Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) and the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Farrell, Chisholm, Moore and Sterle today.

You may recall, Deputy President, that I asked Minister Canavan a very simple question. I asked him: did he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, that the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was impossible? When I did not get an answer to that, I took a point of order. When I took the point of order, regrettably, the President let the minister continue with his answer and we never found out the answer to that question. It was a very simple question, very straightforward, and it should have had a straightforward answer—yes or no. We never got an answer to it.

I can only conclude from the fact that we did not get a straight answer that it is the view of the minister that he agrees with Deputy Prime Minister Joyce that it is impossible to deliver on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That is a terrible outcome, not only for the people in South Australia, where I come from, but for all Australians. It was one of the crowning achievements of the Gillard government that they got the Murray-Darling Basin Plan through the parliament—through the lower house and through the Senate—and it got with the cooperation of all of the states, because that is what was required to get the legislation through. That was a crowning achievement because of the years and years of drought that affected south-eastern Australia and the desperate state that we found the Murray-Darling Basin in when we came into government. Something needed to be done about it.

Of course, John Howard did attempt to do something about it. Senator Brandis will recall this. I know he has such a good relationship with former Prime Minister Howard.

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

We were great friends.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may be now. You were not back then, as I recall, Senator Brandis. Prime Minister Howard gave $10 billion to the then minister, Minister Turnbull, to fix the problem. But of course he could not fix it. He did not have the skills to fix it.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Well, let's be clear about this. We got the Murray-Darling Basin Plan through—Senator Wong, Tony Burke and I, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water at the time. We got this plan through the parliament. What is happening now is that this government is on the cusp of ripping up the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Okay, there has been a little bit of rain in the system, but the whole point of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is not to deal with circumstances when there is rain. The whole point of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to deal with the droughts and the dreadful circumstances, particularly in South Australia, that happened to the communities along the Murray-Darling Basin.

What we need to do is to have a strong Prime Minister in this country. We need a strong—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I can see you are agreeing with me, Senator Brandis, because you know what I am saying is true. You know that this is not a strong Prime Minister. He is a weak Prime Minister. He has caved in once again to the Nationals. He has caved in on so many occasions and he is caving in on this one. He is failing to pull the Deputy Prime Minister into line. He is failing to pull him into line and the consequences could be catastrophic for the great Murray-Darling Basin. If this Prime Minister does not restore some of his authority and say to the Deputy Prime Minister—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Well, it is starting to look that way—he does not have any authority, I am afraid to say. It is starting to look like he has no authority and he is unable to do what he needs to do. He has to pull the Deputy Prime Minister into line. He has to come in and back the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and he has to do it quickly. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I heard Senator Farrell get up earlier, I thought to myself, 'My conscience, it's getting to sound a little bit like Christmas!' Imagine Senator Farrell giving us the opportunity to talk about the failure of the Gillard-Rudd-Gillard governments when it came to the Murray-Darling Basin! In a moment I am going to address myself to Queensland's Senator Chisholm, through you, Madam Deputy President. I saw ex-Senator Mark Furner in the gallery earlier. What a shame he is not still there, because probably one of the only opportunities for the failed Labor government in Queensland would be to give Mark Furner a go in the leadership.

But let me go back to the Murray-Darling Basin before Senator Farrell, in his embarrassment, leaves the chamber. This is the organisation, if you recall, under the so-called brilliance of the then Gillard government, with Minister Wong at the time having the control of the purse strings—more regrettably for the Australian taxpayer as we watched national debt and deficit go through the roof. This was the Minister Wong who paid, as I understand it, some $300 million of taxpayers' money to the Kahlbetzer family, an agribusiness family on the Gwydir River for water rights. And do you want to know what, Madam Deputy President? There were no links from the Gwydir River to the Murray-Darling system! The $300 million was wasted! Squandered!

