Farmers won't back plan

NSW Farmers president Fiona Simson is reluctant to support the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan, signed into law by federal Water Minister Tony Burke yesterday.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) presented the final Basin Plan to Mr Burke on Wednesday after legislation to allow the 450GL adjustment mechanism passed the Senate. Mr Burke addressed the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday, confirming the final plan would achieve a water savings target of 2750 gigalitres.

Ms Simson said it was important to acknowledge how far the plan had progressed in the five years the issue had been debated, but “unless our key expectations have been met, it is unlikely that the plan will have our support”.

“It would pain me to oppose a plan that had the potential to deliver so much for basin communities,” she said.

“Our members live and work in the basin and we all proudly contribute to its health.

“Whether we can support the plan or not will come down to whether the federal government values our contribution to the social, economic and environmental future of the basin as highly as satisfying the South Australian government.”

Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner has previously claimed South Australian support for the Basin Plan had been “bought off” with an $85 million funding promise for research, regional development and industry redevelopment.

“We’ve been asking for similar financial assistance for our affected communities and we haven’t got a cent,” he said.

Ms Simson recognised that compulsory buybacks were off the table, significant infrastructure investment was being delivered and “previous water savings made by our innovative members have been recognised”.

“Credit for these advances must go to the NSW Irrigators’ Council, National Farmers’ Federation and the O’Farrell government which have lobbied alongside us for a fairer outcome for farmers and rural communities,” she said.

“We have been buoyed by the Deputy Premier’s commitment today that if the federal government will not commit to a cap on buybacks, the NSW government will.

“The Murray-Darling Basin includes some of the most strategically important land and water resources for agriculture in the country,” she said, noting that the basin covers three-quarters of NSW and produces over one third of Australia’s food supply.

“We are in this for the long run. The fight is far from over.”

Better deal this time: Mirabella

MEMBER for Indi Sophie Mirabella believes the latest Murray-Darling plan offers a better deal to her region.

“Thankfully, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority listened to our arguments and the amended plan included no reductions to local irrigation entitlements.”Many local river systems, such as the Ovens, were targeted for savage cuts in the first plan, Mrs Mirabella said.

But she still had some worries about how the plan would operate.

“The minister is now talking about relaxing ‘operating constraints’,” she said.

“This would appear to mean he will allow the authority to manipulate major flood events instead of the minor flood events that were originally proposed.

“This may have significant ramifications for local farms and freehold land along local river systems.”

Flood of complaints after Burke's announcement

By Alex McConachie

Nov. 23, 2012, 6:30 a.m.

IT'S been labelled as a plan which will hopefully end a century of bickering over the use of Australia's biggest river system.

There were no surprises in the plan announced by Mr Burke, which adhered to previously floated targets of 2750 gigalitres of water to be returned to the basin plus a further 450 gigalitres, close to the capacity of Sydney Harbour, to be found through on-farm efficiences.After more than five years of consultation and compromise with environmentalists and industry groups, federal Water Minister Tony Burke finally announced the contents of the final Murray-Darling Basin plan yesterday.

Of the initial 2750 gigalitres, 2100 will be acquired by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority through strategic buyback and infrastructure investment, while the states will be responsible for recovering the remaining 650 gigalitres.

Mr Burke said that any strategic buybacks would be conducted at a much slower pace than previous buyback schemes.

“The big tender buyback rounds that we’ve seen in the past are now a thing of the past,” he said.

But there is no provision for a cap on buybacks under the plan, which member for Riverina Michael McCormack and the NSW government have been calling for.

There will be no need for buybacks for the 650 gigalitres the states are responsible for if they can demonstrate environmental works and measurements have contributed to returning water to the basin.

Previously implemented water saving measures will also be recognised as part of that 650-gigalitre provision.

Despite the announcement, serious questions still remain over the plan, with no indication from Mr Burke on where the recovered water will go or when an environmental watering plan will be put together.

“We’ve still yet to see how the amount of water can be justified and how much of it is needed, where it is going to go and how it is going to be used to water those so-called icon sites,” Mr McCormack said.

