrated management for water for environmental and other public benefit outcomes; water resource accounting; community partnerships; and adjustment. There you have it. It is the cornerstone, if you like. It is the building block; it is the foundation stone. It is very important indeed.
What ought to happen? We ought to have a clear-cut understanding of what we are about. We need to recognise the highly variable nature of rainfall events and water flows in this country. We need to recognise the clear need to establish the higher use orders—environmental, household and so forth—and to do so on the basis of sound science and information. It is very interesting that a senior scientist here in this town told me a while ago that one of the problems with the slow delivery of the NWI was not the fault of governments; it was the fact that we have gone from a situation where the information and knowledge about water was well ahead of public policy. The NWI leapt from the knowledge base. There is a great deal of science and these new funding arrangements recognise that. This needs to be done hand-in-hand with better monitoring systems, which interestingly will rely heavily on bandwidth. That is another reason why we need proper bandwidth right across the nation, not just as some sort of benefit for farmers but also because it will be critical to the management of our national resources in the future.
This process was established on the basis of science and not green ideology or popular sentiment, which so often misunderstand water use. I do not know how many times I have run into city people and people in the media who have said to me, ‘We should not be growing rice and cotton in Australia.’ They completely misunderstand it.
For a start, neither of them use as much water as many other industries. Secondly, as I think has been said often enough in this place, they are perennial crops. If you do not have the water, you do not grow them. Thirdly, you do not want bureaucrats or union officials, like Bill Shorten, making these decisions. If there is surplus water available over, if you like, the framework in which you meet your higher use orders—the environmental outcomes that you need: water quality needs, riparian rights, town water, urban consumption—then let the market determine where it goes. If it should not go to cotton or rice, farmers will quickly divert it to where it creates greater wealth. But again I make the point that these are perennial plantings. They are ideal where you have highly variable flows, because if there is no water you do not grow them; if there is water you do grow them. So that is a classic example of why decisions must be made on science and information.
I would not agree with a lot of the things that Dr Suzuki, that world renowned environmentalist, said, but if there is one thing he said that is right and, frankly, that the government needs to be cognisant of—and I attempted to be when we were negotiating the NWI—it is this: if you have an environmental issue you want to tackle, then go and talk to the people who live with it in the area where the problem is, because if they are committed to the area they will have a lot of knowledge and a lot of commitment to finding the quickest and most efficient route to resolving the environmental problem. I notice that, again in the government’s notes in relation to all of this, they talk about the need for community involvement and so forth. But it needs to be elevated to its rightful spot, right up the chain, right up the food chain in terms of priorities for people who run the National Water Commission, the new instrumentalities and so forth that are set up, if you want results.
I want to turn my attention to what irrigators are facing. Their primary problem undoubtedly is a lack of rainfall across the basin right across Australia. That is extremely concerning. The drought is doing untold economic and social damage in electorates such as mine and that is cause for great sadness and frustration for me. But we all recognise that governments cannot control rainfall events. Having said that, the principle remains: decent water security based on people’s entitlement. It is not actually ownership of water that the NWI offers but a property right inasmuch as it gives security of a percentage share of the available consumptive pool at any given time.
The water-sharing plans negotiated under the NWI in New South Wales will be honoured under the new arrangements, and so they should be. In essence, farmers respecting common sense and acceptable past practice recognise that they wear the risk for climate change, drought and so forth, but governments should wear the risk for policy changes and changes in government priorities. Those risk-sharing arrangements are fully honoured. I hope New South Wales will come to the party and honour them completely in their intergovernmental agreement and I hope that the other states will do the same. That is very important indeed.
I think it is sometimes a bit too easy for our irrigators to lose sight of the fact that it is not the Commonwealth government that got them into this mess. The Commonwealth government has never issued any licences, impaired any licences or removed any licences. Now that the Commonwealth has a much greater say, of course, irrigators have the security of being promised that water will not be forcefully removed but, rather, purchased from willing sellers or retrieved through environmental savings on a fifty-fifty basis through infrastructure improvements with the capital that is now being contributed or will be contributed both on farm and off farm—off farm when the states agree to decent IGAs—and that gives them a level of security that they have not had in the past. They also are in a position where, whilst it is taking some adjustment, the idea of water trading does mean that in country communities the water will go to where it can create the greatest economic benefit and therefore the most jobs and the strongest communities in a social as well as economic sense.
Coming to that issue of the $10 billion, it is a very welcome injection; there is no doubt about that. It means that significant on-farm works can be undertaken. I have already had an irrigation business come to me to say that they have identified some works on their farm which will enable them to maintain production and therefore jobs, including a lot of Indigenous jobs at current levels, while meeting their cap obligations. That is a very attractive proposition. If we can duplicate that across the basin, it may mean that we can minimise a lot of otherwise very damaging economic and social outcomes.
Finally, the off-farm works should allow for the major redesign and reconfiguration of things like Menindee Lakes. Those savings ought to be returned fifty-fifty as agreed to both irrigators and the environment. I think that would be a very desirable outcome for all involved.
I will not be supporting the Water Bill 2007 or the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 and I would like to spend the next 20 minutes outlining why. On 7 February 2007, I put out a press release saying that I endorsed the proposed water plan that the Prime Minister put out. I was hopeful at the time that it was more about legitimate policy than politics. In the last few months, in terms of the outcome—or the ‘nonoutcome’—of the original proposal and now the referral-of-powers outcome that has produced this piece of legislation, I think we are seeing quite clearly that this is not about policy at all; it is about politics.
We just listened for 20 minutes to the member for Gwydir and I think we can understand why the Prime Minister removed water arrangements from the National Party and gave them to the Liberal Party to try and see through this process. But I do not think the current Minister for the Environment and Water Resources has seen it through at all. In fact, I think he has fallen prey to the Prime Minister’s pathway of trying to create some sort of wedge in relation to the Labor Party.
I do not think the Labor Party comes out of this looking good at all either. I have constantly heard today that this is the second-best option and I would agree with that. But if it is the second-best option, why are they supporting it? The Labor Party knows full well that this particular bill bears no resemblance at all to the original water security concept that the Prime Minister had. I do not think any of us in this place would agree that the way in which water policy was put in place over the years and the state boundary issues et cetera did not need to be addressed.
However, if any member whose electorate has water interests were to support this piece of legislation, with its motivation, with the good motherhood statement it contains that can be backed up by very little policy substance, with an associated intergovernmental agreement arrangement with the states that no-one has even sighted and with the way it addresses the issues at present—something like 26 amendments were introduced by the government today—I think they would be negligent to their electorate. For that reason, I will not support this bill and quite possibly I will be the only person in this place who will not support it.
There is the intergovernmental agreement. Victoria has not agreed to it and debate is occurring at the New South Wales level—I know that discussions are happening at the moment in Sydney—about whether it will come in, due to the rules being changed regarding who will meet the compensation arrangements. The bill’s clause 255, which applies to compulsory acquisition, can be removed at the stroke of a pen. The National Farmers Federation are of the opinion that clause 255 will suddenly remove some of the obstacles that they believe are within the general concept; but, particularly if there is no IGA in place, how will those things be driven?
This is a great piece of Labor Party legislation. This is the sort of thing that water users would have thought the Labor Party, with a centralist attitude, would have delivered in trying to gain control of a resource. In my view, the way in which this has been perpetrated—the lack of consultation there has been with stakeholders; the lack of consultation there was at the start with Treasury officials and others, such as members of cabinet; the way it was put together on a piece of paper; and the documents that were transferred from the Prime Minister to the premiers for consultation purposes—has been atrocious. I have seen those documents. The way they were presented was an absolute disgrace. It was as though it all happened within half an hour and someone scribbled something that said: ‘We’ve got to do something about the Murray-Darling because Rudd just did something about climate change. We’ve got to divert this argument to where we can gain something. So let’s have a water bill. Let’s do something with the Murray-Darling. Let’s blame the states.’
Let us blame the states. In 1994, a COAG process was put in place. The member for Gwydir spoke about this earlier; the minister and many others have spoken about it also. That process allowed for reform, one part of which was water reform. That process was through the Council of Australian Governments, with the states coming together and agreeing on reform for major areas, water being one of them. So we had that process to start with. What was the binding process with that? Why did they come together? The member for Gwydir talked about property rights being recognised. In 1994, it was put in place that two things essentially would happen—other things would also happen—so that competition payments would not flow to the states unless the states recognised a number of conditions. The two major conditions were: firstly, a market would be established; and, secondly, property rights would be recognised. Because of the nation’s constitutional problems, the property rights would have to be recognised at a state level. The Commonwealth, through its control of the competition policy payments, had the whip hand. The deal that was done was that the money would not flow unless the states recognised their responsibilities under the deal or the arrangement; so the Prime Minister turned around a few months ago and said, ‘The states have been incompetent; we need to move in and take this thing over and get it right.’
Let us look at what the Commonwealth actually did over that period. I do not know how many intergovernmental agreements, bilateral arrangements and catchment management blueprints there have been—almost one a year. There is the National Water Initiative; the member for Gwydir was upset that the minister had forgotten that it had even happened. Myriad arrangements were put in place under the auspices of those guarantees. Hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, have been transferred from the Commonwealth to the states, when the states have not complied with the original arrangement. The Member for Parkes knows about all this.
I wasn’t here.
You weren’t here, so that absolves you. Good, I am pleased about that. The arrangements that were put in place were that the Commonwealth would not transfer money unless property rights were recognised. Clause 77, removal and entitlements, and clause 255 in this piece of legislation—references back to the NWI and a whole range of other things—still relate to all that nonsense. A water quality and salinity intergovernmental agreement and numerous bilaterals were put in place. Our estimate is that the Commonwealth government has had at its disposal—or disposed of—up to $8 billion since 1996 in the name of reform, of which water has been one part. Through the Natural Heritage Trust and the whole gamut, go back and add up the money that essentially they have transferred to the states for noncompliance with the original arrangements. Now we have the circumstance where the Commonwealth has turned around and said, ‘The states have been incompetent; we’re going to have to take it off them—and here’s another 10 to bring in some of the bigger irrigators to drink from the cake tin.’ That is the major reason that I am not supporting this particular piece of legislation.
The National Farmers Federation once again, as they did on Telstra, signed off on something in the belief that there was a document that suggested that there were guarantees of broadband and telephone services for country people. Barnaby Joyce and Peter Corish were delighted with the letter that the minister had written. The letter has never been sighted. It was to be enshrined in legislation, but it has never been seen. Now we have this nonsense that the minister might regulate against Telstra for the provision of services to country people. The horse bolted; the gate was left open. I listened to Laurie Arthur giving evidence the other day to the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I stayed back for part of that Senate inquiry. He was pushed by some of the senators. Essentially the NFF agrees with the bill.
Then there is a debate about what is in the IGA. What puts the teeth in this legislation? How do you drive it? ‘Oh, that will be worked out with the states.’ What is different? Is the $10 billion going to be used this time to induce the states to concur with a whole range of other things? Is the commission—because it becomes an authority—going have any real authority for this? Why would the National Farmers Federation sign off on something when they have only seen half the paperwork? Why would you trust the Labor Party with something like this, open-ended as it is? Clause 255 on compulsory acquisition is gone with just one amendment. We heard the member for Parkes, the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, say, ‘That won’t happen; we would never do that.’ But you are putting in place legislation that will allow it. You might not do it. You might tell people that you will not do it, but you told people you would not sell Telstra and you told people that there were guarantees of equity of access to broadband and telephone services. But those things are forgotten. And he said, ‘I wasn’t here.’
What happens in five years time? A lot of this does not come into play until 2015. There is a gap between September 2014 and January 2015 when anything can happen. That has not been closed up. None of us will probably be here then, but we are putting in place some sort of overarching arrangement that is based on motherhood that says state boundaries are nasty things in terms of natural resource management. Of course they are, but this is not the way to achieve the outcome. The way to achieve the outcome is to stop, review your motivation, bring the people into the tent and get the thing organised. It was a failure from the start. Treasury, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the former member for New England, who is the chair of it, had no idea what the Prime Minister said. Surely, something as important as this major water course through four states would have compelled someone with legitimate motives to ask the commission—the people who have been overseeing these things and who know where the savings are—‘What do you think we should do?’ But we have had none of that. I think it is an appalling process, and we have seen variations of the same theme with hospitals, Aboriginal children and a whole range of other things in recent weeks. I do not think that is good policy. It might be funny politics and it might look good. The bill says ‘water’ and ‘Murray-Darling’, and that is important, but there is no stomach to this legislation at all in the way in which it will work other than there will be another layer of bureaucracy called the authority. There are a number of issues there that are terribly important.
The minister said that the basin plan will essentially establish new plans over time. He talked about establishing a cap that relates to surface water and groundwater. That was as recently as yesterday. I received a letter from the minister today about the interconnectivity of groundwater systems with surface water systems and the scientific knowledge of what is going on in the ground. Bear in mind that this legislation is going to bring them both together so that there is essentially a cap of water sources, irrespective of where they come from. I have looked, and I know the member for Gwydir has looked—and I congratulate him for doing so—and I ask the minister to look, at a major coalmine cutting through the artery of a whole range of interlinked groundwater systems on the Liverpool Plains. It is some of the best land in the world. The minister says, ‘That is a state planning issue,’ completely bypassing what is being talked about. If we are serious about the Murray-Darling system, why is the Commonwealth not looking at the first major coal development in that essential drainage system that has a major groundwater aquifer in it and the impact that could have? ‘No, we will leave that to a state based planning process. We will just look around a half dozen backyards to see if it affects outside. We can buy the little backyards.’ We can buy 20,000 or 50,000 acres and destroy it if we want, but what happens to the land 100 kilometres away? What happens at Walgett 200 kilometres away, if there are interrelationships? Surely a government that was very concerned about South Australia getting water would do something about that.
Has anybody in this place been to Lake Alexandrina? It is a major lake, 20 times the size of the seat of Wentworth, and it is a disgrace. What the barrages, as they call them, have done to the salinity around the lake is an absolute disgrace. The government is partly funding drainage schemes. It has been created by an artificial system. The dam’s water is back 100 kilometres. The evaporation rate on Lake Alexandrina is half what the cotton industry in New South Wales uses. I agree with the member for Gwydir in his comments about people not understanding a lot of this issue. Of course, everybody goes straight to the cotton industry and blames it for everything. What about the end of the system where there is an artificial dam? No wonder there is no water going out the Murray mouth. We have massive barrages that dam the water back to Murray Bridge. I do not have a lot of sympathy for the South Australian arguments that are put up.
I would suggest that this bill should not go through the House. I think the issue is far more important. Leaving the bill open-ended may be good politically for Malcolm Turnbull and others in the cities. As the member for Gwydir mentioned, there are a lot of misconceptions within our cities. I think this bill is aimed at those people rather than at the better management of water within the Murray-Darling system. This bill should be let to sit until after the election and then a real process of consultation should be engaged in, where people within the various states can play a real role, not a plastic role. Why should Morris Iemma and Peter Beattie speak for the rest of the people within their states and walk up to the Prime Minister and say, ‘We’ll sign off on this’? They represent all the people within their states. The Prime Minister is dancing around at the moment, saying, ‘Beattie has removed democracy from Queensland.’ Why not put up a proposal with the concurrence of state premiers and water users et cetera and put it to a vote within the Murray-Darling system? Oh, no, they could not do that!
It is a major change that we are proposing—for good reasons; the motherhood stuff is good—but, surely, if the Prime Minister wanted to achieve a positive outcome, he would have had a consultative process rather than the rather obscene, hidden process from which various premiers, for all sorts of political motivations, want to remove themselves. It is quite obvious that Morris Iemma, who has had great difficulty—and Bob Carr before him—with the various overallocation issues in New South Wales, would want to get rid of this. He would see the Prime Minister as the greatest thing in 2,000 years; he has suddenly arrived with money and wants to take a problem away from him. The Premier is not particularly interested in what is happening in country New South Wales anyway, so whoopee! But that does not necessarily mean that the people within those catchments are happy with this. I think that, if it were spelt out to them, what you have here is a broadbrush piece of water legislation which has no stomach to it. That stomach, after this bill passes, will presumably be negotiated with the states through intergovernmental agreements. There is still no real security in the acquisitions issues. (Time expired)
I rise today, unlike the member for New England, to congratulate the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for the consultation that he has personally undertaken throughout the formulation of the Water Bill 2007. It goes to show that there are members in this House who will engage themselves on behalf of their constituency and there are some members in this House who do not want to engage. They have no idea what is going on; they do not want to know what is going on. But then they enter the House and make wide-sweeping accusations against the way in which policy has been formulated. The member for New England has again demonstrated that his personal vitriol gets in the way of supporting decent policy every time. I really believe that the New England electorate need to look through the Hansard and seriously look at how their member has contributed, and ask him how he has contributed to policymaking and the decisions that have come into this House today with this legislation. I would say that it would be to have sat at the sidelines sniping and firing shots but not engaging, and I believe that is the downfall and the reason there is such inability within that electorate to get their voices heard. Some members do not want to engage.
I genuinely and honestly believe that even my irrigators—companies that have been involved in intense negotiation and discussion on the draft bill for so long—would have to agree with my comments here. They have said that they have had unprecedented access to the minister, the department, the decision makers, the policymaking and the minister’s staffers. I again say to the minister: congratulations, Minister Turnbull. You have personally undertaken this with great gusto, with great understanding and with a desire to know, to learn and to understand the way in which water works. It is a very complicated issue. I also take the time to congratulate the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the member for Parkes, because he too has played a very valuable role in formulating this legislation and in ensuring he has had a very sure and guiding hand on the way in which it was going to play out, particularly for his electorate and electorates right across Australia—not just in New South Wales, where I am. It is the responsibility of the minister and the assistant minister to have a guiding hand for all of Australia and the Murray-Darling associates, not just for New South Wales.
