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

The government does not support this amendment. Let us be very clear on what this amendment does. This is a requirement not simply that the government do what it is already doing; that is, assist urban communities to diversify their water supplies. This amendment is imposing, through this provision, a requirement on Adelaide to reduce its use of the Murray—so a declining cap on Adelaide and a declining cap on Port Pirie, on Port Augusta, on the Blue Mountains, on Ararat, on Bacchus Marsh, on Whyalla and on Keith.

We on this side of the chamber note there has been a bit more hypocrisy tonight from senators lecturing people about weaning. As I have said, the former Treasurer, Mr Costello, said under the previous government—and I do not recall Senators Birmingham or Fisher gainsaying Mr Costello—the Commonwealth had no role in urban water. We do not take that view. We put in our first budget $12.9 billion, including an additional amount in excess of $1½ billion focused very clearly on enabling or supporting the diversification of water supplies particularly for urban centres, towns and cities. I have already taken the chamber through those particular commitments, commitments which were never matched, to my recollection, by those opposite even during the election campaign. Certainly never were such programs provided by the previous government. It is the case that, in the face of climate change, we in Australia do need to diversify our sources of water. We have to become less reliant on rainfall and we need to look at options such as stormwater harvesting and using rainwater and grey water, as well as desalination and such techniques. That is why the government is prepared to work with state governments, local governments or other proponents to assist with that process. It is essentially retooling or reworking the way in which we currently use water.

It is very different to say we will work to do that while putting in place another direction. I remind Senator Siewert again of the independence of the authority. This amendment is another direction about what has to be in the plan. It is a demand, regardless of whatever other issues and facts might be relevant, that the plan has to essentially impose a declining or reducing cap on Adelaide and the other urban centres or towns or cities that I have mentioned. These are very different propositions. One is very much a legislative stick and the other is working with communities to try to prepare them for the challenge of climate change. We are prepared to do the latter. We are not prepared to support this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.

I am also advised there are some constitutional concerns as to this amendment. Obviously, this has the support of the Liberals and the crossbenchers. But I would ask the chamber to consider the wisdom of making this sort of proposition part of the legislation, rather than letting the authority, in the context of the plan, take into account the whole-of-basin approach that is in the objects of the act and in other provisions as amended in fact by a previous amendment in this committee stage.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.