But do we think that was bad enough? No, Senator Wong, then Minister Wong, was just warming up. Then we go to the Tooralie Station at Bourke. We all know the poetry about the back of Bourke. Well, unfortunately, neither Senator Wong nor any of her advisers went out to the back of Bourke to have a look at Tooralie Station, because they paid—if you do not mind!—a cool $24 million of taxpayers' money for that station, plus the cattle. I am not sure how much they paid for the cattle. But, once again, do you want to know, Madam Deputy President, about that expenditure of $24 million for water to go into the Murray-Darling? The thing was that not only did they not go out there they did not even have a look at the map, because once again there was no link to the Murray-Darling Basin system.

So what did we find the other night in Adelaide, in advance, purely in accordance with this absolutely magnificent Gillard government plan for the Murray-Darling Basin? There is a process called sustainable diversion limits, which within the Gillard plan—probably not a bad one—was the fact that if there were likely to be any situation in which federal, state and territory ministers and others might have to review the plan at any time, there should be what is called consultation. Isn't that amazing? Consultation!

The consultation process as I understand it—and I am sure there will be a South Australian in the chamber in a few moments who can confirm this—started out with a letter from the minister with responsibility in the federal government: the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Joyce. He wrote to the South Australian water minister, Mr Ian Hunter. In his letter to Mr Hunter he said, 'Look, what we want to do is to sit down and have a discussion—South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and the federal government—about this matter.'

So Barnaby, being the good communicator he is, followed his letter up, just in case Minister Hunter had been too busy to read it. He followed it up personally with a phone call. So when they met last Thursday night, what do you think Minister Joyce was met with? He was met with a mouthful of the most vile abuse from Minister Hunter. The words that I heard were 'threw a tantrum'. He abused not only federal counterparts but also state counterparts and staff from all jurisdictions—including his own—in the middle of a public restaurant in Adelaide. What a great way to respond to the communication!

What happened then? Of course, we have this wonderful Premier in South Australia—the bloke who cannot control his ministers and cannot keep the lights on. The only way he organises and controls a budget in South Australia is to take GST money from Western Australia. Premier Weatherill does not even have the wherewithal to actually discipline Minister Hunter.

If this is an example of the Gillard government's Murray-Darling Basin and if this is an example of the capacity of the water minister from South Australia to be able to communicate on issues of relationship, it is little wonder that South Australia cannot keep the lights on. It is little wonder that the Premier of that particular state is so incompetent that he not only cannot do his own job but cannot discipline his ministers. At the end of the day the Murray-Darling Basin is not the better for his interaction.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has been a sorry 48 hours for Senator Brandis on top of a sorry five months since the election, in what has been a pretty sad political career. Added to his litany of catastrophes since the election—let's have a look at what they are. There is the disgraceful dispute with the former Solicitor-General; the sneakiness surrounding the government's relationship with former Senator Bob Day, which is now referred to the High Court; the embarrassment of having to refer a second senator to the High Court; and then we have the Attorney-General's latest effort, entirely of his own making. This is not to mention the treatment of Gillian Triggs and also the confusion around Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda with regard to the Don Dale inquiry.

What this has done is really show up the splits in the Liberal Nationals in Queensland. What caused this? Let's go to the quotes from Senator Brandis from Sunday. When asked, 'How is Tim Nicholls going?' he said: 'Um, well they're not very good … I'd say that the State Opposition is very, very mediocre'. Then, when talking about compulsory preferential voting, he goes on to say:

Yes they are … which somewhat attacks the raison d'etre of the merger of the Liberal Party and National Party. I think there might be a revisiting of things as a result of compulsory preferential voting.

So what we have seen is a full-glare spotlight put on the splits in the LNP in Queensland.

This was reinforced in spectacular fashion only last night when it came to the debate and the vote around the Adler shotgun, with the Nationals splitting and voting in opposition to the Prime Minister's motion. This is all happening under the leadership in this chamber of Senator Brandis. It is hardly surprising that you see these splits when they are being led by this person who is responsible for such catastrophes.

