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

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

The failure of the Rudd Government to deliver its promise of evidence-based policy when working towards a solution for the water crisis facing communities throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, including:

(a)

its attempts to both bring water back into and distribute water from the Basin, and in particular:

(i)

the purchase of Toorale Station and foreshadowed conversion of a food and fibre producer to a national park, and

(ii)

the construction of a pipeline to take 110 gigalitres of water from the Basin to supply the city of Melbourne; and

(b)

its failure to act to better collect, store, use and re-use water.

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.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party is really conjecturing on this. This is the absolute personification of Labor Party management. We have had some $23.75 million of this nation’s resources put towards the purchase of Toorale Station so that about 14 gigalitres of water can be removed from the station at this time. It will probably merrily go down the river for about 100 kilometres or 200 kilometres—we do not know; we do not even know if it goes into a charged system—and will quickly dissipate. There is an acknowledgment with this purchase that it is probably not going to do very much if in fact anything at all to relieve the pressure on the Lower Lakes and the pressure on Adelaide’s water requirements.

At the same time that this decision has been made, the same Labor government, through Mr Garrett, has approved the north-south pipeline in Victoria and the removal from the system of about 110 gigalitres of water. So, 110 gigalitres of water are going to be removed from the system and removed from where the system is charged—that is, there is a connection of water from the top to the bottom, where it actually has effect. At the same time, with a pious look on their faces, they are also including the purchase of Toorale, which they all acknowledge will have no real consequence for what happens in the Lower Darling—apart from the fact that they can hold it up and say, ‘Well, at least we did something.’

This something that they did with $23.75 million of the nation’s money was done, we find, without even an inspection. Senator Heffernan brought this up here the other day: it was made without even an inspection; it was bought sight unseen. This is a peculiar way for the finances of the nation to be managed by the Labor Party, which holds itself out to be fiscally responsible. This is a $23.75 million example of their fiscal responsibility: they will purchase an asset, sight unseen, that has no effect but to grab a headline.

We know what the effects of this sort of arbitrary decision-making process will be. We will see the effects of this sort of decision on the people who live proximate to the purchase site, the people of Bourke. The people of Bourke are going to have to deal with the fact that one of the big employment providers in their area is now under attack, the irrigation industry. It seems strange in the extreme that at the start of the new parliament we and Mr Rudd had the Sorry Day. We all believed that it was bona fide, that his word was his bond and that this was about making a meaningful difference to the Indigenous people of our nation. And yet one of the first decisions of real effect will decimate the economy where they live. In this area, one of their main employment opportunities is going to be decimated by this decision.

This is typical of the Labor Party. There is a gap between their rhetoric and their actual delivery of substance. The rhetoric was Sorry Day; the substance was the destruction of the economy of Bourke and of the economy of the Indigenous people who live in that area. The rhetoric was Fuelwatch; the substance was a scheme that was actually going to force the price of fuel up. The rhetoric was GroceryWatch; the substance was that they were going to vote to repeal the Birdsville amendment so as to put more pressure on the independents, reduce competition in the market and force up prices. This is the typical separation between the rhetoric and the substance of a Labor government.

Going back to Toorale Station, what are they going to do with this? Not only do we have the removal of employment opportunities for people in the area but we have the fact that this is going to be of absolutely no consequence to the people in the Lower Lakes and in South Australia. This is inconsequential. We are talking about 14 gigalitres from Bourke when they need about 1,000 gigalitres in the Lower Lakes. They are still 986 gigalitres short. And by the time this water gets there—unless they transport it there in little plastic bottles—there will not be any gigalitres; there will be no water that makes it down there. Why? Because of transpiration and evaporation and because of the fact that it is going into a non-charged system that has to permeate through to charge up the system to get it to South Australia.

What has Australia really purchased? For their $23.75 million, they have managed to create serious consequences for all those people who have houses or businesses in Bourke. They have managed to completely threaten the economy of the people of Bourke. They have managed in the same breath to have Mr Garrett take 110 gigalitres out of the system in a way that actually does have an effect and move it to Melbourne. They have managed to go through this whole process without even sending anybody up to inspect the asset that they are buying. They are doing this on the premise that they are fiscally responsible! They have sent a shudder through the whole surrounding area as people now see a government making arbitrary decisions that have huge ramifications for the people there.

Where is the socioeconomic statement that the Labor Party put forward to show to the people of that area that they had the wider implications of this decision in mind? What are they going to do with this Toorale Station after purchasing it? We hear that they are going to turn it into a national park. They are removing productive land and turning it into a national park. For what purpose? What is the environmental benefit of that? Maybe they will be able to table some report justifying this on environmental grounds and clearly laying out what the environmental benefit of turning Toorale Station into a national park will be for our nation. What flora or fauna are we trying to protect in turning it into a national park?

