Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In support of Senator Nash’s comments: if the minister were to look closely at the amendments, she would see that they go very much to the use of the water and that a use of water that currently exists or that existed prior to 3 July 2008 when the IGA was entered into would continue to be permitted. Quite clearly, that is why these amendments have been worded in the way they have, to reflect that uses for urban centres prior to the government signing the IGA with all of the states and territories in the basin would be able to continue. I think the minister is trying to fly a flag of fear on this one, but it does not stand up. She is obviously trying to create a distraction from the real issue. The real issue that we are looking at here is about putting a new city onto the basin. We are not arguing about whether or not Adelaide would be continued. The intent, as Senator Nash said—and, I am fairly confident, as the wording of this suggests—is to allow Adelaide to continue to have the secure water supply it currently has. It would, however, protect the basin from being raided by the Victorian government.

To that end, whilst we are throwing questions at the end of answers, can I add to Senator Xenophon’s questions whether you are getting additional advice from those responsible for the EPBC Act and Minister Garrett’s decisions. The questions I have relate to the volume and priority of water for extraction from those savings into the pipeline. Specifically, what volume of savings have to be made for the 75 gigalitres to be extracted? Does the 75 gigalitres for Melbourne get priority over savings for irrigators or the environment, or is it shared equally depending on what volume of savings is made? Indeed, is Melbourne perhaps ideally at the end of the three parts of that equation? Minister, I look forward to some clarification.