Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, South Australians have spoken on this side because we know how important this issue is. As South Australian MPs we understand full well the importance and seriousness of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is astonishing to sit here as a South Australian—and there are other South Australians on the other side of the House who will be judged on this issue. We saw the Murray Mouth only a few years ago—and the Murray Mouth is not far from Adelaide; it's only an hour's drive; I have relatives there, and I travel there regularly—and you could see dry sand, no water, dead fish and the environment crumbling before your eyes. That is what the sights were a few years ago when we had the drought. To hear the other side try and wash this away, say it's not a big issue and talk about this being a minor issue is astonishing.

As we heard the member for Watson say earlier, the integrity of the water market is essential to ensure that this plan works. The integrity of the water market is the No.1 issue that is of concern, because if you have no integrity in that water market—as we saw in the allegations on Four Corners, where water is being pumped up, taken out of the system and pumped further up—then the whole thing collapses. We need to get to the bottom of this, and the only way to do it is through a judicial inquiry.

It's okay for the government to hold a royal commission into unions for political reasons—and that's all it was—but not for such an important issue, which is not even a political issue! It goes across political divides. This is about the integrity of the river, the environment and the assurance that our fruit growers, people and industries on the river have enough water to survive. We are taking water out from one end and pumping it into the other end. The other end will do okay, but what happens to the people in South Australia, like those in the Riverland, where we depend on their grapes, on their fruit—on a whole bunch of things that we export?

What happens to the fisheries further down the river? What happens to those people? If there is no integrity—

Mr Pasin interjecting—

The member for Barker may want to interject, but his community in the Riverland is dependent on a water market that is integral to them. They need to know, having given up water years ago when there were buybacks, that the integrity of this is 100 per cent, and the way to do it is through this judicial inquiry.

We're located at the end of the river system and therefore very heavily affected. We all cheered when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed to by the basin governments in 2012, led by my colleague the then water and environment minister, the member for Watson. The plan ensured delivery of the environmental equivalent of returning those gigalitres to the basin. What we see now is a minister for water who not that long ago said that he did not agree with the 450 gigalitres going to the environment. This was an integral part of this Basin Plan. It was absolutely integral to it so that we have water when we have tough times, when we have droughts—and droughts will come again. That 450 gigalitres is integral to ensure that we keep the sustainability of the river going. It's not rocket science; it's pretty simple. So to have members try to wipe their hands of this and say, 'It's a state issue; we're not interested,' or leave it up to the states is so wrong.

In fact, even other countries are looking to copy the strategy that we have used on this plan. For example, in the United States, California, which has been facing its worst drought, has praised our measures and policies. It has praised the broad community involvement across the sectors and the clear, credible communication about the drought and the reasoning for the response that maximises public participation and support as much as possible. That means that people will have their say and they all agree.

Therefore, when we hear stories like the one we heard on Four Corners, where people are making allegations that the water was coming out and being pumped further up for cotton, it absolutely is unfair on everyone else that lives on that river or depends on that river for their livelihood and their industries from there downwards. South Australia certainly is at that bottom end.

I have to say that the way to fix it, if you really care about it and really are interested in ensuring that we have water integrity in this country, is through a judicial inquiry. Every member, as the member for Watson said, will have the opportunity in the coming days to vote on that. (Time expired)

See this speech in context