What we saw in question time today was a further example of the split between Senator Canavan, a National Party senator here in this chamber, and Senator Brandis. These are the two most senior Senate contributors from Queensland in open conflict in this chamber. The LNP in Queensland is not a happy place, and this federal LNP government is not a happy place either. We know that because we have heard out of the National Party room that under Mr Turnbull this government is focused on 'issues that very few people in the real world are worried about', which Senator Canavan accepted in question time today. In the same meeting of the Nats the PM was also referred to as 'out of touch'. I could not agree more. The PM is completely out of touch, but his entire government is out of touch as well.

Coming back to Queensland and this LNP merger, this was an absolute sham marriage from the beginning. I used to be a party official in Queensland when this merger took place. We always knew it was just going to be a matter of time before this busted up. It was a marriage of convenience that was always going to end in tears, but the divorce has been sped up because of the arrogance of the Prime Minister and because of the ineptitude of the government leader in the Senate, George Brandis.

The poor leadership we are seeing from them at the federal level has also manifested itself in Queensland under the leadership of Tim Nicholls. I would have to agree with Senator Brandis: his leadership in Queensland is very, very mediocre; that is absolutely true. But it is what we have come to expect of the LNP, not only in Queensland but around the country, in this regard.

What we saw with that merger back in 2008 was the fact that the Nationals in Queensland were really going down the tube. They had not won an election in their own right since 1986, and they realised that the only way they could try to get back to power was to try to arrange themselves with the Liberal Party. But what that actually meant in Queensland was that it was a National Party takeover of the Liberals. So, that was a Nationals-led takeover, and they are the ones who are running Queensland, and that is why Senator Brandis has such problems in regard to controlling the LNP in Queensland.

We know, and we saw today, that there is open conflict amongst the LNP in Queensland. This is only going to grow, and the people who are at risk of this are the Prime Minister and Senator Brandis. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise today to take note of answers given by this side of the chamber to questions asked by that side of the chamber, particularly in relation to a question asked by Senator Farrell in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and comments of recent days. Firstly, it is a beat-up. The Australian government—the federal government, the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government—stands by the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. We have never said anything to the contrary, and we stand by that today. Much of the comment that has been going on around this particular subject seems to have been driven by a communication that occurred between Minister Joyce and Minister Hunter, the South Australian water minister, and it seems to have been a desire of the South Australian government to beat this up into something that it was not. What has actually been happening here is that we are seeing the South Australian public, the river system and the potential implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan put in jeopardy by a government that is prepared to play politics instead of sitting down at the table and discussing the real facts and the issues that are on the table before us.

Firstly, the 450 gigalitres of so-called up water, to which Premier Weatherill and Mr Hunter seem to have themselves so terribly exercised about, was water that was negotiated when Minister Burke was the environment minister in this place. The act says that an additional 450 gigalitres must be recovered through efficiency improvements which have neutral or improved social and economic impacts. That is, we need voluntary participation by irrigators and we need states to agree to the measures that will go into the delivery of this water. Now, nobody is saying that we are moving away from the 450 gigalitres. What we are saying is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that there will be some challenges in being able to deliver this water under the current terms of the methods and measures by which we can return it that are not going to possibly and probably have consequential detrimental impacts to the river communities, not just in the upstream states but also in South Australia, in the Riverland, in the community in which I live.

What Barnaby Joyce is seeking to do and what I am seeking to do is to sit down and have a constructive conversation about ways in which we can deliver the plan in full, as per the legislation, without having catastrophic negative impacts on our colleagues who are irrigators along the entire Murray-Darling Basin system. I think that is an entirely reasonable thing for the federal government to be doing. But we also need to remember that no change can be made to the plan unless all the jurisdictions agree, and that includes South Australia. Premier Weatherill and Minister Hunter know full well that no changes can be made to this plan without their approval. They know they hold the trump card there, yet they are quite happy to jeopardise the implementation of this plan by playing politics, poking the upstream states bare to see what is going to happen, just for some political gains at home. This is irresponsible behaviour.

