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

I rise to speak on this very important matter and to protest yet another failure of the government to keep their election promises—their failure to deliver evidence based policy to resolve the crisis facing the Murray-Darling Basin. Where is the Prime Minister’s evidence based plan to fix the problems facing the Murray-Darling Basin? Where is the Prime Minister’s evidence based action plan to resolve the crisis? In particular, where are the Prime Minister’s evidence based actions to bring water back into the system, to redistribute water from the system and to better collect, store, use and reuse water?

First, let us look at bringing water back into the system. Let it not be said that the coalition has an issue with buying back water or, indeed, trading in water. It was part of our policy. What the coalition has an issue with is adhocery and what is fast becoming Labor’s water madness. Where is the method in Labor’s proposals to resolve the crisis facing the Murray-Darling? Where is the method in what Labor is doing, or proposing to do, to bring water back into the basin? Buybacks and water trading are important provided that they are done on an evidence based platform and according to a method and not as part of Labor’s water madness, wherein there is no method—not one that can be discerned at this stage. What the coalition wants to see is Labor’s evidence. Where is the method to Labor’s water madness? You promised the electorate a method. You promised the electorate evidence based policy. No. 1 in terms of bringing water back into the system must be rebuilding the infrastructure that is used when carrying and utilising that water. If Labor does not tackle the infrastructure, then there is little point in bringing water back in because the same thing will happen to that water as has been happening to it thus far. So deliver the evidence based plan and the evidence based action to fix the infrastructure around the Murray-Darling Basin. Identify to the Australian electorate your plan for bringing water back in.

Look at the case of Toorale Station. Why purchase Toorale Station? Senator Faulkner’s answers in this place yesterday indicated that the government did not do any empirical analysis leading to their decision to purchase Toorale Station. Why Toorale Station? Why take a food and fibre producer out of the equation? Why this food and fibre producer? The government was not able to show, for example, that it has mapped Australia and identified those areas of Australia which currently enjoy water rights which may well be the areas that could most efficiently and properly be targeted for conversion so that that water can be brought back into the system for allocation elsewhere. Why Toorale Station? The empirical evidence has not been produced. Why the community around Toorale Station? Minister Wong says that pain must be borne. Minister Wong, make the decisions and show us the evidence upon which you are making the decisions and taking the action in deciding which communities and where. Show us the strategic plan and the analysis that you have done to underpin it that then provides for those communities. This is not about state versus state, city versus country and user versus user if it is managed appropriately and in an evidence based way. Show us the method to your water madness.

In respect of Toorale Station, Senator Faulkner’s answer yesterday—and Senator Faulkner has undertaken to provide further information—indicated that, yes, it was federal government money that was provided for the purchase, yet he says the project was assessed at a state level by an independent advisory committee. If it is federal government money, one would have thought that the federal government would have done the assessment. Indeed, we are surprised to hear that the federal government apparently did not even visit Toorale Station prior to deciding that it is going to become a national park. On what basis has the government decided to convert a food and fibre producer to a national park? On what empirical basis have they made the decision to provide to the environment the 20 gigalitres of water purchased?

This brings us to the second stage: what is to be done with the water that has been realised? How is the government prioritising the redistribution of that water? We hear from time to time talk about the environment and talk about re-watering the river. We hear from time to time talk about human critical needs. How is the government defining those concepts? Where do farmers, irrigators and food producers fit in to the equation? What are the government’s priorities? On what basis has it formulated these priorities and what is its strategic plan to deliver them? What is its definition of ‘critical human need’? The government must have one, presumably, because it is in charge. Yet those who have been involved in implementing part of what, at this stage, appears to be adhocery have not been informed by the government of what is meant by, for example, ‘critical human need’. (Time expired)