I also congratulate the minister’s staff and the department, who, when prompted with countless phone calls, interaction and exchanges—through teleconferences et cetera—met with my electorate and the leaders of irrigation industries in my electorate, which has a combined membership of irrigation organisations representing perhaps two-thirds of the water. The minister has seriously consulted with representatives on a day-to-day basis, even to the point of ringing them in the evening, in his personal hours, and walking through the processes in order to ensure that he had captured the concerns that many of my companies had.
We have seen many changes along the way, from the draft legislation to this final piece of legislation before the House. I think Minister Turnbull has been one of the most hands-on and active leaders on the issue of water that we have had for some time. I include the member for Gwydir in that remark as well; he was the catalyst for ensuring that there had to be some management of water. I have been the member for Riverina since 1998. I have been in a situation of great difficulty because, for six of the nine years since then, we have been in a catastrophic drought. For six of those years we have been juggling and managing water to the best of our ability. We have had carry-forwards from the snowy system. We have purchased water from the system. We have done all that we can to try to continue to contribute to the GDP in the way in which we have done in the past—and we hope to in the future. We have significant industries right across the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area that underpin our national economy in an enormous way. If anyone knows water, it is the people whom I represent. I do not come to this House professing that I know the ins and outs of water, but let me say that, on a daily basis, I do engage with my stakeholders. I do ensure that my stakeholders have access to decision makers in order that they can get their point across. I think that is an important point.
We have had continual buck-passing between state and Commonwealth for so long. I want to talk about the ASGE program—the Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements program. That program has caused the most excruciating pain—it has been the most pain that I have seen in my electorate for a long time. I have talked about that in this House before. We have seen father against son; neighbour against neighbour; cousin against cousin. It has been extraordinarily damaging to the social fabric of my electorate to see the way in which water management has taken place under a two-tiered structure—and in particular the ASGE. That is why I decided that one government had to manage this system. There has to be one management process because the buck-passing between the state and the Commonwealth was becoming almost intolerable. The people out there get hurt big time. We had this issue of changing direction during the ASGE. It changed from a scenario of an absolutely documented, across-the-board cut to a history of extraction. Whether that be wrong or whether that be right, it was changed. People made major financial decisions believing that they had a clear understanding of what their future was going to be. But the buck-passing went on. Whether we get it right, whether we get it wrong or whether we need to tweak it in the future, the Commonwealth needs to manage water, health, education and communications. That has always been my view.
I think what needs to be recognised is that my irrigators—both surface water and groundwater irrigators—have taken enormous cuts. They have taken significant hits over the last four years and are at a point now where the drought has created an enormous concern. This has prompted the need to address it. Whether it is climate change, climate variability or whatever it is, we have to have some action. There has to be some appropriate action taken. In the meantime the story keeps getting lost that the irrigators in the Riverina have taken the most significant hits in terms of cuts to water allocation. Some of them have lost all of their water. I know some people who have had cuts of 5,000 megalitres. They get not a cent and not a megalitre of water because they had no history of extraction of the groundwater. We also need to note that our surface water irrigators have had progressive cuts over the years. The one thing we need to remember is that they currently get no water all. They get absolutely zero water allocation.
There is so much misinformation out there—and it seems to be very city focused and city driven—that we have this abundant supply of water; that we are letting it run down our drains, down our gutters and out into our fields; that there are ducks swimming on it. But that is just not the way it is. That is simply not reality. When I hear people defame industries in my electorate, particularly the rice industry, for their use of water, rather than getting angry my reaction is to invite them to come down and have a look. It is a case of the ‘from paddock to plate’ philosophy. When they come and have a look, they are so surprised—because what we have in Australia is world’s best practice in rice growing. I am very proud of it. I recently visited Cambodia and saw the way in which the environment is degraded for the low yields that they are getting. I came back even more vocal in my support for the Australian rice industry—if that is possible. If you purchase rice which is not from Australia, you are purchasing rice from countries that are using unsavoury and environmentally destructive practices to grow their rice. It would be of great benefit for people to actually understand how this industry works and the people in this industry. They have done nothing wrong, but they are constantly having to defend themselves.
The other day I was in the car and had the ABC Riverina radio program on. I heard the ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, talking about the possibility of taking water from the Murrumbidgee. He spoke about how entitled the ACT was to take water from the Murrumbidgee because just as much water fell into its catchments and the ACT was entitled to take it. That was fine—I quite agree with that; I did not have any problem with that—until he went on to make, for a Chief Minister, a mischievous and uninformed comment. I could not believe it. The ACT takes only 30 gigalitres out of the system, and he said, ‘That’s only what some rice farmers take in the Riverina to grow one crop.’ I thought, ‘Thirty gigalitres to grow one crop? One rice farmer, two rice farmers—50 or 60 rice farmers might use that.’ I do not even know whether 50 or 60 rice farmers would use it. I was angry that I could not get on the radio to explain to him that that was a very sad indictment of his understanding.
A lot of questions will be asked about this legislation. I could go through and discuss many of the issues. Will the new arrangements cause uncertainty for water users? No, they will not, because the nature of existing water entitlements is not affected by this bill, nor are existing state water shares. There is a lot of concern out there, so information is needed, because we are honouring the water-sharing plans that have been put in place with a lot hard work and a lot of effort. There are issues about what the arrangements are for the new bill to come into play. It will be in about early 2008. There are questions like: does the Water Bill replace the National Water Initiative? No, the NWI, as the member for Gwydir clearly and articulately outlined, remains the blueprint for water reform in Australia, as it clearly should.
There are many issues about which we need to ably go out there. Whilst we have been consulting very intensely with representative groups—and there was a need to do that—we now need to equally as intently educate and inform the general stakeholders. I urge the minister to now go out and get a roadshow. We have the drought bus out there and it has been very effective. It has been sensational in the way it has been able to deliver perfect outcomes and good information to people suffering because of the drought. In fact, the other day I was having difficulty with it and suggested to Centrelink that maybe we could have the drought bus on a farm because people may feel more comfortable in coming to somebody’s farm. We trialled that about two weeks ago in my electorate—in Coleambally, actually. Centrelink agreed to trial an on-farm drought bus visit. I got a fabulous email back from Centrelink saying, ‘As you predicted, 30 farmers turned up for the drought bus; it was terrific and we got the message through.’ I would urge the minister to take advantage of where the drought bus is, because it is primarily in the Murray-Darling Basin area, and put people there with a wide grasp of how the national water plan is to be delivered. There should be simple facts and a clear understanding outside of the major stakeholders and the representative bodies that have been consulted intently and widely so that the general stakeholders can get the same information. I think we could certainly benefit from having a drought bus attitude and utilising it for water, particularly as we have a drought unit now set up to service the Murray-Darling Basin through Centrelink, under Senator Ellison’s Human Services portfolio. I would really urge the minister to consider doing that.
There are some concerns about who will now be managing rivers, storages and water deliveries. The state water agencies will continue to manage the storages, the river flows and the water deliveries and, generally, the people I represent and have dealt with for a long time will probably still very much be in the picture. There is a process that we will go through that will see many people engaged in achieving an outcome on this plan. I think there is a different way in which the Commonwealth have always looked at how they would achieve some of the requirements they need for the Murray. When the New South Wales government issued their tender document, they just issued a tender document. They did not say whether or not the water would come from tender—or from anywhere—whereas, when the Commonwealth issued their tender document, they said it had to come from savings. So there was less likelihood of community dislocation and the breakdown of the social fabric of the communities that have been heavily reliant on water. I think that is what we have to recognise: that as we go down this pathway and as the Commonwealth and the ministers take responsibility for outcomes in this, what is never to be forgotten is the way in which our fabrics glue together, the way in which our communities are that fabric and the way in which water is the beating heart of those entire communities, delivering to them businesses, business opportunities, schools, churches—a whole host of different things that come from a community that has been designed around water. I have many of those communities. They are designed entirely around the way in which water is allocated, delivered and utilised to support the nation’s economy.
I reiterate: the people I represent have taken an enormous amount of pain. Mr Turnbull recognises that. He has seen them on a constant basis. As I said, never has his door been shut to these people. There needs to be clear, concise understanding of that. When we engage with the states, communities and willing sellers in the future—no forced acquisitions, just willing sellers—we need to understand how our communities work together and how they need to survive during this whole process. The fear has to be taken out of it. I would urge the minister to move forward now with direct community consultation to take away the fears of the people who have not been party to these discussions during the lead-up to this legislation. I commend the minister and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate over the Murray River has been around for a long time. It goes back to the 1880s. In 1889 the Melbourne Argus said:
The River in fact belongs to the three colonies ... Broad principles and not narrow jealousies or pettifogging quibbles should rule in this matter. The Murray ought to be a great agent of Federation.
At the 1897-98 Federal Convention, the issue of the control of the Murray sparked a whole lot of debate. Section 31 of the draft Australian Constitution, which came from that convention, gave to the Commonwealth:
... control and regulation of the navigation of the River Murray, and the use of the waters thereof from where it first becomes the boundary between Victoria and New South Wales and the sea.
But the South Australian delegates were unhappy with this. While New South Wales argued for irrigation, South Australia wanted the stress on navigation. Eventually a compromise was reached and the draft section disappeared. The Commonwealth’s powers were quite clearly scaled back by section 100, which reads:
The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.
So this issue has a long history. Every election year the Howard government rediscover the issue of water. The reason they are able to rediscover it each time an election is coming is that they forget about it once the election year has passed. In the election year of 2004, we had the National Water Initiative in June, which the government followed up with the National Water Commission Bill in December. But when I look back on the debate we had then, everything I said at the time about water and the Murray-Darling Basin remains accurate, because 2004 was all about appearing to do something while actually doing as little as possible. Frankly, there is no reason to believe that 2007 will turn out to be any different. On the issue of water management, I said the following in 2004, and I invite members to identify anything at all which has changed since I made these remarks:
The problem is that they say the water issue is important but they have totally and utterly failed to back up their words with actions. The Prime Minister has notional carriage of this bill and this issue, but in the last parliament—and apparently in this one, too—he subcontracted out the issue of water to the National Party leader ... and the rest of the National Party. The National Party have been absolutely unwilling to do anything which might put Australia’s management of its water resources on a sustainable basis, for fear that their constituency will rise up against them. The National Party have not acted in the national interest; they have acted on the basis of sectional interest.
When the Liberal Party have been confronted with the consequences of this inaction—for example, in the shape of the declining Murray River—rather than take on the National Party, they have taken the politically convenient path of blaming the state governments. For years their refrain has been: yes, the Murray River is in a bad way; the states must fix it. This has been for them a political solution to the problem; it has not been an actual solution to the problem. For years, they have sat on their hands while the scientific evidence rolled in about the need to restore environmental flows to save the Murray. They did nothing. They did not restore a single litre in environmental flows. From Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meetings to COAG meetings, they prevaricated and obfuscated, refusing to act.
They dropped the ball with regard to Labor’s pioneering work back in 1994. The minister’s second reading speech correctly acknowledges:
Truly national water reform commenced ... with the original COAG Water Reform Framework agreed by Commonwealth and state governments in 1994.
Then the second reading speech jumps to the signing of the National Water Initiative in June this year—
2004—
10 years later. Back in February 1994, the Council of Australian Governments agreed upon a strategic framework for necessary water reforms, covering water pricing, institutional arrangements and sustainable water resource management and community consultation. However, after the Howard government was elected in 1996, that work was left to gather dust on the shelf while the National Party took over and scuttled Australia’s path towards water sustainability. I have no doubt that had it not been for Labor’s energetic pursuit of water issues in the last parliament ... and ... commitment to finding 1,500 gigalitres in environment flows to save the Murray River ... we would not be having this debate today. Under duress, the government is accepting that there does need to be national leadership on water issues and that it is not good enough to say that it is up to the states to fix it.
Back in 2004 I said:
We have before us the National Water Commission Bill, which establishes a new National Water Commission as an independent statutory body. Labor, having called many times for national leadership on this issue, will support this bill and assist its passage through the parliament. However, we are under no illusions about the government’s real views on water: they want to do as little as possible, and they want to draw it out for as long as possible. So we will need to continue to put the pressure on for action. The moment that we stop watching them is the moment that they drop the ball again.
I said all that back in 2004 and it is still absolutely true. Sadly, they did drop the ball again. That is why we are back here now. In December 2004, I also attacked the government’s inaction on climate change and I made the link between climate change and Australia’s water situation in the following terms:
I grow increasingly astonished at this government’s failure to take climate change seriously. This is a government—The Nationals in particular—which claims to represent farmers, and yet it sits on its hands while climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions condemns them to a dry, waterless future.
There is little point in having a debate about whether water should be allocated to irrigators or kept in the rivers for environmental flows if we do not have any water to argue about in the first place. Yet this is precisely what the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and other scientific experts are telling us is on the cards for Australia. I mentioned earlier in my remarks how Perth has dried out in the last 25 years. Its climate has literally changed. In my home city of Melbourne, its reputation for constant drizzle is a memory … Brisbane’s water storages were at 50 per cent capacity in late October, Sydney’s at 44 per cent and Perth’s down to 37 per cent.
CSIRO research commissioned by the New South Wales government shows that annual average rainfall in New South Wales has fallen by 14.3 millimetres a decade since 1950. Victoria’s Department of Sustainability and Environment produced regional estimates of climate change impacts in Victoria by the years 2030 and 2070. They showed rainfall decreases of up to 15 per cent by 2030 and 40 per cent by 2070 for the Mallee, Wimmera, North Central and Goulburn Broken regions. Gippsland and Western Victoria are facing up to 10 per cent rainfall loss by 2030 and 25 per cent loss by 2070. And that problem will be made worse by temperature increases—in the Victorian regions, typically up to 1.6 degrees by 2030 and five degrees by 2070. So in other words you get less rain and higher temperatures causing more evaporation and moisture loss.
These are very serious figures. Unless we get serious about climate change, in the years ahead Australia will become one big desert. I am astonished that the Howard government appear to be relaxed and comfortable with this prospect. The minister’s second reading speech admits that climate change is one of the factors putting, in his words, ‘enormous pressure’ on our water resources. Yet the government steadfastly set their faces against any of the things that we need to do to tackle climate change. They will not ratify the international climate change treaty, the Kyoto protocol. They will not set up a system of emissions trading. They will not increase the mandatory renewable energy target.
The Nationals MPs scoff at the mention of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, yet in doing so they condemn those who they claim to represent to the bleakest of futures. What an appalling abdication of responsibility. What an appalling dereliction of duty. I am pleased that at least one organisation is doing its job in representing farmers’ interests in this matter. The Western Australian Farmers Federation has called on the Howard government to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change. I hope that it is not too long before the National Farmers’ Federation and The Nationals get the message and do likewise.
I said all of that in 2004, and it is all just as true today. Just yesterday, we saw members of the Liberal Party continue to be in denial about climate change. No fewer than four out of the six members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation signed a dissenting report challenging the science which says that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to heat up and, most relevant for the purpose of this debate, causing southern Australia to dry out. The Liberal members for Tangney, Solomon, Hughes and Lindsay—the ‘Flat Earth Four’—remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, lying there on the ground with no arms and no legs, blood pouring from every limb, and still wanting to fight on.
The dissenting report produced a graph showing aggregate rainfall in Australia, which suggested little change over time. But the problem for Australia’s rainfall is that it is drying out in the south. Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and the Murray-Darling Basin have experienced declining rainfall in the past decade, and the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are predicting even less in the years ahead. Do the members for Tangney, Solomon, Hughes and Lindsay think that the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have this wrong? Or do they think that it does not matter if Perth, Melbourne and the Murray-Darling Basin dry out provided that there is higher rainfall in the tropics? What a shocking abdication of their responsibility to their constituents. The member for Tangney represents voters in Perth, and the members for Lindsay and Hughes represent voters in Sydney. They should be urging action to prevent rainfall loss for their electorates, not hiding behind aggregate data to pretend that climate change is not a problem for Australia. The member for Tangney would do himself and his constituents a favour were he to study the graphs of Perth’s rainfall over the past 30 years which reveal a striking decrease.
Yesterday, when he was confronted in the House with the member for Tangney’s eccentric views on climate change, the Prime Minister disowned them, but it should be remembered that the same Prime Minister personally intervened to restore the member for Tangney’s preselection after he had been defeated by another Liberal Party member in Western Australia. As it happens, the Liberal who won the democratic ballot in Tangney, Matt Brown, is known to have a modern and forward-looking position on renewable energy. It shows where the Prime Minister’s true colours lie on environmental issues. He prefers to support an MP who gets his instructions from think tanks of climate change sceptics who are being bankrolled in the same shameful way that tobacco companies used to bankroll anyone they could call an expert who would stand up and say that the link between smoking and lung cancer was unproven.
What is the state of health of our river systems? I described them in the following terms in 2004 and I invite anyone to suggest that the picture has changed—that anything done as a result of the National Water Initiative or the National Water Commission has led to any improvements:
Our rivers are suffering and stressed as a result of the amount of water that we have been taking out of them for our domestic, industrial and agricultural needs. The most striking example of this is the poor state of the Murray River. This river, and the Murray-Darling Basin which feeds it, has been a mighty source of prosperity and life for this country since European settlement. It is at the heart of our agricultural prosperity. It sustains many regional communities. It is essential for the drinking water of Adelaide … But it is in a state of decline. Levels of salinity have been on the rise … if we do not take steps to address it then over time there is no doubt that it will threaten the river system, including its capacity for agricultural production. In other words, we will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
As well as an increasing salinity, the river has shown increased susceptibility to blue-green algal blooms, and its ecological richness is taking a hammering. River red gums are dying and native fish species are in decline—during the last parliament the government was forced to place the Murray cod and the trout cod on the endangered species list. Waterbirds are also in decline. Dr David Paton, an Adelaide academic who conducts regular surveys of migratory wading birds in the Coorong, a famous coastal wetland area in South Australia, has found an alarming decrease in the numbers of these birds over the past decade.
The Murray River, sad and unsatisfactory and all that its state is, is far from the only example of a river in poor and unsustainable health. Rivers feeding Sydney, like the Hawkesbury and the Nepean, have been infested with weeds. The rivers feeding Victoria’s Gippsland Lakes bring with them the nutrients which feed algal blooms. Many other lakes and waterways around Australia have been in a state of declining water quality.
