Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on behalf of the people of McEwen. I want to place on record my appreciation to the 44,165 people who gave me their first preference, 5.5 per cent more voters than those who cast their first preference for the ALP. To the many hundreds of other people who marked the number 1 in the box beside my name but sadly neglected to fill in any other square, I thank them for their confidence in me but in the future I would be even more grateful if they would complete the ballot paper by numbering every square. I am very proud to represent all of the people of McEwen.

The result in McEwen, as everyone knows, has made national political history by becoming the most marginal electorate in the entire country and also because the ALP have petitioned the High Court to overturn the final decision of the AEC. By the way, they want the Australian taxpayers to foot their bill. This is in spite of the ALP and their candidate giving an assurance that they would abide by the umpire’s decision on the recount in McEwen. In taking this action, the ALP are questioning both the conduct and the role of the AEC. This stands in stark contrast with the public comments made by the ALP at the close of the recount, when they stated that the AEC was a thoroughly professional organisation and thanked them for their fairness.

The electorate of McEwen is now the biggest Victorian electorate, by population, by a country mile, with more than 107,000 registered voters. Just three years ago, where cows grazed in paddocks there now stand around 15,000 homes. In this debate, I want to raise a number of issues that are of critical concern to people across the huge and diverse electorate of McEwen. I do not think there would be a member of this House who has not been touched by the hardship of drought, either in their own electorate or vicariously. To put this into perspective for my electorate, every rural local government authority has been declared to be in severe drought and the three shires that are more regionally based on the outskirts of Melbourne have had their rural areas declared in severe drought also. Imagine then how the farmers, the small business people and the tourist operators in these areas felt when they were told without any consultation that water, their very lifeblood, was to be diverted from their area to approximately 200,000 homes in Melbourne via a pipeline from Yea to the Sugarloaf Reservoir which was to be known as the Sugarloaf pipeline.

This is water that is needed to grow produce for both our domestic and export markets. It is water that is needed to sustain our magnificent natural environment of the north-east—the Eildon catchment area; the Goulburn River, which flows into the Murray-Darling system; the Acheron and the Yea rivers. It is this environment that is responsible for attracting tourists who pump millions of dollars into these regional economies. It is the water that defines this region and provides the basis for many communities and a lifestyle that has supported many generations. However, not only were these communities not consulted about such a massive diversion of water but the Victorian state government did not conduct any scientific or environmental assessment of the impact this diversion would have on the environment or the flow of the Goulburn River, which feeds into the Murray-Darling. In fact, on 28 December 2007 the Victorian Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, said an environmental effects statement would not be required for the Sugarloaf pipeline.

Imagine if a private company attempted to start a comparable major infrastructure project and attempted to bypass the normal measures designed to protect the community and the environment. This clearly demonstrates the Victorian government’s arrogance and complete lack of care or understanding of the needs of these rural communities which are dependent on this water for their livelihood. Not only have the state government arrogantly flouted the rules that apply to everyone else, but they have bulldozed ahead with their plans and have already appointed the construction engineers. When they appointed the John Holland construction company as the successful firm to construct the pipeline, no decision had been announced on their preferred route for construction. So the question needs to be asked: what information was detailed in the tender documentation to enable these engineers to accept the job?

While telling the public that the route was still under discussion, as Melbourne Water officials did at a public meeting in Yarra Glen on the night of Wednesday, 30 January this year, had the state government already decided on the route? Again, there was no consultation with landholders or any of the affected community. How else could they have entered into a contract with the construction firm if they had not indicated their preferred proposed route?

The question needs to be asked: why would this state government take such a decision to divert 75 gigalitres of water? And, by the way, that is equivalent to one-fifth of the capacity of Sydney Harbour. Why would they take this amount of water from a region that has been in severe drought conditions? The water catchment of Lake Eildon, according to the CSIRO, will not reach more than 30 per cent capacity before 2020, and many farmers dependent on their water supply from Eildon have not been able to get their full water entitlements because of the depleted levels of the catchment.

Initially the state government claimed that water would be saved from fixing some of the ageing and leaking irrigation channels in the Goulburn Valley. They said that one-third of this so-called extra water saved would be retained and sold to irrigators, one-third would be returned to the environment and one-third would be piped to Melbourne to service approximately 200,000 homes. But the state government have never released any research to substantiate their claims of water to be saved, and there is no environmental or water scientist who can verify or agree with their claims. The state government refuse to allow any independent analysis of these claims by, for example, the Auditor-General. There is a very simple reason why they will not: they know their claims that water can be saved cannot be substantiated. Even if those savings were real and could be substantiated, the responsible course of action would be to make the savings first, before diverting any water from an already stressed area. But of course that is not what is happening.

The Sugarloaf pipeline is being pushed along at great speed, and it is the intention of the state government to have this built before one litre of their imagined savings from the work to be carried out on the irrigation channels is harnessed—and this comes at a cost of around $1 billion. On 18 February this year, following sustained opposition from irrigation farmers, broadacre farmers and local businesspeople, the state government released a 186-page document titled Project impact assessment. This document sets out very clearly in the first chapter that the purpose of this project is to transfer water to Melbourne. The report then details in chapter 2 Melbourne’s water supply situation. It says:

Inflows into Melbourne Water’s reservoirs over the past 10 years have been significantly lower than in the previous 100 years. The year 2006 saw the lowest stream flows in recorded history ... This followed a period of 10 years in which there were 3 major drought periods ... This extended dry period has resulted in a long-term decline in storage reserves—

with those reserves at only 29 per cent of capacity.