Mr McCormack said the next step was to change taxation laws for irrigation companies so they can accept grants from the government to install efficiency measures without being penalised by the implications arising from income and capital gains tax obligations.

“Without those really desperately needed taxation changes, the likes of Murrumbidgee Irrigation won’t be able to roll out the water infrastructure projects which will enable environmental water to be recovered,” he said.

“The government promised they would do something about that in February 2011 and nearly two years on, we’ve not yet seen a commitment to do that.”

The basin plan will be formally presented to parliament next week, where it will remain for 15 sitting days to see if a disallowance motion is moved against it before it is signed into law, unless Mr Burke moves to allow a debate over it.

'Plan signals death of region'

'Plan signals death of region' Save

By Alex McConachie

Nov. 23, 2012, 6:30 a.m.

• 
  Griffith irrigator John Bisetto

THE Riverina faces a bleak future under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, according to Griffith-based farmer John Bisetto.

The plan had been described as a plan of compromise by Water Minister Tony Burke, but irrigators such as Mr Bisetto believe too much has been sacrificed."It's going to absolutely decimate towns like Griffith and Coleambally," he said.

The NSW Irrigators' Council and the Ricegrowers' Association of Australia believe it has compromised Australia's food production needs for political gain.

Cutbacks to water entitlements could see the price of crops such as rice skyrocket as irrigators are forced to either switch to less thirsty crops or stop growing altogether, according to Mr Bisetto.

"During the last drought, rice went to $550 a tonne because nobody was growing it because nobody had water," he said.

"Can these people not see that this is going to happen again once you restrict water?"

Mr Bisetto plans to maintain the rage against a plan he deems "unacceptable" and he won't be alone in his crusade.

Griffith mayor and Murray Valley Stakeholder Group chairman John Dal Broi predicted that many irrigators would lose the will to fight against the plan.But with the plan now passed into law, it seems the cutbacks, due to come in to effect in 2019, are now inevitable.

"We've got to make a determined effort to work within the plan," he said. "We have won a lot in the fight of the last three or four years but we always knew we had to compromise to some extent."

Plan signed: Irrigator group says final basin document fails to protect communities

By  Andrew Brookes

Nov. 23, 2012, 4 a.m.

By  Andrew Brookes

Nov. 23, 2012, 4 a.m.

• 
  
• 
  Murray River.

A HISTORIC final reform of the Murray-Darling Basin plan delivered yesterday has received a cool reception from major irrigation groups across the country.

Shortly after the Greens publicly denounced the plan in Canberra yesterday, national and state irrigation groups said they would consider the plan in detail before advising whether or not parliament should accept it, but statements released by the groups suggested significant dissatisfaction with the reform.While it was hoped the final basin plan would bring an end to years of disagreement among the states over the system, irrigators indicated the fight was far from over.

The approved plan contains few surprises, with 2750 gigalitres targeted for the environment from 2019, followed by another 450 gigalitres from 2024.

Australia’s top irrigation body, the National Irrigators’ Council (NIC), lamented the plan’s “failure” to protect communities from the potential ramifications of water buybacks.

It expressed concern that communities were now forced to put their trust in the goodwill of politicians, even though “good political intentions can dissipate overnight”.

For more of this story, purchase your copy of Friday's Sunraysia Daily 23/11/2012.

Basin plan: disillusioned

By OLIVER CAFFREY

Nov. 23, 2012, midnight

LOCAL farming communities continue to feel disillusioned after the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan gets set to be introduced into parliament.The 

Tony Burke was presented with the final plan to consider for adoption on Wednesday and he signed off on it yesterday, with the document to be presented to parliament in the coming weeks.Federal Minister for Water,

It comes after last month's Federal Government announcement in South Australia that the environmental water quota would be increased from 2750 gigalitres to 3200 gigalitres through a 10-year infrastructure renewal program separate to the plan's guidelines.

A water forum held at Barham on Wednesday night, which was attended by Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter, gave residents a chance to voice their disapproval with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Government.

Mr Katter, who spoke for close to an hour mostly about the state of Australian politics and promoting his new book, said he "would go down fighting" to stand up for farming communities affected by the plan.