This is just as true in 2007 as it was in 2004. Why should Australians believe that the Prime Minister’s announcement this year and the Water Bill 2007 are anything more than election year posturing?
The Prime Minister’s announcement in January had ‘stunt’ written all over it. The states were not consulted. Environment groups were not consulted. Farmers were not consulted. Cabinet was not consulted. Most tellingly, Treasury was not consulted. Ten billion dollars of taxpayers’ money and Treasury was not even asked for a view. One can only assume the government did not want a group of people with a bias in favour of getting value for money, and a bias against pork-barrelling, to be involved.
In March the Secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, gave a speech to his colleagues in which he noted that the department had worked hard on water reform and climate change policy, and he went on to lament:
All of us would wish that we had been listened to more attentively over the past several years in both of these areas. There is no doubt that policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential. ... Water has got away from us a bit in recent times, but it will come back for some quality Treasury input at some stage–it will have to.
The National Plan for Water Salinity has all the hallmarks of a cobbled-together, election year stunt. Notwithstanding that, we will support it because there most certainly is a problem; the government is not making that up. Given that there is a problem, we will support anything that has the potential to address it.
The size of the problem is indicated by the Inland Rivers Network’s 2007 wetlands report card, which concludes that almost all iconic wetlands in inland New South Wales, such as the Macquarie Marshes and the Gwydir wetlands, are endangered. Its coordinator, Amy Hankinson, says that 90 per cent of the wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin have been lost to overextraction of water upstream, that New South Wales floodplain wetlands are in ecological free fall and that some are on the brink of collapse.
Both the Inland Rivers Network and the Australian Conservation Foundation have said that national leadership and a national water plan are needed, and they have pointed out the need for clear timetables and targets to tackle overallocation and to return water to the river system. They have expressed concern that there is no explicit requirement for the environmental watering plan to include targets and timetables for environmental water recovery or benchmarks or annual milestones for environmental watering. They say that introducing firm targets and timelines for water recovery would improve planning and accountability and increase the likelihood of the Water Bill achieving its objectives as they relate to addressing overallocation and overuse. They also express concern that the first basin plan needs to be prepared ‘as soon as practicable’. In the absence of a deadline, this is of course a recipe for us to be back here in 2010, should the government be re-elected, debating yet another bill setting up yet another plan to tackle the problem.
In the last parliament, the Labor Party committed to the science based target of returning 1,500 gigalitres to the Murray in environmental flows. Under pressure from Labor, the Howard government said in 2004 that it would return 500 gigalitres annually by 2009 as part of the Living Murray Initiative’s first step. The expression ‘first step’ implied that there was more to come; in fact, there was less to come. By September 2005 a communique from the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council said that the plan would fail to deliver the agreed 500 gigalitres by 2009. Indeed, the return of water to the Murray under the Living Murray Initiative has been negligible.
Everywhere you look you see the federal government trying to pick fights with the states and territories. Whether it is on water, education, housing, Indigenous issues, hospitals or council amalgamations, the Howard government are trying to pick a fight. The more they do this and the more I see of the blame game, the more I am convinced that a federal Labor government could take great strides, with the states and territories, towards actually solving problems. If the Commonwealth and the states stop trying to score off each other, as has been happening incessantly, and start working together, there is so much more we could achieve—not just in water but in tackling so many other national problems as well.
I am very pleased to be speaking on this historic legislation. The Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 implement a number of important elements of the government’s $10 billion National Plan for Water Security, which was announced by the Prime Minister prior to Australia Day this year. We have in front of us a historic opportunity to rectify many of the problems that we face in water management in Australia. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for steering this revolutionary plan.
The member for Wills had the Labor Party claiming credit for this water reform, just in the same way that they are claiming credit for our robust and successful economy. They will stop at nothing and are totally shameless, when it suits them, in claiming credit for things that they have nothing whatsoever to do with. If he is so concerned about water, then perhaps he should speak to some of his Labor mates in the Victorian parliament—but perhaps he does not have too many of those left. He spent a significant time quoting himself from previous speeches he has given but it was rather selective quoting. I suppose that he will not rush to quote himself from other sources, such as references he has written for notorious figures of the underworld, like Mokbel.
Leaving aside the member for Wills, speaking from the comfort of his electorate in the inner suburbs of Melbourne, I return to the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, who have both come to my electorate of Indi, which is in warmer climates. They have seen the Hume Dam running at four per cent capacity. The minister saw for himself the need for better management of our water system when he visited my electorate in April. He explained the benefits of the National Plan for Water Security to many hundreds of interested observers at a public meeting.
Important elements of this bill, which give effect to the National Plan for Water Security, include an independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority with enforcement powers; a basin plan which sets a cap on water systems; an environmental watering plan to coordinate management of the available water in the basin; a Commonwealth environmental water holder to manage environmental water in and out of the basin; a role for the ACCC in enforcing water market rules, as set out in the National Water Initiative; and a role for the Bureau of Meteorology in collecting and publishing information on our water systems.
As one of the Victorians speaking on this bill, it would be remiss of me not to mention the role played by the Victorian government in the development of this legislation we are debating here today. One would have to delve long and hard into the political history books to find a greater example of political bastardry than that which has occurred with Victoria’s decision to play party politics with this national plan. The plan we debate today is massively in Victoria’s best interests, and it is no secret that Victoria has some of the oldest and leakiest irrigation systems in Australia.
This is not a question of politics. This legislation is way beyond party politics. It is about the future of Australia, the sustainability of our agricultural sector, the protection of our environment and securing our water supplies now and into the future. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources spoke today in question time about the need for long-term thinking in relation to water. That is precisely what is required, and that is precisely what this legislation is about. It is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition is incapable of this long-term thinking and is only concerned with short-term politicking. He was the bloke, let us remember, who stopped the Wolffdene Dam in 1989 when he was the de facto premier of Queensland.
I will not be letting that fact go unnoticed in my electorate, which has had enough of state government intransigence on water policy. If you want more water storage and reservoirs, do not think that this would ever occur under a federal Labor government with the current Leader of the Opposition in charge. The Victorian government, under former Premier Steve Bracks and now under John Brumby, have neglected to invest in urban and rural water infrastructure. They have simply crossed their fingers and hoped that it might rain. But that is not good enough.
Only recently, the Victorian government announced a pipeline project and a desalination plant. Both of these projects were opposed by the Labor Party in the state election campaign last year. We have had the arrogance of the recently retired Premier Bracks in saying on the announcement of the pipeline that the decision has been made and now is the time to consult. Obviously, after their victory at last year’s state election, they think they can get away with everything. We have had Premier Brumby, in his previous life as Treasurer of Victoria, go on local ABC radio in my electorate and refuse to even discuss issues as important as water and alternative plans for the water storage at Lake Mokoan.
We now see a mad scramble to invest in these types of projects to give the impression that the state government is doing something, but it may well be too late. We have discovered this week that a cashed-up water authority like Melbourne Water is using thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money to block the release of cabinet briefings on the water woes of Victoria—that is on top of today’s news that water prices in Melbourne will rise by 15 per cent from next July to fund these half-baked projects. As the Prime Minister said in his speech on 25 January this year:
Rather than investing in new infrastructure, state and local government have elected instead to constrain demand by imposing water restrictions.
This approach, where Melbourne sits on a 3a-level restriction and water is flowing to some of Melbourne’s decorative water fountains whilst rural areas have a level 4 water restriction, clearly demonstrates the need for a new approach. The old system does not work. Each of the states is in fierce competition with the others, and they are simply not able to manage their water in an effective and coordinated way.
We need to manage our water in the national interest through the Commonwealth and, in doing so, provide security for entitlements. We heard previously from the member for Gwydir. It is a privilege to have followed him in this chamber, as the member was the driving force behind the National Water Initiative, which was signed in 2004 and is one of the great visionary achievements of this government. He has also visited my electorate to speak at public meetings and to other interested groups on water. His initiative remains the blueprint for water reform in Australia, and the Water Bill 2007 and the more recently announced National Plan for Water Security will greatly enhance the policy ideals of water management and build upon those contained in the National Water Initiative. These include water access entitlements, water markets and trading schemes, water pricing and more integrated management of water for environmental and other beneficial outcomes.
As I mentioned earlier, the Victorian government want to construct a pipeline to take water from north of the Divide to Melbourne, something they explicitly promised not to do a few weeks before the last election. Now they are saying, ‘We have broken that promise so soon after the election, but trust us because we will give you water security.’ I do not think that country Victorians will be fooled by this incompetent state Labor government. The rushed announcement was made without any economic, social or environmental analysis of the cost and benefits to regional Australia or of what the long-term impact would be on the Murray-Darling Basin. Draining our water supply for Melbourne is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is ill-conceived and is a poorly considered decision. Unfortunately, through this decision, the Victorian government have decreed that urban water consumption in Melbourne is more important than securing our water future and our economy in north-east and country Victoria.
Like many people in the north-east, I am deeply concerned about this proposal and its long-term consequences for our local communities and the whole Murray-Darling Basin. We have seen a state government that has not even done the hard yakka to investigate alternatives for the long-term security of Melbourne’s water. Many people who have contacted me on this matter are deeply disturbed about the effects this project will have on our towns, our tourist industries, the food bowl region, our communities and the security of our rural irrigation and water supply systems into the future.
Those of us in rural and regional areas of Victoria know from experience that the Victorian government cannot be trusted one inch on water policy. Their decisions to take water from the high-catchment farmers without compensation and to drain Lake Mokoan and the Honeysuckle Creek reservoir are cases in point. The community are galvanising into action on this matter, and we need to make a strong stand against the most recent proposal to strip us of our water security. The new Premier, John Brumby, has an obligation to listen to the people of Victoria, reverse the decision and do some of the hard work to properly investigate alternatives for Melbourne’s water.
In my closing remarks on this bill, I welcome the significant investment in water infrastructure contained in this legislation. At a recent public meeting on the Victorian government’s pipeline proposal, one motion unanimously read: ‘Stop the pipeline now. Just fix up our irrigation system.’ I am pleased to inform them that the Water Bill 2007 will indeed fix up our irrigation systems and lead to increased efficiencies and water savings. Funding of $3 billion will address overallocation in the basin, and there will be $3.55 billion available for improving off-farm distribution efficiencies to the various states, $450 million for water information, $617 million for on-farm irrigation efficiency and $70 million for a hot spots assessment, which will identify where water losses in irrigation infrastructure are occurring.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is a historic piece of legislation we are debating today. It is a pity that so much political pointscoring, particularly from Victoria, has gone on in the lead-up to today. But we have a duty to act in the national interest, and it is in the national interest that this bill is passed and its provisions start to be realised on the ground.
I am often stopped by people in the street who say: ‘If we had our time over again in the 1890s and 1900s, we would do things differently. We would start over and we wouldn’t have the states.’ Personally, I do not believe the problem is the actual existence of the states but the fact that poor visionless individuals occupy the benches of state governments. Our current state governments, particularly in Victoria, are littered with mediocrities that are ill equipped and not competent enough to deliver the basic services, policies, management and vision to take their constituencies into the future. Wise heads in the 1890s recognised that our water system should have been under federal control, but they did not win the argument on the day. But now we are presented with a historic chance to right this historical and environmental wrong. In the 21st century we should not botch our opportunity, and I commend this bill to the House.
In my opening remarks in this debate, could I say to the member for Indi that the criticisms she has levelled against the Victorian government relating to visionless ministers and governments and the lack of action in these matters could equally be directed at her own government.
The Water Bill 2007 is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the 41st Parliament. It gives effect to major measures announced in the Commonwealth government’s $10.5 billion National Plan for Water Security announced by the Prime Minister on 25 January 2007. According to the government’s explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill, the overall funding of the national plan will be directed to modernising Australia’s irrigation infrastructure, addressing overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin, reforming management of the Murray-Darling Basin and also new investments in water information. There would not be a member of this House who would be in disagreement with those major initiatives and measures in the bill. We on this side of the House pose the question: why has it taken the Howard government so long to implement these very important reforms?
As a Victorian member of this House, I am appalled at the way this important matter has been handled by the Howard government. I support wholeheartedly the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler which reads:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
I read out that second reading amendment because it encapsulates the key elements of Labor policy that have been there for decades—elements that were articulated historically by the Hawke and Keating governments and continue to be proposed in various statements that have been made on water reform by shadow ministers. I observe with some dismay the attempts by the Howard government and my predecessor in this debate, the honourable member for Indi, to blame the state of Victoria and the Brumby Labor government for compromising the Commonwealth’s legislative intent to assume total control over the Murray-Darling Basin.
Remember that this is the most centralist Prime Minister that this country has ever seen—not that we on this side of the House would argue with some of the intent as far as the Commonwealth’s control over matters of national water reform are concerned. But I think that in the bowels of the Liberal Party, especially among some of the dries that we know are on the other side, the actions of this Prime Minister in this legislation must send a shiver through their spines—if they have any left because they have caved in to this very conservative Prime Minister on most of these sorts of issues up to this point.
The Victorian government has done no less than it was elected to do—that is, to defend the interests of Victorian farmers, irrigators and communities and to protect the wider commercial and constitutional interests of the state in this important matter. After all, we are a federation of states and the Prime Minister above anyone else, given the political stable that he comes from, ought to appreciate the determination of any state to protect its overall interests in any proposal involving the ceding of such powers to the Commonwealth as the Prime Minister proposed in January this year. The real issue in this debate is not the alleged intransigence of the Victorian government as it seeks to defend its interests; it is the breathtaking incompetence of this government, firstly, in neglecting the problem for the past 14 years and, secondly, in perverting the political process to engineer a hastily constructed fix for a national problem in an election year.
The people of Australia see through this Prime Minister as easily as they see through Glad Wrap. No amount of huffing and puffing by the member for Wentworth—who has been surfing the dry river beds of the Murray-Darling Basin to further his prime ministerial ambitions—can alter the political fact that this issue has only come on the government’s radar in an election year. What a scathing indictment it is of a government that has been in power for well over a decade that, in an election year, the Prime Minister, facing political oblivion, has reached into his political hat to pull out another dead rabbit. To fully grasp the depths of the contamination of good governance and proper political process by this hopeless government, one first has to comprehend the issue and the magnitude of the problem Australia faces. In the speech of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources the dimensions and complexities of the issue are outlined. We are dealing here with a river basin serviced by three river systems that are acknowledged to be in an extremely stressed state. The Murray-Darling Basin is acknowledged by us all to be of national economic, social and environmental significance. It spans the states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. It covers one million square kilometres—some 14 per cent of Australia’s land mass—and is home to some two million people. It generates $10 billion worth of agricultural production annually.
Drought has brought the issue of the sustainability of the basin into sharper focus, but we have known for decades that it was under enormous pressure and stress and had the potential to collapse. It is against this background that in January 2007—some 11 years after being elected—the Prime Minister announced his National Plan for Water Security. One would have thought it would have been one of the first policy initiatives of any government that had come to power when this government did. Here we have it: over a decade later this government is lining up to the gate with a national plan for our water security. We now know that this great plan was hastily cobbled together to suit the Prime Minister’s needs—not the urgent water needs of the nation. This great plan—some $10 billion over 10 years—was cobbled together in the Prime Minister’s office over the Christmas break without the Treasury or the Department of Finance and Administration being involved in its construction.
Members here need to understand the length and breadth of the incompetence of this government in the matter. Some $10 billion worth of expenditure—a major policy initiative—was cobbled together in the Prime Minister’s office without proper consultation with Treasury or Finance. It did not end there. Furthermore, this important national initiative did not even go to cabinet for approval. Can you believe it—this very important national policy initiative never even went to other cabinet ministers for approval. It is extraordinary. But that is not all. Given the constitutional and administrative complexities associated with the issue, the Prime Minister did not even formally consult with affected states about the proposed Commonwealth takeover of power over water in the basin, nor did the government consult extensively with key stakeholders, including farmers and irrigators.
This plan was announced on the political run. It contained very little of the policy detail needed to carry the states with the Commonwealth in this debate. However worthy this objective is, the initiative from the outset has lacked the careful, political, technical and administrative planning that would ensure its ultimate success. At the end of the day, the government’s failure to do this has let all the stakeholders and this great nation down. It is little wonder that the government has been caught out. It was a political stunt from the outset and it should never have been pulled. Given the importance and complexity of this issue, this proposal should have been negotiated outside of the current electoral cycle, but that would have been too much to ask of a visionless PM simply out to save his political skin.
With regard to the major elements of the bill, its key structural reform is the creation of a Murray-Darling Basin Authority with the express power to ensure that the basin’s water resources are managed in a sustainable way. The authority’s key function will be the preparation of a strategic plan for the sustainable use of water resources in the basin. According to the minister, the authority’s basin plan will set long-term, average sustainable diversion limits for the basin; identify risks, such as climate change, to water resources in the basin; provide an environmental watering plan to optimise environmental outcomes; prepare a water quality and salinity management plan, which may include targets; and introduce rules about trading of water rights in the basin’s water resources.
The bill relies solely on the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers. The basin plan will be complemented by state water resource plans which must receive accreditation from the authority for any access to funding to be secured. The Commonwealth will become a water holder by virtue of its share in water savings made under the National Plan for Water Security. Its environmental water share will be managed by a Commonwealth environmental water holder with the express charter to use the Commonwealth’s environmental water to protect and restore environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin and assets outside of the basin where the Commonwealth owns water. I am pleased that the Bureau of Meteorology has been given additional functions to collect and publish high-quality water information for use by stakeholders, planners, politicians and the community. I am also pleased that an expanded role will be given to the ACCC in developing and enforcing water charge and water market rules consistent with the National Water Initiative.
As occurs rather frequently with important legislation that is rushed into this House by the government, the support of the opposition is given somewhat reluctantly, and this is another such occasion for me in considering this legislation. This legislation could have been a model for cooperative federalism. Instead, we have a second-best and, I would say, flawed bill that only takes all stakeholders a little way down the important road of water reform that we need to traverse with increasing urgency.
