Water policy
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:28): (309) My question is for the Minister for Water. The Murray–Darling Basin Authority recently commissioned and published a peer-reviewed report from the University of Adelaide. The report ranks the quality of studies used to justify water recovery policy in basin states. The report is particularly critical of studies that have been relied on by successive Victorian Labor water ministers to develop and defend Murray–Darling Basin policy. These include misleading studies that assume linear relationships between water extraction and farm production and ignore the negative socio-economic impacts of failing to recover environmental water. The University of Adelaide report found these studies to be of low quality and not fit for policy advice. In light of this, will the minister commission new studies?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:29): Thank you, Dr Mansfield, for that question. This is actually a really important area of policy in a very intricate policy space, and as you are very aware and as so many people in this area of policy interest and of managing the interests and priorities of a range of stakeholders are aware, there is a very long history around how we manage the return of water to our environments throughout the Murray–Darling Basin and various jurisdictions.
There has been, as you have quite rightly pointed out, a literature review written by a South Australian academic, and that literature review acknowledges that there is a socio-economic impact from the occurrence of water purchases. Under the 2012 agreement that was entered into by basin states there was an agreed and consensus approach that said that with the return of 2750 gigalitres to the environment over a period of time there could not be any additional water recovered that would cause harm to communities. That was enshrined in legislation in 2018 on the basis that there have to be positive or neutral outcomes in the way in which water is recovered.
You have cited a literature review from South Australia, and you have also indicated a range of things about the evidence put to Victorian communities around the impact of buybacks. We know all too well the impact of buybacks. Because of that 550 gigalitres that was taken out of the system, rural and regional communities suffered catastrophic job losses and suffered catastrophic decline in capacity to contribute. Across the Murray our communities in Victoria contribute the largest volume of dairy, of citrus and of horticulture. Chances are that when you are eating an orange or a mandarin or making a mojito or doing whatever people do with citrus, it has come from that part of the world. Chances are that when you are having dairy product and when you are actually enjoying a range of other things, whether they are tomatoes, eggplants or capsicums, they have come from that part of the world.
Food producers have never been more efficient in the way in which that output occurs – the way in which food producers get food to our tables. This is about making sure that we do more with less. Those efficiencies have been really hard fought for and hard won. They involve covering channels, modernising the way in which technology is deployed to water and –
Sarah Mansfield: On a point of order, President, the minister has not answered my question. It was a simple question: will she commission new studies, yes or no?
The PRESIDENT: I bring the minister back to the question.
Harriet SHING: When we talk about impact, that is well understood, including by colleagues on the other side of the chamber. I would in that sense direct you to the Frontier Economics report that was issued at the end of last year, which shows very, very clear deleterious impact from the consequences of buybacks. Again, that is a report that we stand by that is based on evidence provided to us here in Victoria.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:32): I will take from that that the answer is no. Actually the University of Adelaide report makes it clear that both KPMG and Frontier Economics modelling that has been used by the Victorian government is of poor quality and unreliable. Your predecessor Lisa Neville relied on this modelling to back up the government’s stance on buybacks, and, Minister, you in response to my question without notice in August and again in the chamber last week to Mrs Broad and just now have cited this same modelling as evidence that buybacks do real harm. Minister, what assurances can you give the chamber that the evidence you are citing is of high enough quality to inform your water policies?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:33): We do not take decisions about an area so complex and so important as water lightly. This is about in fact the work that we have done to get to the highest level of compliance, of metering and of monitoring anywhere in Australia. This is about the fact that Victoria has returned more water to the environment than any other jurisdiction. It is about the fact that we know full well that returning 100 gigalitres to the environment, taking that out and actually entering into a process whereby that comes out of the consumptive pool will lead to, on modelling, around $140 million of loss every year to Victorian communities. We know that in communities like Red Cliffs, for example, we will see a 76 per cent loss in jobs. This is about communities, and it is about the experience that we have lived through. Frontier Economics bases the work in metrics that are not there for fun. We are not taking these decisions lightly, and that work is something that we take very, very seriously indeed.