Have they even considered this, or is this yet another example of the processes of a Labor government: jingoistic rhetoric on a position that is only there for the six o’clock news and after that has no real consequence whatsoever—except that somebody somewhere in Australia has to go to work to pay for that $23.75 million? As we all know, all Australians work for the government on Monday and Tuesday. They will be extremely happy to know that they are going to work to purchase an asset that is going to have no effect whatsoever in solving the problems of the lower Murray-Darling, and especially the southern lakes. I know that the Labor Party are going to be able to find people who are willing to sell. Without a shadow of doubt, people under stress are going to be willing to sell. But the implications of these decisions go far further than that.

At a time when the economic conditions in our nation are paramount, when they should be absolutely and clearly focused on the ramifications of the decisions they make about how our nation is run and how this economy will be able to deal with the stresses that will be placed on it by issues both domestic and international, they have shown us as a clear example that on this issue they had no real study into that. We have also had from the Labor government in Queensland the so-called ‘release’ of water from the Warrego. It was the release of water that was never actually captured. It was the release of water that was never actually in a ring tank. It was the release of water that did not actually exist. This is apparently part of the other sort of substance, the benefaction of the Labor governments to our nation.

Why couldn’t we have had a better expenditure of this money on other things, maybe even looking further at desalination, recycling or processes that could actually deliver something to Senator Fisher’s state of South Australia? Why couldn’t we have had a reasonable expenditure on a project that has a long-term future to deliver something to the people of Adelaide rather than this rhetorical purchase, this squandering of the nation’s wealth? It is a sad day indeed when this sort of process is peddled out there. I believe it did not even go to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission—I think that it did not even feature in any negotiations with them. That is the arbitrary nature of government that is emanating from a certain room on the lower floor of this parliament and it has now become profound in the way this nation is governed.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought that Senator Fisher would have been too embarrassed to put her name to this particular resolution because, like me, she is a senator from South Australia.

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

Are you embarrassed?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be embarrassed if I were you to have put your name to this resolution.

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

I am embarrassed about Labor’s inaction.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator! You have got your seven minutes coming up.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, she would be embarrassed, because for all the years that the Howard government was in power—those 11 disastrous years for Australia—the federal cabinet was chock-a-block full of South Australians. There was Minchin, Vanstone and Hill. Pyne even got a go. There was Downer. There were all these South Australians in the Howard government cabinet, and for all the time they were there they must have been seeing all of the scientific data that is now available to us about the catastrophe that was about to engulf the Murray River. They must have seen that information, but what did they do? They did nothing. They did not spend a single cent on providing additional water for South Australia. Now we have a cabinet minister from South Australia who is doing exactly what should have been done under the Howard government.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She is hopeless!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, she is not hopeless; she is a very good minister. She is doing what every good South Australia cabinet minister should do. She is doing exactly what every good cabinet minister should have been doing under the Howard government but wasn’t. What were they doing? They were spending all their time in that cabinet working out ways of ripping penalty rates from 15-year-old shop assistants. They were not worried about water at all. They were worried about Work Choices and how they could take money out of the pockets of young working Australians. They were not just working out how to do it; they were advertising. I found out today when I asked the Parliamentary Library how much money was spent by the former government on advertising Work Choices. The only figures that are available so far are those for the period 2005-06. The figure is $31.8 million.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is about water!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and I am getting to the point about water. That money that was absolutely wasted on Work Choices could have been spent on buying water for South Australia, and of course it was not. It was not spent; it was wasted on Work Choices and it should have been spent on water. We have got a South Australian cabinet minister, Minister Wong, and she has spent some money. She has gone out there and has made some of the hard choices that are going to have to be made. It is all about hard decisions. There are no easy options.

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

It is all about the right decisions!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and she is making the right decisions because she is buying water.

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

Senator Fisher interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order, Senator Fisher!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that you do not want to hear the truth, Senator Fisher, but you have got to listen. The truth is that Senator Fisher says to us that we have got to fix the problem of the Murray but they do not want to buy the water that is needed to send down the Murray to fix the problem. She is opposed to the federal government assisting the New South Wales government to buy this particular station to provide 20 gigalitres water. I notice that Senator Joyce referred to 40 gigalitres of water so they have not even got their facts right. Toorale Station will provide 20 gigalitres of water each year into the Murray. I know that it is a small amount but we have got Senator Fisher opposing this water going into the Murray.

But there is another senator for South Australia—Simon Birmingham. He put out a press release on 7 July 2008. In it he said:

Senator Birmingham joined Independent Senator Nick Xenophon—

yes, joined Senator Xenophon—

at a forum hosted by the Alexandria Council in Goolwa today where they backed calls by the council for the immediate release of 250 gigalitres of water from upstream storages.

