Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Bernardi proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

(a)

The current dire state of the Murray Darling Basin and in particular the challenges facing the Lower Lakes communities;

(b)

The failure of the Government to deliver immediate short term relief to communities reliant on the Murray Darling Basin; and

(c)

The need for the Government to support the immediate provision of $50 million to assist the communities in the Lower Lakes and Coorong region of South Australia.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I rise to speak on this matter of utmost public importance: the dire situation facing Australia, the Murray-Darling Basin, the communities who rely upon and live along the Murray-Darling Basin and, in particular, the people of my home state of South Australia who live on or near the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. We know that the situation facing these communities and the country is dire and, sadly, it becomes direr daily. Yesterday we learned that this past winter had been the fifth driest in the last 155 years and that the situation facing the lower basin was the worst since records began in 1892. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s Chief Executive, Wendy Craik, was very frank when she said:

We’re continuing to establish new records that we don’t particularly wish to establish.

Yesterday we learned that monthly inflows for August were less than one-fifth of long-term averages for the system. Yesterday we also got Minister Wong’s departmental submission to the Senate rural and regional affairs committee in relation to the reference inquiring into the situation in the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. That submission played down the option of lifting fresh water to save the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. That submission indicated that any release of water from either the Menindee Lakes or the Snowy system could take water that may be needed, apparently, for critical human needs next year. That submission indicated that the volume of fresh water needed to replenish the Lower Lakes is simply not available at this time—dire indeed.

I have seen first-hand the dire circumstances facing the people of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. I have travelled and visited with members of the communities in Goolwa, Milang, Narrung and Meningie—I have seen some of their circumstances first-hand and I have heard just some of their stories—to see what the lack of water is doing to the people and the communities. I visited with Brendan Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition, as he too wanted to listen to and to hear from the members of the community about the impact that the lack of water is having on their daily lives—or what used to be their daily lives—and the sorts of things that they think could be done to help them through. In that context, I have met with community members, tourism operators, farmers and irrigators and discussed what they think could be part of the next step. I have heard stories of people paying thousands of dollars to truck water in to water their stock and to keep their stock alive. I have seen elderly people, people like our mums and dads and our grandparents, struggling to pipe water across dry flats, struggling with pipes across muddy flats to get drinking water. I have seen tourism operators who cannot operate with such low flows and I have heard from third, fourth and fifth generation farmers who are in many cases likely to be forced off their land unless something is done.

This is a crisis that not only affects those who should be at what should be the water’s edge but today is not; it is a crisis that extends beyond those immediate communities to the communities who feed and service those who should be at the water’s edge. If the farmers leave the land, then ultimately so do those who help farmers—for example, vets in the case of dairy farmers. If tourism operators leave, what happens to those who service the tourism operators’ operations? Without support, it is very clear that the people of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong are likely to survive what could well be the departure of swathes of their population.

Part of what is needed for the Lower Lakes was reflected on by opposition leader Brendan Nelson in April this year. He talked about help for the communities of the Lower Lakes, help for local people, help for local businesses and local communities in consultation with those local people and local communities: local help, local self-help, driven by local people. Help for local people, driven by local people. What do we have instead? On a national level we have this thing called a COAG agreement, which of course is not an agreement. It is an agreement in name only because any premier can walk out at any time. It is an agreement, presided over by the Rudd government, which does not deliver a national plan or national management of the Murray-Darling Basin in any sustainable way. It does not involve a referral of powers. It leaves the Murray-Darling Basin states beholden to the whims of the states. And it does not deliver any water; it stagnates water and takes it out. It stagnates water because nothing will happen until 2011—2009 is likely to be too late, let alone 2010 or 2011. And, worse than that, it allows the taking out of water that was not being taken out of the system before the COAG agreement was struck. For example, the Goulburn to Melbourne pipeline effectively sees upwards of 100 gigalitres of water a year being flushed down Melbourne’s toilets at the expense of others.

On a broader level we have Rudd government inaction. We have a Rudd government watching water. We have a Rudd government failing to act on the three key stages of moving the Murray-Darling Basin system forward—that is, failure to bring water back in in an organised and strategic way, failure to plan to reallocate that water once it is brought back into the system and failure to force their Labor colleagues, as part of ending the blame game, to better collect— (Time expired)

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

I welcome the opportunity to debate this MPI today and I welcome the opposition coming out of the shadows where they have been hiding since the submission options on the Lower Lakes were provided to the Senate yesterday.

