Water policy
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:12): (361) My question is for the Minister for Water. The Commonwealth is likely to scrap the socio-economic neutrality test for the Murray–Darling Basin plan based on a growing body of evidence and expert opinion that it is fundamentally flawed. Will the Victorian government continue to use the socio-economic neutrality test as the basis for its water policy?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:12): Thank you for this question. I am really keen to make sure that in answering this question I can address a range of positions that have been put about the data and the research that Victoria has relied upon. Not only have we looked to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority’s report card, but we have also got the Frontier Economics report and we have a range of reports from ABARES. We also have work on the ground in communities – communities and people I have been speaking with for years now about the impact of those 550-gigalitre buybacks that occurred.
The socio-economic criteria, to be absolutely clear, were agreed to by every basin jurisdiction. The reason that they are in legislation is that in 2018 socio-economic criteria were introduced that confirmed that the return of any water to the environment in addition to the component parts of the 2750-gigalitre commitment as part of the Murray–Darling Basin plan legislation in 2012 would only be capable of taking place where there are positive or neutral socio-economic outcomes. This means that we cannot harm communities under the current legislation as it applies. But let us also be clear that Victoria has contributed the greatest volume of water returned to the environment out of any jurisdictional party to the Murray–Darling Basin plan. We continue to develop and to deliver initiatives grounded in hundreds of thousands of hours of work –
Sarah Mansfield: On a point of order, President, the minister is not answering the question. I ask you to bring her back to the question, on relevance. I asked: will the Victorian government continue to use the socio-economic neutrality test?
The PRESIDENT: I think the minister was responsive to the question.
Harriet SHING: Again, this is what happens: when we hear parts of this debate on natural resource management and water policy – a really complex part of what we do around a basin that goes well beyond any state’s jurisdiction – as soon as there is a context and research that does not fit with a narrative, this debate is shut down. We stand by the application of the socio-economic criteria. Buybacks harm communities. Buybacks do not achieve the outcomes for Victorian environments that others are seeking to apply across different parts of the basin. Again, to be really clear, the northern part of the basin, those iconic images of the Darling in crisis, will not be assisted one bit by buybacks from Victoria. We cannot move the water to the Darling where it is needed; that must come from the northern basin.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:16): I thank the minister for her response. It sounds like the Victorian government will continue to use the socio-economic neutrality test despite the Commonwealth and the other basin states looking like they are going to move away from that. The flawed nature of this test was a finding of the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin Royal Commission. It has been argued that it is flawed by four economics professors from four leading Australian universities in separate studies, and it has been recommended in a recent Senate inquiry. Minister, are you questioning the credibility of these economists, the royal commission and the Senate inquiry finding?
Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (12:16): Thank you, Dr Mansfield. The literature review, the Wentworth review, that you have just talked to and the University of Adelaide academic review are in stark contrast to the lived experience of communities who rely upon the Murray to produce food and to make sure that their communities can thrive. We saw communities disappear off the map. We saw job losses in Red Cliffs of 76 per cent as a consequence of this 550-gigalitre buyback situation that we endured and were able to deliver water to the environment on. When we talk about research, again, it seems that wherever anybody finds research that disagrees with a thesis on the impact of buybacks it is derided. We know from experience that buybacks harm communities. When you talk about socio-economic neutrality, it then means that any change to that agrees that there will be harm to communities. We do not accept that for a moment, and we do not sign on to any change to socio-economic criteria.