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

And Peter Garrett. Aside from the politics, it is clear that no-one can agree with the construction of the north-south pipeline because it is just plain wrong. It must be stopped, and this is this government’s opportunity to stop it.

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the water that will fill the pipeline is not going to be part of the critical human needs definition of the bill because it somehow does not come from the bit defined as the basin. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that Melbourne is therefore entitled to have some sort of carve-out separate from the bill. Once water designated for human needs—as it will be for the city of Melbourne—wets that pipeline, what Victorian Premier of any political persuasion would risk political suicide to let the pipeline dry out? It simply will not happen. Once the pipeline is built and once it is wet, Melbourne will be on the teat. It should not happen; it is wrong.

If this bill is so clear in defining human critical water needs then how is it that we have a minister, in Minister Wong, on Adelaide radio, as she was last week, saying to the effect that human critical water needs are for drinking water? I challenge the minister to show me, us, the Australian public and the stakeholders in this debate where the bill says that. It does not.

To say that moving amendments to this bill—particularly amendments around the human critical water needs definition—will delay the bill and to say, as is intimated in the majority report, that the so-called definition is the result of many months of negotiations and is, after all, the subject of some common sense is an indictment on the negotiation process thus far. It underlines the extent to which characterising the management of the plan through negotiation with state governments is compromised and hamstrung from the start. It simply has not done the job. It will not do the job.

To suggest that the term is capable of a common sense definition again sidesteps and obviates the argument. Where is that common sense definition in the bill? How is it that witnesses before the Senate inquiry were able to suggest that an abattoir could be given first priority for human critical water needs? In the words of Dr Buchan from the Australian Conservation Foundation, it could be used to justify spray irrigation of a regional golf course if that were necessary to support the social and economic needs of the community. They are all very important water uses, but how do you get to the front of the queue? The bill needs to be amended in that respect, and we will be proposing that during the committee stage.