Let me take this opportunity to commend the senators who have laboured under quite unreasonable time constraints to give key stakeholders an opportunity to air their legitimate concerns about the shortcomings of this legislation. It is clear from that process of scrutiny that there are areas of real concern in this bill and that flow from it. For example, all stakeholders are unclear at this point about the yet to be released intergovernmental agreement, the IGA, which will lay the basis for the necessary operational arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and will be necessary for the water plans to operate effectively. It is reasonable to ask why such an important document has not been made available to this parliament, state governments or stakeholders in the basin who may be directly affected by its contents.
Another substantial criticism is the new level of bureaucracy that will be introduced by the bill. Under this legislation we now have the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority; we have two ministerial councils and a National Water Commission. We have more bureaucracy here than they had in the old Soviet Union. Legitimate concerns have also been expressed about the lack of consultation with stakeholders and the inherent risks associated with some institutional arrangements in the bill, which might mean inordinate delays in implementing reform. And, of course, given that no-one is yet privy to the government’s position on the IGA, it itself could constitute an obstacle to action, when immediate and concerted action is required to address the problem.
Let me conclude by stating again my disappointment that the great modern water reform agenda, commenced by the Hawke and Keating governments in 1992 and enshrined in the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1992 and the great COAG national water reform agreement struck in 1994, faltered so badly under the Howard government over the past 10 years. There are some salient lessons to be learnt from our recent history. One is this: never let the National Party near any reform agenda. The reason we have such a problem in New South Wales is due to the influence of the National Party and the overallocations that have occurred in that state and in that part of the basin.
We know the National Party’s commitment to what is really required to get this basin on a sustainable footing. One can recall National Party members of this House, one after the other, getting up to say that we ought to zap the cap. Remember that—‘We ought to zap the cap’? I think we know, in a political sense, who we ought to zap and keep right out of the reform process: the National Party. They are an impediment to progress and the national water reform agenda. I counsel the government, and Liberal members particularly: brook no input from them, because they will pollute everything they touch as far as this reform agenda is concerned. I reluctantly support the measures in this bill so that the great national water reform agenda, commenced by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, can progress even a little.
I have been strenuously trying to hear some cogent argument coming from the opposition about the Water Bill 2007, which is a very important bill for the future of Australia. The contribution from the member for Corio just a while ago was empty, I have to say. There was nothing in there to even hang your hat on. He did not talk about the real issues in the Murray-Darling Basin. No-one has had more hands-on experience in managing the water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin than I have. I spent five years as the Minister for Water Resources in New South Wales, and five years on the Murray-Darling Basin Council. So I think I know a little bit about what is going on in this particular area. I listened with interest this afternoon to a number of members of the opposition speaking on this bill. I would like to make some clear comments about some of the issues that have been raised.
The member for Grayndler, who is completely out of his depth in this area—and we all know he is a political ideologue—made some very astounding statements. The member for Grayndler, instead of talking about the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin, talked more about the environment and his position on the environment. That was followed by the member for Kingsford Smith, and we had a similar rhetoric coming through. It seems to me that these people were never taught history at school. They are trying to tie the present drought to climate change. As far as I understand it—and I stand to be corrected, but I have not seen it from any scientist—there is no absolute connection between the two. While many scientists are saying that they think there is something happening with global warming, I have not yet seen any definitive statement that has linked climate change to drought in Australia. Yes, there are some suggestions and suppositions saying that this might happen, and that is coming from some scientists. But anyone who has read the history of Australia will have found that Australia is a land of drought. We have had many droughts in the past. I recall research from James Cook University in North Queensland on core samples from the Barrier Reef which show that back in the 1800s there was possibly a 20-year drought. That is a long way longer than what we have had at the present time.
So we have some political hyperbole here, and it is being used for political purposes to try to link these things so that people will assume that unless we do something about climate change we are going to have this problem with water supply in Australia. The term ‘hyperbole’ is absolutely correct, because, unfortunately, we see members of the media jumping in on this. I have seen virtual images of flooding on the Central Coast and in Queensland, and that is just outrageous because even the most extreme predictions of scientists talk about 100 years. So the hyperbole is not just with the Labor Party; it is with the media as well. Some of these predictions cannot be justified and cannot be backed up. I have always concluded that a very strong part of a strong democracy is an inquisitorial and free press. But I am very disappointed at the present time about the questions that are being asked about certain political statements that are being made in Australia at the present time.
The member for Grayndler went on to talk about The Nationals, as the member for Corio did more recently. We happen to represent an area; we happen to represent irrigators; I happen to know irrigators; and I happen to know the management of the system. So at least we do have some knowledge of what goes on in that particular area. We had the member for Hotham getting up and saying that the Labor Party would guarantee 1,500 gigalitres a year to the Murray-Darling system. How could you guarantee 1,500 gigalitres this year? We are in drought. That is just a very stupid statement, and we have had many of those coming from the Labor Party at the present time.
The Labor Party are posturing here, and we have seen it for the last few weeks. They stand up here saying that they support this bill, but let us look at the detail. They are not supporting it. If you look at the detail of what people from the opposition have said you will see it very clearly. The management of the Murray-Darling system is a very delicate operation. They stand up and say, ‘We will go back and work with the states on managing the system.’ Well, I spent five years doing that, and I can tell you that you could not get agreement from amongst the states. The Hon. John Kerin was the chair of the council when I was on it. He and I used to get together because we could not get agreement from Victoria and South Australia—Labor states in those days. We would try to find some middle ground to get some agreement. In those days, Queensland did not belong to the Murray-Darling Basin Council. I first went on the council in 1988 and went through until about 1992. Queensland did not belong. If you think you can just simply sit down with the states and get agreement, I have news for you: that is not easy. We have seen that particular exercise recently with Victoria, who I believe are just using their position to push the federal Labor Party view. The federal Labor Party say, ‘We agree,’ but Victoria is standing up and saying, ‘No, we are going to stop this because we do not agree.’
Let us look at some other issues. The member for Wills made a ridiculous speech. I have heard these statements before. The member for Wills got up and started to talk about the increase in salinity in the Murray-Darling. Anyone with a semblance of knowledge at all who has read the Murray-Darling Basin Commission reports will know that salinity has reduced. We have even had the statement from Professor Cullen—who should know better—that salinity has increased in the basin. It has not. If you look at the annual reports of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, you will see that salinity has been reduced. Why? Because there have been policies put in place by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission over a number of years to reduce salinity. The Salt Interception Scheme, for example, was part of the process that has been going on for a long time.
There was a revolution in irrigation. I deregulated irrigation in New South Wales. We went away from the flood system in horticulture. We went to microjet; we went to drip. We laser-levelled. We got farmers to laser-level rice-growing areas. We bred rice varieties that were shorter to try to reduce the amount of water that was used. This has been going on for a long time. Governments have been trying to alleviate the problems.
I want to talk a little about Victoria, because I just do not understand where they are coming from. When I was Minister for Water Resources in New South Wales, I was very aware of the problems of leakage in the system. In fact, we estimated that we were losing 30 per cent of the water we were sending down the system. You have to understand that these canals and channels were built in an era when they used a horse and scoop. They went right across the land. They went across gravel beds; they went across sand. These people just built the channels. The great Mulwala canal, which takes the water down to the lower Murray, is a very big canal. But we know that there was leakage in the system. So I say to the states: $10 billion? Grab it with both hands! Because if you can stop the leakage in the system you can save 30 per cent of the water that is being taken down the rivers. That is a very important point.
I know we do not want to continue to debate too long and there are others who want to speak on this, but I have to say a few more things. The member for Wills talked about blue-green algal blooms as if this were something new. I have news for him: the first blue-green algal bloom ever recorded in Australia was in 1874, in Lake Alexandrina. They were around long before any dams were built in Australia. You have to understand that before there were dams built in Australia these rivers ran dry at times. Again, in the 1870s it was recorded that the Murray was dry. If you look at history you will find that the great Darling River was affected. There was an export port at Bourke and paddle-wheelers plied the river, taking the wool down to Adelaide. For a period of three or four years the paddle-wheelers were all tied up at the riverbank because there was no water in the Darling. It is nothing new in Australia. That is the history of Australia.
I want to go to some parts of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I heard the member for Corio spend six minutes in his speech just reading out the amendment. There are some things here that I think are important. First of all, the member for Grayndler was trying to rewrite history by saying that the Labor Party are the only ones who have ever initiated legislation to help the Murray-Darling. We are sick of hearing that sort of rhetoric from the Labor Party. A number of people have contributed to what has been going on in the Murray-Darling.
There is one part of the amendment in particular that I want to talk about, which I think is very important because it really goes to the core of this, and that is 8(d). At the end of 8(d) it says:
... address the fact that water has been over-allocated, undervalued and misdirected;
I say to anyone who has any interest in this particular debate: have a very close look at those words. Those words are code. They say to me that the Labor Party does not support agriculture in the basin. The member for Grayndler went to great lengths to tell us, and the member for Corio also told us, about the value of agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin. It is very important. It is a very important part of Australia’s economic future. There are large exports. Depending on the year, anywhere between 40 and 60 per cent of Australia’s agriculture exports come from the Murray-Darling Basin. It is a huge catchment area—the same size as the Mississippi-Missouri catchment. It is a pity we did not get some rain. But it is the same size catchment as the Mississippi-Missouri.
What this amendment is saying is: ‘We are supporting this. We understand the importance of agriculture.’ But I have been through all this before, and I have to say that if you are an irrigator or someone who lives in rural Australia you should look very closely at the amendment that has been put forward by the Labor Party. What it is saying to me, and what the member for Hotham was saying when he talked about 1,500 gigalitres a year to the river, is that there will be no water for irrigation, no water for farming.
I have to also say that if you did not have control of these rivers you would not have water for the towns either, because at certain times they would dry up. It is a very important balance you have to get here. It is important that you work with the people who are the users of the water. They are very decent, cooperative people. I have worked with them for years. If you sit down with a problem, I can guarantee you that they will work through that problem. But, if you allow the bureaucrats or scientists from the CSIRO to start to dictate this program, I can assure you that you are in for trouble. One of the problems I have at the present time with some of the scientists is that they are not working on scientific facts; they are part of the hyperbole. They are out there exaggerating statements. It is about time that our scientists got back to giving us the facts of the issue and not being part of the debate—because I think that is a very real risk we run.
Let me say this: do not believe what the Labor Party are saying here. They are not supporting rural Australia. They may be supporting what they think is their view of the environment. I tell you that the environment, over the centuries, has come to terms with the fact that the rivers at times do not run. I think that is where the whole debate is getting off course and where the exaggeration is coming in from the Labor Party. Let rural Australia beware.
I rise to speak on the Water Bill 2007 and to support the amendment which was moved earlier today by the member for Grayndler. Despite the contribution just given by the member for Page, most of us would agree that the need for action on our nation’s dwindling water supplies has been evident for years. This government in particular have dragged their heels for the last 11 years and now they are here seeking our congratulations and claiming that this is the first national reform of the Murray for a century.
In fact, the national water reform began with the historic COAG agreement in 1992, which was led by the Keating government, and the Murray-Darling Basin Act of 1993. It is pretty disappointing that it has taken another 15 years to bring us to this debate tonight. It has been disappointing as well as hugely damaging to our magnificent river. In my short time in this parliament, I have witnessed Labor calling on the government to take national leadership over Australia’s river system and of our water policy. In fact, in my very first speech in this place I urged the federal government to have the will and the courage to sensibly address this pressing issue and to leave politicking and buck-passing outside the chamber doors. Since that time, I have grasped each and every opportunity to stress the importance of ensuring a sustainable Murray and a long-term focus on this, and it is a relief to see that water and our great rivers have finally reached the policy agenda and that we can have this discussion tonight.
Soon after the government made their 25 January announcement, Labor offered in-principle bipartisan support for the policy. We have long called for Commonwealth leadership on water policy, particularly in the policy areas involving water resources that cross state boundaries. However, I do still hold reservations that this legislation will not deliver the objectives set out in the 2004 National Water Initiative, such as tackling overallocated water systems and ensuring greater water security. We on this side are willing to work constructively with the government towards this end, but we recognise that the choice being offered before this parliament tonight is, sadly, between second-rate reform or no reform at all. I must stress that this legislation is not the solution to the River Murray’s woes. It is at best a first step towards addressing the poor state that we have left our proudest river in. We as a parliament must continue to focus on ever improving the health of the River Murray as well as on better water policy outcomes generally. This is what we on this side of the House again pledge to work towards.
As a South Australian MP, I am particularly passionate about the River Murray and feel a particular responsibility to fight in this place for it. I have previously indulged myself in sharing my childhood recollections of growing up on the banks of the River Murray and I will not subject the parliament to that again tonight. I will say that the health of the River Murray is vital to South Australia and critical for a secure domestic water policy for Adelaide, which I represent in this parliament. The river and the Murray-Darling Basin are of special social, economic and environmental importance to all South Australians.
As the federal member for Adelaide, I am acutely aware of how necessary it is for everyone, particularly the upstream states, to be vigilant in their use of the river’s water—not just for the sake of South Australia, the downstream state, but for the river’s very survival. The Murray-Darling Basin has received record low inflows for 11 consecutive months, affecting allocations to South Australia. As a result, a number of water-saving measures have had to be implemented, including reduced allocations, introducing carryover and closing wetlands to manage impact equitably. As a result of this, salinity levels are steadily increasing along the river because of significantly reduced flows across the border.
While decent rainfall over the past few months has improved the state of the river system, a lot more rain is needed to return the waterway to anywhere near where it needs to be. As the South Australian government has gone to great lengths to highlight, the health problems facing the Murray could cause a huge array of problems, including loss of agricultural productivity, loss of recreation and tourism, a negative impact on our drinking water, risk to human health caused by high levels of toxic blue-green algae and a cultural impact due to losing the River Murray. We need a policy before us that will promote sustainable irrigation, restore Australia’s wetlands and provide both quality and quantity for Australia’s water supplies as well as assure the environmental flows which are necessary to ensure the health of this mighty river.
The Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, has done a fantastic job in fighting for the Murray’s protection and the protection of South Australia’s water supplies, particularly through his insistence and negotiation with the Commonwealth for an independent commission to oversee the River Murray. I believe that there are merits to having a strong independent authority overseeing the river. As Premier Rann stated:
It is only through a politically independent authority that the parochial interests acknowledged to exist by the Prime Minister can be removed from the management of the basin.
I absolutely and entirely agree on this one. It is essential to ensure that those making the tough decisions about the state of the river system are independent experts. The River Murray is far too important for political game playing, which, sadly, we have again seen here today. As Premier Rann stated, this needs to be a politics-free zone.
There has been some criticism of moves to give power to independent bodies, scientists and experts and, whilst in this bill the independent body’s role will be largely strategic, I would like to address some of these criticisms, particularly those in the South Australian media and within local politics. Opponents have argued against having an independent body overseeing the river by saying, ‘Isn’t this just conceding that politicians aren’t up to the job?’ I think that we need to recognise that our very job is advocating the interests of our local communities. This means that, just as the lobby groups and stakeholders have vested interests, so actually do we—whether it be my vested interest in securing Adelaide’s water supplies now and into the future or another MP’s interest in protecting the water allocation of the irrigators that they represent in their electorate, no matter how overallocated that water may be or how unsustainable the practice is. We have amongst us a series of competing interests and the question needs to be: whose job is it here to represent the Murray’s future viability? Whose job is it to ensure that the generations that follow us also enjoy access to a strong and once again mighty Murray? Because this is the role that past and present parliaments have failed us in.
We need to ensure that the long-term wellbeing of the river is given a voice, and I believe it is helpful to have independent experts and scientists without any other interests to assist in this role. If we do not have independence in this process, we run the risk of this important issue becoming bogged down by politics and vested interests. Anyone listening to the debate on the river in this place would hear many different viewpoints and opinions in contrast to their own. I certainly have passionately disagreed with many things I have heard in this chamber about the River Murray. I have nearly fallen off my seat disagreeing with comments made by other MPs in this place. On 18 October 2006, the member for Page criticised Professor Peter Cullen, of the Wentworth Group, who I would have thought is undeniably one of Australia’s leading water experts. On that occasion, the member for Page stated that Professor Cullen ‘parades as a scientist’. But the comment I remember most clearly was in relation to the opinion of the Wentworth Group that the Murray-Darling was dying. The member for Page said:
In fact, the quality of the Murray River downstream is now better than it was 10 or 15 years ago.
The member for Kennedy also got in on the act and made some comments which I have found similarly disturbing. He claimed that the salinity levels on the middle Murray and the lower Murray are the lowest they have ever been in recorded history. He went on to question what all the fuss was about with South Australians. He said:
I have been to Murray Bridge and it is water from bank to bank.
If I were a little less polite and prone to interjecting, I might have shouted out to him that there may have been water from bank to bank but it probably was not moving anywhere at the time.
The loss of native plants, animals, fish and wetlands; declining water quality; an increase of pests in the Murray, including carp; increasing salinity; and water shortages all indicate a river in crisis. Today we have again heard some differing views about the Murray—and I might just mention a couple of them. The member for New England, seemingly speaking in defence of the cotton industry, said he thought it was South Australia’s own fault that we had a blockage and water was not flowing through to the Murray mouth. Another South Australian, the member for Barker, said the environmental lobby groups were part of the reason why we were not getting more results—whereas I would argue that these groups have been amongst the very few who are arguing for the long-term environmental viability of this river.
The problems plaguing the River Murray are intricate and complex, and any decision to alleviate these complexities must not be made for political reasons. A solution to the water crisis must transcend politics, and it must be a national solution to a national problem. It requires input from all state governments and leadership from the Commonwealth. However, independence is the key to ensuring that the interests of the Murray are not overlooked in this process.
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in his second reading speech, highlighted the government’s decision to rule out compulsory acquisitions even as a last resort. I think this is worthy of some discussion. The minister said:
Let me reiterate the Commonwealth’s commitment—clearly stated in the bill—that we will not compulsorily acquire water entitlements. Entitlements will only be purchased from willing sellers.