"The Federal Government have to ask, 'Do they want a rural Australia?'," he said.

"With this plan they are saying, 'no, we don't'. They are letting farming communities die and become complete ghost towns.

"I'm standing up for your rights and I'm going down fighting, if that's what it takes."

Mr Katter said the lack of support for his ideas in parliament is making it hard to gain any headway.

"At the moment, I just can't get a seconder (to support him)," he said.

"Really, I can't do much for you, it's got to be up to you and show them who has the power, and that is you (the public)."

The Queensland politician's Our Land, Our Water public forums also took him to Griffith and Mildura during the week.

Former Wakool Shire mayor Ken Trewin, who chaired the meeting, said an upcoming television documentary to be broadcast next month would highlight the water struggle to city-based people, rather than just country residents.

"This documentary will change politics in this country," he said.

"Finally, people in the city will be able to see what has gone on and see the plan for what it really is."

Former Goulburn-Murray Water board member, Ken Pattison said the plan has gradually got worse.

"I couldn't believe this plan could get any worse, but it has," he said.

"The damage and the losses to the community will be devastating. It will see communities become completely unviable.

"Everyone is just disillusioned with the entire plan."

Barham farmer John Lolicato said it was disappointing that the Federal Government seem to be going ahead with a plan without listening to the concerns of residents.

"What's the point of being part of a process, when you're not even being listened to," he said.

"We can't accept this plan. If we do that, all we're doing is selling ourselves short."

"It is a tragedy of monumental proportions," he said.Former chairman of the Murray-Lower Darling River Management, Neil Eagle called the plan a "tragedy".

"We've been completely shafted as a rural sector in this whole process."

Basin Plan 'now about trust

Nov. 22, 2012, 5 p.m.

THE Basin Plan has failed to legally protect communities from the ‘downsides’ of water back-backs, and communities will have to put their trust in the goodwill of politicians, the CEO of the National Irrigators’ Council, (NIC) Tom Chesson said.

“The Government has refused to do this and instead is asking communities to trust them and future Government’s. “NIC has repeatedly asked the Government to back up its own acknowledgement ‘you do get downsides for the local communities’ from general tender water buy-backs by legislating a cap on future water buy backs,” Mr Chesson said.

“We all know that today’s good political intentions can dissipate overnight and yet that’s ultimately what we are being asked to live with.”

 “We note the Coalition Leader has made it clear to 15,000 people in Griffith that the Coalition will not support a ‘bad’ Basin Plan.

“We therefore ask the Coalition to honour this promise by guaranteeing if they do get into Government it will legislate to stop all water buy-backs and to recover water only in a way which does not have a social and economic ‘downside’ for Basin communities,” he said.

“Basin communities are sick and tired of never ending ‘historic’ water reforms being thrust upon them and the release of the (final?) Basin Plan must provide some certainty that we won’t be embarking on yet another ‘historic’ reform whenever we have a drought.”

“We believe that just adding water will not solve the environmental problems within the Basin but in the final analysis this Plan and the debate that has preceded it has been almost entirely about the water recovery target with social and economic impacts pushed well to the rear.”

“Australian taxpayers should also ready themselves for the likelihood of having to be asked to dig deeper to fund more studies, more research and more consultants in an effort to plug the gaps that inevitably will be revealed.”“Basin States will now be handed the challenge of trying to implement what is at the moment a concept rather than a plan and it will be in the process of implementation that the limitations of the arrangements announced today will be fully revealed.”

“The sad thing is that with a little more effort and a little less grandstanding from some politicians a decent plan was within the nation’s grasp but once again political expediency has prevailed over long term interest.”

 “NIC will consider the detail of the plan, and consult with its members, in the coming days, before deciding whether or not to seek Parliamentary disallowance,” Mr Chesson said.

That's the plan, Stan

AFTER more than five years and hundreds of community consultation meetings, the Murray Darling Basin Plan has become law.

But the Victorian Government and many stakeholders reserved their judgement until detail surfaces on how infrastructure works and buybacks will deliver the amount, and at what cost.Water Minister Tony Burke announced this afternoon he had signed off on the plan that would return 2750 billion litres of water to the environment by 2019.

