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

I rise to speak to the motion to take note of answers given by Minister Wong to questions relating to the Murray-Darling River System. Minister Wong promised us action based on fact. She promised us fact but we failed to see the facts. The Prime Minister and Minister Wong promised the Australian electorate evidence based policy. That means policy based on fact. Tragically, we failed to see it with water and, in particular, we failed to see it on the lower lakes and Coorong.

The facts that we see instead are tragic. We see the Prime Minister visiting Milang at the lower lakes, where he attributes low flows to climate change. He offends Australians and in particular the people of the lower lakes by attributing low flows to climate change. He then travels to the Hume Dam in New South Wales and attributes low levels there to the same thing. Those are the facts. Where is the evidence based policy?

The other fact we see is a COAG agreement that fails to deliver national management of water to the country. It is an agreement that keeps the Murray-Darling Basin Authority beholden to the states. It is an agreement that fails to put one drop of water back in. Indeed, in the case of the Melbourne to Goulburn pipeline, it means that water that was not taken out before will now be taken out. It is an agreement that, some would say, has been flushed down Victorian toilets to the cost of South Australians. It is an agreement that, at best, may deliver something in 2011, but allows some states to retain current allocations—in the case of Victoria, until 2019. Those are part of the tragic facts about water and the water dilemma facing our nation.

We have a government that has devised a water buy-back scheme. What are some of the facts around that? The facts around it are that the scheme fails to provide farmers with the incentive to release their water and that the scheme fails to provide other farmers with certainty and security about staying in. To the contrary, the facts around the scheme show a Prime Minister and a minister who do not understand how water works and do not understand how farmers work. The fact is that we have a minister who has talked about disadvantages of a federal government suddenly entering into the water market. On what basis, on what evidence, on what facts, does the minister base that assertion? We see a minister and a government that are too timid to act to resolve this national crisis. We have a buy-back scheme that is not big enough, not fast enough and not strong enough.

In the case of the people of the Coorong and the lower lakes, we have a lack of action. We have a government that has made promises and has sought advice on options as to what to do about the dire circumstances facing the lower lakes, yet has failed to produce that advice. We have a government that has failed to take the community of the lower Coorong into its confidence in considering what the lower Coorong may face in the future. Indeed, we have a federal water minister who says that in 10 years time she wants to be able to see that the federal government has turned around the situation and to see a river system that provides water for Adelaide. On what basis, on what facts, on what evidence, has the minister made that decision? And why is the minister not talking about weaning the good city of Adelaide off the Murray and leaving the Murray for those communities who have no choice? (Time expired)