No-one denies any of that, but the Eildon catchment area, where they plan to take water from, has been in severe drought conditions throughout this entire period and its capacity has plummeted to a critical level of only nine per cent. At that level, they are barely able to provide sufficient water to flush out the Goulburn River if there is an algae outbreak. As we stand here today, Eildon’s capacity is only 16.6 per cent. The report states quite clearly up-front:

... the key objective is to increase water security for Melbourne in light of predicted lower inflows which are expected to occur as a result of climate change, increased population, and continued metropolitan growth.

So we are left in no doubt whatsoever that the main aim of this pipeline is to secure water for the future of 200,000 homes in Melbourne. The real question here is at what cost? The needs of country people come a very poor second to the needs of those lucky people living in those 200,000 homes in Melbourne. The Victorian state government is prepared to sacrifice the livelihoods of country people so that approximately 200,000 homes in Melbourne can have enhanced water entitlements in the future. Let me quote further from this document:

Key findings contained in the PIA are summarised as:

The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will not significantly impact environmental, social or economic values associated with the project;

The level of investigations and assessment undertaken is appropriate to assess the key issues associated with the project and to determine preferred pipeline corridors, taking into account mitigation and management option identified for those key issues ...

That is the rhetoric, but the reality is a very different picture. At the back of the report there are 18 pages of appendices. I will not go into all of them but I will give you a bit of a snapshot. They include: ‘Design Assessment Report’, ‘Environmental Implications of Transferring Water Assessment’, ‘Hydrogeology Assessment’, ‘Flora and Fauna Assessment’, ‘Socio-Economic and Tourism Impact Assessment’ and ‘Greenhouse Gas Assessment’. But here is the crunch: every single one of those 18 pages, which are supposed to be containing those appendices, is blank. Can you believe it? They have released this report to the public with 18 blank pages!

This is not just a very serious problem for the people of my electorate but a serious national problem because the waters of the Goulburn River feed into the Murray-Darling system. An action under the EPBC Act has been referred to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Given the total lack of environmental assessment by the Victorian state government, I do sincerely urge the federal minister to give this application his very close attention. There is just too much at stake for the health of our environment, the water flows and the future viability of all the small business people affected by this unprecedented and very callous decision by the Victorian state government.

We do not have an awful lot of time in this debate and I do want to touch on a couple of other issues. The Labor government, as we heard on day one, is wedded to accountability and being transparent. So I want to get on the record that, during the election campaign, so-called cast-iron commitments were made in my electorate. These included a $3½ million indoor sports stadium in Diamond Creek. Is the government going to honour this commitment? When will they make the funding available? Will the funding be determined by other levels of government coming forward with their funding first? These are matters that we really must know about.

As well there is the $1 million GP superclinic in Wallan. This was announced by the now Deputy Prime Minister and the now Minister for Health and Ageing in Wallan. There was no consultation with the local community or the GPs. Of course, since the election, there has been a big question mark over these GP superclinics, so I would like to know if the government is going to deliver on this commitment. We would like to know where it is going to be located. Are the government going to deliver on the podiatry, physiotherapy, chronic disease management, GPs and after-hours GP services that were promised during the election campaign?

I listened to the previous speaker talk about computers in schools. I do not think anyone disagrees that computers in schools is a great idea, but I would like to know who owns them. Is it the school, the families, the children? When something happens to them, who bears the cost for repairs, maintenance, insurance et cetera? Do you know what the parents in my electorate are really interested in? They want an answer to the question: why has the Investing in Our Schools Program been abolished? This was a program that delivered more than $14 million into schools across my electorate for programs. For example, one school got its first permanent building. The children of that school had been educated in temporary portables that had been recycled many times. The families of children from those schools are asking me, ‘How can you talk about an education revolution if your kids are going to a school where the buildings they are being educated in have exceeded their lifespan by at least 20-odd years?’ They want a good, clean toilet block. They actually want buildings that do not leak. They do not even have basic funding for maintenance. I think we have to get answers to this.

The government have been saying a lot about skills, and we have all been very concerned about skills. They have never given credit for the 87 per cent increase of skills under the Howard government. But one of the first actions that they have taken is to cut $98 million in four key areas, which really affects the people in my electorate. They have cut FarmBis, the Advancing Agricultural Industries program, apprenticeship incentives for agriculture and horticulture and the living away from home allowance for school based apprentices. These programs were really valued by people.

Another election commitment was blazoned in pamphlets all over my electorate. It was: ‘We want every local student to get the best chance in life. Labor will build new labs and workshops in local schools.’ They went on to name the 20 secondary schools in my electorate that were going to get them. I want to ask on the record: when will these 20 schools in my electorate get their labs and workshops? The government has gone on record that they are not going to cut funding to government or non-government schools. I want answers to all of these questions. I can assure the Rudd government that I will not just be asking for answers to these questions in this debate today; I will be asking until I get answers to these questions. (Time expired)

See this speech in context