|
senate vote 2021-02-16#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-02-19 12:33:21
|
Title
Matters of Urgency — Climate Change: Water- Matters of Urgency - Climate Change: Water - National Party
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 27 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator McKim proposing a matter of urgency was chosen:</p><p class="italic">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p>- The same number of senators voted for and against the [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-02-16.122.2), which means it failed. It was introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens).
- ### Motion text
- > *That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:*
- >
- > *The need for the National Party to be stripped of the federal water portfolio, due to their refusal to accept the science of climate change, particularly in light of the Productivity Commission's draft report into the National Water Reform which found that climate change is threatening Australia's water security, clean drinking water and food supply.*
<p class="italic">The need for the National Party to be stripped of the federal water portfolio, due to their refusal to accept the science of climate change, particularly in light of the Productivity Commission's draft report into the National Water Reform which found that climate change is threatening Australia's water security, clean drinking water and food supply.</p><p>Is the proposal supported?</p><p class="italic"> <i>More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</i></p><p>I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I rise to contribute to this important debate today. Last week the Productivity Commission released an interim report into the National Water Reform. This is a damming assessment of the state of Australia's water supply and water security. But, of course, the Productivity Commission, being the economically conservative body that it is, has taken a very rational approach to what is a looming crisis right here in Australia. The Productivity Commission has nailed the issue: climate change—a warming climate, more extreme weather events and the destruction of our environment—is putting our water at risk within our rivers, our treatments, our water catchments and the water supply for our towns and our cities.</p><p>When the Productivity Commission raises such important issues, you have to turn and wonder who is in charge. We know who is in charge of Australia's federal water policy. It's the National Party. That's because, of course, the deal that was done to form the Morrison government was to ensure that the water portfolio was given to a member of the National Party. Think about this: the party who doesn't accept the climate science and doesn't even believe that we need to do what the science is requiring—to reduce pollution to tackle climate change—is in charge of the very important portfolio that is impacted most by the drying climate. The National Party with their head buried in the sand on climate change—</p><p class="italic">Senator McKenzie interjecting—</p><p>is putting Australia's water supply at risk.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>That's outrageous.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Australia's water security is threatened by climate change, and it is hanging in the balance because of the climate denialism inside the National Party and of those at the helm of Australia's water policy.</p><p>The Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis. It is oversubscribed. The extraction levels are so big that there is not enough water in the system the keep all of the users sustainable. There's not enough water in the system to keep the river flowing from A to B. In fact, we have towns right now in New South Wales, like Wilcannia, that don't have enough water to drink. Of course, this issue gets worse and worse not just because of the drying climate but because of those further upstream who are allowed to siphon off water that would have run into the system when it rained.</p><p>So on one hand we've got climate denialism overarching in the National Party and in this government, and then we've got a corrupt system of mismanagement of the scarce amount of water that is there.</p><p class="italic">Senator McKenzie interjecting—</p><p>We've got cotton farmers in the north harvesting floodwater. Meanwhile towns further downstream don't even have enough clean water to drink, let alone to irrigate crops. I tell you what: you can't eat cotton, and you certainly can't—</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>Senator Hanson-Young, I have Senator Patrick on his feet for a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I'm actually struggling to hear Senator Hanson-Young because of Senator McKenzie's interjections. I ask that you remind—</p><p>Government senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>Thank you, Senator Patrick. I do note that there is a considerable level of noise in the chamber. Please respect Senator Hanson-Young as she finishes her contribution.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>The squawking from this corner of the room—</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>Point of order—</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>A point of order, Senator McKenzie?</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I really think that's poor language from the senator. I think reflecting on another senator by saying they are 'squawking' is unparliamentary.</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>I'll rule on that. The discussion was general. It wasn't at one person, so it is not a point of order on this occasion. Senator Hanson-Young to continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>The National Party over here in this corner are carrying on because they know the truth. They know that there is not enough water in the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure that towns, small farmers and the environment can survive, because they, of course, have allowed their political interests to siphon off, to harvest and to take all of the water so that the rest of us are left with nothing. Now we hear from the Productivity Commission that this is going to be made even worse because of climate change. If we want to get this right, if we want to secure Australia's water supply, we've got to get rid of the Nationals in running this portfolio. If Mr Morrison as Prime Minister is serious about the future of this country, he has to dump the National Party in pulling the strings on Australia's water supply.</p> <p class="speaker">Perin Davey</p><p>The water portfolio—you say it like it's a gift to the Nationals. But the water portfolio is a poisoned chalice. It is the poisoned chalice of all portfolios, because it is the one portfolio in our nation—</p> <p class="speaker">Honourable Senator</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Perin Davey</p><p>Do you Greens want it? That would be great, because the Greens solution is to just add water. That's all the Greens can think about when it comes to managing our environment and managing our waterways: just add water. Miraculously it rains, and Wilcannia's got water. I wish I could make it rain and I wish that we could stop taking water and still feed ourselves and still clothe ourselves. Would that not be good, Senator Patrick? The same can be said for your irrigators, who are fantastic irrigators. South Australian irrigators are very good. New South Wales irrigators are good. We need our irrigation industry. We absolutely need our irrigation industry. It underpins our agricultural production and it underpins our regional communities and our regional economies. And it's these communities and economies that have been absolutely devastated by the 'just add water' approach that the Greens cling to time and time again.