For those of you on the other side who have read the submission to the committee which outlines the options that are being considered by the department and by the MDBC, it certainly makes for very sobering reading. It outlines the serious situation in the Lower Lakes and outlines the short-term options for managing the situation that had been provided to government. It is interesting to note what has happened since it was provided. We have not heard a peep from the opposition somehow on which option they would choose. I am sure if you did a straw poll over there we would certainly not have a single position from the opposition because we know how divided they are on this.

Can I say this: given how serious the situation in the lower Murray is, I am shocked that we have the Leader of the Opposition trying to play it down. Today on Adelaide radio we had an astonishing distortion of the facts by the Leader of the Opposition, who misrepresented a report by the Bureau of Meteorology. He said, ‘Annual mean rainfall has been slightly more than average recently, 25 millimetres, but also we have had an annual mean maximum temperature for 2007 of 0.73 degrees.’

Dr Nelson was referring to the annual Australian climate statement for 2007. It is a statement that showed that 2007 was the sixth hottest year on record and it also showed that, whilst there was slight increase in annual mean rainfall attributed to La Nina, that was in Australia overall including the tropical north. But that very statement also showed that the Murray-Darling Basin remained dry. What is Dr Nelson’s message to Adelaide? His message to Adelaide is this: there is no shortage of water; just move to Darwin. Dr Nelson says: ‘Never mind if you are in the Lower Lakes because in the Kimberley it is bucketing down. Never mind if you are the member for Riverina and there is no water in Deniliquin.’

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Why not go and talk to the member there, Senator, because it is raining cats and dogs in Broome. And to Senator Joyce he is effectively saying, ‘Don’t worry about St George, Senator Joyce, because the Daintree is fine.’ While I am on the subject of the relationship between the Murray and climate change, it is indeed interesting to note that this motion was moved by Senator Bernardi, who is one of the die-hard climate change sceptics of the opposition just like his mentor, Senator Minchin.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear! Because he is my mentor!

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

I will take that interjection, Senator Bernardi. He says, ‘Hear, hear!’ because these are people who just cannot let go of their scepticism on climate change and you are why the coalition has absolutely no credibility on climate change. Because you do not believe it is happening. So why do you not front up to the Australian people and say that what you took the last election was only because you thought you had to pretend to care, which is what one of your colleagues said—that you had to pretend to care about climate change. That was the only reason you moved before the election. I return to Senator Bernardi, who said just one year ago:

I have come to believe we’re seeing a distortion of a whole area of science that is being manipulated to present a certain point of view to the global public, that is that the actions of man—.

clearly, only men—

are the cause of climate change.

Perhaps it would be a good time now for Senator Bernardi to admit and recognise that an important part of helping the Murray is to tackle climate change.

I want to make a comment about the submission that those on that side clamoured long and loud to see, because before the submission was released the opposition were demanding to see it, and now it has been released they cannot face the facts. They have gone to ground. They have ducked for cover. If you consider yourselves to be the alternative government, it is not that easy. You have the facts now. Why do you not take some responsibility, Senator Bernardi? Why do you not take some responsibility? You made all that hot air and noise about releasing the submission and, once you got the information, where were you? You ducked for cover.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The chamber will come to order.

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

While we are on the issue of transparency and accountability, which is what the opposition demands from government, it is very interesting to note that the relevant shadow minister appears to be hiding documents about the availability of water in the basin. I had a look at a transcript of an interview that Mr Hunt gave earlier this week. He says that he has his own figures on water availability for the Lower Lakes. He says, ‘The advice we have is that a higher percentage of the water than there would previously be will now arrive in South Australia.’ This is what Mr Hunt says: ‘This is water that’s available. It’s available now. It could make a real and significant difference.’

Senator Bernardi is speaking after me, and I say to him: why does he not get up and tell us where Mr Hunt’s water is? Why do you not get up, Senator Bernardi, and tell us where Mr Hunt’s water is? Because the fact is, you keep making these claims which—frankly, now that you have the information—you ought to know not to be true. You ought to take more responsibility as the alternative government for the way in which you enter this debate. I would like to know from Senator Bernardi, Senator Minchin or Senator Fisher where Mr Hunt’s water is going to come from. I am sure Senator Joyce would like to know that. I am sure Senator Nash would like to know that. And I am sure Senator Boswell would like to know that. But, instead of being transparent, what we see from the opposition, having spent 12 years in government doing absolutely nothing on this issue, is that they are now cynical enough to walk both sides of the street.