But I would ask the minister: isn’t the most significant problem facing the Murray the overallocation of water permits in the Murray-Darling Basin? What is the government going to do if it is unable to secure enough willing sales of overallocated water entitlements? What is the backup plan if people do not voluntarily choose to sell back their water? What do we do then? I am yet to hear a response from the government on that question.
Another problem with this process is the extraordinary lack of consultation with the community and government stakeholders. Many of the groups I have spoken to feel completely left out and are outraged that such monumental legislation can be pushed through the parliament so hastily without giving people adequate opportunity to input their views and expertise in this area. This has again been demonstrated by the government allowing just a one-day Senate committee hearing for such a monumental piece of legislation.
The environmental groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation—whom I have found have done an absolutely fantastic job in lobbying for a strong and healthy River Murray—have been vocal in their response to this bill, rightfully nervous that the government is rushing through another piece of legislation in the lead-up to the election that could have a devastating effect on our future if it is not handled with care. We can only wish that the government had treated this matter with some urgency 11 years ago instead of ignoring it until their polling indicated that they could ignore it no longer. The government’s repeated failure to consult in good faith with the other stakeholders has seriously undermined the intentions of this bill and, quite clearly, is not the path to finding the best public policy outcomes.
In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the South Australian government raised serious concerns that environmental returns could not be guaranteed by this bill. As the submission indicated, the Water Bill 2007, by its nature, will not ensure environmental returns to the River Murray without including an end-of-system flow target. An end-of-system flow target, building on existing flow guarantees, should be included in the basin plan. As South Australia has indicated, this would ensure that measurable benefits are actually delivered. When I have met with various lobby groups, they have expressed a similar concern that environmental returns could not be guaranteed by the bill. An end-of-system flow target is essential to ensure that environmental returns are delivered and to ensure that we can measure this and provide adequate scrutiny.
It is impossible to separate the issue of water from the broader crisis of climate change. Climate change will bring with it less rainfall and increased evaporation, which will directly affect our water supply. For 11 long years the federal government has ignored the looming threat of climate change and turned its back on the state of the Murray-Darling Basin. The Australian public will no longer tolerate such complacency. While the government may finally have switched its rhetoric on the problems of climate change and the water crisis, its inaction over the past 11 years has had a devastating effect on our capacity to deal with this problem. The reason for the complete and utter neglect of the problems facing the Murray—and, indeed, the planet, through climate change—is that the federal government is full of climate change sceptics.
We have once again seen this illustrated this week with the four government members’ dissenting report to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation geosequestration inquiry. They indicated that those who argue that humans are responsible for climate change are ‘fanatics’. How absolutely absurd. This does indicate that the Howard government remains divided on climate change, and for this reason we will have to deal with the consequences of 11 years of complacency on this urgent issue. As a parliament we must recognise that water and climate change go hand in hand. We cannot address one without addressing the other and receive the long-term results that we all hope for. It must be kept in mind that this initiative must be carried out with a number of other policy initiatives if it is going to make the much-needed impact on Australia’s water crisis that it sets out to. We need a holistic approach to Australia’s water shortages, and only a Rudd Labor government will be able to deliver this.
Labor has committed to ensuring the security of water supplies to all Australians, regardless of their location, through our national water security plan for towns and cities. Australians based in rural and regional communities, as well as those in our towns and cities, are already facing the brunt of the national water crisis. Labor has a plan to target domestic and industrial water use in urban areas by fixing the leaky pipes across the nation in order to stop the wastage of water as it makes its way to our taps. The National Water Commission has indicated that, across the 175,000 kilometres of water mains in Australia, up to 30 per cent of water can be lost through leaks and burst pipes. In Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and my electorate of Adelaide, 155,000 megalitres of water is lost from urban water systems each year. This is the equivalent of 77,000 Olympic sized swimming pools. Just a small leak could cost this country 500,000 litres of water in a year. Urgent action is needed to deal with these leaks and losses, which is why Labor has committed to an investment of more than $250 million to work with state and local water authorities to minimise water loss, construct modern and efficient water infrastructure, and refurbish older pipes and water systems, as well as provide funding to practical projects to save water. This is a nation-building policy to help protect Australia’s future by minimising water wastage. I am currently working with a number of local councils within my own community of Adelaide on programs to better use our water supplies in our local Adelaide region.
In conclusion, anyone who thinks that the passage of this bill through the parliament will put an end to my constant advocacy for our great River Murray is sorely mistaken. This is a step forward, but there remains a great marathon before us. The relationship between the River Murray and the state of South Australia is symbiotic: the survival and sustainability of one is essential to the survival and sustainability of the other. South Australians have got a lot to lose if the River Murray is not managed and controlled effectively. The future prosperity and sustainability of our state absolutely depends upon it. We must make the most of this historic opportunity and ensure that we sensibly tackle the many obstacles to the river’s health, improve water security and urgently address the overallocation of the Murray’s precious water. It is fantastic that we have the opportunity to have this debate within the parliament, but let us ensure that we do not forget about this issue once this debate is complete and that we keep on working on this issue until we can save this mighty river.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Water Bill 2007 and the Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. Twelve days ago NASA launched the latest unmanned spacecraft in its Mars exploration program. If all goes according to plan, Phoenix will land on the Red Planet’s surface in May next year to continue the search for extraterrestrial life. Of course, NASA is not expecting to find any little green men—with or without high-speed colour printers to deceive the on-board cameras. What it is looking for is water. The search for water is a proxy for the search for life, because without water there can be no life as we know it. As we debate this bill, this is surely a timely reminder of what is at stake. Water is not just another optional resource we obtain from nature, like oil, gas, coal and minerals; it is the foundation of life for every plant and creature on this planet. Our ability to effectively manage the water resources of the driest continent on Earth is, quite literally, a matter of life and death.
Since European settlement we have, in many ways, been ingenious with water. Through imaginative engineering schemes we have harvested water for use in climates and ecosystems that are quite unsuitable for the agricultural methods imported from the Old World. We have used water to generate large amounts of electrical power. We have supported urban settlement in wholly unsuitable locations. In my own electorate of Bendigo, for example, there is no natural waterway sufficient to sustain a city of 100,000 people. The city is only where it is due to the discovery of gold in the local creek beds in the 1850s. And it has been battling for a secure supply of water ever since. Hopefully, water security will at last become a reality when the first phase of the Goldfields pipeline comes on stream next month—a project, I might note, that saw lengthy prevarication by the Howard government as Liberal members of this House joined Liberal senators and state opposition MPs to offer highly ambiguous support for or outright opposition to the Victorian government’s initiative.
Despite—or perhaps because of—our engineering achievements, we have long passed the point when our current exploitation of the water resources is sustainable. The need for considered Commonwealth intervention in the Murray-Darling Basin has been obvious for years, yet the Howard government has presided over a confused and perplexing approach to water management. There are several overlapping Commonwealth bodies responsible for water, each administering a range of different programs. Different structures, different departments, different ministers, different accountability mechanisms and different time lines all add to the confusion. Although there is a national plan in the National Water Initiative, and funding through the Australian government water fund, you would be forgiven for thinking the opposite because so little is being achieved—while most of the allocated funds remain unspent.
What we have before us today can only be described as an election year knee-jerk from the Howard government—an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk response announced just days after the Leader of the Opposition offered bipartisan support for a national water summit and proposed the establishment of a single federal water agency. Labor offered a political truce on water so real progress could be made on addressing the critical issues. What was the Prime Minister’s response? A politically driven, election year knee-jerk.
One of the big challenges in rescuing the Murray-Darling system was always going to be the leadership and coordination of the states and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, the Howard government’s record on this has been woeful. After the Keating government led the way on national water reform in the historic bipartisan COAG agreement in 1994, we have had 11 years of Nero-like fiddling from the Prime Minister—11 years in which the government has failed to respond to the clear and repeated warning signs of the problems in the Murray-Darling Basin, 11 long years which have seen the worst drought in eastern Australia in living memory and 11 years during which millions of taxpayers’ dollars have failed to produce any noticeable progress—and yet, and I find this particularly hard to believe, we still do not know something as basic as how much water can be sustainably extracted from the Murray-Darling system. We will not know this until the CSIRO report later this year, some 120 years after the first irrigation schemes began in the Kerang-Pyramid Hill-Swan Hill area of Victoria.
Of course, we now know that climate change, with rising temperatures and falling rainfall patterns across eastern Australia, is steadily exacerbating the Murray’s problems. But what have we seen from the Howard government on this issue? Yes, the same 11 years of delay, denial and inaction. Whether the topic is water management or climate change, the Howard government has become incapable of working with the states to achieve outcomes that are in the national interest. The Prime Minister’s only answer is to spit the dummy and take his bat and ball home because he has to share the crease with the premiers. He has abdicated the responsibility conferred on him by voters at the last election, and I have every confidence that next time around the electorate will note that he no longer wants the job of governing the country.
There is no single silver bullet to address the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin. Rather, the answers will be a series of initiatives in a whole-of-basin approach led by the federal government in collaboration with the basin state governments. These initiatives have to include some innovative and visionary thinking outside the traditional solutions. We can no longer just build more or bigger dams.
I would like to outline some potential solutions. The first is not new. It is called desalination. We may live on the driest continent, but we are surrounded by an abundance of seawater. ‘Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink,’ as Coleridge’s ancient mariner lamented. Desalination must have a part to play in our national water security. There are many examples of desalination plants providing a constant supply of fresh water to some of the driest parts of the world, notably in the Middle East.
Of course, no desalination option is an easy one and there are usually major challenges to overcome. Appropriate disposal or reuse of the saline waste material and the substantial energy cost to power the plant are just two. No-one would argue that these are trivial issues, but surely we are talented enough to solve them. If we can build the Snowy Mountains scheme and the Murrumbidgee and Goulburn irrigation systems, efficient and environmentally responsible desalination plants are surely not beyond our capabilities. And, in addition to local desalination plants servicing coastal cities and urban communities, why shouldn’t we consider something more ambitious?
I have raised this particular idea before in this place, and I make no apology for doing so again, because I believe it warrants serious investigation. I am referring to the potential for a desalination plant on the east coast of Australia to feed fresh water into the headwaters of the Snowy and Murray River systems. The output from the plant—located at a suitable place on the South Coast of New South Wales—would be pumped up into the Snowy Mountains in carefully regulated amounts. Desalination plants consume significant amounts of electricity, but the use of solar, wave or tidal power would reduce both the cost and the greenhouse impact of such a plant. The fresh water would enhance the natural flows in the Snowy and Murray systems, perhaps even generating hydroelectricity on the way at a new power station. If no other use could be found for it, the prevailing ocean currents along the South Coast would help disperse the saline waste in the Tasman Sea.
This concept could provide significant water security to large areas of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, including the vital food bowl of the Goulburn Valley. Using our natural river systems as distribution channels would not only limit the overall cost of the scheme but also enrich the ecosystems of some of our major rivers. Existing irrigation systems would get a new supply of water, securing the future of the numerous townships that depend on agriculture for their survival. The overall benefits to communities in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia would be substantial, but a project on this scale would have to be a national responsibility. I commend the idea to the federal government for further evaluation.
Desalination plants need not be located in or near our coastal regions. I believe it is worth considering the construction of a desalination plant in north-central or north-western Victoria, some hundreds of kilometres from the coast. Before anyone summons the attendants to have me carried out of the chamber for treatment, let me explain it a little more. Land clearing and the use of European agricultural practices in the Mallee and north-central regions have exacerbated the natural salinity of the soils. The saline groundwater responsible for a lot of the devastation normally has much lower levels of salts than the seawater processed by coastal desalination plants. The desalination effort at an inland plant should, therefore, be less and may require smaller plants consuming less power than a typical coastal one.
The north-west of Victoria is, of course, well placed to utilise alternative energy sources such as solar energy to power such a plant, which would help to reduce any greenhouse impacts. While disposal of the saline waste products may prove a challenge, pipelines can be built quickly and relatively cheaply these days, or more innovative uses of the waste could be researched. If detailed studies show there is potential in desalinating the Mallee’s groundwater then this could slowly return currently contaminated land to either productive agricultural use or to its native state. I do not pretend for one minute that this idea is simple and there are not significant challenges in providing power and disposing of the waste materials, but with long-term climate forecasts predicting higher temperatures and lower rainfall in this part of the continent we surely have to consider all options—even the radical ones I am outlining today.
Another idea for a potential solution is for a scheme closer to my own electorate of Bendigo. Bendigo has an annual growth rate of 1.8 per cent and is the fastest-growing region in central Victoria. Towns along the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo, including Kyneton and Castlemaine, have also experienced substantial growth in recent years, and even more is planned. This growth, together with the drought conditions over the past decade, has severely stressed our water supplies and led to some of the harshest water restrictions in Australia. Of course, an adequate water supply is critical for the region’s significant agriculture and viticulture industries. But the drought has also had a negative impact on other parts of the regional economy. Business and community leaders say that the lack of water security has adversely affected investment decisions to establish or grow local businesses. Bendigo is also an important regional centre that provides services such as health, education, aged care and banking to the surrounding areas. There is evidence that the skilled and professional staff necessary to fulfil this role are being discouraged from moving to the city because of the drought.
Despite some good recent rains, our water reserves remain far below normal capacity. The reservoirs in the Coliban system are currently about 15 per cent full, while Bendigo’s other main source of supply, Lake Eppalock, is at under five per cent of capacity. As I mentioned earlier, the goldfields pipeline will help secure Bendigo’s water supply, but only if there is sufficient run-off into the dams of the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system. And it will not directly provide any additional security for the other fast-growing towns in my electorate.
A ‘water bank’ may be a solution for them. The Coliban water authority has been investigating the feasibility of accessing groundwater from the vast underground aquifers in the Kyneton and Castlemaine districts. According to the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, these could be a huge source of good-quality water with salinity levels below 1,000 milligrams of dissolved salt per litre. This opens up the possibility of pumping groundwater into the Coliban reservoir system, benefiting Kyneton, Castlemaine and Malmsbury as well as adding to Bendigo’s total water resources.
But, with the appropriate infrastructure in place, there is an opportunity to go a step further. When the drought conditions ease, surplus surface water could be used to put water back into these natural underground water storages for future use. In other words, we would be establishing a water bank into which water is deposited in wet years and withdrawn as required in drought years. Groundwater is the main water source for many towns and community centres all over Australia and it is also extensively used for irrigation. The Centre for Groundwater Studies has said that artificially recharging aquifers using a technique called ‘aquifer storage and recovery’ can actually lower the salinity of the groundwater. The centre’s research has shown that even saline aquifers can be used to store temporary surpluses of surface water to create new water resources for urban or agricultural use. Recharging can also extend the life of previously overexploited aquifers.
The combined use of groundwater and surface water provides a far more flexible approach to water management in regional areas. With increased environmental concerns about new dams and surface reservoirs, banking surplus surface water in aquifers could assume greater importance. Of course, any artificial recharging will need to be carefully considered so it does not disrupt the natural recharging process during wetter years. Equally, it is surely unacceptable to plunder groundwater resources in drought years without giving any thought to recharging the aquifers in good years.
We hold our water resources in trust for our children and we must be responsible and accountable to the generations that may experience even more severe drought conditions in the future. This brings me back to the need for further water reform. It is unacceptable that the National Water Initiative, agreed to by the federal, state and territory governments in 2004, has yet to be implemented in full. Returning sufficient water to the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin must be a priority. We must take the necessary steps to ensure the long-term health of all rivers, wetlands and connected groundwater systems in the basin and the health of the communities and businesses that rely on their flows.
An efficient system for water trading is needed to address the fact that water has been overallocated, undervalued and misdirected, but the federal government has been incapable of consulting with and coordinating the key stakeholders in the basin in good faith. All water users, farmers, water scientists, state governments and the broader community need to be involved to ensure the adoption of efficient agricultural practices and to ensure that industrial and urban water users adapt their behaviour to minimise their water use. Yet the Prime Minister unilaterally abandoned complex negotiations between his Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the member for Wentworth, and the Victorian government just to suit his timetable and Mark Textor’s advice to blame the states for everything in the run-up to the next election.
What we are presented with here today is a less than ideal solution to the problems of our greatest inland river system. It is a tragedy for the nation that this is yet another issue which has required the prospect of an election to stimulate some action from the Howard government. We are still in the most severe drought in our history, but we are a resilient nation and a resilient people. We are able to withstand major disasters like famine, droughts, floods and bushfires—and coalition governments. I will be supporting the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Grayndler.
I too rise to speak on the Water Bill 2007. Water is widely regarded as one of Australia’s most precious resources, as we have all heard during this debate. Labor supports the great need for Commonwealth leadership in water policy, especially when waterways cross state boundaries. Unfortunately, it has taken 11 years for this government to take the next step in addressing the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin. In addition to this delayed response by the Commonwealth, the government, now that it has decided to take some action, has not taken it upon itself to consult enough with the state governments and other stakeholders over the contents of the bill.
Another issue that is not addressed in the legislation is the allocation of water licences in the Murray-Darling Basin. There needs to be a full implementation of the National Water Initiative, agreed on in 2004, to help us manage our national water supply. Water is our life source and it is vital to the survival of our country. I feel that there is a consensus among Australians that the Murray is one of the country’s most vital water channels, providing water to thousands of households every day.
The Murray is in dire need of attention. The Murray-Darling Basin experiences some of the most variable rainfall in the world and it is subject to times of great floods, while at other times the basin suffers from drought. However, the basin has not been subject to the conditions it is currently experiencing as a result of, for example, South Australia’s once-in-100-years drought. Within South Australia we have the collective asset of the Lower Lakes, the Murray Mouth and the Coorong, South Australia’s highly valued coastal waterway that is supposed to be an essential migratory bird habitat and has been central to the reproductive cycle of fish life for an aeon. Despite the push by the South Australian government to manage existing water resources and ensure that current water resources are used wisely, we cannot make it rain and we cannot dictate where the rainfall should land. This is why the management of water even at a local level is so important to saving water within my state of South Australia and monitoring the water that is drawn from the River Murray.
