Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS) has the potential to create 3,700 jobs for northern Adelaide and add more than $500 million a year to the State's economy; and

(2) calls on the Government to immediately commit to provide the $45.6 million in funding required by the South Australian Government for the NAIS to proceed.

Water has always been a big issue in my electorate. We have some of the leaders in the world in collecting stormwater and using it for both industrial and semiresidential purposes, such as watering of parks and recreational facilities. It started in the City of Salisbury and extended to the City of Playford. Since then, we've seen a couple of schemes extend that very principle to horticulture and agricultural produce—agribusiness.

In 2010, the first iteration of the NAIS was proposed. Unfortunately, that fell over through want of a private backer. It had a private backer, but the effects of the global financial crisis took their toll. Since then, we've had the Gawler River scheme—the Bunyip scheme—which is now providing water to the western Barossa. It is a very successful scheme. It has already proved its worth by saving some $30 million worth of crops. It is a $30 million overall scheme but with a $10 million private contribution, so it has proved its worth in just one summer.

We have here a vital proposal, the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. I'm happy to say that, since I had the motion listed on the Notice Paper and since I've been lobbying the minister—and the South Australian government, of course, has provided a $110 million commitment—the federal government has finally come to the party.

Of course, water projects do require a bipartisan approach. Typically they run across governments and across administrations, and sometimes, due to their length of time, they run across even political careers. It's important that we do keep an eye to bipartisanship on this, but I would note that South Australia has suffered greatly at the hands of this Commonwealth government under both its prime ministers. Under the first Prime Minister, we saw a shocking assault on the industrial infrastructure in the automotive, shipbuilding and steel industries. Under this government, we've seen precious little in the way of response in rebuilding it. Finally, they have come to the party on this very important project, which will basically develop 300 hectares of additional agricultural land, provide perhaps up to 3,700 jobs and add more than $500 million a year to the South Australian economy.

The other important thing about it is that it also provides for a very important environmental outcome. The 12 gigalitres of wastewater that would've been discharged into the gulf from the Bolivar sewerage works—treated water, but water that was going to be discharged nonetheless and would have had an effect on mangroves, swamps and other pristine habitats up the coast of my electorate—will now be used for agricultural purposes, so there's a dual dividend in both the economy and the environment.

This project was backed in the last federal election by the opposition. We provided an $80 million commitment. I would note that that $80 million commitment would be far fairer than the $46 million that the Commonwealth government is putting in, which of course has forced the state government to put in $110 million. In this project, the Commonwealth is not even an equal partner, despite the damage they have done to my state and the job market. We will see that damage very, very acutely next month when Holden closes.

We're happy to see a bipartisan commitment to this project. We're happy to see it developed. I'm glad I could play a small role in pushing the government to do it. I'm glad that the Labor Party provided the early impetus to develop this very important project. I know that, when it comes to actually building and overseeing it, we will be there in government to do exactly that and to help South Australia grow and to provide jobs after a terrible period of Commonwealth government by those opposite.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very proud to be speaking on this motion today and to talk about the wonderful job that the federal coalition government has done, particularly in relation to water policy. The only problem we have in South Australia is the terrible state Labor government. The sooner we get rid of them, the better for the future of our state.

I'd like to highlight the effective water policy of the coalition government, which is building critical water infrastructure across the nation. The Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme will create crucial jobs for South Australia, boost the output of our arable market gardens around Virginia and the Gawler River and enhance our horticultural export potential. This is a commonsense project. It is disappointing that the failed state Labor government didn't jump onto this sooner.

Currently, half of the potable recycled water from northern Adelaide's Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant goes out to sea and has done so for years. In South Australia, where we often have water restrictions, we are wasting gigalitres of our most valuable and scarce resource by pumping it into the ocean. This is insanity. This is why the coalition government has picked up the slack in South Australia once again, as we have on so many projects—first, funding the feasibility study with $2.5 million of federal money and now committing $45.6 million to the scheme itself.

It's the first project to be funded under the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund's expression of interest process. These projects are selected on a priority basis for what will bring the biggest economic return, which is precisely what my state of South Australia needs. The Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme will create over $500 million worth of economic activity and 3,700 jobs in the process. It will do this by delivering up to 12 gigalitres of water to the region for irrigated agriculture and intensive high-tech agriculture, allowing local businesses to grow and develop greater market access to Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan, the UAE, Indonesia and Singapore. This project aligns well with the state Liberal Party's GlobeLink plan to create a dedicated road and rail freight corridor around the Mount Lofty Ranges into northern Adelaide, and a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week export airport at Murray Bridge.