There is a consistent theme when it comes to the way in which the opposition approaches the politics of water. And it is politics, because they did not have an approach on the policy. It is this—it is very simple: it is called telling people what you think they want to hear. So, when you are down in South Australia, you send backbench senators down to tell those communities what you think they want to hear. Meanwhile, you have frontbenchers up in New South Wales and Victoria telling their communities what they think they want to hear. So, when you are downstream in South Australia, you express outrage at the state of the Lower Lakes and you call for emergency action, although you actually have no solution—no option that you have put forward on this. And when you are upstream in Victoria you tell your constituents that the lakes cannot be saved, should not be saved, and the government should not stop purchasing water entitlements.

What the document that has been presented to the Senate shows and what the Murray-Darling Basin Commission information, which was also released yesterday, shows is that there is no room for political opportunism when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin. There are no easy options; there are only hard choices. We have significantly less water in the southern basin than we need. The document that was provided shows that currently there are around 3,949 gigalitres in storage, and 4,292 gigalitres have been committed. The fact is: if it does not rain, unfortunately, something has to give.

What I said previously in this chamber in question time remains the case. My first priority is securing Adelaide’s water supply and the supply for the towns that rely on the river. We on this side will not be part of any approach which threatens the critical needs of communities that rely on the Murray-Darling for drinking water. Again, I ask this question: can other senators say the same? At the moment what we have is a whole heap of noise from the opposition when it comes to the problem and deathly silence when it comes to a solution. You run away from the options and you run away from the difficult policy decisions, just as you did for 12 years in government. Where were you, Senator Bernardi? Senator Minchin was in cabinet. Where were you, Senator Fisher, when the previous government did not spend one cent on buying one drop of water to return to the Murray? Did I hear coalition backbenchers or Senator Minchin in the cabinet demanding that the government purchase water for the Murray River? I do not think so. You delivered absolutely nothing and now, in the face of the Mayo by-election, you want to whip up this issue, an issue on which you never delivered.

Let me be absolutely clear about the Lower Lakes. As the Senate knows, the Prime Minister has visited there. I have visited on a number of occasions and I have met with the communities down there. We do need to do everything we can to avoid the acidification of the Lower Lakes. And while the situation is serious and urgent, when the options before us have such serious consequences, we also need to avoid a precipitous decision, and that is the approach the government has taken. We are proceeding with a course of action that was outlined in the submission—that is, to continue the pumping arrangements which we have in place—but we also have to ensure that we find a longer term solution.

One of the things the government has already committed is $200 million to the South Australian government to find an enduring solution, a lasting solution to the problems facing the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, and we have indicated we would make $10 million of that immediately available to accelerate projects to the Lower Lakes in the Coorong. That is why the government has already committed $120 million for piping works to connect towns, communities and irrigators who currently rely on the Lower Lakes to a higher point along the Murray. Senators may recall that that announcement was made jointly by the Prime Minister and the Premier. Also, I was there when we visited the Lower Lakes and when we visited Langhorne Creek and spoke to the community there. Let us understand this: we actually responded directly to one of the options that were put to us by those communities. One of the things that were put to me and to the South Australian Premier was that we need to look at infrastructure works to secure the supply, particularly for the irrigators on the Langhorne Creek site. What did the government do? We listened to that and we provided $120 million to deal with that issue.

It is the case that we do face a great deal of difficulty on current inflows in the southern part of the Murray-Darling Basin in particular. We do have to take an approach that avoids having a situation where you see a repeat of what is occurring in the Lower Lakes in other parts of the basin, and we do need to do what we can to ensure that all communities in the basin have the water they need.

As the Senate would be aware, the government has a $12.9 billion plan, Water for the Future, which is fundamentally about preparing Australia for a future where we are likely to see less rainfall. But the reality is that we are prepared to recognise the impact of overallocation and climate change on this basin, and we are prepared to do the hard yards when it comes to delivering on water for the future. It appears that those on the other side are back to the old game of playing politics on water, pointing the finger and saying one thing upstream and one thing downstream. The reality is that those opposite continue to deny that climate change is real. They continue to deny that climate change is having an effect on Australia. They continue to deny that climate change is having an effect on the Murray-Darling Basin, and what we know is that they are deeply divided on what they want to do. All they have done, as I have said, is to tell people what they want to hear. Let us remember what Mr Hunt said in terms of the Lower Lakes. He said:

There are real things that can be done in terms of physical work.