</p><p>I want to remind this chamber what our communities have given in the name of the environment, and it goes way back. Let's talk about the early nineties, when communities in Victoria and New South Wales gave up their right to some water in the name of the environment, with the very first environmental water allocation, the Barmah-Millewa forest allocation. They gave that water up with no compensation. Then again, in the late nineties, the cap on diversions was put in place, and again our communities gave up water, with no compensation, in the name of the environment. Fast forward to the 2000s and we got a National Party minister, and good on him—John Anderson did the right thing. He recognised water as a property right. He developed the National Water Initiative, which the Greens are now holding up as the doyen for water reform. Thank you, National Party. If it weren't for the National Party, that water initiative would not have been signed in place, and the Productivity Commission report wouldn't exist. So thank you to the National Party for that. That is not the only reform the National Party have led.</p><p>My colleague and friend Senator Patrick over there doesn't believe that the National Party have taken any steps when it comes to water compliance, and that could not be further from the truth. It was the National Party in New South Wales that implemented the Natural Resources Access Regulator, which is now held up as the compliance cop on the beat in the basin. The National Party has led the way in developing modern telemetric technology to apply to on-farm water storage so that we can measure what we manage when it comes to water. We in New South Wales and Victoria have had telemeters and compliant meters for years, since the early nineties. In fact, in my area of Murray Irrigation, we have had volumetric caps on our entitlements and metered take since the sixties. People down at the south end of the system stand on a soapbox and try to claim purity, when, in their districts, up until two years ago, they were allowed to take water with no water in their account. They were the only jurisdiction left in the Murray-Darling Basin that, even under National Water Initiative compliant entitlement regimes, were allowed to access water when they didn't have it in their account, effectively manipulating the market, going into the market after the fact, when prices were cheaper, instead of, like every other state in basin, having to have a positive account balance. Imagine that—it's like having water on a credit card. It should not happen and, thankfully, South Australia have taken steps to amend that—congratulations to them. But I remind other South Australians who stand on a soapbox and point the finger: don't throw stones in glass houses.</p><p>I also want to remind people that the Greens hold this up and say the Nationals shouldn't have the portfolio because they deny climate change. I've never denied climate change. My colleagues don't deny climate change. But you can't make all policy—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Perin Davey</p><p>But let's look at this. They say that because blaming someone like the Nationals for being denialists is good for their constituents. But their constituents don't bear the brunt of the reforms that have been done over years in the name of the environment. Those regional communities have been put through the wringer and are still living in perpetual uncertainty about what water regime they will be living under and whether there will be enough water remaining in their region to enable effective, efficient and affordable water management. You can't do it alone. Let's talk about the progress of water reform and what it has actually cost. Forget about the cost to the taxpayer; what about the cost to our communities? In the Edward-Wakool system, 50 per cent of their water entitlements have been recovered in the name of the environment. Imagine trying to run a store and being told you're only allowed to put 50 per cent of your stock in that store, but you've still got the same costs and the same overheads. It doesn't work.</p><p>The dairy industry in the Murray region, which includes Victoria, has been decimated by water reforms since the 2000s, and it is ongoing. It has declined by 40 per cent since the turn of this century, during the peak of the water reform frenzy. While our remaining dairy farmers are absolutely pulling their weight and keeping Australian dairy going, there is no doubt that they are in pain. Our rice industry, the most water-efficient rice industry in the world, is on its knees because of the impact on the water market that water reform has had. This is the water market that the Productivity Commission says has significant net benefits. I'm not saying the water market is a bad thing, but look at the cost of reform. We can't keep exporting our problems. We cannot say, 'Just grow rice overseas.' Should we grow rice in Third World countries, which need to feed themselves, or grow rice in countries that use triple the amount of water, which is a precious resource everywhere in the world? Should we grow rice overseas, where they may or may not use child labour, where their chemical regimes are far more questionable than Australia's? No, we've got to take responsibility for our own nation and our own production. I also remind people that rice growing can be turned off and on, so think about that next time you're choosing between rice milk and almond milk when you're ordering your latte. Almonds use more water than rice per hectare every year, without fail. Rice can be grown when it's wet and not grown when it's dry. Rice is the perfect crop for our variable climate.</p><p>Finally, if we want to talk about climate change—seriously, water reform and climate change—let's talk about the Lower Lakes. Let's talk about the impact of rising sea levels on the barrages and the Lower Lakes.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>Take away the dams!</p> <p class="speaker">Wendy Askew</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Perin Davey</p><p>Senator Patrick, if you would like to take away the dams, congratulations; you bring that argument upstream and—</p><p class="italic">Senator Patrick interjecting—</p><p>Senator Patrick, I am not saying got rid of the barrages; I have never said that. What I am saying is that the barrages as they currently exist and operate will be compromised by rising sea levels thanks to climate change. The conversation needs to be had about how we manage the Lower Lakes and the barrages to address that instead of just looking upstream saying, 'Just add more.' It has to stop.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|