Despite the fact that our region's farmers and primary industries are being shunned by the state Labor government, the agricultural sector is propping up South Australia's economy. It's one of the bright lights of our economic activity in South Australia at the moment. This is just as well, because the state Labor government is killing manufacturing in our state with the world's highest power prices, and the worst is yet to come. I spent the couple of weeks we've just had in our electorates talking to a range of businesses. It is genuinely terrifying, the impact that we are yet to see of these terribly high power prices and what this is doing to business investment and employment. We can contrast this with the state Liberal Party's visionary plan to build productive infrastructure as part of GlobeLink, which has the potential to create thousands of jobs and export activity. It will be a game changer for South Australia's economy, while solving local problems, such as getting freight trains out of my electorate and others and getting trucks out of the Adelaide Hills and suburbs, which clog our roads, provide safety risks and, particularly in relation to the trains, provide a significant bushfire risk during the summer months.

This is what the Liberal Party and the National Party do. We build dams, save water, support farmers, build infrastructure and grow the economy. This is what creates jobs so that hardworking Australians can put food on their tables, pay their mortgages and provide for their families and their communities. It's policies like our National Water Infrastructure Development Fund supporting the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme that will lift South Australia's economy out of its current slump.

If state and federal Labor were serious about economic growth and job creation, they would have investigated and funded this critical scheme years ago. By contrast, the state Labor government has had wasteful and nonsensical water policy, like the $1.2 billion desal plant that sits, mothballed, not far out of my electorate while we pump almost 30 gigalitres of potable water from northern Adelaide into the sea. Federally, Labor—those opposite—are not much better. A Labor government in Canberra would have stopped the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme dead in its tracks; so I'm proud to be here today to support this very important initiative for South Australia.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Wakefield for bringing this matter before the House because it is important for South Australia. Next month, the Holden plant at Elizabeth will close and, with it, thousands of jobs will be lost and hundreds of small businesses will struggle to survive because the Turnbull and Abbott government turned their back on auto workers in this country. The Turnbull government has known for three years about the impending closure, yet it has done very little to support the workers who are likely to lose their jobs or the businesses that will struggle to continue to keep their doors open. The pittance of support that has been provided to South Australia through the automotive Growth Fund has been nothing more than tokenistic rebadging of regular government industry assistance programs. Even more disappointing is that one of the industry sectors that is able to grow, that has been saying for years that it can grow and that has been neglected by the Turnbull government, is the irrigators in the northern Adelaide plains. The GM workers live in the very region in which these irrigators operate, and they could transition to jobs that would be created, if there were growth in this sector.

Food growing in the northern Adelaide plains isn't just about growing; it also creates opportunities for food processing and the export of South Australian food. The only thing that is stopping the expansion of many of the operators that are currently there—and I have spoken to them at length about this—is access to more water. They have limited water supplies. Indeed, one of the growers that I spoke to said that he has an application ready to go to expand his operations by hundreds of additional hectares if he could get water, and that water would depend on the extension of the Bolivar pipeline that currently goes out into the region. Those growers have been calling for that support for years. It's something that has been known, and Labor went into the last election with an $80 million commitment to extend that irrigation pipeline.

Finally—and I say finally because it has taken this government four years to do something about it and come to the party—the Turnbull government has committed $46 million to assist with the extension. It is not even half of the $110 million that the state government is going to provide for the same purpose. And it is four years of wasted time that could've been used to have the pipeline operational and ready to go right now, in time to provide jobs that will be needed as a result of Holden closing. It has been four years of wasted time that we will never get back. But it should come as no surprise to anybody that this government has turned its back on South Australia. It has done so the entire time it's been in office.

It has particularly turned its back on South Australia when it comes to agriculture. We have an agriculture minister who has never shown any support for South Australian irrigators. His track record on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and his disregard for South Australia, speaks for itself. We debated matters related to that only a couple of months ago, where it was absolutely clear that the agriculture minister is only interested in the eastern states. When the South Australian farmers were flooded out last year, we saw a visit by the Prime Minister but we saw no real support for the farmers at all. Since that visit I have spoken to growers who were very disillusioned by the fact that the Prime Minister was prepared to go out there and claim that he was going to give them whatever support the government could, and yet they have since seen nothing.