What did Dr Stone, shadow minister for the environment, say? She said:

... no amount of strident demand for more water and flow from upstream would change the fact that there simply was not the fresh water available for these lakes ...

Is that the position? Dr Stone also said that we should open the barrages to the Lower Lakes and flood them with sea water. She obviously has not been listening to Senator Minchin, who went back downstream to South Australia and said:

... the coalition is totally opposed to the flooding of the Lower Lakes with sea water.

Who are the public supposed to believe—the shadow minister for the environment, Senator Minchin, Mr Hunt or Senator Birmingham?

Let us also talk about one of the ways in which we know we can return water to the river, which is by purchasing water, one of the fastest and fairest ways in a difficult circumstance to return water to the river. What does the opposition think about that? Firstly, we know that they did nothing for 12 years in government on that. They were 12 years in government and there was not one drop of water. But we also do not know what they think about it, because guess how many positions they have had on purchasing water? We have counted them. We think it is about seven, to date. In relation to water purchase, Mr Hunt says that he is pleased we are doing it but then he says that it will not work. Mr Cobb says that purchasing water is meaningless. That was after he said that it would cause a new drought. Mr Truss, Leader of the Nationals, says it will increase grocery prices. Mr Pyne, member for Sturt, says we should be doing more. Dr Stone says it is okay as long as it is not in her electorate. And Dr Nelson says, ‘Why purchase water? Why not just compulsorily acquire it?’ So who is speaking for the opposition and what is their position? Or are they too divided to have a position? Or is their position simply yet again, ‘Let’s tell people what we think they want to hear’?

What we ought to do when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin is deal with the facts. This basin has suffered for too long from politicians and governments that have done nothing or have told people simply what they think people want to hear. We need to confront the reality of climate change, we need to confront the reality of overallocation and we need to confront the facts. Those on the other side are simply playing politics. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to note that I am the only non South Australian speaking in this debate. I hate to tell the South Australians that this is not just about them—and that comes from somebody who is deeply concerned about the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. We need to be looking at a whole-of-basin approach to this. I heard Senator Wong talking about the hard choices. No-one has been making these hard choices for a century. We have had state versus state, we have had states versus the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth versus the states, and unfortunately that is still happening. Hard choices! How about the states and the Commonwealth agreeing that the water sharing plans will come into place in 2011 when the cap comes into place? The New South Wales water sharing plans will stay in place until 2014 and the Victorian water sharing plans will stay in place until 2019. How is that going to save the Murray? Where is the sense of urgency? Where are the hard decisions about investing money where it is going to best pay off for the Murray?

Unfortunately, we are still not facing the hard decisions around land capability, around where we are going into the future in a system that is facing crisis—and not just in the Coorong. The Coorong is facing the most immediate crisis and that is where the alarm bell is ringing loudest at the moment; it is also ringing all across the basin. Are the other states pinging Queensland for allowing the Paroo to be developed and for breaking their agreement not to allow development of the Paroo? Is New South Wales looking at where water is being stolen in the Northern Rivers? There is plenty of satellite evidence that shows unregulated use—it is not illegal because New South Wales will not act to make it illegal. Is work being done by New South Wales to start bringing some regulation to the Northern Rivers? Is Victoria dealing with the four per cent cap now that the report that has been leaked shows the economic impact of not raising the four per cent cap? Where are the hard decisions there? Where is the pressure on these states from the Commonwealth to make them reform?

What about the actions that the states have agreed to take under the National Water Initiative? The states are not meeting their agreements under the National Water Initiative—and that has been going for years—let alone coming anywhere close to dealing with the commitments that they made under the COAG agreement. None of that is being delivered. We are not seeing actions from the state governments. We are not seeing enough pressure on the states from the Commonwealth. I would hate to see it if we were acting when there was not a crisis. This is action at a snail’s pace and it has been going on for too long. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Siewert for injecting a bit of reason into this debate after the 15-minute outburst from Senator Wong. It was quite an extraordinary decision by Senator Wong to come in here and defend the inaction of the government, because earlier this week, when we attempted to discuss this in taking note of answers, the government could not put up a South Australian to do it; they trotted out a Western Australian and someone from the ACT on the government side to talk about the crisis facing the Lower Lakes.

