Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I will just take the opportunity to speak briefly on this, seeing it is now before the chamber. I do think that it needs to be emphasised how absurd the situation is. A piece of legislation was introduced into parliament late last year which is significantly at odds with a major announcement by the Prime Minister just a couple of months later. As Senator Wong said, it is a clear indication that basically the government are making this up as they go along. That is not adequate for such a serious issue.

The Democrats have long advocated a national approach to management of the Murray-Darling Basin, so we are certainly not critical in principle of the idea of what is going ahead. That makes all the more reason for us to be critical when such a process gets adopted in such a slapdash way. It reinforces the Democrats call for a proper Senate inquiry not into this piece of legislation but into what is actually happening, which is not this piece of legislation—a proper Senate inquiry into the total water package that the Prime Minister has put forward. Even the state premiers who have signed up to it have made clear that details are still being sorted out and nailed down. I believe it is very much in the public interest for further examination to take place via the Senate committee process to bring out into the open what is going on and what it will mean for the people affected. Clearly, the state governments in most cases have been just as sloppy and just as responsible for the debacle that has been dragging on for so long. Having some sort of political deal stitched up among all of the culprits, the ones most responsible for the shambles we are now in, is not my idea of the best outcome. We need much more transparency, a spotlight shone on it from the community’s point of view rather than just backroom stitch-ups by state and federal governments.

I also think that it is important to emphasise—particularly from the point of view of my own state of Queensland—that as part of all of this we even have left-field things thrown in after the Prime Minister’s announcement such as Queensland’s Premier Beattie unearthing once again the bizarre Bradfield scheme to redirect the rivers from the north down into the Murray-Darling Basin. Indeed, it has been stated by the federal government that that can be looked at as part of this northern water task force that Senator Heffernan is going to chair. I believe that all of these things need examination by a proper Senate committee inquiry. That is the parliament doing its job and it is particularly important given such a poor record by governments at all levels over such a prolonged period of time.

The other key point here—and again, Senator Wong went to this—is what is going on within the federal government. As recently as this week we are getting mixed messages about what is happening with the money and how it is going to be applied to ensure that adequate water is returned to the Murray-Darling Basin. That is what this is all about at the end of it all. It is about making the Murray-Darling Basin ecologically sustainable once again so that communities can continue to survive off it along with ecosystems, wetlands, biodiversity and flow-throughs to the mouth of the river—domestic supplies and the lot. That can only work if there is enough flow and enough water in the system that is not extracted. We have overallocation: how is it going to be addressed?

We still have a problem. Just yesterday in the House of Representatives question time in the answer to a question from, I think, Mrs Danna Vale to the National Party leader, we had Mr Vaile saying that as a last resort there will be a buying back of water entitlements from those who may wish to sell. This is a completely different message from the one being put out from Mr Turnbull. Frankly, we need to be willing as a last resort to have a buying back of licences from people who are not willing to sell, if that is what is needed. Otherwise, the whole package, the huge amount of public money that is potentially involved, is not going to reach its full value and is potentially going to be wasted. This is not something that you do half right and get a half-good result. If you cannot get past that crucial hurdle about adequate water in the system then all of the money spent getting you somewhere closer to it but not over it can be wasted. The damage can still be just as severe. So it is not a matter of halfway there is a good enough approach. We have been trying that for too long. That is why these things need to be sorted out.

It is not usual to speak to the tabling of reports pursuant to the Selection of Bills Committee reports, I might say, but given that the Senate gave leave, obviously the Senate believed it was sufficiently important to do so. This is actually an unusual situation. The complete dissonance between a major prime ministerial announcement not very long after a piece of legislation that came into this parliament seems like a classic example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. We heard earlier this afternoon that not even the hand of Finance knew what the hand of the Prime Minister was doing. The idea that it is only $10 billion so what does it matter is a disgracefully irresponsible one.

I do have to wonder sometimes: $10 billion over 10 years for a lot of people in government—particularly with the short-term mindset that applies in election years, where any amount of money can be promised for six, seven, eight, nine or 10 years down the track—is not real money anyway. Things change so much even from one year to the next that a promise that money will be spent six years hence is, frankly, a pretty shoddy one. I would love to hear Senator Abetz defend this government’s record with regard to their complete failure to deliver on their promises of so many funding packages. They promise massive amounts of money over an extended period of years and then when you get halfway through those years, surprise, surprise! It has been extended for another four years. Surprise, surprise! The money has not actually been spent. Or surprise, surprise! We only promised up to a certain number of billions of dollars. We did not actually promise we would spend that money; we said we would spend up to that amount. We see all the slippery tricks of the trade that this government has become a master of over the years.

We have the master of them all—a promise in an election year for money that is supposedly going to appear in 10 years time. I think the Senate has every right to examine this in great detail, and I think the public has every right to be sceptical of all sides of the arguments that are in play here. And, just to be balanced, they will be sceptical of not only the federal government but also some of the state governments when it comes to what is involved and what is really going on. It deserves greater scrutiny and I think this report and the specific curiosities it throws up are just one more reason why there is a very understandable level of scepticism in the community, despite the fact that some agreement has been reached. I welcome the fact there has been some agreement; I welcome the fact there has been some progress. But that is still far from a guarantee that it is actually going to deliver results.

Question agreed to.