Busting The Water Myths

Address to the 5th Annual Australian Water Summit, 28 February 2007

There is an old saying that 'you never know the worth of water until the well runs dry'. And here in 2007, I think it's fair to say that Australia - as a nation - is at last coming to a real understanding of the wisdom in that saying and finally coming to a very painful and long overdue appreciation of the true worth of our water.

Water certainly is the topic of the hour.

Open any newspaper, turn on the TV or radio, and you're sure to find some discussion about water. Are we going to send our health system bankrupt if millions of us get 'bucket back' from lugging water from the showers to the garden? Is it un-Australian to dob in our neighbours for wasting water? Is it OK for our wealthier citizens to tap into bore water for their swimming pools and gardens? Is it reasonable to take a nice, deep bath while our rivers don't have enough water to stay healthy?

Once, we simply turned on a tap. Now, it's a moral and ethical minefield.

Once, we took a never-ending supply of fresh water for granted. Now, we're debating the merits of drinking recycled sewage.

It might all be happening a bit late in the day. And there are certainly plenty of players in the new national sport of back-flipping and flip-flopping on climate change. But public discussion and debate in Australia about water can only be a good thing.

Because this issue - how we manage, conserve and use our scarce water resources - is one of the most important we have ever faced: as individuals, as communities, and as a nation.

It should also be an issue of the highest priority for Australian business and unions. For unions like mine - with a big base in manufacturing and a high proportion of members in regional Australia - It's going to have a very significant impact. Our members' jobs and futures are on the line.

For companies, it's going to affect pretty much every activity: from production processes to investment decisions, from the factory floor to the boardroom.

Faced with that sort of widespread impact, I believe that industry and unions must work together on water. I believe we share a responsibility to promote change within a public debate that is sensible and fair, that is not polarised around extreme views, and that is both realistic and optimistic. Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd has from the start recognised this, and his positive and constructive approach to this issue has been a breath of fresh air through the corridors of Canberra.

By now, every Australian not living under a rock has heard the bad news: that we live in the driest inhabited continent in the world, but have the third highest rate of water consumption on the planet. Combine that with the reality of climate change, prolonged drought and population growth - and our situation is only going to get much, much worse if we fail to take action now.

In the last couple of months, we have seen the Prime Minister wake up from his long snooze on water and climate change and promise $10 billion for a national water plan. It's a welcome, if long overdue, involvement by our national government.

I think the plan's objectives are worth supporting - in particular, the elevation of this issue to one of national significance and the recognition that sustaining river health is a critical part of the equation. But it's also a plan that is alarmingly light on detail and that does not bite the bullet on the biggest problem of all: separating water and politics.

In the end, I think it's a plan that is not going to be tough enough or smart enough or big enough to succeed - for the simple fact that it reflects our ongoing failure as nation to face up to some unpalatable truths about water.

I believe that for real progress to be made on water, we've got to face up to these truths - however difficult, however politically painful, however uncomfortable they might be.

We've got to bust the myths of water management in Australia - myths that hold us back and prevent us from taking the strong action needed to get serious about solving this country's water crisis.

The first of these myths is that water should be free. No, it shouldn't.

As we're all starting to appreciate, water is an extremely valuable resource and we need to treat it as such. When we use it, we should pay for it - and not just the delivery costs.

It continues to amaze me that people will complain about paying one tenth of a cent per litre for water out of the tap but will happily cough up $2-3 or more for a one litre bottle with a fancy label from the milk bar.

The problem we have is that the price of water is lower than the cost of saving water. That has to change.

We have to start pricing water sensibly and fairly - and in ways that promote the more efficient use of water and the reduction of waste by households and industry.

We need pricing regimes in Australia that value water as the scarce resource it is, while balancing equity considerations and the need to give water supply authorities the funds to invest in new infrastructure.

The second water myth is that 1000 separate water authorities with different regulations around the country is somehow a good idea. It's not.

To be precise, there are 387 water supply authorities, 340 surface water management areas, 367 groundwater management areas across Australia - with no common regulatory framework to manage them.

It is an incredibly inefficient, bureaucratic and - in some cases - just plain stupid - way of doing things. And it has to change if we want to make real progress on water reform.

Here in Victoria some rationalisation has commenced - there are 4 Melbourne water authorities, 16 regional water authorities and 4 rural/irrigation water authorities - all publicly owned with a common regulatory framework. More could be done here, too.

The third myth that needs busting is that drinking recycled water is a dangerous, unhealthy and somewhat backward sort of practice. It's not.