We have Senator Wong doing exactly what Senator Birmingham from South Australia has asked her to do: buying some water upstream, releasing it into the river and starting to help the Murray to recover from all of the years of neglect by the Liberal government. Senator Birmingham has the right idea. He knows what South Australia needs: we have to go out there and buy some water. On the other hand, we have Senator Fisher saying, ‘No, you’ve bought this water; it’s the wrong decision.’

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

Tell us Toorale water will get to South Australia. You did yesterday.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do the South Australian Liberals want? Is this some sort of factional division that we are facing in members of the Liberal Party from South Australia? Is one a Nelson supporter and one a Turnbull supporter. Is that why we have this division in South Australia?

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

Tell us Toorale water will get to South Australia.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Fisher! I have warned you about a dozen times now. Do not interject again.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. The reality is that Senator Wong is doing exactly what we need in South Australia. We need water. The purchase of Toorale Station is just the first step along the way. Labor understands that we have to provide drinking water for South Australia. We have to provide water for all those irrigators that Senator Xenophon talked about in the Riverland. We have to provide water for them and we have to try to save the Lower Lakes.

Labor has committed $3.1 billion to this process. The Liberal Party did not want to spend a zack. They were happy to spend money on advertising Work Choices, but they did not spend a zack to buy one drop of water. Labor is going to buy $3.1 billion worth and has started the process. This is the first step along the way to providing water to South Australia. Senator Joyce referred to Senator Heffernan’s claims that there had been no consultation about the sale. The truth of the matter is that the lands in the National Reserve System were assessed by officers of the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts using information provided by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change. I think it is important to understand that the federal government is assisting in this purchase. It is actually the New South Wales government that is making the purchase. What Senator Heffernan said is not correct. There was an assessment made by the officers of the Commonwealth department.

So what are we doing at this particular station?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are doing something. We are buying from willing sellers. There is a suggestion around the place from a number of misguided senators that we want to compulsorily acquire this water. No, we are going out into the marketplace. We are looking for willing sellers and this was one of those willing sellers. Of course, we are providing assistance to the New South Wales government in the form of a grant so that they can make this purchase. Toorale Station will deliver 20 megalitres of water into the Darling to flow down the system. For those of you who are not mathematically inclined, that is 20 billion litres of water.

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

That sounds bigger.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it sounds like a lot and it is a lot. As a result of this purchase there will be lots of benefits to the wetlands along that section of the Darling River, including the Menindee Lakes, as well as to the Darling itself. This is all part of a water-sharing plan by the New South Wales government for the region— (Time expired)

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

It is not often that we actually congratulate the government. I will freely admit that it is not often, but this is an example of where we do congratulate them. We have very publicly said that we think that the purchase of Toorale was a very important contribution.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have you been smoking?

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

I did so publicly, Senator Evans. Mea culpa, I am on record saying that we congratulate the government and they have done a good job in purchasing that property.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Make sure Hansard got that.

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

Yes, we are making sure that has happened. Not only is this good for the Warrego; it is good for the Darling and it is good for the whole Murray-Darling Basin. On the one hand we have the coalition saying that we have to save the Lower Lakes, but, by the sound of it, on the other hand they are saying it cannot be done by buying water. What we are still obviously failing to grasp in this debate is that we have to change the way we manage the Murray-Darling system. We have grossly overallocated the system. Not only do we have the impact of climate change but—certainly, from the evidence that we received at the committee hearings that we have held so far into the Coorong and Lower Lakes—it sounds like we have grossly underestimated the impact that climate change and the reduction in run-off will have on the river.

This highlights yet again that we have to be managing the whole system. The purchase of Toorale is very important because it puts water back into the system, but it is also the beginning of the necessary restructuring that we are going to have to do. Yes, there may be some readjusting in the local area, but—I tell you what—there is going to be a massive restructuring in the area if it is not properly guided and is ad hoc. That will bring with it a lot of misery if we do not get ahead of the ball game. If we just let this happen by osmosis—or lack of osmosis, because there ain’t gonna be any water—we are going to face a very bad situation in rural areas.