The $46 million will help extend the pipeline, and it will create some immediate growth opportunities, but, sadly, it won't be for another two years. The northern Adelaide growers know their industry well; they are experienced operators. They also know the potential for growth in the export market. It's an industry sector that will, in fact, create a flow-on of jobs right across transport, irrigation, construction, packaging, machinery, fertilisers and the like, so it will create jobs for the very people who are likely to be made redundant as a result of the closure of Holden. Being located close to road, rail, sea and an airport, the opportunities for exports are indeed there. But the government has only belatedly committed to the funding because it was embarrassed into doing so by the announcement by Labor earlier this week. It's always been Labor that has led the way in supporting Adelaide's northern plains irrigators and small business operators. (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the member for Makin, it's a pity they hadn't put the money up then—that's all I can say. But I thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this motion forward. He must be very pleased with his work. But before his motion got into the House we'd acted on it, which we can have a laugh about. I hope, now, that he tells his electors how wonderful the Turnbull government is and what it is doing for Adelaide; in fact, what it is doing with so many other schemes and so many other projects. So, Member for Wakefield, you would be very pleased with the Turnbull government's contribution to South Australia. As the member for Boothby pointed out, by golly we need it in South Australia. We have had 16 years of regression under the state government. You know and I know and the member for Boothby knows that we're going to lose another seat in the federal parliament, and that is an absolute response to the way our state has been run. But the coalition government is there and it is making a difference.

This project is a terrific project. We live in the driest state in the driest continent on earth— that is, inhabited continent, let's get it straight. We need to make the most of the water we do have. We have wonderful fertile plains to the north of Adelaide, even though the sprawl of Adelaide is gradually reducing that as well, it must be said. The coalition government put $2½ million into the feasibility study, which I think is very important. This motion may have been brought on by the member for Wakefield's impatience in trying to get this deal over the line. But, in fact, good government always makes sure it is backing good projects, and that's what the $2½ million investment was about. Now we are investing $45.6 million—and there will 3,700 full-time jobs. That's a lot of jobs. I have just come out of the celebrations in Whyalla, where we've probably saved a few more jobs than that. But it is a reason to be proud and pleased with the work we do, particularly in this case coming out of this place. The project will deliver up to 12 gigalitres of new, treated water to the northern Adelaide plains.

It is worth noting that during the 2016 election campaign, the ALP actually promised to cut the $500 million National Water Infrastructure Development Fund by more than $200 million—goodness me. The first investment out of this fund will fund the northern irrigation project, and you wanted to cut it in half—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hasten to add; the member for Wakefield and his colleagues were going to cut it in half. In fact, in the 2016 election the ALP said they were committed to reduce uncommitted funding by 50 per cent. You can't get anything done if you keep pulling the money out. That's what happened to Defence and that's why this government has had to move in to South Australia and rejuvenate the Australian shipbuilding industry because of what Labor did to Defence—not one ship in six years. We are there working with the South Australian people, investing in the Northern Connector and investing in the Darlington interchange and the Torrens Road to River Torrens project. To me, in a quick add-up, that looks to be about $1.4 billion.

Interestingly, there has been a lot of conversation about GST receipts in recent times. South Australia is in receipt of $1.45 for every dollar our taxpayers put into the GST.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you would like to talk to your Western Australian colleagues, let me tell you this: I have great sympathy for you there, that the system is not working right when they get 35c in the dollar. When the South Australian government, in its electoral mode, comes out and criticises the federal government for virtually every mistake they've ever made and lays every failure it has at the feet of the federal government, I hope you, Member for Wakefield, will stand up and say, 'Well, actually, Malcolm Turnbull and his team are doing a pretty good job because they are the ones that are investing—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Grey will refer—

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

this $45 million in making sure the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hello!

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon?

It's twice I've called you. The member for Grey will refer to members by their proper title.

The Prime Minister?

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, not Malcolm Turnbull but Prime Minister.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. Is it okay if I call him Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull?

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but you didn't the first two times and that's why I pulled you up.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. When you, the member for Wakefield, speak to your electors, you can say that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his team are doing a great job because they are delivering this project for South Australia.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important motion because it highlights—despite what those on the other side have said—that it was Labor out in front on this issue, talking about the importance of the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme project. It was Labor that took it to the last election as an election commitment and it was Labor that, in opposition, led the way in committing the funds. The Liberal Party—embarrassed, being outdone again and again by Labor in South Australia—have committed a measly 50 per cent of what Labor committed, so their heart isn't really in this project. But they have been forced into it by embarrassment, by federal Labor and the member for Wakefield's work in embarrassing them to this position, and they are now going to invest. It is 50 per cent less than Labor would invest, but nonetheless they are investing. They were embarrassed into doing this.

There is a good reason why they had to be embarrassed into doing this. When the budget came out on budget night, I went through the budget papers, looking for the new investment in South Australia. I saw investment into New South Wales, into the new airport, investment into Brisbane and investment into Victoria, but I couldn't find any new investment—not a single new dollar to be invested—in South Australia. That is what this federal Liberal government thinks of South Australia. It is quite in contrast to federal Labor, who have been on the front foot calling for investment in South Australia.

The subject of this motion in front of us, the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme, is just one example. Being in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, I know the transition that we are now going through with the car industry exiting, after Joe Hockey goaded Holden to leave this country—and we will never forget what Joe Hockey, the then Treasurer, did to the car industry. He challenged them to leave, and that's what they've now done. We are now facing the consequences of that in South Australia.

