The Murray-Darling Basin water ministers meet on Friday and someone not at the table - but soon could be - has earned praise from across the political divide for her position on water policy.
New South Wales shadow minister Rose Jackson told Flow earlier this week she sees buybacks - recovering water from irrigators - as a last resort to improve environmental water flows:
"I think they absolutely should be a last resort and I wish we weren't even having this conversation about needing them.
"The only reason we're having a conversation about even the possibility of buybacks is because we have not done the work that we needed to do. And I think regional communities should be really angry at the New South Wales government that they've been on a go slow, they have haven't done the work, and now we're not close to meeting our obligations and the conversation has turned to buybacks.
"But as I said, I do not prefer them. They're absolutely a last resort. I hope that we can get other projects, efficiency projects, constraints, removals happening in a way that delivers on our obligations without needing buybacks."
Meanwhile, Victorian water minister Harriet Shing confirmed she opposes buybacks outright:
"Victoria does not support buybacks – our regional communities have been dealing with the impacts from previous Commonwealth buybacks for over a decade.
"We will continue to work in the best interest of Victorians by allowing for improved environmental outcomes through on-ground works and delivering water by upgrading inefficient systems."
Federal water minister Tanya Plibsersek opened the ministerial council meeting on Friday including a reference to this week's reannouncement of a November pledge to start buying back water from irrigators:
"This week we announced that we would be commencing voluntary buybacks to bridge the remaining gap of 49.2 gigalitres in the Murray Darling Basin.
"I fully intend to deliver the plan we’ve all signed up to. And that means every part of the plan. We can’t pick and choose the bits we like and the bits we want to ignore."
The federal member for Barker taking in the South Australian Murray, Liberal Tony Pasin, praised Ms Jackson and Minister Shing for their stances:
"Before anyone thinks that this is a Liberal versus Labor spat, I'm wholeheartedly in support of what the Victorian Labor Water Minister is saying. She's saying buybacks kill communities and she doesn't want them. This isn't a Liberal versus Labor thing, this is irrigation district versus city doo-gooders perspective.
"So I'm just hoping that reality mugs (federal water minister) Tanya (Plibersek) and (SA water minister) Susan Close on this and I'm so pleased that we've got sensible Labor voices in Victoria and New South Wales."
Hear the full interview with NSW Shadow minister Rose Jackson on the Flow podcast player below:
TRANSCRIPT
The following is an automatically generated transcript and may contain errors. Check against audio delivery.
LAMBERT:
Rose Jackson is the shadow minister in New South Wales, could soon be the minister - who knows? - for water and housing. How are you going Rose?
JACKSON: Good, Rikki. Good to chat.
LAMBERT:
Let's talk water first of all. Now in this portfolio we’ve got a Basin Ministers meeting coming up on Friday. Now the Water Minister, Kevin Anderson's published a statement about the positions he'll be taking to the meeting. They're concerned that they basically need more time. Does the New South Wales government need more time to recover water in the basin that's in New South Wales?
JACKSON:
Well I mean they do need more time, but they shouldn't. It is true that it is going to be very difficult for New South Wales to meet its obligations under the plan on time. That is because over the last twelve years the New South Wales government has really been on a go slow.
It's failed to deliver really any of its commitments under the plan. So I accept that at this point in time it's going to be very difficult for the New South Wales government to deliver. But I think that that is a mess absolutely of its own making.
LAMBERT:
We spoke to the independent MP for Murray Helen Dalton earlier this morning. She says the government's been moving from one foot to the other and the Murray Darling Basin Authority seems to agree. They gave a pretty poor report card on the Basin water recovery projects in New South Wales alone.
JACKSON:
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, the Murray Darling Basin Authority basically had to issue two report cards. There was one for every other state and one for New South Wales and progress had been made in other states.
They all have their water resource plans accepted and accredited, New South Wales: we got a big F because we haven't done the work. This is work that we have known we were required to do. If they had concerns, they had ample opportunities to discuss that over the many years prior to the 5 minutes to midnight we are at now.
And I can understand why they believe they're going to struggle to meet their commitments.
But I agree with Helen, it is because they have not done the work that they were required to do.
LAMBERT:
Well, potentially you'll be putting your feet under the ministerial desk on the 25 March or soon afterwards. How would New South Wales Labor tackle this problem differently?
JACKSON:
Look, I mean, we also recognise the need for flexibility here. We do think that there needs to be a conversation about extended time frames and about changing the mix of projects.
But the critical difference is we will do that with a federal partner that knows that they can take us seriously. The big problem that the New South Wales government has is they have no credibility. How on earth is the federal government expected to take them seriously when they're asking for these extensions and this flexibility after years of doing nothing?
So we recognise that New South Wales will need more time. We recognise New South Wales needs a different mix of projects at this point. We will be inheriting a mess if we are elected in March, but we're at least serious about getting the state back on track.
To me, this just seems like another kind of political statement from the Minister. I can't take any of what he says seriously, whereas Labor will take our obligations seriously.
LAMBERT:
Well, even on the science, we talked with the manager of water science at DPIE, Catherine Taffs, in late January. There's a big map they've got of the condition of the rivers. There's a lot of red, which is not good for a lot of the regional rivers, but she did say in the Murray Darling Basin that's based more so on drought data than what we've seen in recent flooding. Is that an argument for maybe a bit more time to consider Basin obligations?
JACKSON:
Yeah, it is, actually. Accept that. And I think things like long term climate data have not been well integrated into some of the modelling and the mapping.
So absolutely, I think the extremes that we are seeing. Extreme drought, but also, as you say, extreme flooding. Those are the sort of more frequent, more extreme weather events that we are going to see and that does need to be better reflected.