As Don Blackmore said the other day on national radio—Don Blackmore knows a thing or two about the Murray, let me remind people, having headed up the Murray-Darling Basin Commission for a number of years—it is about time we had an honest discussion about the Murray-Darling Basin. We need an honest discussion—no pretending that, if we close our eyes and do not listen, all of a sudden things are going to get better, we will return to normal and it will be business as usual. I am sorry. That is never going to happen. We can have an honest discussion where we actually allocate resources on a meaningful, purposeful basis that is fair and leads to the long-term sustainability of the environment, the river system, agriculture and the communities in that region. But, if we do not, we are going to end up with a series of crises, like that which is facing the Coorong, along all the wetlands along the Murray-Darling Basin. Buying Toorale and getting rid of the embankments there and allowing the Warrego to run free for the first time in a long time will have multiple benefits for the Murray-Darling system, for the wetlands along the system, for the river itself and for the native fish that are in that system. That station is one of the highest priority bioregions for protection of land as well. That area has very high biodiversity value, so the combination of the federal government working with the state government—unusual though that cooperation is—has a good shared outcome in terms of water for the river, for the ecosystems and for the native fish that are in that area. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party has been neglectful in the way it has dealt with the water in the Murray-Darling system for decades. The previous government had put aside a lot of money to address the problems in the Murray-Darling Basin, but the intransigence of the Victorian Labor government prevented that plan from ever being put into effect. So the Labor Party, under some real pressure to do something that they had not done for a decade past, have been looking around for stunts that will divert attention from their inaction.

I have to say with some regret that it is a pity that the minister is not here. I do not like saying this when she is not here to defend herself but her management of both climate change and water has been appalling. She had to come up with some stunt, so the Labor Party went out and bought Toorale Station—sight unseen, I understand—and, in doing that, they have destroyed a major impetus in that region. That was done without any suggestion of compensation for the people who will be put out of work and for the people who will be thrown out of their houses and thrown out of their jobs as a result of this decision. They have not done as the National Water Initiative suggested—and this is the New South Wales government’s problem in splitting the water licence from the land. In New South Wales, and Toorale Station as I understand it, the licence is attached to the land. Once they have shut down the usage of water on this land, the property is to be turned into a national park. We know about the New South Wales government’s—indeed, every state Labor government’s—administration of national parks: they become havens for feral pigs, feral animals and weeds, with no money offered for the proper management of what is left after the water has been taken from Toorale Station.

It does not stop there. The Labor government, in putting some 14 to 20 billion litres supposedly back into the Darling, have at the very same time facilitated the Victorian Labor government’s stealing of over 100 million litres of water from the system. The Toorale is well upstream—it will not have any impact whatsoever at the mouth of the Murray-Darling system—but the water stolen by the Victorian government from the Murray system would have had a real impact. How can anyone attribute any credibility at all to the Labor Party—to the government here in Canberra and to the government in Melbourne—when on the one hand they are paying $24 million to get 14 to 20 billion litres of water into the Darling and, at the same time, letting six, seven or eight times that amount of water be stolen from the Murray-Darling system when that could have made a real difference at the mouth of the Murray? Why is the Victorian government stealing this Murray water? To flush the toilets of Melbourne citizens.

There were other alternatives available to the Victorian government to address the water problems that government has created through inaction in infrastructure over the past several years but, no, they chose the easy option: to steal the water from the Murray-Darling system. I wondered why Senator Siewert, in siding with the government on the Toorale purchase, did not make reference to this particular government’s—and to Mr Garrett’s in particular—facilitating the stealing of water from the Murray-Darling system to take it into Melbourne. If you were really serious about what happens at the mouth of the Murray, you would be doing something to get the water that is now going to Melbourne into the system and down to the lakes.

My friend and colleague Senator Heffernan, who unfortunately is absent today at a funeral, has pointed out some aspects of administration of the Murray-Darling by Labor governments, both state and federal, that really do require a very serious investigation. I note in passing that $24 million was paid to the Swire Group—the owner of Toorale Station—which has as one of its directors Sir Rod Eddington, who is the Labor government’s very close adviser on infrastructure and many other things. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, although it does muddy the waters slightly in relation to this acquisition.

So the whole position of the government, not only now but when they were in opposition, of opposing the previous government’s very deliberative and well-managed plans for the Murray really calls into question their commitment and their ability to manage this. We know that the Labor Party simply cannot manage money. In 10 short months they have really gone a long way to destroying all of the good work that Peter Costello did in the previous 11 years. It is a given fact that you cannot trust Labor governments anywhere with money, but we now find that you cannot trust the Labor Party and their governments with the management of water either.

I will never understand why the then opposition did not put more pressure on the Victorian government to join Mr Howard’s water plan, which set $10 billion aside to address the problems of the Murray. The Labor Party played politics in Victoria, played politics in this house and prevented that from happening. Now, when they have government in every state—except Western Australia, I should add—they are still unable to properly manage the problems in the Murray-Darling system. Sure, it is good to buy some water to put into the river, but it needs to be done right along the system. To at the same time allow the Victorian Labor government to steal water from the Murray system is just criminal. This government should stand condemned for facilitating the Victorian state Labor government’s stealing of water from the Murray system.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did promise myself that I would try not to politicise this debate this afternoon in my 10 minutes, but I have let myself down because I am going to have to respond to Senator Macdonald’s absurd attack on Sir Rod Eddington. Fair dinkum! Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. But I do want to acknowledge Senator Siewert. Senator Siewert is my ex-deputy chair on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, and I valued her input at every opportunity that we had to work together. She has not gone completely. Senator Siewert does pop in now again on certain inquiries, but she certainly put a non-political spin on the situation—the dire situation which is the Murray-Darling Basin.