The plan states up to $10 billion will be spent on buy backs of water entitlements from farmers and more efficient irrigation infrastructure, pumping and piping projects on wetlands and floodplains.

A further $1.8 billion will meet South Australia's demands for an extra 450GL to be delivered through future engineering works.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Minister Burke said Australia had been waiting for the reform for more than a century.

An agreement with state governments on how the plan will be put in place is now set to be signed ahead of a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments next month.''Today is the day Australia decided to restore the Murray-Darling to health.''

For more on this story, see Friday's edition of The Guardian (23/11/12).

Government signs off on Murray-Darling Basin Plan

RIVERINE HERALD ECHUCA

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been approved by the Federal Government.

By Trent Horneman

The Federal Government has signed off on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Federal Water Minister Tony Bourke approved the final plan yesterday, paving the way for 2750 gigalitres of surface water to be returned to the environment.

The government also committed $1.77billion to relax key operating constraints and to recover an extra 450Gl to achieve environmental targets for the basin.

‘‘It sets up a mechanism which allows governments to improve environmental, social or economic outcomes provided that improving one doesn’t sacrifice others,’’ he said.

Member for Rodney Paul Weller and Victorian Water Minister Peter Walsh want an agreement on issues surrounding the plan’s implementation.

‘‘Victoria will now carefully examine all aspects and details of this plan as we await the finalisation of the inter-governmental agreement and the water recovery strategy,’’ Mr Walsh said.

‘‘We need to ensure that what has been released today reflects the constructive discussions that have been occurring between Victoria and the Commonwealth water ministers’ offices.’’

National Farmers’ Federation and Victorian Farmers Federation have accepted the plan, despite having reservations.

NFF president Jock Laurie and VFF Water Council chairman Richard Anderson said while the plan needed more work, they believed the Federal Government had listened to their concerns.

‘‘At the end of the day, we want to find a system where the environment can be cared for while not taking water from the region’s irrigators,’’ Mr Anderson said.

Environmental groups have lashed out at the plan, saying it was not enough to improve the health of the basin.

However Goulburn Valley Environmental Group’s Terry Court said while research showed more water was needed for the health of the system, the plan as it stood was mindful of environmental and food production issues.

‘‘Irrigation is important for communities in the region,’’ he said.

‘‘We welcome the commitment to streamlining irrigation systems to be able to find the best way to use water.’’

Basin Plan still not perfect : Irrigators Council

ABC

The NSW Irrigators Council wants its members to consider the final version of the Basin Plan, before deciding whether Parliament should accept it.

The plan that was signed into law yesterday, aims to return 3,200 gigalitres to the Murray Darling River System by 2024.

The council's CEO Andrew Gregson says the document has moved a considerable distance in the last four years.

He says members now need a little time to digest its 600 pages.

"Technically the Basin Plan does not need to sign off from the states.

"It's a Federal Government document and they own it," he says.

"The key sticking point for irrigators and indeed for communities across the state, we've argued long and hard that Tony Burke should have put a cap on the volume of water to be purchased.

"He has steadfastly refused to do that and as a result has put his own Basin Plan in jeopardy.

"The NSW Government are looking at putting their own cap in, which we applaud.

"But if that cap is not there, there is a serious and real danger for NSW."

Irrigators and environment groups react to the release of MDBP

ABC

A central west irrigators group says now that Murray Darling Basin Plan has been accepted, people need to put effort into making it work.

• 
• 
• 
• 1

The Federal water minister Tony Burke has signed off on the controversial plan to increase environmental flows by 2,750 billion litres by 2019 and will present it to parliament.

Macquarie River Food and Fibre says there needs to be regional input in the implementation phase.

Executive officer Susan Madden says the focus will now be on the management of water resources.

"We're already looking for ways to move forward," she said.

"In terms of trying to make sure that the appropriate governance and management arrangements are in place for dealing with the increasing share of environmental water holding.

"Also, trying to move along with some of those infrastructure projects that we already have underway in the Valley."

