The Albanese Labor Government are shifting the goalposts on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. There’s only 42GL left to complete the water acquisitions across the whole basin, so the pain is almost over and there’s still the 450GL of water for South Australia, which means this doesn’t need to be taken from irrigators. And there’s another 3 years to find that water through capital works.
In this Estimates session I asked whether these last few measures would be the end of the nightmare for Basin communities. I was expecting a yes – instead I got a no.
It seems the bureaucracy and the Albanese Government are hell bent on taking everything for themselves, forcing even more farmers off their land. Their answer certainly sounds like they intend to demand more water for the environment when the plan ends in a few years, starting the nightmare over again.
Landholders, including farmers, just want to know what the government is planning so they can adjust. Clearly the Government does not understand farming to know this, or simply don’t care.
The science underpinning the scheme is flawed, which is unsustainable, hurts farmers, fibre producers and the environment.
One Nation would complete the remainder of this plan and then call it done. No more water to be taken off the farmers. We would also sell the 78GL of water over-purchased by the department back to the farmers, to grow food and fibre to feed and to clothe the world.
Anything else is sabotaging the bush. #nofarmersnofood
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: With all the numbers flying around, I feel confused sometimes; things don’t seem to change. I would like some clarification. Talk of water buybacks created a lot of anger when the Albanese government came to power. That talk seems to have gone quiet. There was a plan to buy back 44.3 gigalitres immediately, a threat to use buybacks to get another figure to complete the plan—I will raise that in a minute. How much has been purchased so far? Your website is still saying that you need another 38 gigalitres, yet we heard the tender was oversubscribed.
Ms O’Connell: In terms of the open tender, we were seeking 44.3 gigalitres for the Bridging the Gap component. I want to be specific here; that was for Bridging the Gap. It was oversubscribed. We had 250 tender responses, which accounted to 90.34 gigalitres in terms of across the catchments.
Senator ROBERTS: So double?
Ms O’Connell: Yes, just over double. These Bridging the Gap requirements are catchment specific. There is a certain amount of water to be recovered in a certain catchment. It was oversubscribed in total, but specifically we are purchasing to an amount in a particular catchment. It also has to represent the right type of water, and value for money, before we proceed. From that 44.3 gigalitre tender we have agreed to purchase 26.25 gigalitres towards that target. We will, as a result of that, complete the requirements in three of those specific catchments.
Senator ROBERTS: So you still have the fourth catchment to do?
Ms O’Connell: There are six catchments in total.
Senator ROBERTS: You still have three of the six to do.
Ms O’Connell: That’s right; to complete the recovery.
Mr Southwell: That is correct. There are three catchments that we expect to recover through this tender, subject to all contracts being finalised, and three to go. I might take this opportunity to give an overview of where we are in the process. The tender sought to recover 44.3 gigalitres. When all of those contracts are signed, we expect to have spent around $205 million. Contracts are still being signed. That is important to note in terms of where we are up to. A table on our website provides an outline of each catchment, the volumes we expect to have recovered and the volumes that remain.
Senator Davey: That table was only uploaded today.
Mr Southwell: It was uploaded yesterday, I think, Senator.
Senator Davey: Late yesterday.
Mr Southwell: I understood it was later than 9 am yesterday morning.
Senator ROBERTS: You will still buy the 90 gigalitres that came in as tenders?
Mr Southwell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Just the 26.25?
Mr Southwell: That tender process was specifically for Bridging the Gap, and the volumes that we are purchasing are for Bridging the Gap.
Senator ROBERTS: That is 26.25?
Mr Southwell: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the Restoring our Rivers Framework, currently under consultation, is for the full 450 gigalitres South Australian flow; your website says 424. Can I have this confirmed: this is the same bucket of water, whether it is 424 or 450—not two buckets?
Ms O’Connell: No, there are not two buckets. The requirement is 450 gigalitres, of which 26 gigalitres is contracted, delivered or underway. The remaining component is 424. So it is one lot of 450, with 26 already recovered.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Hanson-Young, in an interview with the ABC last November, said there was a further 300 gigalitres of water to be found to complete the plan, not 38 gigalitres. This was not including the 450 gigalitres. Is that statement correct? If so, can you explain how that figure is arrived at?
