Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note Senator Sterle’s speech and congratulate Labor for retaining a form of individual statutory agreement, subject to a safety net, in Australia’s workplace relations system. I rise to comment on the Governor-General’s speech in this address-in-reply debate and in particular an interesting line—a claim made by the Governor-General about the Commonwealth establishing a new framework for cooperative Commonwealth-state relations. While the Prime Minister has trumpeted cooperative federalism, so far during his time in office there has been very little evidence of it. More than 100 days of the Rudd Labor government and where are we at on a national water plan? It has stalled. In fact, tragically, I would say that it is drying up. Where are we on a national workplace relations plan? Grounded. What about a national plan for genetically modified crops? There simply isn’t one. What about a new health funding agreement across Australia? That has been labelled ‘blackmail’ by Labor’s own. What about a national deposit scheme for drinking cans? You would think a Rudd Labor government could manage that. Indeed, we have seen legislation introduced on that topic by Family First.

Cooperative federalism is nothing new. It has been high on the new Prime Minister’s agenda for a number of years. Mr Rudd gave a speech to the Don Dunstan Foundation, Queensland chapter, back in 2005. It was called ‘The case for cooperative federalism’. In that speech the now Prime Minister reiterated that Labor was the party of nationalism. He went on to wax lyrical about the history of cooperative federalism under Labor and what could happen under a future Labor government led by the Prime Minister. It is too bad, but it seems that the states and his state colleagues obviously missed that speech because they are launching into a new round of complaints, accusation and very open threats.

Cooperative federalism as a concept can of course have benefits for all Australians. Governments working together in the national interest are to be welcomed, especially when state governments have been derelict in their duty of representing their constituents. In themselves, savings coming from removing duplication of services and agreement on how to treat national issues so that no state is left behind. They are important in ensuring that Australia continues to enjoy the prosperity that we have been able to enjoy and achieve over the last decade.

After last year’s election we saw glowing newspaper headlines, such as ‘Brumby predicts ends to feuds with Canberra’ and ‘A new era of cooperative federalism says Rudd’. New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma stated, ‘For the first time in 15 years we are in a period of cooperative federalism.’ Queensland Premier Anna Bligh stressed the need for a more cooperative approach to Commonwealth-state relations. Well, it is more than 100 days since then and where are we at now? Almost four months after the election we have noted there is no consensus on issues that have been labelled as urgent by the new government on issues that have been labelled their ‘first priorities’. We find the states are still fighting for their own slice of turf.

What about water? Water, of course, continues to be a critical issue for my home state of South Australia. The lack of rainfall and continuing low flows from the River Murray are continuing to cause South Australian irrigators and households major problems. Yet what progress have we seen on a cooperative national plan since 24 November last year? Well, colleagues, we have had a headline from the Adelaide Advertiser on 22 December entitled: ‘Missed Chance to Break River Murray Deadlock’. That was of course after COAG left the river off the agenda for its first meeting. Since then we have seen a meeting of Australian premiers completely ignore the issue again. What was their reasoning? Because the federal government did not attend the meeting. So progress on any Murray-Darling Basin agreement remains incremental at best, with the Victorian Premier warning that an agreement could take months, at least. This is not a very good start to cooperative federalism of unheralded proportions.

To top it all off we had the Prime Minister come to South Australia late last month and urge us all to be patient, because the Minister for Climate Change and Water had to do the hard yards of negotiation before Mr Rudd would step in and take over, as we learn he will. We seem to be lurching from one talkfest to another, but on this critical issue the Prime Minister is going to China, isn’t he? So he obviously does not see this issue as important over the next seven or so weeks, because we know that there will be no significant progress on this issue without him there to control it.

Meanwhile we see incremental steps on water. These get celebrated while the major questions and issues remain. It is as if the progress is a trickle but the government continues to ignore the major blockage up the line. There is a press release from the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, claiming that cooperation on the Murray-Darling is a step closer. Independent water commentator Professor Mike Young, who is a professor in water economics and management at the University of Adelaide, said on Adelaide radio, ‘Look, it’s too early to say that any progress has been made.’ So after four months a water crisis continues to hit South Australia, in particular, and the eminent independent expert in the field says it is too early to say what progress has been made.