My motivation in proposing this matter of public importance is simply to identify and highlight the inaction from this government in the crisis that is facing the Lower Lakes and their communities. We are facing two crises here. One of them is simply an environmental disaster in the making. We accept that there are many challenges in solving this, but the one particular challenge, the crisis that the government could do something about and has failed to do anything about, is to offer relief to the human component of this suffering—the communities, the farmers and those who depend upon the Lower Lakes for their livelihoods—rather than simply to the environmental component.

Whilst Senator Wong and the government say that they cannot do anything about supplying more water, they can do a whole lot more to ease the burden on these communities. Even though the coalition are not in government, we still want to see people do better. What we have asked the government to do is to support a $50 million injection of funds to offer immediate relief to the communities, and the government is silent on it. It says that it does not accept that any relief is needed, despite the rhetoric, the spin and the insubstantial statements that Mr Rudd and his ministers have made.

Mr Rudd was elected in November of last year. In July of this year he made his first visit to the area that is facing the most pressing environmental issue in this country. He said, ‘It will be tough, it will be difficult, it will be expensive, but we intend to take on this challenge.’ They were his words, yet in mid-August—just last month—he said, ‘What we’ve done is to take every possible measure available to us in the last six months to try to turn this disaster around and it is a real problem.’ He has not turned around the disaster. He has not taken the measures and the steps that are necessary to ease the burden on people who have to truck in their own drinking water, who have to reduce their herd of dairy cattle from 800 to 250 and who struggle to send their kids to school and to put food on the table.

This is the human impact, Senator Wong. It is the human impact that your government is absolutely ignoring and you should be very ashamed. There is an absolute dire need for urgent government assistance. If the government are prepared to ignore the people of the Lower Lakes and the good people of South Australia, let me tell you that the opposition, the coalition, are not prepared to do it. We will continue to raise this issue. We will continue to advocate for relief for the people who are doing it really tough, no matter how much Senator Wong and all the expert reports that she is relying on say that nothing more can be done. You cannot give up. You cannot wash your hands of these sorts of things.

Minister Wong has shown absolutely no interest in relieving the immediate plight that is facing so many South Australian communities. It is embarrassing. This is what is written in the papers. This is what I am reading every day. These are commentators, these are journalists and these are people who actually are interested in these communities. These are the local papers. They are throwing their hands up and going: ‘What do we have to do? How much more do we have to struggle in order to get some relief and some compassion from what is a very heartless government?’

In the context of what governments do, if there is a disaster in another country we step in and help out straightaway. But when the biggest environmental disaster, the catastrophe, that is facing the communities of the Lower Lakes happens in our very own backyard this government does nothing about it. As a South Australian senator I say to Senator Wong: stand up for South Australia. Do not fall into the ‘let’s support Queensland’ routine which is coming out of Mr Rudd’s office, with the Treasurer and all the powerbrokers up there. Fight for South Australia. I urge every South Australian senator to do the same thing. It is absolutely embarrassing that we have a cabinet minister who is prepared to let communities suffer. (Time expired)

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The crisis that we see in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong is something that we need to be tackling immediately. The Greens have been campaigning on the plight of the Murray for years. We have been speaking to the local communities from Goolwa right up to Queensland. We have moved parliamentary motions of urgent action. We have put forward necessary amendments to the federal government’s water bill. But it is now crunch time. We need to find new sources of water as soon as possible for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, and fresh water flows must be restored before summer if we are to have any chance of trying to rescue the dying Coorong and the Lower Lakes.

This is why the Greens moved the motion for the urgent Senate inquiry into what we need to do. We need to figure out how we can get water down there, not in 2019 or 2018 but now. The multiparty support for the inquiry into the water management of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong indicated the scope of this environmental crisis. It shows acceptance by all sides of politics that we need to act now. The Greens indeed welcome the support for a big inquiry from the coalition, although it is disappointing to hear the dirty smear campaign against the Greens that is being perpetrated in the Mayo electorate by the Liberals even today.

Isn’t it interesting that Senator Minchin expressed such concern about the impact of the Greens policy on the people of South Australia, particularly those in the electorate of Mayo, when the former Liberal member, who was there for 24 years, did little to address the crisis and little to address the continued mismanagement of the Murray and the devastating effects that was having on his constituents? While the Greens do not oppose government support for these communities in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong—in fact we welcome it—after 12 years of inaction by the previous government I am interested in the opposition’s timing on this, suddenly accepting that this is an emergency and needs an emergency assistance plan, given the significance of the Mayo by-election this coming Saturday.

