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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I want to make a few remarks this evening on the report presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts on the Water Amendment (Saving the Goulburn and Murray Rivers) Bill 2008. This bill, by and large, deals with the ability to take water out of the Murray-Darling Basin for what is termed the Sugarloaf Pipeline, or north-south pipeline. It was interesting to note that the minority report was agreed to by Liberal, National, Greens and Independent senators, and there was a very strong belief on the part of all of those senators about the detrimental nature of removing water from the Murray-Darling Basin to pipe water to Melbourne.

Part of the requirement of the bill is that there should be no water taken out of the Murray-Darling Basin for new purposes. That is simply a no-brainer. We see a system that is completely under stress, and unfortunately the Victorian government sees fit to take 75,000 megalitres of water out of that basin every year for the purposes of Melbourne. While the Victorian government will say that the water is going to come from savings in the food bowl program, there were some very, very serious concerns raised about the premises on which those savings were to be made. Certainly the Liberal, National, Greens and Independent senators have some extremely serious concerns about whether or not those savings can actually be made.

We need to look at this in the context of the water that has been saved so far in the Murray-Darling Basin. While I understand that it is not the purview of Minister Wong in her capacity and that the federal relationship relates to the EPBC Act under Minister Garrett, it would be interesting for Minister Wong to answer the question about how, when under the first buyback program that she has in place only 2,000 megalitres approximately of real water have been saved, she can sit by as minister and not enter the debate about why 75,000 megalitres of water are going to be sucked out of the Murray-Darling Basin for Melbourne. It is completely incongruous for this government to say, ‘We want to do everything we can to try and save the Murray-Darling Basin and to try and keep water in the Murray-Darling Basin,’ and then at the same time to allow the Victorian government to rip 75,000 megalitres a year out of the basin.

On that basis, we certainly have some very, very serious concerns. That is why this bill came into being in the first place, and we very strongly recommend that it be passed. There was very strong opposition to this water being taken for Melbourne, particularly in the light of the fact that the Victorian government has done almost nothing to look at alternative sources of water. The impact that this is going to have on the basin and particularly on those rural and regional communities that rely on this water is enormous. It simply stands to reason that, if indeed—and we are not entirely sure—these savings are going to come from the food bowl arrangements, surely any water saved in the Murray-Darling Basin should stay in the Murray-Darling Basin and not be ripped out and sent down a pipeline to Melbourne for their use.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

Thank you very much, Senator Brandis. There is considerable concern around the inaccuracy of the stated water savings. The Victorian government is looking at saving around 225 gigalitres a year. A concern certainly raised during the committee by some was that the very premise that those savings are based on is incorrect. Yet we have seen no independent audit, nothing whatsoever, to give any certainty or any kind of comfort to those members of the Senate committee that were very concerned about this particular issue. Indeed, one of the recommendations that we have made in the minority report is to ensure that there is an independent audit of those savings. It is absolutely vital that this take place. Minister Garrett should come out tomorrow and say he recognises that there is a requirement to have an audit of this process and that the audit should be done—we believe by CSIRO—immediately.

This is far too important an issue to simply allow the Victorian government to make claims about the process that are unsubstantiated. It is not only the people in the Murray-Darling Basin but also people right across this nation who deserve a response to this, because there is no doubt that water is going to be—and is right now—one of the biggest issues for this country. It would simply be sensible for, as I said, the minister to come out and say he has absolutely no problem at all with requiring an independent audit immediately.

If he does not do that, what should we assume? If the minister is not prepared to say, ‘Yes, I absolutely require an independent audit,’—and it is our understanding that it actually is a requirement under the EPBC Act—then what is he trying to hide? If the minister does not say that there should be an independent audit immediately, we can only assume that there is something that he is trying to hide. So we need to have absolute clarity on this. We need to make sure that those uncertainties are looked into to. It is far too important an issue for this audit not to take place. Simply taking that water out of the basin is completely wrong.

It was very pleasing to see that all of those senators—the Liberals, the Nationals, the Greens and the Independent senators—were able to reach an agreement quite easily that the minority report would stand in all of our names. We had a very clear view of what was appropriate and what should be taking place. I recommend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.