I am so sorry—I wish I could wave some magical wand—but the sad reality is that we have been in drought for years. There is no magical wand to wave to make it rain. That side of politics can throw all this nonsense at us, and I am sure there will be some more nonsense—and I am not referring to Senator Fisher because she is sitting there; I am just saying there are other speakers from the opposite side that will have their say.

We know that on 10 September the New South Wales government reached an agreement with Clyde Agriculture to purchase the land and associated water rights on Toorale Station for $23.74 million, but may I say—no, not ‘may I say’; I will say—they did not have a gun stuck to their head. They did not have their arm twisted behind their back. They wanted to sell their water rights and their property and they did. The federal government took the responsible position and purchased it. It was not forced. They wanted to sell. I have heard some outrageous statements from Senator Joyce—and congratulations to Senator Joyce on leading the Nationals, although my money was on you, Senator Nash. I lost that bet, but I think it will come true sooner or later. But Senator Joyce carried on waffling something about Sorry Day—another derogatory political point to make, to the detriment of the stolen generation. That was disgraceful.

Let’s talk about the situation that is the Murray-Darling Basin and let’s talk about the purchase of Toorale Station. The purchase of Toorale Station will return on average 20 billion litres of water—20 billion litres that are not there now, 20 billion litres of water that have been welcomed by other irrigators and by environmentalists, 20 billion litres of water that they were not forced to sell but were happy to sell.

I become passionate when we start talking about jobs, to continue on Senator Joyce’s comments. It is sad if there are nine people employed at this station that may no longer have their jobs there. I did read that they would be offered jobs with New South Wales parks or somewhere like that, I think. But it is rich coming from the National Party, who rolled over and had their tummy tickled at every opportunity for a biscuit, a sugar cube or whatever it was every time that side of politics wanted to try and whack up workers under the guise of Work Choices. I find it really amazing that Senator Joyce can come riding in here on his white charger defending workers. How cruelly they have been treated because they might be offered a job with another employer! As my good colleague and friend Senator Farrell said, they did not give a damn when they were screwing over—I will not say ‘screwing over’, sorry—giving employers an opportunity to strip hard-fought and hard-won conditions in awards and wages from young workers or workers who had English as their second language.

But I will continue. I will just say that significant environmental assets that will benefit from this purchase include some wetlands of national importance at Menindee Lakes as well as the Darling River itself. The recent CSIRO sustainable yields audit for the Barwon-Darling system also found that the middle zone of the Darling Range between Bourke and Menindee Lakes is in poor condition, as is the whole Murray-Darling Basin.

To try and explain where we are coming from and where the argument is going, I have some statements here and I want to share them with the Senate and see if someone opposite can help me on where the coalition opposition actually sits on this important issue of the degradation of the Murray-Darling Basin. It may come as no surprise, but the coalition have seven positions—not one or two but seven positions. It just depends on what part of the Murray-Darling Basin they are talking about, whether they are down in Adelaide arguing over where the Coorong and the Lower Lakes are or whether they are happily, merrily skipping along the Top End, in Senator Joyce’s end in Queensland, in Bourke or wherever they are. But how can you have seven different positions?

I want to quote a few of them. I will share them with you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Position 1: support for the Rudd government’s buyback, by none other than Mr Greg Hunt. On 29 April Mr Greg Hunt said: ‘We are’—and I assume he means the opposition, including the Nationals—‘pleased that they are involved in the buyback.’ Great—good endorsement. That is wonderful. Let’s put the politics aside and move on to how we can address this dire situation. But then there is South Australian senator Simon Birmingham, who said in estimates on 22 February:

… the government stated that the need to restore in the order of 500 billion litres to the Murray-Darling system was a matter of urgency—

I would agree with him there—

in part of your overall 1,500 billion litre commitment, which of course we all support.

Once again, ‘we’. I assume for you, Senator Nash, that would be the Nationals as well as the Liberals.