In Adelaide, the metropolitan Adelaide stormwater reuse project, which has been funded by the Commonwealth, the state and the private sector in South Australia, reuses water in the western suburbs. Man-made wetlands are designed to act as filters for urban and polluted stormwater that would normally run off into the Gulf St Vincent, polluting the gulf and killing off seagrass, which is one of the breeding grounds for many fish in the Gulf St Vincent. This initiative is a great way for the western suburbs in Adelaide to save water and to assist the environment. This project alone is set to save 1,000 megalitres of water a year by using stormwater to replace water previously drawn from underground water supplies. This pre-treated water will also be pumped back into the underground water supplies beneath Adelaide.
Many schools within my electorate of Hindmarsh are also becoming very water conscious. Schools are administering waterless urinals, water-saving toilets, water-saving taps, installing constant flow valves in bathrooms, fixing leaking taps and making other water dispensers more efficient. Schools are developing water friendly gardens and playing an active role in monitoring the use of water around school grounds. Rainwater tanks are also used by schools throughout the electorate to supply water to school facilities. We should applaud these schools and their efforts to try and save water. Every drop of water that is saved by these schools is less water coming out of the Murray, and that plays a huge role in saving our most precious resource, especially in a time when water is as scarce as we have seen over the last few years.
Some schools and community organisations who have introduced various water-saving measures are, for example in my electorate, the Star of the Sea, Lady Gowrie Child Centre Inc., Plympton Primary School, Sacred Heart College Senior, St Peter’s Woodlands Grammar School, Lockleys Primary School, Edwardstown Primary School, St Michael’s College, St George College and Thebarton Senior College. Every facility is taking steps towards or has already introduced water-saving projects on their premises.
Local councils also play a big role within the electorate of Hindmarsh. They are also doing their part in trying to conserve water. The City of West Torrens and the City of Holdfast Bay both have water-saving projects in place. In the City of West Torrens their project will save mains, bore and reclaimed water through a strategic improvement in irrigation control and efficiency at various locations. These water-saving initiatives will benefit 22 ovals and reserves through irrigation controls, saving water that otherwise would be drawn from the River Murray.
These improved water controls will also utilise data from weather stations, which will analyse variances in rainfall and evapotranspiration rates, and adjust watering times to prevent wastage. In addition to this, systems experiencing leaks will be automatically shut down to prevent further wastage. These improvements will be complemented at 11 sites through the replacement of three hectares of irrigated turf with biodiversity plantings to minimise watering requirements. This project will save 47,199,000 litres of water each year.
The City of Holdfast Bay has also employed several water-saving initiatives that include the installation of rainwater tanks to store rainwater that is collected from the roof of the City of Holdfast Bay Civic Centre. The collected water will be used to flush the toilets. These changes will save 132,600 litres of water each year which, as I said earlier, would otherwise be water drawn from the River Murray. Another project that is currently being looked at by various different groups in my electorate involves extending the reuse of treated wastewater from the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant and harvesting stormwater from within the area bounded approximately by the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant catchment. The reused water from the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant and the stormwater would then be available for irrigation at an alternative location.
Glenelg and the Adelaide parklands were found to be the most concentrated regions for significant reuse potential. The project is set to reuse approximately five gigalitres of water annually. This project has great potential and it attacks the issue of water management directly, by saving water that would otherwise be pumped out into the sea and the Gulf St Vincent. Currently large amounts of the treated effluent from the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant are discharged into the Gulf St Vincent, killing off the seagrass and destroying marine life in our gulf. The gulf is adversely impacted on by the 174,000 megalitres annually of nutrient rich stormwater surging down from the Adelaide Hills and over the Adelaide flats into the gulf, carrying all the pollutants that destroy the environment within the gulf.
The prevention of run-off from the Adelaide Plains is probably the greatest South Australian environmental challenge facing our coast, the residents of metropolitan Adelaide and our governments in this and the next decade. The ongoing construction of wetlands in Adelaide’s northern suburbs—adjacent to the Parafield Airport and beyond—and associated aquifer storage and replenishment initiatives, of which there are now about two dozen in the greater Adelaide area, have been encouraging for quite a few years. We should take a closer look at this as a substantial element of our future supply of water. In areas other than the northern suburbs there has been substantial energy applied to similar projects, such as within the Patawalonga catchment at Morphettville, which I have mentioned previously.
We must support these initiatives. We must support initiatives within all of metropolitan Adelaide and within all of Australia because, sourcing investment from wherever they can get it, community groups do their best. As I said earlier, in the southern suburbs—including northern Adelaide, the Barossa catchment and the Onkaparinga catchment respectively—aquifer storage capacities, in places, are expected to exceed the supply of available stormwater. A tremendous amount of highly positive work can be done in these catchments to improve the health of the environment of the Gulf St Vincent and to secure a substantial supply of water for many years to come, at least for industrial, horticultural and recreational use and even for human consumption. I also support the use of the aquifer storage and replenishment schemes being pursued throughout the Adelaide Plains wherever stormwater and land with access to the suitable aquifer are available. In addition, there is also a substantial capacity within my own electorate of Hindmarsh, whether it be through utilising the first or second tertiary sedimentary aquifers.
The strategy of minimising unnatural stormwater flow into the gulf is advancing steadily in terms of outcomes in some areas and continued research in others. This strategy will require additional investment from all players: local industry, local government, state government and, of course, the federal government. I am sure that for this investment the rewards will be—maybe now and certainly in the not too distant future—well worth the time, energy and opportunity costs that they require. Labor certainly believes so, and it is concerned and determined to make Australia as a nation more water savvy, more water wise and more water secure because, without water, we cannot sustain our future. We need to work collectively with the states to ensure good outcomes and a good supply of water to ensure that our nation continues.
The Labor Party has a proud history of leadership in the matters of water policy specifically and environmental issues more broadly. It is a travesty that it has taken this government over 10 years to show an interest in and to take action on a matter that is so critical to our nation. From statements made by the government, it is apparent that the government still does not understand the link between climate change and our dwindling water supply. There can be no doubt that climate change will directly impact on water supply, temperature and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.
For Australia, the key climate change impact will be on our water supply. There will be less rainfall and increased evaporation. Water problems will intensify in southern and eastern Australia over the next 20 to 30 years. There can be no argument, even from the sceptics, that climate change has created worsening climate conditions in Australia. We are still experiencing the effects of the worst drought in the last 100 years. Our water supplies are being depleted, and there are drastic water restrictions in most cities and towns in southern and eastern Australia. Temperatures are rising, with 11 of the 12 warmest years on record occurring between 1995 and 2006. The melting of the Arctic icecaps and retreating mountain glaciers are contributing to rising sea levels.
For Labor, water supply issues and climate change are, in reality, two sides of the same coin. Without a strategy for climate change you are not in a position to have a strategy for resolving the water crisis, and without a strategy for water you cannot really deal with climate change—and neither is able to be tackled without a long-term strategy. The Murray-Darling Basin is not coping now. We are informed by scientists that Australia as a continent will just have to get used to having less water and maximising what we do have.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its latest assessment of the impact of climate change on Australia later this year. The contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change on Australia and New Zealand, Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, stated:
Since 1950, there has been a 0.3ºC - 0.7ºC centigrade warming, with more heat waves, fewer frosts, more rain in north-west Australia and ... less rain in southern and eastern Australia and ... an increase in the intensity of Australian droughts, and a rise in sea level of about 70mm.
The same report, on page 515, tells us that Australia will have up to 20 per cent more droughts over most of Australia by 2030 and up to 80 per cent more droughts by 2070 in south-western Australia. Table 11.6, on page 518, predicts that, by 2020, 60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef, our great national and international treasure, could be regularly bleached and, by 2050, 97 per cent could be bleached.
On page 510 of the IPCC’s third assessment report, the report which precedes this one, the following impacts were assessed as important for Australia:
The third assessment report concluded that a significant vulnerability in climate change is to be expected in Australia over the next 100 years. The report from Working Group II for the fourth assessment report commented specifically on the Murray-Darling Basin, on page 516. The report indicated that the Murray-Darling Basin currently accounts for about 70 per cent of irrigated crops and pastures. It predicts that:
Annual streamflow in the Basin is likely to fall 10-25% by 2050 and 16-48% per cent by 2100.
Labor governments over the past 60 years have taken the initiative to resolve national challenges to our water supply, as well as increasing awareness of broader environmental issues, including climate change. It was the Whitlam government which took the active role in urban and water infrastructure in the mid-1970s. The government ensured that the outer suburbs of Sydney and other growth areas of our cities had sewerage and other basic water services. One of the first actions of the new Whitlam government was the establishment of the River Murray Working Party in 1973. This was the first time a government had begun to take serious action in relation to water quality and salinity. The Hawke government, under the leadership of Brian Howe, ensured urban renewal and revitalised our cities. It was Labor which delivered regular water supply and services to many urban areas. The Keating government initiated further water reform using the COAG process. So, on this side of the House, our credentials in relation to water reform are well established.
The government, however, has sat back for 10 years and watched while the Murray and Darling rivers have been dramatically reduced. ‘Climate change’ is now a phrase that is part of the vernacular. Urban water supplies are rationed through water restrictions. I acknowledge the Commonwealth’s Australian water fund, but I am appalled that in the 2006-07 budget only $77 million out of a budget of $337 million had been allocated. In January this year, the Prime Minister introduced his National Plan for Water Security. This was the announcement promising a radical and permanent change in Australia’s water management practices. The Prime Minister proposed a $10 billion package and a 10-point plan to improve water efficiency and to address overallocation of water in rural Australia. Labor supported the plan. The Water Bill 2007 deals with matters relating to the Murray-Darling Basin which arise from that announcement. While Labor supports the bill, we do, however, remain concerned that the government still has not taken any action on urban water infrastructure. A national water plan that leaves out 17 million water users must be considered to be lacking in foresight.
The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for infrastructure and water announced Labor’s Water Security Plan for Towns and Cities earlier this year. Labor has taken a pragmatic approach to addressing the impact of the water crisis in our towns and cities. I recall when I was shadow minister for urban development I spoke with some of the local mayors in my electorate. I asked what were the challenges facing their local councils. Without exception they commented on the need for renewal of infrastructure, particularly the replacement of water and sewage pipes. Canterbury, Hurstville and Bankstown are all long-established communities with infrastructure to support populations living on quarter acre blocks. Today, decades later, that infrastructure is called on to support hugely increasing populations, with sometimes hundreds of people living in units and villas. These take up the space of three to four traditional quarter acre blocks supporting 12 to 15 people. The original pipe work, stormwater systems and drains are old and decaying, yet the cost of replacement infrastructure is well beyond any local council budget.
Australia has around 175,000 kilometres of water mains. Each year, 10 per cent of water is lost from urban water systems in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth alone. The National Water Commission has said that up to 30 per cent of water in water mains can be lost through leaks and burst pipes. Labor has proposed that in government it would invest in urban and rural water projects to secure our future water supply, fix leaky pipes and ensure that 30 per cent of water is recycled nationally by 2015. We would do this by working in partnership with government and local water authorities to minimise water loss; investing in modern, more efficient water infrastructure and, where appropriate, refurbishing older pipes and water systems; and providing funding for practical projects to save water.
Labor has proposed a Major Cities program that envisages a renewed role for the Commonwealth in our cities in the provision of transport, energy and communications as well as water infrastructure. This is just one aspect of the many proposals Labor has put for tackling climate change and its related manifestations. More broadly, Labor has been disappointed in the government’s lack of action in implementing the National Water Initiative, which we supported. Labor has called for Commonwealth leadership on water, the appointment of a Commonwealth minister for water, the creation of a single Commonwealth water authority, the commitment of more funds for water management and efficiency programs across Australia, the development of water trading and economic instruments to drive reform and the existing $2 billion Australian water fund to be used on practical projects. The government has to date articulated broad principles around allocating water for the environment, restoring flows to stressed rivers and water quality objectives; yet these remain general and unspecific, the current bill excepted. We must have clearer national goals, targets and benchmarks in river health, water recycling and water quality.
In 1991, the year after I entered this parliament, I spoke in a grievance debate about the quality of Labor’s vision for the future. I stated that I joined the Labor Party because it was the party of social justice and equity and of vision. I reiterate my words because they still ring true and have pertinence to this debate:
A close look at the history books will reveal that the Labor Party, at Federal and State levels, has been the party which has had the courage to make visionary decisions. The Snowy Mountains River scheme, World Heritage listing of the Franklin River and Kakadu National Park, Medicare, the provision of legal aid, the Opera House, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, greater access to higher education and the better incomes and retirement policy are but some of Labor’s initiatives. They are now recognised as great achievements yet were, and in some instances still are, bitterly opposed by our conservative opponents.
Only Labor has the vision and the commitment to establish the necessary projects, benchmarks and goals to ensure that this country deals with the reality of climate change. What we have proposed deals with the issue at an international level, a national level and down to the local level. It is disappointing that the National Water Initiative that was agreed to and signed at the 25 June meeting of COAG was not implemented. Australia needs a national initiative to deal with the water crisis we are facing, not just a reaction to the Murray-Darling Basin. This agreement included objectives, outcomes and agreed actions to be undertaken by governments across eight interrelated elements of water management: water access entitlements and planning framework; water markets and trading; best practice water pricing; integrated management of water for environmental and other public benefit outcomes; water resource accounting; urban water reform; knowledge and capacity building; and community partnerships and adjustment.
I commend the second reading amendment proposed by the member for Grayndler to the House which importantly notes the need to ensure the full implementation of the National Water Initiative principles agreed to in 2004. Finally, it is important to point out that, if a federal Labor government were elected, I think it would be better placed in relation to projects such as this to work cooperatively with the state and territory Labor governments. We would have a genuine partnership rather than a hectoring and lecturing federal government that tries to ride over the states.
Lap dogs.
The minister at the table continues to interject. I think the electors of Dickson will fix him up at the next federal election. He has already had one career change. There was a change in technology in his former profession. You have videorecording of interviews with suspects, which I think get away from some of those—
Order! I remind the member for Banks to come back to the topic, please.
more awful practices that members of his former profession practised, using telephone books. I just say this—
You hate police. You’ve said it before in this place. You hate police.
The minister uses a verbal. I challenge the minister. He has made the interjection, which I will not repeat and which I find offensive. Mr Deputy Speaker, through you, I challenge the minister to produce one word of what he uttered—the filthy verbal that he just uttered—in relation to me and my attitude to police, because it is not on the public record. I am entitled to correct the record. He cannot produce it. He should shut up and let me get on with my speech.
The matter before the House is supported by the opposition, but I say that Labor is better placed to do a better job. The government have run out of steam. The way they have conducted themselves in relation to these matters shows that they are only interested in bullyboy tactics. They are playing the man in each instance. It is all with an eye to politics. I suggest that the Australian people and the community will be better placed with a federal Labor government implementing plans such as this.
Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, like your good self and our mate sitting next to me, the member for Port Adelaide, I am not intending to recontest the rapidly forthcoming election, so I want to take the opportunity of the Water Bill 2007 to make a few valedictory remarks as we approach the date of the federal election. There were some people unkind enough to suggest that, given that there is a water debate, I might take the opportunity to pass a bit of water, but I assured them that my liver is in fairly good form; so, by and large, I intend to be fairly generous in my remarks.
I think all members understand that it is an honour to serve the Australian people and constituents in the national parliament. That is certainly how I have felt since 1996 when I arrived in this parliament to take over from my friend a former minister, Alan Griffiths, in the electorate of Maribyrnong. Prior to that, as you know, I served in the Victorian state parliament. 1996 was not a great year for members of the Australian Labor Party to arrive in this federal parliament; nonetheless, I have thoroughly enjoyed it and hope I have made some modest contribution to the life of this parliament, albeit as a member of the opposition.
I particularly found valuable the work that members, including me, do on a variety of committees—certainly in this parliament, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; with the minister at the table in earlier parliaments, the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission; the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities; the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation; the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; and the Privileges Committee—and, for one particular term in the parliament, I was also an Opposition Whip. For the bulk of the life of this particular parliament, I have had the honour and privilege to have been the opposition spokesperson in areas of policy that I regard as extremely important, which include our relationship with our Pacific neighbours and overseas aid issues. I will say a little bit more about that if time permits during this contribution.
All members of parliament, including me, rely very heavily on other people. I thought it was appropriate on this occasion to acknowledge a number of people, particularly the significant number of electorate staff members whose services have been provided to me: Jan Chantry, Peter Zabrdac, Ange Kenos, Leonie Nardo, Dave Peebles, Sue Cant and, in earlier manifestations, Carol Sewart and the ever-colourful Robert Mammarella. Of course, there are many volunteers, many fine people, who have made a substantial contribution to my time in parliament—Rod Holesgrove in particular, whom I want to single out in acknowledgement of his excellent services.
As members, I think we all significantly appreciate the support we get from the staff of this parliament. There is a multitude of staff: committee staff, clerks, drivers and attendants. There are two that I want to make particular reference to: one is my friend up there in the box, Lupco Jonceski, who has tried over time to improve my capacity in the Macedonian language. I think Lupco was mistaken about my talents in that respect, because I am probably the only person in this parliament who has ever spoken the Macedonian language in the chamber, and that was on the occasion of the tragic death, by plane accident, of the former President of that country. I probably misled Lupco in that process. I also want to particularly acknowledge Ian Harris, the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Ian and I go back a long way. Ian and I joined the Commonwealth Public Service on the same day in 1971 and, needless to say, he has had a significantly more distinguished career than I. He does an excellent job indeed.
Of course it would be absolutely inappropriate to not mention others who provide fantastic support—my immediate family: my wife, Carmen; my children, Nadine and Rory; my daughter-in-law, Melissa; and two wonderfully time-consuming but delightful grandchildren that we have now acquired, Harper and Milla. They make political life and some of the contingencies and difficulties of political life somewhat more bearable.
