Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McEwen for the question, as a South Australian senator who has a long interest in ensuring South Australia, particularly Adelaide, has a secure water supply. Recently I announced the details of Water for the Future, the Rudd government’s $12.9 billion plan to secure the water supply of all Australians. Unlike those opposite, the Rudd government understands that climate change means that we need to manage our water supplies better. We as a government are committed to developing new supplies of water that do not rely entirely on rainfall, and we are investing to make the best use of the water we do have. Water for the Future includes our election commitments of $1 billion for the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan, $250 million for the National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns, and $250 million for the National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative. It also includes at least $3 billion for purchasing water to improve the health of our rivers and $5.8 billion to support infrastructure improvements and better use of water in rural areas.

But, on top of buying water and investing in water-saving infrastructure, we on this side know that the Murray-Darling Basin needs a better long-term approach. The chamber will be aware that at the last COAG meeting the Prime Minister and the premiers reached a historic long-term agreement on the future management of the Murray-Darling Basin which will ensure that critical human needs are met and that there will be a sustainable cap across the basin, for the first time in the history of the basin, on how much water can be extracted. We will also ensure that there will be an independent umpire, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This was a historic agreement, one that the previous government was unable to secure.

I am asked about other views. It is quite clear that the opposition continue to be intent on playing the same political games on water that they did when they were in government. On the one hand, the shadow minister for climate change, environment and urban water described the agreement as ‘a once-in-a century massive plan to come to the rescue of the ailing river system’. But it appears he failed to tell his leader that, because Dr Nelson slammed the deal, saying it rewarded petulant behaviour. He said:

... the Victorian Government seems to have been rewarded for its petulant behaviour in staying out of the agreement.

On the other hand, Dr Stone, the shadow minister for the environment, heritage, the arts and Indigenous affairs, released a statement with the headline ‘Victoria left short-changed with Murray-Darling Basin deal’. So Dr Nelson thinks Victoria has been rewarded and Dr Stone thinks Victoria has been left short-changed. But this is the real corker—Dr Stone, the shadow minister, also said:

There is further worry when Mr Rudd declared that human consumption of the Murray system water is to take precedence over all other water uses. Does this mean that when Adelaide squeaks, irrigation systems shudder?

I want to know if Senator Minchin shares this view. Is that the view of the opposition, Senator Minchin? And what about Senator Birmingham, who professes to care about Adelaide’s water supply? You should get up in this place, Senator Birmingham, and denounce what your colleague in the House of Representatives has said.