Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:10): The water portfolio—you say it like it's a gift to the Nationals. But the water portfolio is a poisoned chalice. It is the poisoned chalice of all portfolios, because it is the one portfolio in our nation— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator DAVEY: Do you Greens want it? That would be great, because the Greens solution is to just add water. That's all the Greens can think about when it comes to managing our environment and managing our waterways: just add water. Miraculously it rains, and Wilcannia's got water. I wish I could make it rain and I wish that we could stop taking water and still feed ourselves and still clothe ourselves. Would that not be good, Senator Patrick? The same can be said for your irrigators, who are fantastic irrigators. South Australian irrigators are very good. New South Wales irrigators are good. We need our irrigation industry. We absolutely need our irrigation industry. It underpins our agricultural production and it underpins our regional communities and our regional economies. And it's these communities and economies that have been absolutely devastated by the 'just add water' approach that the Greens cling to time and time again. I want to remind this chamber what our communities have given in the name of the environment, and it goes way back. Let's talk about the early nineties, when communities in Victoria and New South Wales gave up their right to some water in the name of the environment, with the very first environmental water allocation, the Barmah-Millewa forest allocation. They gave that water up with no compensation. Then again, in the late nineties, the cap on diversions was put in place, and again our communities gave up water, with no compensation, in the name of the environment. Fast forward to the 2000s and we got a National Party minister, and good on him—John Anderson did the right thing. He recognised water as a property right. He developed the National Water Initiative, which the Greens are now holding up as the doyen for water reform. Thank you, National Party. If it weren't for the National Party, that water initiative would not have been signed in place, and the Productivity Commission report wouldn't exist. So thank you to the National Party for that. That is not the only reform the National Party have led. My colleague and friend Senator Patrick over there doesn't believe that the National Party have taken any steps when it comes to water compliance, and that could not be further from the truth. It was the National Party in New South Wales that implemented the Natural Resources Access Regulator, which is now held up as the compliance cop on the beat in the basin. The National Party has led the way in developing modern telemetric technology to apply to on-farm water storage so that we can measure what we manage when it comes to water. We in New South Wales and Victoria have had telemeters and compliant meters for years, since the early nineties. In fact, in my area of Murray Irrigation, we have had volumetric caps on our entitlements and metered take since the sixties. People down at the south end of the system stand on a soapbox and try to claim purity, when, in their districts, up until two years ago, they were allowed to take water with no water in their account. They were the only jurisdiction left in the Murray-Darling Basin that, even under National Water Initiative compliant entitlement regimes, were allowed to access water when they didn't have it in their account, effectively manipulating the market, going into the market after the fact, when prices were cheaper, instead of, like every other state in basin, having to have a positive account balance. Imagine that—it's like having water on a credit card. It should not happen and, thankfully, South Australia have taken steps to amend that—congratulations to them. But I remind other South Australians who stand on a soapbox and point the finger: don't throw stones in glass houses. I also want to remind people that the Greens hold this up and say the Nationals shouldn't have the portfolio because they deny climate change. I've never denied climate change. My colleagues don't deny climate change. But you can't make all policy— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Askew ): Order! Senator DAVEY: But let's look at this. They say that because blaming someone like the Nationals for being denialists is good for their constituents. But their constituents don't bear the brunt of the reforms that have been done over years in the name of the environment. Those regional communities have been put through the wringer and are still living in perpetual uncertainty about what water regime they will be living under and whether there will be enough water remaining in their region to enable effective, efficient and affordable water management. You can't do it alone. Let's talk about the progress of water reform and what it has actually cost. Forget about the cost to the taxpayer; what about the cost to our communities? In the Edward-Wakool system, 50 per cent of their water entitlements have been recovered in the name of the environment. Imagine trying to run a store and being told you're only allowed to put 50 per cent of your stock in that store, but you've still got the same costs and the same overheads. It doesn't work. The dairy industry in the Murray region, which includes Victoria, has been decimated by water reforms since the 2000s, and it is ongoing. It has declined by 40 per cent since the turn of this century, during the peak of the water reform frenzy. While our remaining dairy farmers are absolutely pulling their weight and keeping Australian dairy going, there is no doubt that they are in pain. Our rice industry, the most water-efficient rice industry in the world, is on its knees because of the impact on the water market that water reform has had. This is the water market that the Productivity Commission says has significant net benefits. I'm not saying the water market is a bad thing, but look at the cost of reform. We can't keep exporting our problems. We cannot say, 'Just grow rice overseas.' Should we grow rice in Third World countries, which need to feed themselves, or grow rice in countries that use triple the amount of water, which is a precious resource everywhere in the world? Should we grow rice overseas, where they may or may not use child labour, where their chemical regimes are far more questionable than Australia's? No, we've got to take responsibility for our own nation and our own production. I also remind people that rice growing can be turned off and on, so think about that next time you're choosing between rice milk and almond milk when you're ordering your latte. Almonds use more water than rice per hectare every year, without fail. Rice can be grown when it's wet and not grown when it's dry. Rice is the perfect crop for our variable climate. Finally, if we want to talk about climate change—seriously, water reform and climate change—let's talk about the Lower Lakes. Let's talk about the impact of rising sea levels on the barrages and the Lower Lakes. Senator Patrick: Take away the dams! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senator DAVEY: Senator Patrick, if you would like to take away the dams, congratulations; you bring that argument upstream and— Senator Patrick interjecting— Senator DAVEY: Senator Patrick, I am not saying got rid of the barrages; I have never said that. What I am saying is that the barrages as they currently exist and operate will be compromised by rising sea levels thanks to climate change. The conversation needs to be had about how we manage the Lower Lakes and the barrages to address that instead of just looking upstream saying, 'Just add more.' It has to stop.