It has been a very great honour to serve the electorate of Maribyrnong. I am very grateful for the extensive support I have had within that electorate. Maribyrnong is an interesting electorate. I am continually impressed by the significant number of people who want to make a difference to the life of the community by contributing. It is also an extraordinarily culturally and socially diverse electorate. There are probably in excess of 100 different cultural groups in the electorate. It is rich and diverse.
I particularly enjoyed working in that part of Melbourne with organisations that are interested in building bridges. I want to single out a few—which is always difficult but there are a few—that I think ought to be mentioned. One particular organisation, the Vojvodina Club, is a club of people from the former Yugoslavia led by Rada and her husband, John Ovuka. Given the tragedies of the former Yugoslavia, particularly in the 1990s, it is great to be able to work with an organisation that is not interested in dividing people; it is interested in uniting them. This is an organisation that is particularly impressive in involving people from almost all the nationalities of the old Yugoslavia. There are the Maltese soccer clubs George Cross and Green Gully—fine organisations. Whilst they have a Maltese heart they bring together people from that rich mosaic of cultures that are the western suburbs of Melbourne. The Italian Community of Keilor Association is another fine organisation.
My interest in interethnic and interfaith communication and dialogue was reflected in some modest way in this place when I was able, a few years ago, to co-sponsor, along with the member for Farrer from the other side of the chamber, the first Ramadan event held in the federal parliament, as an exercise in promoting interfaith connections between Australians of different backgrounds.
I have enjoyed working with organisations like the Keilor East RSL in my electorate. That is a particularly fine organisation that just last weekend hosted a fantastic function to honour Australian peacekeepers—a growing and important component of our veteran community and one that perhaps sometimes does not get the attention and acknowledgement it deserves. I also take this opportunity to refer to another organisation in the electorate with which I have a particularly strong emotional bond, and that is the Holloway Aged Care Services. I have a particular emotional bond with that organisation because it is named after my maternal grandmother. It is therefore an organisation that I have a particularly strong feeling for.
The debate on the Water Bill really reflects the increasing importance in Australia of a sustainable environmental and economic future. In this election year, those issues are clearly going to become much more important in the debate. I am very confident that, under the superb leadership of Kevin Rudd, Australia will have presented to it real and vibrant alternatives to achieve those outcomes for the benefit of all Australians.
My main interest, however, over recent times in this parliament has been our own immediate region—the Pacific and particularly Melanesia. It is a region of substantial challenges—challenges of achieving sustainable development, challenges of integrating the region into global development and challenges in relation to social and health indicators. Just last week I had the opportunity to spend the best part of a fortnight in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. I took the opportunity in the Solomon Islands to meet a very wide range of people associated with the Solomon Islands government—in particular Prime Minister Sogavare—and RAMSI. I took that opportunity to reinforce to the Prime Minister and a number of his officials the important elements of the bipartisanship that has characterised the broad thrust of the Australian approach to the RAMSI operation. In fact, I reminded him that the principal criticism to date that this side of parliament has made of the present government in relation to RAMSI is that it took them three years too long to get off their backsides and respond to the pressing needs of the Solomon Islands and to provide support. I emphasised to the Prime Minister the importance of a prompt resolution of outstanding issues in relation to Julian Moti.
I did reinforce that, if there is a change of government in Australia as we hope, whilst the substance of those issues is likely to be still vigorously taken up by an incoming Australian Labor government, they can expect the style to move away from the megaphone diplomacy, the overhyped reaction and the failure to engage on a genuine basis with regional leaders, which has really underpinned more than anything else the failings of this government’s policies in the Pacific and has really made Australia’s strategic position in the region increasingly difficult. In my view, substantial issues of style, a failure to engage and a perception of arrogance underpin these sorts of problems, but there are ways forward. A fresh start in dealings with the region, particularly with Melanesia, presents an outstanding opportunity and a movement away from the sorts of counterproductive actions that are regularly taken by the Australian government. We do have poisonous relationships in the region. That is not in Australia’s interests, and it is certainly not in the interests of our neighbourhood.
I came across a particularly silly example of how this poison is in fact exacerbated. I had some discussions about what is called the ‘fifth freedom rights’ for Solomon Airlines. Solomon Airlines wants to fly to Brisbane via Vanuatu. There is no reason on earth that affects any Australian interest why that ought not to occur, but for some reason the Australian government—presumably to tighten the noose—has decided to decline that permission. In the process, the Australian government is dramatically undermining the commercial viability of the airline at a time when Australia has an interest in viable civil aviation in the region. More to the point, it is actually significantly damaging Australian commercial interests that have a stake in the successful operations of that airline. We have a case here of politics by hissy fit by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the way he conducts his relationships in the region and contributes to the poison in the relationships.
I also had the opportunity to go to Papua New Guinea. It is a particularly fascinating time for that country, given the immense majority that the Grand Chief, Sir Michael Somare, amassed in the PNG parliament in his election yesterday as Prime Minister. Once again, there are real challenges in this crucial relationship, which is so important to Australia and its strategic interests. We had a case study just the other day of our foreign minister’s diplomatic success, when he provoked the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea to tell him to ‘go to hell’. That shows the high regard in which our foreign minister’s diplomacy is held in Port Moresby. It is indicative, once again, of a fairly poisonous relationship. We need a circuit-breaker in that relationship. We need a new administration in Australia to tackle the issues productively, not counterproductively as the present Australian government insists on doing.
There are crucial issues in the Pacific that require the vigour and vision that a Rudd Labor government will bring to them. In this context, I want to pay particular tribute to the absolutely seminal work carried out by the late Senator Peter Cook, who, in 2003, chaired a Senate committee that set the strategic framework for the development over time of a Pacific economic and political community. This community would enable some of the core challenges of the region to be undertaken in a spirit of genuine partnership and genuine engagement. Those challenges include the extraordinary environmental challenges of the region: the rising sea levels, and the impacts on whole countries, such as Tuvalu and Kiribati, of those rising sea levels; the effects of coral bleaching; and other things that are impacted by climate change.
There is an opportunity to deal with the key challenges of the youth bulge, particularly in Melanesia, where substantially increased numbers of alienated young people are very much at the heart of so much of the social tension. There is an opportunity for Australia to consider some serious programs designed to provide opportunities on a cooperative basis for those young people, such as those that New Zealand has just implemented. There are challenges of sustainable development, including taking forward Labor’s concept of establishing a Pacific Development Trust. The vision that a Rudd government will bring to bear on this gives me great inspiration for the future. I look forward to that event occurring later this year, in Australia’s interests as well as the region’s interests.
Australian foreign policy is not just about the Pacific; it is about a range of other issues as well. One of the great benefits I have had as a member of parliament has been a limited engagement with some aspects of that from opposition. However, I think we need as a parliament—across the board but particularly in the context of a new government, hopefully—to re-engage much more effectively at the multilateral level. We need to take the United Nations much more seriously. We need to look at a range of other multilateral institutions, including in our own region—the Pacific Islands Forum, for example. We also need to look more seriously at the opportunities that the Commonwealth presents.
We need to be cognisant of the opportunities that arise from the growth of China as an increasingly important power in the region and indeed the world. It is now Australia’s major trading partner. As a humble backbencher, I have had some opportunities for very limited connections there. I was invited in May this year to deliver a lecture at Beijing university, for example. I have had a longstanding association with China, particularly through Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the National People’s Congress and No. 2 in the hierarchy. As a somewhat younger man, I escorted him when he visited Australia as a party official from Shanghai.
I have also had opportunities to have some limited engagement in Middle East issues. Once again, these are crucial issues for Australia to take an active interest in. One of the spin-offs of having been a member of the Australian National University Council is that I have served for a number of years on the board of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the ANU, which is the premier body in Australia for teaching and research in Middle Eastern studies. Through that process it has some opportunity to make a contribution, particularly in the development of Australia’s relationship to the Gulf States and, perhaps on a more difficult basis, to promote some limited second-track diplomatic efforts in relation to Iran. Australia is one of the Western countries that continues to have reasonably normal diplomatic relations with Iran. On a second-track basis, there are some opportunities for us to play a useful role.
I referred earlier to former Yugoslavs in my electorate. I must say that I have been quite impressed with the limited niche opportunities that come up from time to time for Australia to play an honest broker role in south-eastern Europe. One place where that has occurred—and it happened in part under a former Liberal Party member of the national parliament, Jim Short—is Cyprus. It seems to me that, in relation to south-eastern Europe, there may well be interesting opportunities for Australian diplomacy to supply good officers to provide some capacity to assist in the resolution of issues there. That would enhance our international prestige in the process. But, on the basis that this country has significant populations whose cultural roots go back to those areas—as is the case with Cyprus—and that people in Australia have a capacity to live in peace amongst themselves, Australia, with no axe to grind, can play a very useful role.
I come back to the point that it is in our dealings with our own region that we need to make dramatic improvements. I believe that, ultimately, the circuit-breaker that can be provided to enhance Australia’s strategic dealings in that region will come about from the election of a Rudd government. I look forward to that day with great anticipation.
The Water Bill 2007, before the House, is a quantum leap into the future compared to the current lowest common denominator approach to decision making on water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Water Bill and the National Plan for Water Security will accelerate the 2004 National Water Initiative, which was signed by all Australian governments. The bill implements reform of governance in the Murray-Darling Basin through the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This is an enormous step forward from the current governance model, which has remained largely unchanged since 1915 and requires the agreement of all basin jurisdictions before anything can be done. Through this bill, for the first time in the basin’s history, one basin-wide institution accountable to the government will be responsible for planning the basin’s water resources. It will be expert and it will be independent. For the first time, the governance of the basin will reflect the hydrology of the basin—one interconnected system managed for the first time in our history in the national interest.
The reforms in the bill will establish consistent rules for water charging and an efficient operation of the water market. There will be a Commonwealth environmental water holder established to be the custodian of water access entitlements and, under the bill, the Bureau of Meteorology will collect up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information on water use and availability across Australia. Investment in metering and monitoring has been overlooked for far too long. You cannot manage what you do not measure, and we will set that right with this bill.
I want to address a number of the issues that were raised in the course of the debate. I thank all honourable members for their contributions, but I have to correct a number of the misconceptions that apparently the members of the opposition are labouring under. The first is the criticism that the bill has been developed without adequate consultation. You only have to read the testimony given in the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts inquiry last Friday to see how much consultation was had. We have had countless meetings with the states, with water ministers and their officials, with stakeholders, with irrigators and with farming organisations. Their comments, suggestions and input have been introduced into the bill. It is a genuinely collaborative work, and I want to thank all of the stakeholders, the three states that have played such a constructive role—Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia—and of course the farming organisations, in particular through their peak body, the NFF. If I may invidiously single out one person from the NFF who has made an enormous contribution to that, it is Laurie Arthur.
The member for Grayndler made a number of observations which I say without any rancour reflect a misunderstanding of the legislation. He suggested that clause 77, which talks about risk sharing in the bill reflecting the obligations or the commitments under the NWI, amounted to compulsory acquisition. The fact is that compulsory acquisition is ruled out in this bill. It is not part of the government’s policy, and we have made it express in the legislation that there is no power for compulsory acquisition. However, a central plank of the reforms under the National Water Initiative was to move from the old system of volumetric licences to water access entitlements that are a perpetual or ongoing share of the available resource.
If the amount of water available in the future is reduced—and this is canvassed and contemplated in the NWI as a possibility—a risk-sharing formula applies to spread those risks between water users, the states and the Commonwealth. The bill achieves the codification of the Commonwealth’s NWI responsibilities for risk sharing. That is not acquisition. The legal status of water entitlements is not affected. Importantly, through these arrangements, the government is meeting its NWI commitments. These arrangements have been agreed to by all governments and are supported by farming organisations and farmers around Australia and have been ever since 2004. So, with respect to the member for Grayndler, he misunderstands the nature of the legislation and indeed the National Water Initiative itself.
The other criticism, which was made by the member for Kingsford Smith, was that the bill does not address climate change. That is one of the most absurd comments that has been made on this legislation. This bill is all about meeting the prospect of greater water scarcity in the future. This bill is an exercise in adaptation to climate change. What is one of the most significant likely impacts of climate change in Australia? A drier and hotter future. What will that mean? Less rainfall and less run-off, so less water. What does this bill do; what does the National Plan for Water Security do? They enable us to make every drop count. They enable us to use water efficiently and ensure that we can adapt to climate change. This is the largest national-scale program of adaptation to water scarcity that I am aware of anywhere in the world, and to describe it as not responding to climate change is absurd. That is the exact reverse of what the bill seeks to do. This is all about recognising the prospect of hotter and drier times and being able to meet them.
This bill is the first of its kind in 106 years. This is the first time the Commonwealth parliament has sought to take charge of the management of our largest connected system of surface water and groundwater in the national interest. I quoted Alfred Deakin in my second reading speech, saying that it is a necessary consequence of reforms that have gone before—and of course it is. It is a necessary consequence of the times we live in. No matter how much the Labor Party grind their teeth and how much they object to recognising it, the simple truth is that it was John Howard and the Howard government that had the courage to take this challenge of managing the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin out of the too-hard basket where it had languished for more than a century and have sought to deal with it in a way that will ensure this great system of waters above the ground and below the ground—which are all connected—will be managed for the first time in the national interest. The reforms in the bill are needed to meet the future challenges facing water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. We need these reforms to ensure the viability of our water dependent industries, to ensure healthy and vibrant communities and to ensure the sustainability of the basin’s natural environment.
I again want to thank and repeat my thanks to everybody who has contributed to this debate, for the efforts of the states which have supported this exercise and to the irrigators, environmentalists and many stakeholders who have helped to deliver a bill that will deliver great benefits to the basin. Officials from the Commonwealth have worked tirelessly and been supported by officials from the states. They have made an enormous contribution to this legislation and, in many respects, it is as much their work as it is the work of those of us who are legislating here tonight. Finally, I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for their important contribution through their report, which was delivered today. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (Automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (Limit on business after 9.30 p.m.) be suspended for this sitting and that debate on the question—that the House do now adjourn—continue for a period not exceeding 30 minutes after the motion for the adjournment of the House is moved.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed.
The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question put.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) to (26), as circulated, together:
(1) Clause 77, page 94 (line 13), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(2) Clause 77, page 94 (line 15), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(3) Clause 77, page 94 (line 17), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(4) Clause 77, page 94 (lines 21 and 22), omit “or issue”, substitute “, issue or authorisation”.
(5) Clause 77, page 94 (line 23), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(6) Clause 77, page 94 (line 24), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(7) Clause 77, page 96 (line 33), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(8) Clause 77, page 97 (line 1), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(9) Clause 77, page 97 (line 3), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(10) Clause 77, page 97 (line 5), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(11) Clause 77, page 97 (line 6), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(12) Clause 77, page 97 (line 7), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(13) Clause 77, page 97 (line 9), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(14) Clause 83, page 101 (line 14), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(15) Clause 83, page 101 (line 16), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(16) Clause 83, page 101 (line 18), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(17) Clause 83, page 101 (lines 22 and 23), omit “or issue”, substitute “, issue or authorisation”.
(18) Clause 83, page 101 (line 24), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(19) Clause 83, page 101 (line 25), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(20) Clause 83, page 104 (line 9), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(21) Clause 83, page 104 (line 10), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(22) Clause 83, page 104 (line 12), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(23) Clause 83, page 104 (line 14), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(24) Clause 83, page 104 (line 15), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(25) Clause 83, page 104 (line 16), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
(26) Clause 83, page 104 (line 18), omit “or issued”, substitute “, issued or authorised”.
It is significant that the government is compelled to move amendments to its own legislation the day after it moved the bill. I think that shows that it was very worth while to have the Senate inquiry. Indeed, I, along with the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, would join in expressing thanks to those organisations which made submissions to the Senate inquiry. I think that improvements can come from greater participation. In summing up the second reading debate the minister made a number of comments, one of which was the suggestion that the opposition had complained about there being no consultation. It is certainly the case that there was extensive consultation on the Water Bill 2007. However, it is also the case that, when it came to the final product of the bill, the opposition was briefed only the day before it came into the parliament, and the states and territories were not given copies of the final bill. We are here debating this legislation but we do not have, nor do any of the states have, the intergovernmental agreement. It is quite clear that the IGA will play a critical role when it comes to the actual implementation of the national water plan.
Labor has supported this bill and we do support these minor technical amendments, but we do think that this is very much a second-best solution compared with what we should have done. The minister I do not think adequately addressed in his summing-up the statement made by the opposition as to the workings of section 77 and how that relates to compulsory acquisition. With due respect to the minister, we do think that is a distinction without a difference that is being drawn when it comes to the practical implementation of that.
We are also concerned about the risk-sharing arrangements with the states. We do not believe the states should carry more risk than was agreed to with the Prime Minister at the discussions that took place as far back as March. Those changes are perhaps a very good example of where the minister says there was consultation, but agreements have not been adhered to that were made between the state governments—in particular, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia—with the Commonwealth. We think that is regrettable.
We do think it is regrettable that we will have both a Murray-Darling Basin Authority and a Murray-Darling Basin Commission. I think that will lead to layers of bureaucracy which will create some confusion out there, because you will have, of course, an authority setting in place the macro water management issues, if you like, but another body—the commission; indeed, in conjunction with the states—actually carrying out the implementation. That is why we certainly think that it is regrettable that we did not have the original idea behind the package of a truly streamlined national approach to these issues.
I will leave my comments there in the interests of time. I certainly believe that this legislation will have to be revisited and improved—and I hope it is done in a way which, as this bill does, makes an important step towards a national approach to the Murray-Darling Basin. I would like to be in here again in a different capacity early next year moving legislation suggesting a truly national approach in cooperation with the states.
I would just like to place on the public record that I oppose this legislation. I will not be attempting to divide the House. Anybody who is interested in my reasons for opposition might refer to my speech in the second reading debate earlier today.