Water recycled from sewage is a reality in many places around the world. People in Singapore and London happily drink it without growing two heads. The fact is that we can no longer afford the luxury of turning our noses up at recycled water. It's an option that must be on the table.

As you heard from Labor's Water Spokesman Anthony Albanese at this conference a couple of days ago, Federal Labor has set a 30 per cent waste water recycling target by 2015 and will commit real money to projects like Queensland's Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme.

But recycling is not our only option. Desalination could also play a key role, with small mobile desalination plants potentially offering an excellent solution for our regional towns.

For example, Federal Labor will commit $160 million to support the South Australian Government's proposed desalination plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf, matching the State Government's commitment.

The funding will come from the $2 billion Australian Water Fund created in 2004, but still largely unspent.

We must also make sure that industry and agriculture do not continue to use gigalitres of fresh water where recycled water could be substituted. We need to change these sorts of wasteful practices and make sure that we use our best quality water for high quality, high value purposes.

So, we need to ensure that water is put to its highest value use.

We need to ensure an effective and efficient water trading regime is established.

And we need to ensure there are effective water accounting systems in place and water pricing is based on full cost recovery principles.

With respect to specific water users, I don't think we need to be in the business of picking winners or losers. The market can decide that - we don't need a bureaucracy to do it.

If we get the allocation right, and the price system right, water will flow to where it's most needed, and where it creates the most value.

In my view, once we do leave this to the market, I believe that the market will call it like it is and find that cotton and rice are unsustainable in many parts of Australia, perhaps especially so for those thirsty, low-yield and relatively low-value crops in places like the Murray Darling Basin.

Cotton alone uses around 15 per cent of all the water used in Australian agriculture - and yet its return per megalitre is one seventh the earnings on vegetables. The return on rice is significantly worse. As The Australian newspaper pointed out last week: "the world would not end if Australia imported all its rice and cotton and exported more high-value vegetables".

The world also wouldn't end if, instead of growing cotton, we started growing hemp. Hemp needs half the amount of water to produce the same amount of cotton, has huge potential for mitigating dry-land salinity and can also be used to replace native trees for paper pulp.

Of course, we will need to help cotton and rice farmers through a period of structural adjustment - in the same way that we helped workers and employers in the car and the textile industries in the 1980s, and the forest industry in more recent times.

The Prime Minister needs to show some leadership, stand up to the National Party and start buying water entitlements from cotton and rice farmers - compulsorily if necessary.

Another myth that seems to have taken hold is that resolving the water crisis somehow comes down to a choice between supporting the country or the cities. It doesn't.

This is not my water or your water. This is not the city's water or the country's water. It's our water.

In many areas, this 'country versus city' mentality stands in the way of making good decisions about water. It certainly stands in the way of creating more interconnections between water systems and supply infrastructure - connections that would allow water to be moved around to where it will deliver the greatest benefits.

Here in Victoria, a myth, a hangover from the Bolte years, seems to have taken hold that we can't take water 'over the Great Divide'. That particular fiction seems to be standing in the way of a range of options. For example, we could introduce Total Channel Control technology to the Goulburn system, save an enormous amount of water and connect the system to Melbourne - all without any loss of water for regional Victoria.

It is ridiculous not to consider options like this, especially when around 3 per cent of Melbourne's water supply already comes 'over the Divide' - from the Mt Disappointment catchment area via the Yan Yean Reservoir.

We cannot afford to continue to have public policy on water dictated to by this spurious country versus city argument, by political pork barrelling and by myths that are patently absurd, self serving and damaging.

We also need to reject the idea that we have to make some sort of choice between water for the environment and water for industry. We don't.

It's about balance, not competition.

It's about recognising the critical social, environmental and economic value of healthy rivers, lakes and wetlands.

We need to understand that if we put environmental flows a distant second to other uses, we are only making the problem worse. We're damaging not only wildlife habitats and ecosystems, but also the quality of our lifestyles, our health and the many industries that depend upon our river systems.

The final myth that needs to be laid to rest is that fixing the problem is too expensive. It's not.

As the American writer Kurt Vonnegut has pointed out, unless we're willing to make a big investment in tackling current environmental problems, the only thing we'll have to say to the generations coming after us is: "We could have saved the earth, but we were too damned cheap".

Tackling our water crisis is certainly not going to be cheap - but what's the alternative? Unless we spend large amounts of money now, we'll have to spend much larger amounts in the future.

We have to invest whatever it takes to waterproof our country - because making the hard decisions now is going to be a whole lot less expensive than wearing the costs in the future.