It is that type of dirty politics and the smear campaign that is being run by the Liberals that is misleading, and insulting to, the people of Mayo. It leads me to think that perhaps it is the Liberal Party who are in panic in Mayo. Perhaps it is because the local communities are talking about what is going on in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and they want to see action. They have not seen action for 12 years. We cannot wait another 12 years; we need action now.

Let’s get the support for the communities that we need and get the water down to the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, but let’s not make this about politics because we have a by-election happening in Mayo. The Greens have been consistently calling for action on the Murray. I urge the government to act on the findings of the Senate inquiry when it reports at the end of this month. We need to be looking after our communities in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and we need to be ensuring that we save our Storm Boy country, but let’s get the dirty politics out of it.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start off on a bipartisan note by observing that I think this is a common cause—that everyone agrees the situation in the Murray-Darling Basin is quite horrendous and that we do have a crisis in the Lower Lakes. This is a tragedy of environmental, economic and social proportions that we have never seen before in the Lower Lakes. I think it is at least a common belief that primarily this crisis was caused by the prolonged drought that Australia has suffered and the decades of mismanagement and overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin.

I say with great respect to Senator Wong, having been down to the Lower Lakes and talked to the communities down there, that they actually feel insulted by the proposition advanced by Mr Rudd and her on their visits down there, which in a sense dismisses all this as the result of climate change. The communities regard that as a massive cop-out, because it suggests to the people suffering down there that signing the Kyoto protocol and having the so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is going to solve all of the problems. Whatever the merits of Labor’s approach to climate change, no-one, surely not even the Labor Party, believes that Australia bringing in a ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ in 2010 is going to make any difference to the situation in the Murray-Darling Basin or indeed to the Lower Lakes. With respect, I urge Senator Wong to stop insulting the people of these communities by that sort of reflection. It is only damaging the Labor Party and her own credibility.

In relation to these communities, we have been calling for months for assistance on this. It is insulting to us and to these communities to say that this is Mayo related but, given the focus on the Lower Lakes in this electorate, we urge this government to adopt the coalition’s position of immediately providing $50 million in emergency assistance to this Lower Lakes community. It is all very well for Senator Wong to say, ‘We’ve provided Mr Rann with $200 million to deal with environmental issues’—in other words. ‘We are going to just let the acidification happen or let these communities collapse and then Mr Rann can have a slush fund of $200 million.’ These communities need this assistance now because their businesses and their livelihoods are suffering enormously.

We will introduce our bill for immediate emergency relief assistance of $50 million into the Senate tomorrow. Frankly, the government is showing absolute contempt for these Lower Lakes communities by dismissing our proposal in the way that they have. That contemptuous dismissal of our proposal is doing the Labor Party no good whatsoever in the Lower Lakes community, and of course that simply compounds the contempt which the Labor Party is showing for the Lower Lakes communities by its extraordinary refusal to even put up a candidate in the Mayo by-election. Nothing could be more contemptuous of the Lower Lakes community than that. It shows that the Labor Party is indeed frightened of what the Lower Lakes community might say to the Labor Party were it to run a candidate.

Can I also make the point that the economic life and community cohesion of the Lower Lakes are built on there being a freshwater ecology. Some are arguing that we should solve this problem by simply flooding these lakes with sea water. Indeed, that is no less than option 3 in the paper issued by the minister’s department, which is really quite disturbing. The paper says in relation to option 3 that historical modelling indicates that saline water would have likely flowed into Lake Alexandrina in past times of very low Murray River flows. If you turn to a very good document produced by the River Murray Catchment Water Management Board, it makes clear:

Prior to European settlement, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert at the terminus of the River Murray were predominantly fresh, with river water discharging to sea and keeping the Mouth clear. Contrary to what many believe today, saltwater intrusions into the Lake environment were not common until after 1900 when significant water resource development had occurred in the River Murray system.

Before large-scale extractions of water, the Lakes and lower Murray were rarely subjected to sea water invasions.

