|
senate vote 2012-11-21#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-23 15:56:39
|
Title
Bills — Water Amendment (Long-Term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012; in Committee- Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012 - In Committee - Protection of communities
Description
<p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>I move Nationals amendment (1) on sheet 7302:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (after line 35), after section 23B, insert:</p>- The majority rejected an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-11-21.12.1 amendment] moved by Nationals Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Barnaby_Joyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Barnaby Joyce].
- The amendment stated that:
- ''Any reduction in the long-term average sustainable diversion limit for the water resources of a particular water resource plan area may only be achieved through the purchase of water access rights if the purchase of those rights will not cause apparent social or economic detriment to the district in the Murray-Darling Basin from which the water is retrieved.''
- Its purpose is to protect affected communities by ensuring "their economic and social fabric is maintained and that we do not devastate their lives".[1]
- Background to the bill
- The purpose of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4884 bill] is to allow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_Basin_Authority Murray-Darling Basin Authority] to make adjustments to the long-term average sustainable diversion limit set by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.[2] Sustainable diversion limits are the average water quantities that can be taken from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin Murray-Darling basin] sustainably and their aim is to return water to the environment.
- References
- * [1] See Senator Joyce's [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2012-11-21.12.1 contribution] for more information about the amendment.
- * [2] See the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2012262/upload_binary/2012262.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (809KB) for more information on the bill and its purpose.
<p class="italic">23C Achievement of reductions in long-term average sustainable diversion limit</p><p class="italic">  Any reduction in the long-term average sustainable diversion limit for the water resources of a particular water resource plan area may only be achieved through the purchase of water access rights if the purchase of those rights will not cause apparent social or economic detriment to the district in the Murray-Darling Basin from which the water is retrieved.</p><p>We have only put up one amendment, and it goes to the nub of the issue, which is the utmost concern for the 2.2 million people who live in the basin. In respect and in balance to an environmental outcome, we need the triple bottom line to be enshrined in the legislation and definitive. It is vitally important that we recognise that if this goes wrong we do have the capacity as it currently stands to destroy towns, to take away their economic lifeblood so that they collapse.</p><p>As I said in my opening speech, the picture we have in our minds is not even so much of the irrigators; it is of the people who live in a house on a street and who are looking to us to make sure that their economic base is protected. They do not get compensated if this goes wrong. These are people who have paid off their houses, who have done the diligent thing, who have done what the Australian public have asked and moved west to be a mechanic or a schoolteacher or a labourer; they have built their life up in one of these regional towns—and there are 2.2 million of these people. We must make sure that their economic and social fabric is maintained and that we do not devastate their lives, because they have as much right as the environment. I think that the purpose of this parliament is primarily to protect the rights of people, and these people certainly have rights.</p><p>This is a definitive statement of trying to make sure that, in any move you make, you must look at the social and economic outcomes of removing water from that district. There must not be an apparent social detriment. We always know there could be some form of detriment, but it must not be so apparent that it becomes quite obvious that you have affected the social and economic future of that town—whether it is Collarenebri or St George, Berry or Mildura. These people have done what our nation has asked of them and, therefore, we must respect that by dealing with the aspects that are pertinent to the river. We have proved our credentials there by, under the last days of the Howard government, putting $10 billion on the table to try and remedy the environmental outcomes.</p><p>If we want to maintain the respect of the Australian people, we must make sure we protect them from unreasonable social and economic detriment. What this basically says is that we have all these clauses in there about environmental neutrality, about protecting the environment. We have stated over and over again, ad nauseam, about the worth and benefit of the environment. The Australian people, particularly those 2.2 million who live in the basin, are worthy of at least one amendment that definitively spells out their rights, that they are not going to be the casualties of any actions by this government, or a future government, and that they can rely on one clause that says, 'You can’t do that to our town because it is protected within the legislation—it is outside the law—therefore, you must not do it.'</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. There are no details, no criteria, in this. Who is to decide what is detrimental? Where is the detail of how that will be measured? It is not on the table. Senator Joyce has not given that to us at all. He wants us to pass this amendment with no details, no criteria, no nothing while at the same time voting down a very detailed amendment that does set some criteria, at least for the environmental outcomes. I would have been more than happy to have talked about how we determine and measure the detrimental socioeconomic indicators but they are just not there.</p><p>I want to point out one thing in relation to buybacks. We hear rumours that even within the coalition parties there are splits and people will cross the floor because they do not know what impacts the buybacks will have. There is a myth being peddled, particularly by the Nationals but by the coalition broadly, in relation to the impacts that buybacks are having. We know, at least from the public purse perspective, that buybacks are the most efficient way of returning water to the river. Let's remember why we are doing this because more water has been allocated throughout the system than the river can sustain.</p><p>The Australian taxpayer is going through this process of buying back water that should never have been given away in the first place. South Australia uses seven per cent of the entire water in the basin yet we are spending $11 billion to claw back some of the water—just some of the water—that might get us somewhere near to returning the river to health.