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

I indicate, along with the Greens, that we ought to stand by these amendments and maintain the position that the chamber took. I understand the opposition’s position. I appreciate the discussions that I have had with Greg Hunt, the shadow minister, in relation to all this. This is something that has weighed very heavily on me. In November last year I was elected to the Senate to represent the people of South Australia. It is not a responsibility that I will ever take lightly. Having been elected as an Independent, I knew that there would be times when I would have to stand alone if I were going to stand up for what I truly believed was right. This is one of those times.

I am not against compromise. In fact, I have worked hard to try and achieve some kind of compromise because I realise the seriousness of this issue. It is no exaggeration to say that what is at stake is the future of hundreds of Australian communities, the future of hundreds of thousands of Australians, the future of the environment, the future of food security and the future of a significant part of our economy. I am not against compromise but what we have here is just unacceptable. The government wants the chamber to endorse, without these amendments, this water bill and the intergovernmental agreement upon which it is based. ‘Agreement’ is a funny word. It implies common ground. Sure, the parties involved might have some differences of opinion but the term ‘agreement’ implies there are enough areas of mutual understanding so that cooperation can occur. But it is not an agreement if various state and federal governments are cajoled or bullied into submission by one state government which has so little respect for the agreement that it is willing to destroy it to achieve a political end.

I believe the federal government, many of the state governments and, apparently, the opposition are mortified by what the Victorian government could do—and that is on the public record. Given Victoria’s threat to trash the IGA if it does not get its way, other governments are willing to agree to what I believe is an inherently unfair deal. Acting like the political equivalent of a spoiled child, the Victorian government has thrown itself on the floor and is writhing around screaming at the top of its voice. My concern is that if you give in once to that sort of behaviour you will be giving in to it forever. I agree with the opposition and the Greens that the north-south pipeline is a disgraceful plan. How could anyone agree to allow Victoria to direct 75 billion litres of water each year away from a dying river system is beyond me. It must be stopped. We had the opportunity to do that in the Senate, but it just seems that unfortunately there is not the political will to do so for a whole range of reasons—and I am not going to be critical at all of my colleagues the Greens and those in the opposition. I understand their position but I hope they can understand mine.

I have listened to a number of my colleagues—and, interestingly, I heard this from both sides of the chamber—who have mounted the argument and it has been said in good faith that ‘the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good’. It is a nice-sounding argument, but I do not believe that is what we have got here. What we have is the really bad being the enemy of the unacceptable. I believe the water bill is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. It creates the pretence of a national takeover in place of a real one. The federal government could take over the Murray-Darling Basin and run it in the national interest. Constitutional law experts, such as Professor John Williams from the University of South Australia’s law school, say it can be done and that the powers are there. The federal government has the constitutional powers; it is a case of having the political will. We saw what the Hawke government did in 1983 when it took on the then Tasmanian government over the Franklin Dam. It used its constitutional powers to get an outcome that has been widely applauded; it was the right thing to do. But here we are presented, instead, with a piece of legislation that I believe will not work, despite its good intentions, despite what is intended.

I wish to refer to what the editor at large of the Canberra Times, Jack Waterford, said in an opinion piece several months ago, a few days after this agreement. Mr Waterford pointed out that the agreement between the Commonwealth and the basin states sets out a series of principles for management of the river system and paves the way for a national plan to be created by a panel of experts from the newly created Murray-Darling Basin Authority. But how much real authority does this new authority have? That is where things started getting political and started getting watered down.

Under the agreement the authority will be assisted by a ministerial council and advisory committee, as well as a committee of federal and state officials. As Mr Waterford pointed out the authority will only exist, thanks to a limited referral of powers from the states to the Commonwealth, some complementary legislation, a base agreement and working principles, which can be changed only by the unanimous agreement of all parties. So if one state does not agree, we can have a stalemate for any changes Notwithstanding, if those changes are clearly in the interests of the entire river system it can still be stalemated; it can still be held up. To me, that is a fundamental flaw. The fact that the states still have considerable veto powers in the implementation of the basin plan—the way it will operate—is a fundamental flaw.

The biggest problem is that if this bill is passed it may well give false hope to some communities. My fear is that we will be back here again in a year or two. If the drought does not break—and we know the impact of climate change—we will be back here again. It will not solve the problem. It cannot be portrayed as some sort of effective takeover strategy because it has only a limited referral of powers. The last, best hope for the river system is to have a full federal takeover. If this plan were a boat it would sink; it has enough holes. I support a national takeover, but this is not a national takeover.

My concern, and that of the Greens, is that this will take so long. I understand what the government said but it seems that in the absence of a full referral of powers, and with the current timetable, it will be too late for too many farmers. It will be too late for the environment. I cannot be a part of this bill. I do not believe that South Australians should accept the north-south pipeline. I do not think we should be waiting until 2019 and I do not think South Australians should accept that this is the best the federal government can do. In all conscience I cannot and will not vote for this bill.