Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I am going to respond to the member for Riverina, but I will do that respectfully by using his appropriate title. I was here when the member for Riverina crossed the floor and moved a disallowance motion. But what I also remember in that debate is that it was not a choice between farmers in South Australia and drinking water for Adelaide and, indeed, the environment because in the millennium drought we all remember dairy farmers being run off their land because the quality of water was so poor along the lower end of the river. There was absolutely no decent quality water, so that is why in that millennium drought we had farmers in South Australia coming together with the people in Adelaide who were looking at their drinking water running out. Of course, people were seeing turtles die, animals die and fish die all along that river. That did not have consequences for only the environment but had consequences for the people who made their living from fishing. People came together in South Australia because there was a lack of consideration and appreciation for what we faced at the end of the Murray Darling Basin.

I made the point then and I continue to make the point that a dead river is good for nobody. It is not good for farmers, it is not good for the people in the communities that rely on it and it is of course not good for the environment. The action that we took back then in government and the action that the Minister for the Environment and Water is taking now with the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 is absolutely about ensuring that we have a sustainable river system for the long term—long-term vision, long-term planning.

I heard the shadow minister refer to getting technology advice from 1885, I think it was. That just shows how the opposition has not come to grips with the absolutely dire straits that the Murray Darling is in, and the impact and the effort that we need to put in to make sure that this system survives. Of course, we heard a lot about dams—a lot of money for dams, just not a lot of dams built by those opposite. When we were last in government, we invested in water infrastructure. In fact, it was an absolute pleasure to visit a number of farms that were growing oranges in the Riverland and watch our $400 million investment—and that was just one of the many investments we made—in on-farm irrigation. It was looking at smart technology and it was looking at responsive technology that meant farmers were able to control their water use. They were able to monitor the soil moisture and use the water in the most efficient way possible. That is progress, that is real investment in technology and on-farm infrastructure, and that is exactly what our government did when we were last in government.

This government is now having to clean up the mess that was left by nine years of inaction. Those opposite never recanted the 450 gigalitres. They never recanted that. They were just silent on it. They said, 'Maybe we'll try.' They didn't reject it—they did not reject it—but they didn't actually deliver it. 'If we just stay silent, if we don't say anything, people might forget.' But the people of South Australia have not forgotten, and they want a government that will take action to protect, repair and manage this vital natural resource and all the ecosystems that go along with it, but also all the communities.

We need this to be sustainable in the long term. Quite frankly, to hear the member opposite make comments that this side of the House doesn't care about farming communities—that is why communities right across South Australia banded together in that millennium drought; they knew something needed to be done for the long term. If we did not manage this resource appropriately, then we wouldn't have something for the long term. Unfortunately, it has taken the election of this government to start repairing the system again and to start actually enabling the national plan, which was left to go to rack and ruin by those opposite.

South Australians repeatedly faced water ministers under the former government who were actively working against them and against the underlying Murray-Darling Basin Plan when it was agreed to in 2012. Watching the coalition infighting, we saw the progress of the plan stall. They didn't have the courage to repeal it and stand by their convictions. No, they just sabotaged it. We know that the National Party did try and amend the Water Act without the support of the Liberals in the Senate during the last term of parliament. Once again, that division, that infighting, led to a lack of action in an area that we needed action to occur.

We know that there is absolute division embedded in the opposition when it comes to water buybacks. But we need a plan, and that does involve water buybacks. It does involve investment in infrastructure. It does involve bringing state and Commonwealth ministers together to make progress on the Murray-Darling plan as we outlined. I would like to commend the minister for water for the leadership that she has taken from day one of becoming a minister. She has sought to get this plan back on track.

The plan was built on the principles of cooperation and to ensure we do not face a situation like we faced in the millennium drought. I hear the member opposite sighing. I think he forgets just how serious that was. There were plans to start trucking water into Adelaide. He might not care about Adelaide. He might not care about South Australia. But our only crime was being at the end of the river system, and the members opposite wanted to punish us for that, and to hell with the consequences for the people of South Australia.

Basin governments signed on to the plan with a promise to the Australian people that they would work together in the national interest—not in their own state's interest, not in their own partisan interest, but in the national interest to ensure that future generations will still be able to rely on this natural resource that we enjoy today.

This basin is incredibly important for its productivity—its agricultural productivity and its tourism productivity—and for its beauty that many people enjoy as well. It has a natural habitat, of which the member opposite so callously said, 'They all die. They'll just come back. I don't care if they all die—if the birds die, if the fish die. Doesn't matter; they'll regenerate.'

See this speech in context