Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I speak to the solar panel sector quite often. The facts of the matter are these. The government take seriously the questions of reform and of making sure that we address this issue which has bedevilled the Federation for decades. We recognise that, after nine months, we have already put in place a series of comprehensive reforms and commitments to do what the opposition failed to do for 12 long years. Let us quickly look at a bit of history to set a context for this matter of public importance. It was the Labor government that initiated water reform. It was Labor that established the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in 1985 and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in 1988. It was Labor that led the historic COAG agreement in 1994 that set out the principles for water reform. So the principles for water reform were set out when the incoming government came to office.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you: what happened at that particular point in time, when the incoming government came to office? Mr Howard was confronted with the reform framework that the Labor government had put in place and with the stresses and strains on the federal system and on the river system and, of course, with some warnings about climate change. There were a number of warnings about climate change at that particular point in time—warnings which specifically directed the government of the day to the fact that climate change impacts upon water allocations within the Murray-Darling Basin and on water in the system would need to be addressed and need to be taken into account. What happened? The answer is: nothing. That is what happened: nothing. There was a stony silence. I think some people listening to me speak in the House will recognise that there was a stony silence until the now Leader of the Opposition became the minister responsible for water. We know what happened next, but I will come to that part of the story a little bit later on.

Let me just go back and remind members opposite of the Liberal coalition history of inaction on this issue. In the 2004 and 2006 budgets, the Howard government committed some $750 million to return water to the Murray-Darling river system under the Living Murray program. But not a single drop or a single bit of water entitlement was recovered directly using that Commonwealth funding. Then, just 10 months before Mr Howard lost office, he announced his plan, the National Plan for Water Security. I assume this was the plan that the member for Flinders was so proud of. This was a plan that displayed all the aspects of good governance that we came to know the Howard government for. This was the plan that the now opposition leader and the former Prime Minister concocted literally on the back of an envelope, with $10 billion worth of taxpayers’ funds. This was a plan that was brought forward without consultation of the cabinet. They did not consult the Treasury. They did not consult the National Water Commission. They did not consult the farmers. They did not consult the states. They did not consult the territory governments. That was the coalition’s approach to one of the most important pieces of water reform that we have seen in the Federation. It was nothing other than a ploy to catch up quickly, to pretend that they cared—just like they pretended that they cared about climate change—and to deliver something which would get them a couple of quick headlines.

If we look specifically at the detail of that plan, what do we see? We see that only one-half of one per cent of the $10 billion was committed in the 2007-08 financial year. Just to take us back to that time, to remember what else was going on there: we were having a vigorous debate in this parliament about climate change and about climate change impacts, much in the same way as the member for Flinders is having a vigorous debate amongst his own party about the merits or otherwise of securing properties like Toorale and others to ensure that there is more water that can flow into the system, particularly—and we pray very much for this—in the case of rain arriving. What was going on in the parliament? We were having a vigorous discussion about climate change. The Prime Minister was getting up to the dispatch box, day in and day out, and bringing up that strain of climate change scepticism which is still in evidence on the opposition benches whilst at the same time sitting on reports which specifically point out that the impacts of climate change on the health of waters and the river systems in the Murray-Darling Basin were likely to be parlous—and then they did not go and spend any money on it at all.

Then we came into government and we committed ourselves to Water for the Future. There is $12.9 billion invested: some $3.1 billion to be invested in entitlements and allocations and some $5 billion to be invested in infrastructure and savings. We have made a specific commitment to purchasing a property—a property which I think is going to make a huge difference to the health of the river system—and those opposite are criticising us for it.

The other thing the member for Flinders was saying in his matter of public importance was that we were stealing water from people. I completely reject that and I think the use of the word ‘theft’ in this instance is particularly irresponsible on the part of the member for Flinders. The fact of the matter is that we do have critical needs in our cities and we do have critical needs in our rural communities. We understand that. We are not pretending to care about it; we understand it very well. When we went to the community cabinet meeting in Kingston, we sat there and we listened to those people in the lower end of the system and we heard what they were experiencing. We identified with it and we want to respond to it. But what kind of approach is it from an opposition that is prepared to try and play one part of the Australian community off against the other? What kind of approach is it from the opposition when it wants to continue to play the states off against the Commonwealth. This is a stereotypical ‘olde worlde’ way of playing important politics in the 21st century and, frankly, the Australian public deserve and expect a great deal more.

On a matter of public importance—with the audition that the member for Flinders was making in front of his leader for the position of shadow minister—he actually stopped talking about the Sugarloaf pipeline altogether and ended up talking about recycling and water that is going out in coastal areas. These are matters that are deserving of debate, but this is a matter of public importance on what the government has done about Sugarloaf. We have imposed the appropriate conditions in respect of this approval and there are other conditions that will be imposed subsequently when other referrals of this kind are made to us. We have also specifically committed—in the purchase of Toorale Station last week by the federal government and the New South Wales government—to the capacity to return an average of 20 billion litres of water to the environment every year.

I ask myself, listening to those opposite complain about this particular action: what is the problem? What is wrong with the federal government actually committing taxpayers’ money to add water to the river system? It is a river system that needs water—that is the point. That is exactly why we are taking those actions. I am absolutely bewildered but can only assume that the views of the member for Calare and the views of the member for Flinders are not at one. In fact, their comments of the last couple of days show that to be the case.

Significant environmental assets will benefit from the purchase that the Rudd Labor government has made—wetlands of national importance at Menindee Lakes and the Darling River itself. I refer the member to the recent CSIRO sustainable yields audit for the Barwon-Darling system which found that the middle zone of the Darling River is in poor condition. We are responding specifically to that science. We are acknowledging that there was a willing seller—and there was. We made an offer at a fair market price and a property was sold to the Commonwealth and the government of New South Wales. I was particularly pleased that, in a property which has about two-thirds of its land mass as flood plain, we would actually get a significant environment heritage as well. With the national park on the other side of the river, hopefully people will come to share that experience and it will produce some income for the local economy. It is frankly a win-win. It is a win-win for the river system and it is a win-win for the environment.

The opposition has got to make up its mind whether it is going to accept that at this point in time, in a highly stressed river system, in the midst of one of the most serious droughts that we have seen, with significant additional impacts from climate change, the program that the Rudd Labor government is bringing forward to deal with and address those issues is one they might find the goodwill and the good politics to support. If it does not, we will have what we had today: a matter of public importance which referred to a series of matters which were unsubstantiated, a matter of public importance which proposed to criticise the government on the basis of the actions that it is taking on the Sugarloaf pipeline, which ranged far and wide to matters of coastal outfalls and New South Wales political governments, and a matter of public importance which actually requires us to accept that in nine months we did what it did not do in 12 years. We have taken the action to deal with this important and critical area of our natural, economic and rural infrastructure. If the best that this opposition can do, coming into a matter of public importance like this, is bring forward contradictory assertions, wild exaggerations and baseless historical reflections of their own inadequacies, then God help us all. The Rudd Labor government is committed to delivering water to the people and to the environments of the region. I will continue with that job.

See this speech in context