Position 2: buyback is meaningless. So, in the space of four or five weeks, it has gone from ‘support’ to ‘meaningless’. That was from Mr John Cobb, the member for Calare. I have to apologise: is Mr John Cobb a National or a Liberal? I do not know. You might be able to help me out, Senator Nash. Mr Cobb has said that Minister Wong’s announcement of a $50 million water buyback is ‘politics not policy’. We have Mr Cobb saying that it is meaningless; Senator Birmingham and Mr Hunt, who I believe is the shadow minister for environment or climate change, or something, are supporting it.

Position 3—this is a cracker—comes from none other than Mr Truss. I think he was still your leader on 29 April when he said that ‘shoppers will pay more because of Labor’s decision announced today to buy large quantities of water from farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin’. Maybe we should be spanked; maybe we should not give them the water so that they cannot grow food and we cannot buy it.

And here is this serial offender again: Mr Cobb. Help me out. Is he one of yours, Senator Nash? Sincerely, I am not being smart. I do not know. Of Minister Wong’s decision to buy $3.1 billion of water entitlements guarantees, Mr Cobb said something along the lines of, ‘Communities coping with the worst drought in living memory will go from a natural drought to a Rudd-made drought.’ We commit $3.1 billion for buying water to save the Murray-Darling and we have created the Rudd drought! Unbelievable.

Position 4 is from Mr Christopher Pyne in Adelaide: ‘There should have been $1 billion spent on returning environmental flows into the Murray-Darling Basin.’

Position 5 comes from another serial offender, none other than Mr Greg Hunt: ‘It won’t work.’ He was talking about buybacks. ‘Buybacks will not help the Murray. It cannot help the Murray unless you make the efficiencies.’ For crying out loud! Senator Fisher, can your side of politics at least sing from the same hymn sheet or do you just make it up as you gallop from doorstop to doorstop? As soon as the microphone is shoved in front of a Liberal or National member of parliament, they think they have to comment on something they know nothing about or they are seen not to be supporting each other.

There are still another two positions. Position 6: not in my backyard. This is an absolute cracker from Dr Sharman Stone, the member for Murray, who said, ‘Minister Wong should conduct the buyback only on overallocated streams.’ A month later, Dr Stone said, ‘It is the overallocated areas in New South Wales that should be targeted to buy back water for the environment.’

They support it; they do not. ‘We should do it’; ‘We shouldn’t do it.’ No wonder the Australian population is confused listening to the rabble on that side. Position 7 is a purler. On 31 July on 5AA radio, the former leader of the coalition, when asked by the host, ‘Would you buy back licences compulsorily?’ answered, ‘I think that’s the kind of thing that needs to be considered in different parts of the basin.’ Fair dinkum! No wonder that side over there are an absolute and complete rabble. They embarrass themselves when they come in here and carry on after 11½ years of inaction—of doing absolutely nothing. Then 12 months after an election: ‘Oh, woe is us. We’ve got a problem in the Murray-Darling Basin. Woe is us. We’ve done absolutely nothing.’ The Rudd Labor government has been in power for nine months and all of a sudden it is our fault, after 11½ years of inaction. I commend Minister Wong on her action. I commend the Rudd Labor government for getting off its backside and realising that there is a problem in the Murray-Darling Basin and that no action is not a solution. No action is not an option. Something has to be done. (Time expired)

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

This is the fourth time in my three short weeks here as a senator that I have risen to talk about the plight of the Murray-Darling Basin, in particular the crisis we face in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. While I agree with Senator Fisher that we are yet to see any real evidence based policy initiatives to address the urgency of the Murray-Darling water crisis, it is important to recognise the lack of action from the past government as well. It is important to recognise the devastating impact which decades of inaction and continued mismanagement from both sides of this chamber have had on the current state of Australia’s greatest river system. We must see positive action from state and federal governments on these issues, to allocate the lower Murray its fair share of freshwater flows and to alleviate ongoing damage that years of ineffective policy has had on our Storm Boy country.

In my home state of South Australia, the government has yet again failed this week to allocate any water from the increased flows for the environment. Again we have seen a lack of allocation for the river itself and a lack of allocation which has been prioritised to save the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. Despite the fact that we have had a small—and I acknowledge that it is small—improvement in the water volume available in South Australia, none of this has been shared with the environment and none of this has been allocated to the river itself.

On Monday this week during question time, I asked the minister whether or not a risk assessment had been conducted by the department on the devastating ecological and community impacts that flooding the Lower Lakes with sea water would have. We must have a risk assessment before any government contemplates committing to such an environmentally devastating policy. We have heard evidence throughout the current Senate inquiry that once we let salt water flows into the lakes they will damage them in a way that will never allow them to fully recover. In response to my question and call for a risk assessment to occur as a matter of urgency, Minister Wong’s office has essentially passed the buck to the South Australian government to make a decision. Frankly, I do not care who does the risk assessment. No minister should be pushing for the flooding of salt water into the lakes without having all the facts. It is time that our governments, state and federal, started working together and it is time that our major parties started to accept that we have to change ‘business as usual’. We need to prioritise the environmental flows of the river right throughout the system and, in order for us to— (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on this very important matter and to protest yet another failure of the government to keep their election promises—their failure to deliver evidence based policy to resolve the crisis facing the Murray-Darling Basin. Where is the Prime Minister’s evidence based plan to fix the problems facing the Murray-Darling Basin? Where is the Prime Minister’s evidence based action plan to resolve the crisis? In particular, where are the Prime Minister’s evidence based actions to bring water back into the system, to redistribute water from the system and to better collect, store, use and reuse water?