I will just respond to the member for Grayndler’s comments about risk assignment. He has expressed a concern that the Commonwealth has withdrawn its undertaking to assume the states’ responsibilities for liabilities from allocations reduced by reason of changes in knowledge. The offer to take on those responsibilities was always on the basis of a full referral of powers from all basin states. That was always the context in which it was made. It was made because under what we could call the comprehensive water bill, which would have been based on referrals from four states, the Commonwealth would have had a very high degree of control and management over the waters of the basin. Under this legislation, while it is an enormous step forward and achieves much of what had been contemplated under the comprehensive bill, it does not go that far. Until the Commonwealth has full control, it is not reasonable that it would have a full liability. But once all four states have referred their powers then that commitment will be fulfilled.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 8 August, on motion by Mr Turnbull:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
When the Prime Minister says that Australian working families have never been better off, he must be looking at the view from his rent-free home at Kirribilli House, because the reality on the ground in Western Sydney is a long way from the rosy picture of Australian families living the dream of homeownership behind the white picket fence. For many that dream has become a nightmare. After nine interest rate rises and falling property values, many Western Sydney residents who took out mortgages during this government’s time in office are feeling the pinch. If they took the Liberal Party’s commitment at the 2004 election to keep interest rates at record lows, they were gravely misled. And, while the Prime Minister tries to distance himself from that promise, he is not fooling anyone. Even his own backbenchers still have the guts, or should I say the hide, to repeat that promise. Only last week, the member for Macquarie, a member who should know what is happening on the ground in Western Sydney, repeated that promise. In the matter of public importance discussion on 8 August the member for Macquarie told the House:
The promise that we would keep interest rates at record lows still stands.
However the member for Macquarie defines ‘record lows’, he cannot get around the fact that Australia has one of the highest levels of interest rates in the developed world, and he cannot get away from the fact that thousands of working families in Western Sydney are suffering from mortgage stress. What we are seeing is forced sales of homes. Forced sales of homes in Western Sydney is really just the tip of the iceberg. Many working families have seen the crunch coming and sold up while they still have some equity left in their home. Thousands of others have postponed or even given up their dream of homeownership and will look to the rental market to provide their home for years to come. The effect of that has been to drive up rents and to leave more and more families suffering rental stress. The effect of this in the Fowler electorate is very devastating. Fowler has one of the highest rates of rental housing in the country. For many years it has provided affordable private rental accommodation for new arrivals to Australia, but this government does not want to know about the problems faced by people setting out to establish their families in affordable housing.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, and the next Prime Minister of this great country of Australia, announced Labor’s National Rental Affordability Scheme, giving 50,000 low- and middle-income families a 20 per cent rent cut, but the government does not even admit there is a problem. Instead of fresh thinking all we get from this government are stunts and gimmicks. They will not do a thing to ease the pressure on working families.
Two years ago the Prime Minister was telling us that no-one has ever complained to him about the rising value of their home. But to a generation of young Australians those rising values have locked them out of the housing market. As interest rates rise, homeownership has never been so far beyond the reach of many working families. Whether you rent or buy, housing costs now eat up more of the household budget than at any time in living memory, and all the Prime Minister can do is blame the states. It is not his fault. He only takes the credit when things go well, but he is like a used car salesman when things go wrong. He did not have his signature on the guarantee. When the promise to keep interest rates low was made, it was not he but the Liberal Party. Someone should tell the member for Macquarie, and the Prime Minister should check the Liberal Party’s website. He might notice that he is still the leader of the Liberal Party. (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the opportunity householders have to make a significant contribution to water and energy conservation in their homes, a much different view to the view of the Western Australian state Labor government as expressed recently by the Minister for the Environment, David Templeman. His view was that householders ought to tear out their lawns and gardens and put pebbles, pavers or other such measures in place. I believe that it is possible to retain a comfortable domestic home environment that allows for lawns and gardens and retains the home’s amenity in a way that meets the needs of the occupants. There are a great many people living in the electorate of Hasluck who share my view. I have conducted a number of community water forums in my electorate of Hasluck—in High Wycombe, Thornlie and, most recently, in Kalamunda. The focus of these forums has been water and energy efficiency, rainwater harvesting and grey water reuse. Many residents want to know how they can address these issues, what products and systems are available and where to get them. I take this opportunity to thank the Master Plumbers Association and Tradelink Environmental Solutions for their expert contributions to these forums.
Given my own years serving the plumbing industry, I have become a strong advocate for the reuse of grey water and the use of solar water heating systems. Earlier this year I wrote to the Prime Minister advocating that the government should give serious consideration to actively supporting and providing incentives to support both these measures. I was very pleased when the Prime Minister recently announced further incentives to encourage householders to choose solar water heaters over electrical water heaters by providing a Commonwealth rebate of $1,000 on the purchase of a solar system, reducing greenhouses gases from those households that choose to take up this opportunity by up to five tonnes per annum, potentially reducing greenhouse gases across the program and across Australia by 1.225 million tonnes. Kalamunda residents and others in the electorate have expressed a great deal of interest in these measures.
These forums also discussed the great potential grey water reuse systems have to save water. It is evident that a lot of households would like the opportunity to use grey water to maintain and preserve their lawns and gardens. A great many people love their lawns and gardens. It is a primary recreational opportunity for many, and many take great pride in their gardens and get great enjoyment from working in them. Mr Templeman’s suggestion that they rip them out would be most unpalatable. If state and local governments stopped making the use of grey water so difficult, such drastic measures would not be necessary. After all, these householders have already paid to use this water. Why should they be prevented from reusing it? It was interesting to note in today’s Australian the headline ‘Water to be scarcer and dearer’. The article reads:
Every mainland capital city will be forced to find new sources of water in the next decade, with households likely to pay for billions of dollars worth of new infrastructure through substantially higher water bills.
The Water Services Association of Australia reports that all capital cities will have to find new sources of water such as desalination and recycling. An earlier report by this association poured cold water on the idea of grey water recycling, apparently because of potential health and environmental impacts and that such a measure did not save much water anyway. I think they are wrong on all counts. I am aware of work that was done in the early 1990s in Perth that demonstrated that, with an effective grey water retrofit program, an additional 22 gigalitres of potable water could be created and/or saved. Twenty-two gigalitres is about half the potable water produced by the new desalination plant in WA. Its capacity is 45 gigalitres and cost some $400 million. On top of that you have significant energy costs in terms of greenhouse gases plus some threat to the marine environment. The sophistication of grey water systems has improved greatly and, coupled with appropriate management strategies, threats to health and the environment are negligible. The community forums I have conducted to date have been well attended. The community wants to have—and needs to have—information on all the options available to them and to have a choice.
I rise tonight to support the nomination of Newcastle’s Coal River Heritage Park to the National Heritage Register, and to give our region’s thanks to all those who are working so hard to preserve and promote our unique history. Particularly I would like to mention the dedication of the Coal River Working Party, a research group of staff, commercial and community members based at the University of Newcastle, which submitted the National Heritage nomination for the Coal River precinct.
It is often an uphill battle to get recognition for the role the Newcastle region played in our nation’s history. This battle was exemplified when we were lobbying over the past couple of years to have the Coal River Heritage Park included in a serial World Heritage nomination for convict sites around Australia. Despite Newcastle being the first site of secondary penal punishment and the birthplace of our nation’s coal industry, and despite our constant badgering of the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Newcastle was unfortunately excluded from that World Heritage nomination.
Earlier this month, the list of sites was announced, including areas of the Old Great North Road from Sydney to Newcastle. Despite my disappointment that the Coal River site was not among the final nominations, I wish that serial nomination every success and hope that the eight important sites that were chosen make it onto the World Heritage List. Showing typical Newcastle fighting spirit, however, our local advocates have pressed on with a nomination for the Coal River site to be included on the National Heritage List and it is that nomination that I would like to offer my full support to tonight.
The Coal River Heritage Park is the birthplace of Australia’s coalmining industry and marks the site of the discovery of coal and the first coalmining undertaken in the southern hemisphere. Research undertaken by the Coal River Working Party in 2005 proved the existence of the first coalmine through video and photographic evidence of the continued survival of the first adits beneath the concrete ramparts of Fort Scratchley. In terms of uniqueness the coalmines at Signal Hill, located, surveyed and photographed in 2005, are by far Australia’s oldest surviving mining heritage. No similar workings whether by convict or free labour survived from the first half of the 19th century.
The Coal River heritage precinct is situated on and around the southern headland of the Port of Newcastle comprising landmarks now well known around the world, such as Nobbys Headland, Macquarie Pier, Fort Scratchley, Signal Hill and the Convict Lumber Yard. These places all have special significance and they gained national exposure in June when the Pasha Bulker, a coal ship, ran aground on, and then was salvaged from, Nobbys Beach. That this huge coal ship came to grief fair in the middle of this heritage precinct really does deserve special comment.
Firstly, a great debt of thanks is owed to the emergency crews and salvors who were able to free the ship without causing environmental damage. Secondly, it demonstrates the significance of the Coal River site today in that an industry begun by convicts over 200 years ago is still being conducted in and around the immediate area. Indeed, looking back further, historians have noted that the local Awabakal people, the Indigenous people of the area, are the only Indigenous people recorded to have utilised coal for fuel, and that the area was a significant industrial and trading centre long before Europeans arrived.
So our industries have changed—and they continue to change with our focus now on high-tech clean coal—and it is highly significant that they are still carried out right in our city among our people. The Coal River Heritage Park is indeed a place of living history. Its distinctive and attractive natural landscapes are coupled with historic sites and archaeological remains. It is in the heart of our city and so remains accessible and, with good management, preservable.
Related to its significance to the coal industry, the precinct also tells the story of the economic development of Newcastle. With convict and later free labour, we established the colony’s first export industry in coal, while the site was also of great importance in commerce and developing other resources for the colony such as timber, salt and lime. As in the energy area, we are now extending ourselves into innovative industries such as aerospace, high-end manufacturing and engineering. On the issue of how the site represents our convict history, I would like to quote from the nomination document:
The Coal River Heritage Park represents an important chapter in the history of convictism in Australia indicative of the transition from a punitive convict settlement to a free settlement ... It is emblematic of the shift from punishment to profit, from convict society to civil society through economic and cultural development ... Most convict sites are no longer living sites, whereas the Coal River Heritage Park makes tangible the links between convict industry, subsequent development, and the present-day.
The nomination document is a fascinating read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in history. It is a powerful statement about Newcastle’s heritage and its contribution to our national development. It is this link between our past and the present day which makes this site so important to Newcastle and to the story of our nation. It is for this reason that I fully support the nomination for National Heritage listing.
I rise tonight to discuss the important issue of forestry to my electorate of Braddon and the benefits that the Australian government’s policy has to the forestry issue. It has been estimated that the industry contributes about $1 billion each year to the Tasmanian economy. Wood and wood paper product manufacturing alone account for some 20 per cent of total manufacturing employment, 25 per cent of total manufacturing wages and salaries and 24 per cent of total industry turnover. In 2003-04 total Tasmanian forest fibre production was over 23 per cent of national production and valued at some $381 million. This figure represents an increase of 65 per cent in value since 1997-98. Since 1997, around $1.4 billion has been invested in the industry.
The federal government’s forestry policy and implementation program has been of tremendous importance to the Tasmanian forestry industry, ensuring sustainability and world’s best practice performance. Proudly, it is such a good policy that the Labor government has agreed with all issues, with the only difficulty being their conflict in the commitment of the delivery between the Labor leader and his shadow environment minister.
Overall, Labor’s forestry policy does not deviate greatly from the federal government’s current policy. It identifies very small amounts of additional funding, but these will not go very far to achieving any of the desired outcomes. What the industry wants is security of resource, but the Labor policy does not fully commit to this, as it does not state categorically that Labor will not add any new forest reserves.
The Labor government has two forest management policies. Policy 1 is committing to the existing forest policies, in that it acknowledges that the Australian government’s current forest policy settings are right and the Labor government would continue with them. The second policy, set out in its conference in April 2007, did leave the door open for Labor to dedicate more reserves. Labor’s policy does not close this door, as Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, has not made a firm commitment that there will be no new reserves. In Tasmania, the opposition policy states that under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement the protection of forests and private land is complete, but the private land protection is yet to be fully achieved. The opposition does not indicate that there is additional funding for this, so it is likely that it will just be focusing on the 45,000-hectare target under the forest conservation fund.
When considering building forestry industry skills, the federal government’s Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement had $4 million to support industry skills in Tasmania provided through DEST. There have also been several programs nominated by the forestry industry that have gained funding through programs such as the Regional Partnerships programs. The opposition is only offering some $1 million to establish a new forests and forest products industry skills council. Value-adding to forestry products is also a crucial economic reality for the sector and, under the federal government’s Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement, $56 million has been provided for industry development and has focused on value-adding and improving the efficiency of mills.
Similarly, following the regional forests agreement, some $98.8 million was provided for the forestry industry structural adjustment—for New South Wales, $60 million; for Victoria, $18.8 million; for Queensland, $5 million; and, for Western Australia, $15 million. The opposition is only offering a $9 million forest industries development fund, and this focuses on increased investment in value-adding in the processing sector. However, it has been put forward that this also relies on state governments to match the applicant’s funding. There is no indication that the states have made funding available to support this commitment. Ensuring sustainable timber imports is not a new concept, and there is nothing new in Labor’s commitment that is not included in the policy on illegal logging that Senator Abetz has been developing over the past year other than the required disclosure at point of sale of species, country of origin and any certification. The $1 million identified to achieve this will not go very far, as it is likely to require a regulatory body or the like to collect the information and control imports.
In considering preparing industries for climate change, the federal government has announced $126 million for climate change adaption. But where does Mr Garrett stand? The Conservation Foundation, which Mr Garrett led for a three-year term and is a patron of, stated, after the recent announcement:
The Australian Conservation Foundation has called on the ALP to honour its April national conference commitment to “further protection of identified Tasmanian high-conservation value, old growth forests, rainforests and other ecosystems”.
The list of times when the shadow minister for the environment has stated that old-growth and high conservation value forests across Australia should be immediately protected goes on and on. It throws the whole forestry industry into chaos when one considers that he is the alternative environment minister. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, you would recall that in the last election the Prime Minister spent an absolute fortune in time, resources and taxpayer dollars to convince people that he, John Howard, the Prime Minister, was totally, 100 per cent, responsible for interest rates—that he was the sole driver of interest rates being kept at record lows. Guess what? People believed him. He did a good job; people believed him—so much so that they still believe him today. They still believe that the promise that the Prime Minister made in 2004 stands today. That record stands because members of the government still say today that that commitment stands.
Well, guess what? After nine interest rate rises in a row—five since the last election—people still believe that he is 100 per cent responsible for interest rates. But they are starting to ask the question: if he is 100 per cent responsible for interest rates, why is he making them go up? Why is he making people’s lives so difficult? The Prime Minister promised back in 2004 that he would keep interest rates at record lows, but today they are just going up and up. With the fifth interest rate rise since the Prime Minister made that promise to keep them at record lows, families in the western corridor of Brisbane and Ipswich are suffering more than they have ever suffered before.
But such suffering is not just restricted to people in my electorate; it is right across the whole country. Whether they are in Wentworth, parts of Sydney, Brisbane, Western Australia or Perth—it does not matter where they are—people are genuinely suffering because the Prime Minister promised to keep interest rates low and he did not keep that promise. It is as simple as that. We have had nine interest rate rises in a row, five of which have been since the last election. The problem we have is that the Prime Minister still thinks interest rates are low. But official data says that households are now carrying three times the level of debt that they used to carry about 20 years ago. Three times the level of debt actually means three times the pain and the impact on the ordinary family.
In my local area, the Liberal candidate, who thinks he is quite clever, is reported in a recent newspaper article, when asked about interest rates, as having said: ‘Things are going so well from an economic point of view that it is not even an issue. It will just come down to local little things, maybe post office boxes and a couple of local roads.’ The question is: which planet does he live on? There is nothing more local, more personal or more important to families today than being able to meet their mortgage payments, and the reality is that, under this government, mortgage payments have never been so high as a proportion of income.
I am sure that the economic geniuses in the government will be able to at least work this out: as a proportion of their income, families are now paying more than 30 per cent. Thirty per cent is regarded as the absolute stress point, that breaking point, at which for families there is no going back. Now they are paying more than 30 per cent, and some are paying 50 per cent. It makes you wonder why the Prime Minister would have the gall—some would call it arrogance—to walk into this place and say, ‘Families have never had it so good; they’ve never been better off.’ Maybe he is just talking to the wrong families, maybe he does not care or maybe his promise at the 2004 election to keep interest rates at record lows was just another non-core promise. Say anything, do anything, spend anything—the goal is to get re-elected. It is not about running the country. It is not about having a vision. It is not about the future. It is not about housing affordability. It is not about anything else. It is just about winning government.
That draws me to what is happening now. Some significant events have occurred in the last couple of days, particularly one in relation to the Treasurer’s birthday. The Treasurer always has an answer for everything; he is a very clever guy, just like the Prime Minister. But he was actually stumped on a question for, I think, the first time ever when somebody asked him: ‘What’s your vision for Australia?’ He hesitated. That let people know the truth for just a minute: he actually does not have a vision for Australia. It is just about getting re-elected and becoming the Prime Minister. The Treasurer of this country does not have a vision.
The problem that this country has with housing affordability is that the government just does not care and it does not listen. It is just about winning the next election. To fix a problem, you have to acknowledge that a problem exists. Once you acknowledge that a problem exists, you then have to set about having a plan. You have to have a solution. You have to do something. Labor has a plan. The government just wants to win an election. We have convened a national housing affordability summit, we have committed $500 million to a housing affordability fund to tackle undersupply and we will establish a national housing supply research council, Infrastructure Australia—a statutory body with a cabinet level minister responsible for it. You can do something.
Just in the last couple of days, we have announced a national rental affordability scheme. We want to create 50,000 new affordable rental homes at 20 per cent below market rates. There is something that you can do, but only if you care, only if you believe that a problem exists and only if you actually believe that working families are doing it tough. This Prime Minister and this government do not believe that. (Time expired)
Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, and for related purposes. (Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2007)
to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the reporting and dissemination of information related to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, energy production and energy consumption, and for other purposes. (National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Bill 2007)
to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to defence, and for related purposes. (Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2007)
: to move:
That the House: