ABC 7.30 interview with Minister for the Environment and Water Tanya Plibersek

SARAH FERGUSON: The government and the Greens teamed up to secure more water for the Murray-Darling system lifting caps. The benefits for the river system are obvious, but the risks to communities along the river have led to demonstrations against the government's plans. Tanya Plibersek is the Minister for the Environment and Water, she joins me from Canberra. Tanya Plibersek welcome to 7.30.

TANYA PLIBERSEK, MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER: Hi Sarah.

FERGUSON: One of the recent water ministers, David Littleproud, says the Murray-Darling Basin scheme is so complex almost no one understands it. Do you understand it?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I certainly do. It is a complex plan, but it has got a simple objective. The objective is to make sure that we've got enough water in the river system for communities, for drinking water, for farmers, for industry and of course for the environment. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed on more than a decade ago. Sadly, progress since the Liberals and Nationals were in government has been too slow. This Restoring Our Rivers Bill gets the Murray-Darling Basin Plan back on track.

FERGUSON: Explain this to us then. So you're legislating for an extra 450 gigalitres. I'm always nervous around the numbers because they're difficult for people to take in, but it is a very large amount. You're legislating it. What would it mean for the river?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: That’s not exactly what’s happening. The 450 gigalitres of additional water is already in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. What we're doing with our Restoring Our Rivers bill is providing more time to deliver on the plan as it is now. More money to make sure that we've got money for additional projects that are water savings projects, more money for structural adjustment should it be necessary. We're also delivering more accountability to make sure that the plan is actually delivered and of course more options. We want to do on-farm efficiency measures, off-farm efficiency measures, land and water purchases. All options are on the table. What's not optional is delivering the plan.

FERGUSON: We'll come back to the efficiency measures. Because there’s obviously been a lot of questions around them but just to stay with this extra 450 gigalitres.

FERGUSON: Up until now it has been protected by a social impact test to protect communities. That is, you can only take out more water if you can demonstrate that it will have a neutral impact on communities. Are you now going to override that test?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, we will continue to look, in the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, we will consider social and economic impacts. We will consider value for taxpayer dollars and we will consider the environmental utility of any of the water we purchase through voluntary water buybacks any of the other measures we undertake. This is not an effort to ignore impact on communities. In fact, if we don't pass the bill, by the end of this year, we will see greater impacts on Basin communities. Don't forget, Sarah, 3 million people who live in the Murray-Darling Basin, rely on this water for their drinking water. We saw communities in the last drought who had bone dry river beds for more than 400 days at a time. Taking too much water out of the river system, of course, it is bad for the environment, but it is terrible for the communities that live on the river system and for farmers and for the economy.

FERGUSON: Let’s just stay with this test because it was there for a reason. And up until this point I think only --

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah, it was there to stop water purchase. That's why the National Party supported it and that's why the Productivity Commission has pointed out it is wrong and counter productive. In fact, of the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, when I became the Water Minister, just two had been delivered in ten years. At that rate, we would be delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan sometime around the year 4,000. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was tied up by the Liberals and Nationals in rules that were designed to prevent the delivery of the plan, not to facilitate it.

FERGUSON: Let's just talk about the communities. There will be impacts. How do you achieve the gains without devastating those communities? Without taking industry out of those communities which all of them have a multiplier effect as you know, if you take out one business, one agricultural business it has an effect on the people who sell farm machinery for example. How do you measure and protect the communities?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: There has been some terrific work done by economists like Sarah Wheeler that show that the claims of voluntary water purchase on farming communities have been over-stated particularly by the Victorian Government I might say. And there are all sorts of things that impact on farming communities; fuel prices, labour shortages, relationships with our trading partners. But what we know is in the largest year of water purchase in the past, 2011-2012, when close to 500 gigalitres of water was purchased, in fact food and beverage prices went down by 3.2 per cent. So we know that the relationship that the Victorian Government and the irrigators are claiming is not a simple relationship. You know what has an impact on farm gate prices? Things like supermarkets competing to offer a $1 a litre milk to their customers, all sorts of things impact on food and beverage prices. And to imagine for a moment that it’s just water purchase is simplistic in the extreme.

FERGUSON: It’s obviously not simple, no one is denying the complexity of the deal that you have to make here. At the same time, that test was put into the parliament, I think, with Tony Burke’s support at the time. It seemed to have value at the time to protect those communities so what's changed that you now think it should be able to be set aside?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, the Productivity Commission has pointed out that the test as it is written is illogical and has prevented water recovery including from willing sellers. What's illogical about this, the National Party would say it’s fine for farmers to sell water to each other, it’s fine for farmers to sell water to the Canadian public service pension fund, it’s fine for farmers to sell water to companies associated with the Chinese government, it’s fine for farmers to sell water to mining companies to use for mining purposes. The only time they are not allowed to sell water, according to the opponents of voluntary water purchase, is if they're selling it to the Australian Government to put back into the river system for drinking water for Australians and to protect our environment. It is completely illogical.

FERGUSON: Let's look at one of the other arguments which the Nationals are making which is that you could make these gains through infrastructure improvements rather than through buybacks. Why is it do you prefer buybacks to infrastructure?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, I don't prefer buybacks to infrastructure. One of the things
that restoring our rivers does is give an additional two years for infrastructure projects to be delivered which will save water and reduce the need for buybacks. That's why the National Party should be voting for this bill, it gives extra time. We’ve also said to the states and territories that if they've got additional projects they want to bring forward, we are happy to consider them. What I am saying Sarah is that, yes we will support water saving and water efficiency projects. We will support off-farm efficiency projects. The National Party had $1.3 billion set aside to do those projects, there is $1 billion still in the bank. They didn't do them when they were in Government. They had $60 million for on-farm efficiency projects, they didn't spend a cent of that. We want to do off-farm and on-farm efficiency.

FERGUSON: Let me just check with you before we run out of time. By removing the cap, that exists on water buybacks, you are encouraging the progress of water buybacks. You are making it easier for the government to proceed with water buybacks?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: This will be one tool in the box. The other tools in the box will be the water saving and water efficiency projects. There will be on-farm and off-farm efficiency. We will look at land and water purchase. We're trying to do is untie the brown tape that the National Party have wrapped up the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in. They have deliberately sabotaged this plan for a decade. Sarah, I delivered more environmental water in my first nine months as Water Minister than they did in nine years. Their failures here are manifest and the warnings have been manifest. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has given multiple warnings that the Plan is off track. We had two Water for the Environment Special Account reports, both showed the plan is off track. The Productivity Commission has done reports to show the plan is off track. It is because of this deliberate sabotage. I’m not prepared to let that happen. We made a commitment. We will be delivering water for basin communities and for the environment and that's what we're going to do.

FERGUSON: Tanya Plibersek, thank you very much for joining us. We didn't get lost in gigalitres, so thank you.

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Thank you.