Ms O’Connell: We would have to see what exactly she was referring to and get that quoted number.
Chair: Could you table it? Do you have it with you?
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t have it with me, no.
Mr Fredericks: We will take that on notice.
Ms O’Connell: For us to be able to answer that, would you be able to provide the document as well, so we can make sure we are referring to the right thing?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. By our calculations, if you get the remaining 38 gigalitres on buybacks, you will also have 78 gigalitres of excess purchases in some bailees. Will you sell this back to the farmers?
Ms O’Connell: On Bridging the Gap, which is what we have been talking about, it is a catchment-specific amount that we need to recover. We don’t intend to buy more than what is needed. There is a minor amount of incidental overrecovery that happens when you buy water, but that is minor and incidental. Our intention is to bridge the gap through the 44.3 gigalitres.
Ms Connell: In relation to the 78 gigalitres of overrecovery you referred to, there are two issues to highlight. The number of overrecoveries won’t be confirmed until New South Wales water resource plans are accredited. A significant proportion of that figure relates to overrecoveries in New South Wales. The other thing to keep in mind is that water is currently held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and used at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, once you get that figure, the 38, and the 450, minus what is underway now, is it done? Is there anything else? Can what remains of farming in the Murray Darling Basin get on with growing food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, without this nightmare of the plan hanging over farmers? Is that the end of it?
Senator McAllister: I think the best way to describe the government’s intentions is to implement the plan in full. That was the purpose of the legislation that went through the parliament. As you have observed, there is substantial work to do. That work includes the recovery associated with Bridging the Gap, which the officials have been talking about. It also includes establishment of the framework for reaching the 450-gigalitre target. The government is presently consulting on that framework. That document is in the public domain and we are seeking public comment about that approach. There are other elements of the work associated with completing the plan; the officials can talk you through that. Rather than accepting your summary of the work before us, I would prefer to point to the way the government characterises the work that is underway.
Senator ROBERTS: What amounts are required to finish the plan? That is what I heard you say: when the plan is finished, that is it—no more buybacks.
Ms Connell: In the first instance, the plan doesn’t finish. It is an ongoing instrument, subject to a review by the Murray Darling Basin Authority in 2026. That will be the first review of the Basin Plan. Under the current Basin Plan, there are two key targets.
Senator ROBERTS: That means that the plan could change.
Chair: Senator ROBERTS, the river is a living thing. The reason why we ended up with the Murray Darling Basin Plan in the first place was over-extraction and the utilisation of the river.
Senator Davey: Happy to replace the chair to answer questions from the committee. Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Thank you, Senator Davey. Minister, maybe you could help us out here. It is a point of clarification that is worth making.
Senator McAllister: I am happy for officials to talk through the approach. The main point is that the government’s commitment is to implement the Basin Plan in full. Under the previous government, insufficient progress was made on some important initiatives. Progress basically stalled for an entire decade. We talked about this a lot during the committee stage of the Senate debate. You are aware of the government’s perspective on this. It is for that reason that we had to change the legislation. We are presently consulting on the key initiatives that are underway. The officials can talk you through all of the important next steps.
Ms O’Connell: In terms of the Basin Plan, it is about sustainable river systems long-term management. There are two major components in the plan to be fulfilled that need to be delivered. We have been talking about Bridging the Gap. The remainder is the 450 gigalitres. There are new legislative time frames for delivering those that provide more time, more options, greater flexibility and greater accountability to be able to deliver on those targets. Beyond that, there is a review role for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of the long-term sustainability and sustainable management of our river systems. That review is not until 2026, which would foreshadow what might be required in the longer-term future.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that, Ms O’Connell. The plan as it is—as we have just been told, it’s a living document and a living plan and it could change—the 450 and the 38, that’s it; but it could change in 2026 when the review is done. Because it is a living plan, the plan could grow another arm and leg.
Ms O’Connell: Yes.
Mr Fredericks: I don’t think we can pre-empt that review.
Senator ROBERTS: People’s livelihoods are at stake, Mr Fredericks.
Mr Fredericks: I understand that fully. There is a review. It is in 2026. It will be very well conducted by the MDBA. I don’t think that, sitting here in 2024, we, as departmental officials, can really pre-empt that review.