Ms Madden says the Murray Darling Basin Plan ought to be regularly reviewed and improved upon.

"It's been very much focussed on a headline number, 2750 gigalitres, to be recovered across the basin.

"That sort of becomes the language that's talked about publicly, but when you actually drill down to some of the numbers and what they mean regionally, it's actually recognised that there are still information gaps and knowledge gaps."

She says ideally the group would like to see most of the recovery to be through water saving infrastructure and not further buy-backs.

However, Barney Stevens from the Darling River Action Group disagrees.

He says he would have preferred to see the additional savings made by buying water from cotton growers.

"I think everyone's going to have a lot more certainty now, including the environment groups and irrigators," he said.

"But, environment groups won't be happy with the result because it's just not enough water.

"The Federal Government's going to blow its budget on this amount of water.

"They could have got a lot more by putting more money into buybacks."

He also says the timeline for the plan is too long and he's concerned irrigators in the upper reaches of the river will still be able to take too much water for cotton crops.

"It's not doing much for the lower Darling River though.

"It does quite a lot for the tributaries of the Darling; it does quite a lot for the Murray.

"It probably doesn't do enough for the whole system; I think they needed 4000 gigalitres rather than 3200.

"They're not even going to get the 3200 until 2024.

"That's a long time to wait."

SENATOR FIONA NASH IN PARLIAMENT

Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (18:27): I also rise to make some remarks on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012. To follow on from some comments that my colleague Senator Birmingham made earlier, I too feel like I have spent many hours in this chamber discussing the issue of water. It seems like for years now we have been backward and forward across this chamber on the various iterations of water issues, with the Water Act 2007 initially and then the variations along the way. I have certainly sat through many hours of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Committee looking at issues to do with the Murray-Darling Basin and many hours in the estimates process doing exactly the same thing. I concur with those who say a resolution is needed.

It certainly has not been easy; there are no two ways about that. There are so many varied views about the appropriate way forward for the management of the Murray-Darling Basin that it is an enormous task to try to come to some consensus resolution on the most appropriate way forward. As my colleague Senator Joyce said earlier—I certainly do not want to verbal him—there is no perfect solution; there has potentially been some ground to give on all sides. But the mistake should not be made that this bill is in any way, shape or form—as Senator Ruston said before me—about the Basin Plan. That is an entirely separate issue. Support for this bill in front of us today in no way indicates support for the Basin Plan, because we simply have not seen it yet. Until we see the detail, there is absolutely no way that we on this side of the chamber can commit to signing up to it. I think that is a fair and appropriate position for us to take at this stage.

Certainly this bill in front of us today needs to be looked at independently of the broader water issues. It needs to be noted—and I want people to be very clear on this fact—that the ability to amend the Basin Plan already exists in the current Water Act, in subdivision F, from section 45 onward. So this is not a new introduction. This is not some new surprise that has suddenly been brought into the chamber. The ability to amend the Basin Plan already exists.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Senator NASH: Before the dinner break I was pointing out that this piece of legislation is not the Basin Plan; it is separate to the Basin Plan. It is simply about adjustments to the sustainable diversion limit. Under the Water Act, potential already exists to amend the Basin Plan. As Senator Joyce was saying earlier today, this streamlines the process. There is a very convoluted process in subdivision F of the Water Act 2007 that enables amendment of the plan.

The government initially brought to us legislation that allowed the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to require changes to the sustainable diversion limit. Quite rightly, the coalition here and in the other place realised that that was not the appropriate mechanism through which to do that. There had to be an ability for oversight by the minister and the parliament. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority could not be left to determine something of this magnitude—whether or not there was an appropriate upward or downward movement to the sustainable diversion limit. I do commend the government for agreeing that that was an appropriate change, an appropriate amendment. I think there is a much greater level of comfort out in the water community that there will be oversight by the minister and by the parliament itself.