That is very important historical data. What is worrying me and our side of politics—and, indeed, the Lower Lakes communities—and is regrettably reinforced by this options paper is that the Rudd and Rann governments seem hell-bent on this seawater option. Indeed, they seem to be on what you might describe as ‘Lower Lakes watch’. They are sitting by, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for the point at which they can simply flood the Lower Lakes with sea water. Our criticism of this government is this: they have now had nine months, they are not doing anything and they are simply waiting and watching to see what will happen. They are now striking fear into the hearts of all those in the Lower Lakes by suggesting—I think quite unequivocally—that they are going to simply build a weir and flood the Lower Lakes with sea water. As I say, this is quite contrary to all the historic evidence about this. This will destroy the freshwater ecology of the Lower Lakes.

Can I in my concluding remarks make the point that I think the government has got a very big problem here. A big part of this problem is that the government made a very big mistake in combining in one portfolio the huge responsibility for water in this nation with the responsibility for climate change. It is our assertion that the minister who has this giant portfolio is clearly spending almost all her time running around and striking fear into the hearts of Australian business that she is going to introduce this so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That will strike fear into the hearts of all workers in Australian industry. It will be one of the most job destructive experiments that a Labor government has ever inflicted upon this country.

Indeed, she is spending all her time devising this scheme to destroy jobs and destroy Australian industry and not spending any time on the crisis that we face now—that is, the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin and, more particularly, the crisis in the Lower Lakes. She should be spending 100 per cent of her time on her responsibility for water. Instead, we see her running around and devising this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme so that she can suck up to the greenies around the world, while destroying jobs and destroying Australian industry. Her responsibility is water. She should be stripped of the water responsibility, and it should be given to someone who can apply themselves full-time to the crisis that is gripping the country.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter of public importance today—that is, the state of the Murray-Darling Basin and, in particular, the challenges facing the Lower Lakes communities. The submission of options for the Lower Lakes provided to the Senate yesterday—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are they?

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all right, Senator Bernadi. You are a climate change sceptic. We have that on record, and I will get to that in due course. The submission outlines a serious situation in the Lower Lakes and it outlines the short-term options for managing the situation. The annual Australian climate statement showed that 2007 was the sixth hottest year on record. It also showed that the Murray-Darling Basin remained dry. It came as no surprise.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s that got to do with the communities of the Lower Lakes?

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Bernadi, I am happy to talk about that. While we are on the subject of the relationship between the Murray and climate change, let us look at a statement made by Senator Bernadi 12 months ago. He said:

I have come to believe we’re seeing a distortion of a whole area of science that is being manipulated—

manipulated—

to present a certain point of view to the global public, that is that the actions of man are the cause of climate change.

Before the submission was released, the opposition were demanding to see it. But now they are nowhere to be seen. Take a look around the chamber. They have gone to ground. We have had from those sitting opposite so many different positions. What their position is depends on which state they live in. When you are downstream in South Australia, you express outrage at the state of the Lower Lakes and you call for emergency action. We know that. When they are upstream in Victoria, they tell their constituents that the lakes cannot be saved and should not be saved and that the government should stop purchasing water entitlements. We know there are no easy options. We know that there are hard choices that have to be made.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you standing up for South Australia?

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What this document shows is that we have significantly less water in the southern basin than we need. If it does not rain, something will have to give. In the short term, the needs of people reliant on the Murray for critical drinking water must come first. This includes the one million residents of Adelaide. Yes, Senator Bernadi, I am a South Australian senator. We must be absolutely clear about the Lower Lakes. We need to do everything we can. That is why the government is proceeding with the course of action endorsed in this submission—that is, to continue the pumping arrangements we have in place. The Rudd government has committed $200 million to the South Australian government to address the problems facing the Lower Lakes and the Coorong —$200 million to the South Australian government, $10 million of which will be available immediately to accelerate projects for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. That is why the government has committed $120 million for piping works to connect to a higher point on the Murray towns, communities and irrigators currently relying on the Lower Lakes.

We also want to avoid the situation that is occurring in the Lower Lakes spreading to other parts of the basin and ensure that all Australians have the water they need. So what are we doing about it? The Rudd government has a $12.9 billion long-term plan—Water for the Future—which is about preparing Australia for a future with less rainfall as a result of climate change.

We are sitting here today and we are debating this issue that is affecting the Murray-Darling Basin and the Lower Lakes with those on the other side, who have been climate change sceptics for nearly 12 years. What did they do? What did you contribute, Senator Bernardi, from your side? Absolutely nothing. That is one of the reasons we are in our current situation. You know that. You can sit there and you can say what you like, but you know that, and those opposite who were in government for 12 years— (Time expired)