Senator ROBERTS: I am thinking of farmers in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who are wondering whether or not to invest in their future and the future of their communities. Businesses in many rural communities have gone downhill, in large part due to the Water Act and the plan. These people want to know that they’ve got something more than two years. They just want to know: is this the end?
Senator McAllister: Can I make this point, Senator Roberts? The origin of the plan lay in a recognition across the country that we had overallocated the Murray-Darling Basin system. That had very significant consequences for basin communities. It had very significant consequences for the food and fibre producers in the Murray-Darling Basin, who depend on reliable access to water. It had consequences, of course, for the natural systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, which were under enormous pressure. It’s a while back now, but it really came to a head in the millennium drought. We saw some very severe impacts across the basin at that time. There was a recognition across the country, including within the basin, that we couldn’t go on in this way and that the overallocation needed to be addressed. That is the origin of the plan.
It matters to farmers and food and fibre producers that these issues are tackled and addressed because there is an interrelationship between the access to water by communities, the access to water by farmers, the availability of water for environmental purposes and, increasingly, the recognition that cultural water matters to First Nations people as well.
All of these things are interrelated and, at their heart, the success of all of those stakeholders, and the interests of all of those stakeholders, lies in having a healthy, working river that is being appropriately managed. Those are the underlying ideas that drive our government’s commitment to implementing the Basin Plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, while we do argue about the science underpinning the Basin Plan, let’s set that aside. Modern civilisation cannot exist without a healthy environment. We get that. A healthy environment cannot be achieved without modern civilisation because it reduces the pressure on the environment. Landholders are the number one protectors of the environment—that means farmers. At the moment, farmers and small businesses in rural communities see a shifting of the goalposts repeatedly. That’s what’s bothering them. They get the point about the need to protect the environment. They’re tired of having the goalposts shifted on them. That’s why my question was: is this the end of it? So far, what we’ve got is: ‘No, it’s not. In 2026 we’ll have a review and see what happens.’
Senator McAllister: The plan has been in place for a very long time, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Since 2007.
Senator McAllister: Our party has been very consistent in supporting the implementation of that plan. Our view is that the plan should be implemented. For much of that period, that was the stated position of the coalition parties as well. Unfortunately, in the final years of the last government—in fact, really across the period of the last government—the Liberal and National parties undermined and sabotaged the plan’s implementation.
Senator Davey interjecting—
Senator McAllister: That has caused a very significant problem.
Chair: That is the minister’s view. She is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit.
Senator Davey: I dispute that. The terminology ‘sabotaged’ is absolutely—
Senator McAllister: Senator, I think you said—
Chair: The minister will finish her—
Senator Davey: We might have had a different perspective on how to implement the plan.
Chair: Senator Davey, the minister will finish her answer and then you will have a turn.
Senator McAllister: I think the core facts are before us. In nine years, that government delivered just two of the 450 gigalitres—two gigalitres, under the 450-gigalitre target—
Senator Davey: We were focused on the environment and a sustainable level—
Chair: Senator Davey!
Senator McAllister: which would have meant that the plan would have been completed at some time around the year 4000. Steps needed to be taken to get the plan on track. We are taking those steps. I think the government’s priorities in terms of implementation are very clear. As I’ve indicated a couple of times now, we’re engaged in consultation with the community about the practical ways that we’re going to take the next steps together.
Good morning malcolm. What ever happened to them following our Constitution. Section 100 covers our protection of free and fair access to our own water. The Government doesnt own the water. It belong to the people of Australia. The Sale of our water to private corporations , in my opinion is a violation against the people of this country. Even privatized waterboards are selling us our own water and poisoning it with Hydroflousilisilic acid ( flouridation) a toxic by product of the fertalizer industry without our consent. The madness has to stop. It causes bone calcification and long term damage to organs. The fraudulent science from the 1950’s giving the illusion that the flouride being added is the same as calcium flouride that comes out of rocks in streams and creeks. Its not the same, it is not even laboratory grade poison sodium flouride. The very same ingredient in fluoxetine anti depressant medications. They womder why depression , anxiety and suicides have gone up exponentially in the last 30 years. Science has been high jacked.