Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I know what the answer is but, if we are trying to gain a more natural system, should they be there in the first place? Lake Alexandrina and the smaller lakes have destroyed the surrounding environment. But the point I make in terms of that issue is that, if we agree with the logic that the Prime Minister and Minister Wong were using, that we have made mistakes in the past, then we really should do something to make sure that it does not happen again. To do that, we need a process, a basin plan that this legislation goes towards putting in place. Why would we not get the science right in terms of the water within the system? Why, suddenly, is the mining industry exempt when the irrigation industry is not? Why are we condemning past procedures—in terms of allocation, land clearing and some of those issues—and then sitting back in this place and allowing an activity like mining?

I am not against coalmines; I have a coalmine next door to me and I work well with it, but surely, Minister Garrett, we need to examine the science of these systems and work out how they work to start with—because we do not understand that—and then overlay a three-dimensional map, in a sense, of what would happen if we allow an activity such as mining to take place in the various groundwater systems. The logic, Minister, does not fit. I agree—and I have argued for quite some years—that we should be doing something about the Murray-Darling system, and I am pleased to see something is being done. But to exempt big business in an area where there is a highly productive food-producing capacity makes a nonsense of the logic.

The previous government spent $8 million on water reform and not one megalitre of water was added back into the system. I would hate to see this legislation wend its way through history and another $10 million spent with very little— (Time expired)

See this speech in context