</p><p>We know that buybacks are four to five times cheaper in terms of their return rate of water. This is public money. I find it astonishing that the coalition does not seem to give two hoots about spending $11 billion on a plan that is not even going to achieve the outcomes. Why is that? Chair, I put to you that perhaps because most of the $11 billion will go to friends of Barnaby Joyce. Friends of Barnaby Joyce will get the $11 billion of money.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>That is a serious misrepresentation. He has no friends!</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Hanson-Young, please refer to senators by the correct title.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I will take that interjection by the minister. Apparently Barnaby Joyce has no friends. Well, he is going to have a lot of friends very soon—$11 billion worth of friends.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Hanson-Young, can you refer to senators by their correct title and, minister, no further interjecting.</p><p>Senator Joyce is going to make a lot of people in the upstream states very, very happy. Eleven billion dollars will be bankrolled out to big irrigators for buying back water that they greedily took when they should not have had access to it in the first place—$11 billion of Australian taxpayers' money.</p><p>Let us look at some of the reaction from those irrigators who have participated in the buyback programs in the past. There was a survey and report done by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities in relation to sellers of water entitlements, called <i>Restoring the Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin Program. </i>Some of the responses of people who have already participated in water buybacks under that program were: 80 per cent of irrigators surveyed said the decision to sell water had been positive for them, including 30 per cent who said the decision had been 'very positive'. This is not doomsday, as the coalition would like to make out. Most of the 158 irrigators who sold their water and exited farming are now working in other employment in that same region—51 per cent are still working in the region—and 35 per cent have retired in that region, so they are still contributing the money they got to that local community.</p><p>Half of the irrigators who sold part of their water entitlement continued farming. So, after selling their water, they are able to continue farming, and they have said it has had no consequences for farm production. Around 30 per cent of irrigators surveyed who had sold all their water on entitlement and continued on the farm said that selling had had no impact on their ability to continue production. Around half of all irrigators who sold water to the Commonwealth did so because they believed they received a higher price for that than they would get selling their water on the market. It is a pretty good deal. It is also the best bang for the buck for the Australian taxpayer.</p><p>The coalition does not give a damn about spending $11 billion and not even getting the environmental outcomes that this plan is meant to achieve. What happens in five years when we are back in drought? We have already spent $11 billion not returning enough water to the river.</p><p>What then? When the impacts of climate change start biting in the southern basin and the water quality north of Adelaide is too salty to feed stock, let alone use domestically—what then? How are we going to get back the water that we need when we have just spent $11 billion not returning enough water but bankrolling Senator Joyce's mates?</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>Well, where does one start? It is a wonderful day: I have just been informed that I have lots of friends—that is a turn up for the books—and I have just found out that I have $11 billion—that is also a new experience! I have to admit that, as perverse as it is, sometimes when people from the Australian Greens get stuck into me it is advertising—very good advertising. So I would like to thank Senator Hanson-Young for her exemplary promotion of the work that I do. But it was an absolutely absurd statement that we have just heard. It was also completely convoluted and confused.</p><p>How on earth can you say that we are talking about a process that would actually limit buybacks? They would have to pass a socioeconomic test of neutrality or, better than that, no detriment. Because there is no detriment, even if I did have these multibillionaire big irrigation mates—and this is like Disneyland—they would not be able to do that with this amendment that I have moved. They would not be able to do it because it would bring detriment to the community and therefore it would not be allowed. So the whole purpose of this is completely at odds with the dissertation that we have just received from Senator Hanson-Young.</p><p>I also find it amazing that, all of a sudden, the Greens have been endowed with financial purity. Where they become financially prudent is when they decide that the frogs are more important than the people. Then, they become pure. When it is actually people who are going to be hurt then they are financial purists. The whole purpose of this from the start was that $5.8 billion was to go to infrastructure because we did not want to destroy communities. But the Greens, by Senator Hanson-Young's own advocacy now, have said, 'No, forget about the people. They don't matter. It is all about the newts, the frogs and the swamps. Let's forget about the people and what this is about.'</p><p>This is a parliament that is supposed to represent, first and foremost, people—the rights of the Australian people and the future of those towns. But the Greens do not care about that. Today, Senator Hanson-Young has become an economic rationalist—an economic rationalist at the expense of the rights of the people who live in the basin. This is not an amendment for irrigators. This is an amendment for the people who live in the brick and tiles in the streets of the town of Mildura, who live in the weatherboard and iron of Dirranbandi, who live in the houses of Berri and who live in the irrigation towns up and down the basin. This is their amendment, not the irrigators' amendment.</p><p>This is the amendment for the vast majority of the people who actually have no right to any compensation, who are never going to be compensated. It is an amendment that talks about social justice, which I thought the Greens, once upon a time, believed in. We now see that their social justice mantra is a ploy that is wheeled out from time to time for purposes that they determine fit. It is not a genuine outcome. I am not surprised in the least by the Australian Greens' position on this. I am disappointed, but surprise at the hypocrisy from the Greens is something that, in this place, we have grown awfully accustomed to.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|