So I absolutely accept that there is a case to be made that New South Wales needs that flexibility. That is the position that I would take. But as I said, this is not about endless extensions, this is not about trying to weasel out of our fundamental obligations under the Plan.
We think that that work does need to be done. We want to do that in a serious way and I think a big part of the problem here is the New South Wales government can ask for that all it likes from the federal government, but no one takes them seriously.
LAMBERT:
There are two somewhat related topics that I think some listeners will be wondering about. The question really is about buyback, but in 450 gigalitres expected to be delivered under the Plan further downstream, but also the role buybacks might take. The New South Wales government saying, well, we don't want the triple bottom line - as it's called, the social environment and economic test - to be scrapped. Where do you stand on that?
JACKSON:
I don't want that test to be scrapped either, and I would absolutely prefer that buybacks didn't occur. I think they absolutely should be a last resort and I wish we weren't even having this conversation about needing them. The only reason we're having a conversation about even the possibility of buybacks is because we have not done the work that we needed to do.
And I think regional communities should be really angry at the New South Wales government that they've been on a go slow, they haven't done the work, and now we're not close to meeting our obligations and the conversation has turned to buybacks.
But as I said to me, I do not prefer them. They're absolutely a last resort. I hope that we can get other projects, efficiency projects, constraints, removals happening in a way that delivers on our obligations without needing buybacks.
But the only reason that this conversation is happening is because, unfortunately, that investment over the past ten years hasn't occurred and now we're in a very tough situation.
LAMBERT:
There's also been some debate in the Basin about what's happening, the northern basin and this very hot topic of floodplain harvesting.
You've been, I imagine, in the thick of this in the upper house. Are we facing yet another possible disallowance? Or what would you do with this regulation that was put in by the government if you came into office as minister?
JACKSON:
Yeah, look, I think it is frustrating that they have issued another regulation in the period where there's no parliamentary scrutiny because the election is imminent. If we're elected, we're going to have a look at that. It's a real question, Rikki, about whether licences have been issued under the regulation. To be honest, if they have, that's pretty difficult to undo. I want to be honest with people. If licences have been issued to landholders, undoing them is a really complicated process.
I think that's why the New South Wales government have gone down this path. But we've been clear from the very beginning, we've supported disallowances before because we want to make sure we get the balance right.
Floodplain harvesting water is really the last big take of water that is going to be licensed. Under the plan. We support it being licensed. We want all water that is being extracted to be properly metered and measured.
But some of the framework that the New South Wales government put in place is not adequate. Just one example of that, they had a downstream flow trigger of 195 gigalitres in the Menindee Lakes. That's less water in the Menindee Lakes than we had when the mass fish kill occurred.
So, you know, we will be looking at those things and trying to make sure that, yes, we want floodplain harvesting licensed. We want it metered and monitored, but we want that done in a way that doesn't put undue strain on southern basin communities.
LAMBERT:
Well, also on the other portfolio responsibility, you may have others, forgive me, but housing and homelessness is another one you're the shadow minister for, and we were in speaking with Helen Dalton earlier. She was talking about, in some cases in places like Griffith in New South Wales regions, about 10% homelessness occurring there, but also even Paramedics needing to sleep in their own cars is what she's reporting, I guess. Where does this lie in terms of the government's record on this and what's the opposition proposing to fix it?
JACKSON:
Yeah, regional housing is in absolute crisis right now and it's great that Helen is speaking up about that. I was in Dubbo earlier this week. We had a big roundtable there. It's a huge issue there. When I was in Deniliquin, I was hearing about tent cities that were sort of popping up for the first time in a long time along the river, new people experiencing homelessness because regional housing has just been utterly neglected.
It's interesting to hear Helen's story about paramedics. I've heard about teachers sleeping in tents and cars because they can't get housing. So it's a major priority for Labor. We've put 30 million on the table already for the government to directly intervene in regional New South Wales, to build affordable rental housing. The market has failed. I think the government has just let this drift. We want to see a much more direct intervention from the government to deliver affordable rental housing in our regions because I think every single regional town is really feeling the squeeze.
I had Broken Hill Council in yesterday to talk about it there. It's everywhere and it's getting worse. So it's a real priority for us. And it's a pointy end of that is certainly homelessness, especially during the heat that's forecast during sort of the February where we're talking.
You don't want people sleeping in cars in the midst of all of that or even in Swags.
LAMBERT:
But how does it feed in to regional labour markets as well? In the sense that the ability to get, say, a nurse or a teacher you're talking about - it’s not going to be attractive to the idea, that they’ve got to sleep in the car?
JACKSON:
Absolutely. It's a huge regional labour market issue and there is a really important conversation to be had about vulnerable people. But I think that the key worker piece is actually the more important one right now.
I was talking to a specialist geriatric nurse who took up a job in Broken Hill Hospital, was really excited to move out there, was living in a motel for months because he could not find a house. He was on the brink of just giving up and moving back to Sydney. Finally found a place, thank God, because there is a desperate need for specialist nurses, let's say paramedics, teachers, hospitality workers right across the regions and they are not taking up jobs and moving to our regional towns because of housing. They want to move, they want the jobs, the towns desperately need them, but there is nowhere for them to live. So that is a major issue and it is a real drag on regional products right now in regional economies.
So we've got to get that fixed. Our regional towns should be growing. They're amazing places. People want to move to regional New South Wales, and why wouldn't they? But at the moment the affordable housing is just not there for them.
LAMBERT:
Well, Rose Jackson, plenty for voters to think about going up to the 25 March poll and indeed, plenty for the next government to sort out as well. Thanks so much for joining us today.
JACKSON:
Yeah, good to chat. Thanks, mate.
Comentarios