So, I would say to Premier Weatherill and to Minister Hunter that we need to sit down and have a conversation, because there are two paths we can follow here. We can follow a path of mature, responsible, adult debate about how we are going to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full but without causing detrimental impact to our irrigation communities that supply so much support for the economy of Australia. Or we can embark on a path of mutual destruction where we destroy the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. South Australia will ultimately be the largest loser from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan not proceeding because South Australia currently stands to be the greatest winner if the plan proceeds as currently legislated.

I also draw attention to comments today about the 70 gigalitres in the northern basin review that has been reported by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. That is all that has happened. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has put this on the table as what they would refer to as the northern basin adjustment mechanism solution, much the same way as we have agreed to an adjustment mechanism in the southern basin to make sure that we deliver our environmental outcomes by using other measures so that we are taking the least amount of water out of productive use. But that does not mean to say that we will shy away from delivering environmental outcomes such as keeping the mouth of the Murray open nine years out of 10 and making sure that the wetlands and floodplains are getting water periodically.

What we have seen from the South Australian government is nothing more than a beat-up that is currently jeopardising our ability to negotiate an outcome for the benefit of all of our basin states and all our basin communities and, ultimately, given the economic value of this plan, the whole of Australia. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to respond to some things that both Senator Ruston and the former government senator talked about in this debate when they used the word 'consultation' and said that this government consults. It does not matter whether we talk about the Abbott government or now the Malcolm Turnbull government; they do not know the meaning of the word 'consultation'.

I would also just like to place on record that I actually wholeheartedly agree with Senator Brandis's comments when it comes to describing the Queensland LNP. Yes, it is on the record that I support him, because they are mediocre. But I think it is important, too, for Senator Brandis to reflect on his comments about his colleagues and have a look in the mirror, because his reputation in this place has been soiled continuously since the election of the Abbott government.

It does not matter if you reflect back on the time when he was Minister for the Arts. There is no doubt he will go down as the worst arts minister in this country's history. That is pretty hard, actually, because the arts, I would think, would be a very interesting but not overly challenging portfolio responsibility. But he cut $100 million out of the arts budget. He also put his own personal touch on where that money should go.

But there is more. There is a lot more. According to what I have read in the media and have heard in the chatter around this place—and most of the time it is pretty accurate—there is not anyone in the government who actually wants to stand by Senator Brandis because his reputation goes before him. We all remember the $16,000 bookcase that he had put in his office here in Parliament House—$16,000 for a bookcase! He was not like the rest of us who make do with the fabulous furniture that is provided to us in our suites here in Canberra. We know he has a love of books. That is not a bad thing. In fact, it is quite a good thing. But he was a bit arrogant at the very least when minister at the table in Senate estimates. While other senators were asking questions of the witnesses when he was there at the table representing the government, he would just read. He would float off in his own little world and read. That is the arrogance of this man.

But we also know that he is very, very good at attacking those people who do not have the same opportunities to defend themselves in this place. We know he is a poor example of an A-G. In fact, I think most of us on this side would say that he is unfit for that office after the way he dealt with the second-leading legal adviser in this country. It was absolutely appalling. We can all reflect on the treatment Ms Triggs has received from Senator Brandis with his responsibilities both in this chamber and at Senate estimates. Then there is also the issue around 18C and his view that everyone in this country has the right to be a bigot. As a mother, I have to say that that really is not the sort of thing I have taught my daughters.

But we also know that on many occasions he has misled this place in regard to the dealings he had with the issue around the second-highest legal adviser of this country. We know that he has not been forthright with the comments there. As always, he has his own take on everything.

I would have thought that somebody who would be considered to be less than mediocre would be the last person in this place to attack his own colleagues. But I actually believe and support what he said, because I think it is fairly obvious from the Nationals senators who failed to come into this place and support the Prime Minister and the Australian community by banning the Adler. For people like the senator and myself, who are from Tasmania, this has a very strong personal relationship. After all, we are from the state of Tasmania and we all remember the tragedy at Port Arthur. So, for a Nationals senator and a member of the cabinet— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.