My view is that any upward adjustment within five per cent of the sustainable diversion limit should not be utilised through buybacks. Buybacks should be precluded in any upward adjustment of the sustainable diversion limit. There are other mechanisms, through infrastructure efficiencies, where that can be gained. I would hope that through this process, under the five per cent flexibility that occurs under this bill, we can rule out buybacks being used as a mechanism to increase the sustainable diversion limit. That five per cent is potentially around 710 gigalitres of extraction. There really needs to be surety in people's minds that that is not going to occur through buybacks.

At the end of the day, this whole process—not just this bill but the broader water issue of the Murray-Darling Basin—is about people. We have seen now over many years divergence of opinion, different views on different iterations of bills and different aspects of this debate around water. But at the end of the day it is about people, and we have to remember that. Of course everybody wants a better environment for the future and everybody wants to make sure that we have a sustainable basin for the future, but that cannot be at the expense of the future of people in communities in regional Australia. That simply cannot be allowed to happen.

I live out in the Central West. We do irrigate; we have a groundwater licence. Along with that, I have spent years and years as a senator in this place going out into communities and talking to the people that this legislation—the broader legislation also—is going to affect. I think we on this side of the chamber are in absolute agreement—and I hope those on the other side of the chamber are too, although I am not so sure about the Greens—that we must take into account the social and economic impacts of removing water from communities by whatever means. There is absolutely no doubt that people look favourably upon the infrastructure efficiency improvements that lead to a reduction in water usage. Environmental works and measures that lead to a reduction in water usage are seen as sensible moves forward.

The issue of buybacks is a different kettle of fish altogether. I understand completely that in some instances benefits have been gained for people in rural communities. But, by and large, as Senator Ruston indicated earlier in her remarks—I commend Senator Ruston on her contribution tonight—so often they are not willing sellers; they are desperate sellers. They have been forced into a situation where they have no choice but to sell water. That, in essence, is a debate for another day. Today is about the sustainable diversion limit adjustment bill we have before us.

There is no doubt that there is not a perfect outcome here. We would all like to wave a magic wand and have a perfect outcome, but life is not like that. Life is not black and white; life is grey. Around this chamber there are a whole lot of different views; indeed, out in our communities there are different views. As my good friend and colleague behind me, Senator McKenzie, would know, if you put 10 farmers in a room you will get 12 different opinions. So it is very difficult to collect the majority view and ensure that we make the best decisions we possibly can in this place when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin. We have to weigh things up and try to make the right decision for those people we represent.

As my leader, Senator Joyce, said today, if we were not discussing the Murray-Darling Basin with the government, the Greens certainly would be. I can tell everybody out there in the regional communities of the basin that, if the Greens get what they want on the Murray-Darling Basin, they are going to be in a far, far worse position than they would be under any kind of negotiated outcome that the coalition and the government may be able to reach. This debate is on the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012, but it is difficult to talk about the bill separately from the broader Murray-Darling Basin issue. So, while I have tried not to stray from talking about the bill, I have strayed and probably will continue to stray into talking about the Murray-Darling Basin issue.

It is really important that we in this place ensure that people understand that we do not underestimate the importance of social and economic impacts on basin communities. I know I have said that already, but I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is. While debate on the Murray-Darling Basin is so often about irrigators—and I know irrigators out in the regions and have great respect for them—this bill is also about everybody else in the regional communities of the basin, because the Basin Plan has flow-on effects on the very fabric of towns, businesses and families in basin communities. That is why on this side of the chamber—and I commend Senator Joyce for his leadership as shadow water minister—we are trying to get the best and most beneficial outcome for people out in those communities.

I note that Senator Hanson-Young has joined us in the chamber today. We try in this place to be mature and to look at issues in a balanced way in order to come up with the best outcomes we possibly can for people across the nation—and in particular, as far as the Nationals are concerned, for people in regional communities. Senator Hanson-Young has said recently, 'Barnaby Joyce is a danger to the river.' That is extraordinary. The Greens have every right to have their view on the Murray-Darling Basin and every right to put their view forward sensibly, but Senator Hanson-Young has said:

Barnaby Joyce is hoping to make a deal with the Government that would line the pockets of big irrigators…