Only federal Labor have been willing to say, 'We want to invest in South Australia.' We want to invest. We had to run an almighty campaign to get the submarines built in South Australia, because, of course, we know that the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott had done the deal to send the whole construction, the whole contract, off to Japan. We know that is the case. And we have serious concerns about what this government plans to do with the frigates. Is it going to ensure that we get the technology and the know-how in Australia, with South Australia as the hub? This is a really important question that this government has failed to answer time and time again.

We know that the member for Sturt will use weasel words to try to get around reporters when he is asked point blank how much work will be in South Australia and in Australia. He won't answer that question, whether it comes to the frigates or the submarines. We know they are disingenuous about investment in South Australia. It was very interesting that the member for Grey brought up the GST. Only the federal Labor team have put forward a motion that both addresses the issues that Western Australia faces with the distribution and protects the carve-up for other states, including, importantly, South Australia. Only the federal government of the day are saying, 'We're thinking about potentially penalising other states.' The government are looking at that, and, once again, you get weasel words, depending on what state you're in.

Federal Labor have been very, very clear. We are leading the way when it comes to policy development and important projects like the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. Of course, this isn't new. When in government, federal Labor led the way. The federal Labor government invested in water infrastructure and indeed infrastructure right across my electorate and South Australia. We often hear the government talk about the Torrens to Torrens part of South Road. We know they never wanted to fund it. We know they were once again guilted and embarrassed into funding that project, because it had already started. They wanted to play politics with it time and time again. Well, it's important that they invest in this scheme and in South Australia, and we will hold them to account when they don't.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, you might know that I'm an asthmatic. But I have to say even I am struggling; it's taken some of my breath away to hear the member for Kingston go from water and horticulture to submarines to cars! Let's drag it back to water, because I'm here to speak on this motion and to talk about the bipartisan approach to this. This is $45.6 million invested by the coalition government into water infrastructure. And what will that do for South Australia? What will it do for farmers in the member for Wakefield's electorate? It will create 3,700 jobs, and it will create some $500 million for the state's economy—and these figures are important; I will come back to them.

We are talking about 12 gigs. I will leave for a moment any partisan complaints—which have been made so well by the member for Boothby, and by the member for Grey on our side—about the fact that the Labor Party sought to cut funding to this scheme. It cut funding to the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund—the very scheme which is now delivering this $45.6 million to the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. So we're in screaming agreement, the member for Wakefield and I, and the member for Kingston and I, that an investment of this nature is unashamedly good for South Australian jobs. It is unashamedly good for South Australian farmers. And remember, we're talking about 12 gig. So, if it is good for farmers in the member for Wakefield's electorate, can the member for Wakefield and the member for Kingston—anyone on that side—tell me why we should rip out 36 gigs from irrigators in the Riverland? Because that's exactly what is currently proposed. They've come in here to champion the 12 gigs for farmers in the member for Wakefield's electorate creating 3,700 jobs. But they're not going to talk to you about the 36 gigs—conveniently, three times the amount of water—being ripped out of the Riverland. What is that going to do? Well, on these numbers, it will cost us 12,000 jobs: easy to say, hard to comprehend. It will cost the South Australian economy—the worst-performing economy in the country—$1.5 billion on these figures.

Whilst I'm in screaming agreement with the member for Wakefield and the member for Kingston with respect to this particular project, I hope they're in screaming agreement with me when I say irrigators in the Riverland can't afford to give up any more water. We can't afford to lose jobs. We as a state can't afford to lose the revenue that comes with it. But strangely, what I will hear on that proposal from those on the other side is silence. They are running this disingenuous campaign: 'Save the Murray'. To be honest, their campaign is code for: 'Rip water irrigation licences out of the Riverland', 'Cost irrigators'—in my electorate—'their businesses' and 'Cost workers in the Riverland their jobs'. So I find it passing strange that those opposite will come in here and claim so-called credit for this investment when they know, deep down in their hearts, that this is a coalition commitment, this $45.6 million out of a fund that those opposite were going to cancel, or at least cut. So I would like to see the same sort of screaming agreement, the same sort of bipartisanship, when we talk about the irrigators in my electorate—the people that put fruit and vegetables on the tables, in the pantries and in the fridges of Australians all across the country, and indeed on the tables, in the pantries and in the fridges of people around the world. To do otherwise is proof positive that those on the other side are, quite frankly, uninterested in the national interest. They are much more interested in the interests of their respective electorates. And whilst I can come here and say that this is an unashamedly good thing for South Australia, and for farmers in the member for Wakefield's electorate, delivered by the coalition government, I hope the member for Wakefield can do the same when we speak about irrigators from the Riverland.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.