First, let us look at bringing water back into the system. Let it not be said that the coalition has an issue with buying back water or, indeed, trading in water. It was part of our policy. What the coalition has an issue with is adhocery and what is fast becoming Labor’s water madness. Where is the method in Labor’s proposals to resolve the crisis facing the Murray-Darling? Where is the method in what Labor is doing, or proposing to do, to bring water back into the basin? Buybacks and water trading are important provided that they are done on an evidence based platform and according to a method and not as part of Labor’s water madness, wherein there is no method—not one that can be discerned at this stage. What the coalition wants to see is Labor’s evidence. Where is the method to Labor’s water madness? You promised the electorate a method. You promised the electorate evidence based policy. No. 1 in terms of bringing water back into the system must be rebuilding the infrastructure that is used when carrying and utilising that water. If Labor does not tackle the infrastructure, then there is little point in bringing water back in because the same thing will happen to that water as has been happening to it thus far. So deliver the evidence based plan and the evidence based action to fix the infrastructure around the Murray-Darling Basin. Identify to the Australian electorate your plan for bringing water back in.

Look at the case of Toorale Station. Why purchase Toorale Station? Senator Faulkner’s answers in this place yesterday indicated that the government did not do any empirical analysis leading to their decision to purchase Toorale Station. Why Toorale Station? Why take a food and fibre producer out of the equation? Why this food and fibre producer? The government was not able to show, for example, that it has mapped Australia and identified those areas of Australia which currently enjoy water rights which may well be the areas that could most efficiently and properly be targeted for conversion so that that water can be brought back into the system for allocation elsewhere. Why Toorale Station? The empirical evidence has not been produced. Why the community around Toorale Station? Minister Wong says that pain must be borne. Minister Wong, make the decisions and show us the evidence upon which you are making the decisions and taking the action in deciding which communities and where. Show us the strategic plan and the analysis that you have done to underpin it that then provides for those communities. This is not about state versus state, city versus country and user versus user if it is managed appropriately and in an evidence based way. Show us the method to your water madness.

In respect of Toorale Station, Senator Faulkner’s answer yesterday—and Senator Faulkner has undertaken to provide further information—indicated that, yes, it was federal government money that was provided for the purchase, yet he says the project was assessed at a state level by an independent advisory committee. If it is federal government money, one would have thought that the federal government would have done the assessment. Indeed, we are surprised to hear that the federal government apparently did not even visit Toorale Station prior to deciding that it is going to become a national park. On what basis has the government decided to convert a food and fibre producer to a national park? On what empirical basis have they made the decision to provide to the environment the 20 gigalitres of water purchased?

This brings us to the second stage: what is to be done with the water that has been realised? How is the government prioritising the redistribution of that water? We hear from time to time talk about the environment and talk about re-watering the river. We hear from time to time talk about human critical needs. How is the government defining those concepts? Where do farmers, irrigators and food producers fit in to the equation? What are the government’s priorities? On what basis has it formulated these priorities and what is its strategic plan to deliver them? What is its definition of ‘critical human need’? The government must have one, presumably, because it is in charge. Yet those who have been involved in implementing part of what, at this stage, appears to be adhocery have not been informed by the government of what is meant by, for example, ‘critical human need’. (Time expired)

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

I rise to address the matter of public importance currently being debated in this place. Accusations from those opposite of ‘the government’s failure to act to better collect, store, use and reuse water’ are unbelievable. For an opposition senator to put up such a motion is an embarrassment. For nearly 12 years those opposite when in government failed to prepare Australia for the tough challenges of the future. The Rudd government is not sitting back with its feet up, nor is it turning its back on a crisis, denying its existence, like those opposite did. History will record that it was those opposite, in government for 11½ years, who failed to act to better collect, store, use and reuse water. It will not reflect kindly on their failure to do so.

So now, in government for only 10 months, the Rudd government is confronting the problem of historic overallocation, compounded by more than 10 years of drought and a future where it is likely there will be less water in the Murray-Darling Basin as a result of climate change. We know we need to act now for Australia’s long-term future, for our children’s future, to protect our economic security and to assist in protecting our environment.

