Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The Murray-Darling crisis is arguably the greatest environmental challenge this nation has ever faced. It needs a national solution and it needs to be an informed, scientific solution. So I am deeply concerned that the federal government does not appear to be delivering on its promise of an evidence based approach to the Murray-Darling crisis. The environment in the Lower Lakes is dying. Countless irrigators in the Riverland face losing their homes and are being forced to witness the death of their communities.

So how, while all this is happening, could the federal government possibly approve the Victorian government’s north-south pipeline, which will take 110 gigalitres of water away from the Murray-Darling system every year and divert it to the city of Melbourne? How could the federal government have agreed to the purchase of the Toorale Station in New South Wales, using $24 million of taxpayers’ money, without consulting the Murray-Darling Basin Commission? And, more importantly for my state of South Australia, how could the federal government possibly be considering flooding the Lower Lakes with sea water without doing the necessary scientific research into the environmental impact of such a move?

I refer to evidence provided last week to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into the Murray-Darling crisis by Dr Bill Phillips, the Director of RiverSmart Australia, who stated that the environmental impact of such a flooding is unknown. Dr Phillips argued very convincingly that allowing salt water into the Lower Lakes might lead to the destruction of significant parts of the Fleurieu Peninsula. This was certainly news to me and to others on the committee, and it was very bad news indeed. Dr Phillips said:

We do not know … what will happen if you add sea water into that part of the system. It is highly likely it will end up in the groundwater systems, which could then flow up into the critically endangered Fleurieu Peninsula swamps. You might essentially kill off a critically endangered ecological community and the emu wrens that live there. So there are all sorts of collateral impacts that could happen from opening the barrages which force us to say that it has to be the absolute last resort.

I ask the government: what scientific study has been done on this doomsday scenario? Has the CSIRO been given the task and the resources needed to ensure that any plan to flood the lakes with salt water will not destroy the world-class wetland on the Fleurieu Peninsula and affect the groundwater? And has the CSIRO been asked to look into the role bioremediation can play in fighting the deadly spread of acid and salt in our soils?

We need to act quickly, but that is not the same as acting with undue haste. We need to act based on the best scientific knowledge available. In my first speech to this Senate a few weeks ago, I spoke of the importance of properly funding and ensuring the independence and effectiveness of bodies such as the CSIRO. I believe the approach of the government further demonstrates the need for this independence. (Time expired)