I just wonder who on earth Senator Hanson-Young has been speaking to. She is talking about big irrigators. I can think of three; I can also think of about 3,000 small family-farm irrigators who are not big irrigators. They have their children at the local school. One of the parents in the family is probably a teacher. The other one probably works in a business in town somewhere for another family. They contribute to the local community. They are on their school P&C. They are part of the local chamber of commerce. They contribute every time there is a sausage sizzle at the local IGA. They are the people affected by the decisions we make in this chamber about the Murray-Darling Basin. Yet the Greens say, 'Barnaby Joyce is hoping to make a deal with the Government that would line the pockets of big irrigators,' and that shows how completely out of touch the Greens are with people in basin communities. They make that sort of media-grab comment instead of a sensible, rational contribution to the debate. It gets better. Senator Hanson-Young went on to say:

The Government has a decision to make; will it support Barnaby Joyce in his attempts to pork barrel the big irrigators upstream—

That sounds like something out of a bad novel—

or will it work with the Greens …

I like the next bit:

I will be meeting with Minister Burke over the coming days to negotiate a Plan that will support river communities …

Here is the thing: I will put five bucks on the table now to say that Senator Hanson-Young will not manage to meet with Minister Burke over the coming days to negotiate a plan. I wonder if she has asked Minister Burke if he is prepared to negotiate a plan with her. Let us sit here for a little while and wait and see. Maybe I am wrong. I am always happy to be wrong in this place, and maybe I will be wrong—maybe Senator Hanson-Young will negotiate a plan with Minister Burke that will support river communities by guaranteeing blah, blah, blah. But I suspect that she will not, because I think that the majority of people in this parliament want to get sensible outcomes for people in regional communities. Sensible outcomes are not achieved through throwaway lines; they are achieved by trying to do the right thing. At the end of the day, for us as Nationals, this bill is about making sure that people in regional communities have the best future they possibly can.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a really, really difficult issue. Mark Twain once said, 'Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over,' and I think he was probably right on the money. What is important in Queensland is not necessarily what is important in New South Wales, in Victoria or in South Australia. We could have a bland, blanket approach in any one of those states, and the other three would find it difficult or impossible to live with. The easy thing to do is to say, each and every one of us parochial in our own state, 'This is what we absolutely want to happen,' and stick by it, jump up and down and not deliver any kind of certainty or opportunity for the future of the basin. The hard thing to do is to try to find an outcome that we can all live with. We do not know—because we have not seen it yet—if the Basin Plan is going to deliver an outcome we can all live with. Our agreement with and support for the bill in front of us in no way indicates support for the Basin Plan, because we have not seen it yet.

As I said earlier, I commended the government for taking into account that for this adjustment bill for the sustainable diversion limits the oversight should be by the minister and the parliament, and the Murray-Darling Basin should not have the authority for the direction. I commend the government again for doing that.

What we need to see is a sensible plan from this government. There are a couple of things that I think are absolutely vital. One is the fact that, as the bottom line, we always have to include the social and economic impacts of any decisions we make around water in the Murray-Darling Basin in exactly the same way we do environmental impacts. We cannot discount that. Anything that is going to compromise the social and economic future of regional communities—that is going to impact the social and economic fabric of those communities—should not be supported. The other thing I know is that people in regional communities have had enough of the issue of buybacks. People need to be very aware that in any sustainable diversion limit around 1,500 gigalitres have already been bought back—that is not a new figure. We have a considerable amount that has already been bought back.

In my view, we should cap buybacks. We should not have unlimited buybacks in the future. I absolutely believe that the government should consider very, very closely a cap on that buyback mechanism so that there can be some certainty in those regional communities. As Senator Ruston said so eloquently earlier, 'Why on earth have we ended up in this situation where no funding has been spent on the infrastructure efficiencies or on the works and measures which should have been done and with which people right across the board agree?' Where there can be improvements to save water, we should be making them without the impacts that buybacks have on the communities. Just look at Twynam, which was so badly mishandled by this Labor government. We on this side of the chamber will try to find the best outcome for people in regional communities right across the basin. The coalition—and the Nationals in particular—will not stand by or make any decision that will have a negative impact on the social and economic futures of regional communities. That is what we stand by.