As I have already said in this place, we have had so many different positions from those sitting opposite. What their position is depends on which state they live in or who they are speaking to. When they are downstream in South Australia they express outrage at the state of the Lower Lakes and then call for emergency action.

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

Same speech!

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

You can say it is the same speech; the message is the same. You change your message depending on where you are delivering it. The opposition cannot say they want to save the rivers but then say they do not want to send any water down them. They cannot have it both ways. When they are upstream in Victoria, they tell their constituents that the lakes cannot and should not be saved and that the government should stop purchasing water entitlements. Those opposite are all over the place on the issue of water.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, said:

We’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that our plan is based on no acquisitions of water being other than from willing sellers.

The former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, when asked on Adelaide radio if he would buy back licences compulsorily, replied with:

Well I think that’s the kind of thing that needs to be considered in different parts of the basin …

It was then reported that the Victorian Nationals leader, Peter Ryan, communicated his concern over the comment to Warren Truss, who noted that Dr Nelson was speaking to a South Australian audience about the lower reaches of the Murray and ‘probably got caught up in the moment’. Perhaps, Senator Fisher, he got caught up in the fact that he was speaking to a South Australian audience. So, as I have already said, the coalition changes their position based on where they find themselves. That is not leadership. For 11½ years in government, the coalition lacked leadership when it came to our environment, particularly in addressing water needs and the health of our river systems.

We know there are no easy options. We know that hard choices have to be made. The Rudd government is the first federal government to purchase water entitlements. The opposition failed to deliver a single drop of water over their 12 years in government, they refused to support urban water infrastructure and now they want to spoil the government’s effort to improve the health of the rivers. The government is investing $3.1 billion in purchasing water from willing sellers so that water can be returned to the rivers to help improve their health. Let us be clear: we are not creating a false impression that any single intervention, any one act, will fix all of the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin or, for that matter, the Lower Lakes. There must be a concerted effort across the basin in purchasing water from those willing to sell and in improving infrastructure efficiency.

The opposition seems to be implying that somehow it was unfair for the government to be part of the purchase of Toorale Station. What they fail to say, though, is that Toorale Station was put up for sale. They wanted to sell and we wanted to buy. Let me also make it clear that the National Reserve System values of Toorale were assessed by— (Time expired)

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

The Murray-Darling crisis is arguably the greatest environmental challenge this nation has ever faced. It needs a national solution and it needs to be an informed, scientific solution. So I am deeply concerned that the federal government does not appear to be delivering on its promise of an evidence based approach to the Murray-Darling crisis. The environment in the Lower Lakes is dying. Countless irrigators in the Riverland face losing their homes and are being forced to witness the death of their communities.

So how, while all this is happening, could the federal government possibly approve the Victorian government’s north-south pipeline, which will take 110 gigalitres of water away from the Murray-Darling system every year and divert it to the city of Melbourne? How could the federal government have agreed to the purchase of the Toorale Station in New South Wales, using $24 million of taxpayers’ money, without consulting the Murray-Darling Basin Commission? And, more importantly for my state of South Australia, how could the federal government possibly be considering flooding the Lower Lakes with sea water without doing the necessary scientific research into the environmental impact of such a move?

I refer to evidence provided last week to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into the Murray-Darling crisis by Dr Bill Phillips, the Director of RiverSmart Australia, who stated that the environmental impact of such a flooding is unknown. Dr Phillips argued very convincingly that allowing salt water into the Lower Lakes might lead to the destruction of significant parts of the Fleurieu Peninsula. This was certainly news to me and to others on the committee, and it was very bad news indeed. Dr Phillips said:

We do not know … what will happen if you add sea water into that part of the system. It is highly likely it will end up in the groundwater systems, which could then flow up into the critically endangered Fleurieu Peninsula swamps. You might essentially kill off a critically endangered ecological community and the emu wrens that live there. So there are all sorts of collateral impacts that could happen from opening the barrages which force us to say that it has to be the absolute last resort.

I ask the government: what scientific study has been done on this doomsday scenario? Has the CSIRO been given the task and the resources needed to ensure that any plan to flood the lakes with salt water will not destroy the world-class wetland on the Fleurieu Peninsula and affect the groundwater? And has the CSIRO been asked to look into the role bioremediation can play in fighting the deadly spread of acid and salt in our soils?

We need to act quickly, but that is not the same as acting with undue haste. We need to act based on the best scientific knowledge available. In my first speech to this Senate a few weeks ago, I spoke of the importance of properly funding and ensuring the independence and effectiveness of bodies such as the CSIRO. I believe the approach of the government further demonstrates the need for this independence. (Time expired)

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! The time for the debate has expired.