We need a dedicated commitment of funds. Australia should be setting a target for a proportion of its gross domestic product to be spent on necessary water infrastructure.

We need to look at ways to boost the private sector's role in building and operating water infrastructure.

And we need to look at how the billions of dollars Australians have saved in industry superannuation funds could be invested in water projects.

At the same time, we have to get serious about ending water waste.

And there's plenty of good ideas about what we can do: from relatively small, local solutions to more complex, national projects.

We can, for example, do a lot more to harness new technologies - like the Total Channel Control technology currently being trialled with irrigators in Shepparton here in Victoria.

We could make it compulsory to collect and re-use of storm water from new commercial buildings and retrofit existing buildings, like hospitals and schools, to do the same. We've got more than ten thousand hectares of roof area in Australia - if water was collected from just half that area, it would be enough to supply Sydney or Melbourne for a whole year.

There are 40,000 new homes built in Victoria each year, surely it is time that we amend the building code to require storm water management and grey water systems to be incorporated in the design of these homes.

We could start re-using water to flow test multi-storey buildings. At present, the pumps that carry water to the upper levels of these buildings are flow-tested twice a year using fresh water. In doing those tests, we waste around one million litres of water every year - per building. It's a monumental waste of water that could easily be avoided.

We could develop a new National Standard rating system on household appliances, so consumers know their water efficiency. Water efficient washing machines use one third of the water as older models.

We could use better design in new buildings to reduce our dependence on cooling systems - and to incorporate grey water systems.

We could do a national water waste audit to find our where we're wasting water and identify the projects and infrastructure that are needed to fix it.

We could provide skills training for plumbers to develop expertise in water recycling and green plumbing practices.

We could boost support for research, innovation and best practice in water management.

From the small to the big: it will all add up.

I have no doubt that the next decade will mark a turning point in our history as we come up against the stark reality that we do not live in a world of limitless plenty, but one of finite resources that we need to manage very carefully.

That will mean making significant adjustments in how we go about doing things - how we run our households, our workplaces and our industries.

But it does not mean we have to be pessimistic about our water future.

Australians love their gardens. We love the open spaces and parks of our cities and towns. We love our weekend sports on local ovals and pitches. We love our holidays and picnics by the river.

There's no reason for any of these things to be at risk.

While we will have to make adjustments, I do not believe that Australians should accept that some of the best features of our lifestyle are wrong or irresponsible.

I do not believe that we should sit back and accept that water restrictions will be a permanent feature of our daily lives.

I believe very strongly that we should set ourselves the goal of not needing permanent water restrictions.

But to meet that goal, we are going to need much greater cooperation and partnership across our community.

I have to say that I think Australian households have done their fair share when it comes to conserving water and reducing waste. What we now need to see is much greater responsibility and accountability from industry. We need to see much stronger action across industry in managing water more efficiently and reducing water waste.

The AWU will work together with industry to help deliver those outcomes.

We want to be an advocate for the best that Australian industry can bring to the table when it comes to new ideas, new technologies and new approaches to managing water. And we want to stand with industry to make sure that governments deliver the necessary support, infrastructure and regulatory frameworks.

That should include direct funding from government for water recycling and waste reduction projects, in partnership with industry and unions.

Industry is the key to a future without permanent water restrictions. Industry is the key to a water future for Australia that creates, rather than destroys, jobs - and that delivers new business and investment opportunities, rather than sending them offshore.

That's why when I go and talk to businesses - whatever industry they're in - I say to them: "let's work together on water; let's come up with ideas that will benefit my members, your bottom line and the wider community - and then let's go together to talk to government about it".

I'll say it you again here today. Get serious about water - and when you are serious about it, come and see me: because unions like mine are ready and willing to back you 100 per cent.

There is no doubt that this one of the most serious crises we have ever faced as nation - but we are not alone: this is shaping up as a global crisis.

I'm sure many of you will have read - or certainly heard about - When the Rivers Run Dry by British author Fred Pearce, published last year to a fair bit of global acclaim and comment.

Fred Pearce's view is that water is going to be "the defining crisis of the 21st century".

I agree with him - but I also I believe that Australia has an opportunity to be a global leader in water and to turn this crisis into a defining point in our growth and maturity as a nation.

I believe that we can get this right - if we have the courage to step away from the myths, the parochialism and the political point scoring.

We must put those things behind us.

We need to explore new ideas. We need to adopt fresh approaches. We need to understand that we are all in this together - and that only by working together can we waterproof our future.