Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the serious issue of water and the Murray-Darling Basin. Certainly, there are a lot of problems that are facing South Australia. I recognise the part of the motion relating to the negative impact that the drought is having on water levels at Goolwa and the effect it is having on tourism operators and small businesses. On my last visit to Goolwa I heard from accommodation providers of their concern with the lack of water and the impact that it was having on the tourism industry. In particular, I heard a lot of concern about the biennial wooden boat festival. I am pleased to hear that the festival did go ahead this month, although I recognise that organisers were forced to put limits on participation due to the low levels of water.

However, in saying that, I will reject outright the first part of this motion, because it is this government, the Rudd government, who has acted and continues to act to address the difficult issues that affect the Murray-Darling system. Governments on both sides in the past have continually ignored the issue of water and the Murray-Darling system. In particular, the previous Howard government did nothing to modernise or invest in infrastructure to address the overallocation of the system. With the Howard government achieving nothing in 12 years it has been up to the Rudd government to begin to address this extremely important issue.

Soon after being elected the government announced Water for the Future, a $12.9 billion plan to start fixing the Murray-Darling Basin. Since this announcement the government has been getting on with the job, despite what the member for Mayo has suggested, of implementing this plan. One of the most important planks of this plan includes $3.1 billion to purchase water in the Murray-Darling Basin. This is critical to ensure that the historic overallocation is redressed. But, importantly, this government has also implemented the establishment of a basin-wide cap of water to improve the health of the whole system.

I assume with this motion that the member for Mayo does support the buying back of water, but it is a pity that his party is divided on this issue. His colleagues further upstream have regularly been on record disagreeing with buybacks. In fact, the division in the Liberal Party is clear on water buybacks and that can no better be demonstrated than by a media release from the Leader of the Opposition. On 5 May the Leader of the Opposition put out a media release when he contradicted himself in the one document on water buybacks. While urging the government to buy 30 gigalitres of water for the Lower Lakes, he also claimed that buying back water would destroy jobs and should be avoided.

So my question to the Liberal Party and to the member for Mayo is: if you do not want to buy back water because it would destroy jobs but you do propose to fix the Lower Lakes, how do you do this? Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition thinks that he can make it rain, but even he is not quite that good.

See this speech in context