The concept of an independent national commission to control the Murray-Darling water system has gone out the window, effectively, with the states putting forward a position that they will have a say in the selection of chairs and commissioners. This does not strike me as being very independent. Pandering to state self-interest is not progress, and it does not strike me as cooperative federalism either. Indeed, it will not solve the fundamental problem.

In South Australia we are struggling continually with the issue of a sustainable water supply. We have just come out of a record-breaking heatwave, and the South Australian resources minister refused to allow an extra one-off day of watering for household gardens to help them through the heat. So South Australia can enjoy being a barren gateway. Water security through the Murray-Darling Basin is not something that South Australians can continue waiting for Victoria to move forward on. It is not an issue that has just occurred. A deal was first put on the table over 14 months ago, so why do we continue to wait while cooperative federalism on this issue moves at glacial place?

Just as foolish to me seems to be the issue of not removing a moratorium on genetically modified crops across Australia. I was somewhat taken aback by the South Australian government’s recent announcement that our state would join Tasmania and Western Australia—sadly, Senator Johnston—in continuing to have a moratorium on genetically modified crops. Going against the South Australian experts and the advice sought by the South Australian government and with agriculture minister Rory McEwen himself appointed to independently review the relevant act, the South Australian Premier and Minister McEwen announced that the moratorium would continue. So what do we now have in this country? We have New South Wales and Victoria looking to push forward on the issue of genetically modified crops, with new research and technology which will benefit farmers and the community in lifting their moratorium; we have Queensland, which never had a moratorium in the first place; and South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania keeping a moratorium.

There are very significant questions about genetically modified technology that need to be asked and debated. These include legal questions posed by the technology and health and scientific issues, but we will not be answering them from a South Australian base in a hurry, particularly in a country where some people can grow genetically modified crops and others cannot. As one of my very wise South Australian colleagues asked about the issue recently in a speech in the South Australian Legislative Council:

Will there be roadblocks at the border—

of course we are talking about the South Australian-Victorian border—

to ensure that no farmer from the South-East gets a bag of seed from his neighbour in Victoria? Will a farmer who has half his farm on either side of an imaginary line be forced to grow our old redundant canola on half of his farm but be able to use the new technology on the Victorian side? Does this then prevent free trade between the states for grain or seed? Does it also mean that contract harvesters and carters who work across the border will no longer be able to do so? And, if they are able to, will they have to have certification?

She finally asked:

Who will carry out the inspections?

These are all issues that need to be addressed if our governments cannot get together and work out a nationwide policy on the issue. In the face of the lifting of moratoriums and the ability for the eastern states to grow and produce genetically modified crops, what value does a South Australian Premier, what magic does a South Australian Premier, think exists in a border? What is a border going to do, for example, that industry self-management and industry self-segregation cannot do? What value is there in a state border which is not already being achieved—it must be—in respect of some 21 experimental plots for genetically modified crops in the south-east of South Australia? If those experiments are able to be carried out with the blessing of the South Australian government then clearly genetically modified crops must be able to be grown with management of the issue. What value is there in a state border to then continue to have a moratorium on the growth of genetically modified crops state wide, particularly in a country where some can grow and some others cannot?

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said that he would have preferred a national approach to any lifting of the moratorium. Sadly, instead of that we have seen a frantic push by states to try to mark their individual territory on the issue. South Australians and South Australian farmers in particular deserve to be able to debate the important aspects of genetically modified crops. The really important issues that must be debated include the right to plant and seed rights, challenges that may be faced by those who consider themselves to be the owners of those plants and seeds, and the ability for farmers to compete into the future if we are to keep abreast of where the rest of the world is going—that is, essentially producing genetically modified crops. But as South Australians, for example, how can we engage with any credibility on that issue when we are not even allowed to grow the crops in the first place? How can South Australia continue to attract talented scientists and talented researchers to research the future of genetically modified crops, or not, if we cannot even credibly engage in the debate in the first place because, whilst others can grow them, we cannot? Where is the Rudd government leadership on this issue?

Health is a pretty prickly topic for cooperative federalism these days. It was supposed to be the major issue where the state premiers and the federal government could find common ground. Throughout 2007 Kevin Rudd proudly went on television and radio to proclaim that the election of a Labor government would lead to better health services for all Australians. But again, just as with water, incremental moves get made and they get celebrated as a major milestone.

Debate interrupted.