Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8:30 am today 12 proposals were received in accordance with Standing Order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator McCarthy.

The need to establish an independent national judicial inquiry through the Council of Australian Governments following allegations of theft and corruption in management of water resources in the Barwon-Darling Basin.

Is the proposal supported?

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.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A healthy River Murray is vital to my state's future. Our communities and our economy depend on the river like no other state, and we see firsthand what happens when those upstream act inappropriately. That's why, historically, South Australia has fought so hard to achieve a Murray-Darling Basin Plan—to ensure the future health of the basin, which is essential to protecting the communities, the industries and the environment that depend on it.

The explosive allegations aired on Four Corners two weeks ago were shocking to us, particularly those farmers and irrigators who consider the river their heartland. The allegations point to what we fear—that too many upstream continue to undermine a plan which is so important to protecting our river. These fears have only been validated by the arrogant, uncaring and dismissive response from this government, exemplified markedly by the man supposed to be in charge, as minister, of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. What did the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce, have to say? What did he say to political supporters over a beer in a Shepparton pub? He tried to paint the Four Corners investigation as an attempt to create 'a calamity for which the solution is trying to take more water off you'. That's the Deputy Prime Minister and minister for water dismissing allegations of theft and corruption as a calamity not for the river, not for the Basin Plan, but for those accused of the responsibility. It's like blaming the police for Ned Kelly robbing the bank. What's worse, he actually celebrated his ability to dismiss such allegations, to push them aside, saying 'I'm glad it's our portfolio, a National Party portfolio, because we can go out and say, "No, we're not going to follow on that. We're not going to scare you."'

The next day, Minister Joyce dismissed reports of theft and corruption in the Murray-Darling Basin as modern-day cattle-rustling. He doesn't seem to understand that being federal minister for water isn't about promoting the interests of his mates in The Nationals by making light of potentially criminal or corrupt behaviour; it's about showing leadership on behalf of all people who rely on that river system. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised by Mr Joyce's response. He did, after all, campaign against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, telling those suffering to move where the water is. And, even his own coalition colleagues expressed concern when he was given control of the water portfolio by Mr Turnbull. Tony Pasin, the Liberal member for Barker, said that he was 'concerned about the fact that we now have a deeper involvement by the National Party with respect to the implementation of the plan'.

What have we seen from Mr Turnbull? We have seen the usual inability to stand up for anything he previously believed in and previously fought for. On this issue, like on so many others, he's again caved—on this occasion, to The Nationals and the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Turnbull's response to the allegations of corruption and theft was to announce a compliance review that can't compel witnesses to appear, that doesn't allow evidence to be taken under oath, that doesn't allow documents to be compelled and won't protect whistleblowers. He used to be a strong and passionate advocate for reform of the Murray-Darling Basin. He used to. But now he stands meekly behind Mr Joyce in rejecting any sensible response to these serious allegations. It is yet another act of weakness, yet another absence of leadership from Mr Turnbull.

Today in the parliament, senators from all parties in South Australia, bar one, jointly moved and supported a motion calling for a national judicial inquiry into the allegations of theft and corruption I've described. It comes after the South Australian Labor government and Senators Xenophon, Bernardi, Hanson-Young and I stood together on this issue. It speaks to the importance we place upon this. That South Australians from a wide set of political perspectives could unite on this issue shows a solemn depth of concern. The one party not supporting our collective call for an inquiry is the Liberals, who yet again are putting their National Party mates in other states ahead of the people they're elected to represent in this place and ahead of the people of South Australia.

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

Can I firstly make it very, very clear to this chamber that the federal government—and that includes every one of my colleagues in this place and the other place from South Australia—take the allegations that were made on the Four Corners program about corruption and the management of water resources in the Barwon-Darling catchment very, very seriously. But this should not be a competition about who is more outraged about the allegations. This actually should be about determining the validity of the allegations, determining the magnitude of any breaches, taking action against the authority or any person who's broken the law, and making sure that we put things in place so that this does not happen again.

I have a question for those who are supporting this motion: what exactly is it that you want to investigate that's not being covered by the separate inquiries already underway? We have the NSW independent inquiry headed up by Ken Matthews, an eminent person who used to head up the National Water Commission, who's investigating the very specific allegations of the Four Corners program. We have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority basin-wide review into compliance with state-based regulations governing water use. It also should be noted that the MDBA has some very extensive powers for information gathering under the Water Act.

We have the ANAO review into how the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is monitoring the performance of NSW regarding the protection of environmental water. And we have the NSW ICAC, where all allegations have been referred to. It should be noted that the NSW ICAC have the powers to compel the production of documents; they have the powers to compel a public authority or an official to provide evidence; they have the powers to enter property occupied by a public authority or an official to inspect or copy documents; they have the authority to obtain search warrants; they have the authority to use surveillance devices; and they have the ability to compel witnesses to answer questions—but, most importantly, they hold the majority of their hearings in public. They've jailed ministers and they've seen off a premier. They are an extraordinarily powerful organisation. I ask again: what is it that you are actually seeking to investigate that isn't currently being investigated by the four separate inquiries that I have just outlined?

All of these inquiries are underway and we're expecting the initial report from the NSW inquiry before the end of the month. The Murray-Darling Basin inquiry is required to report by December. The referrals to ICAC and the ANAO have already occurred. A royal commission—which is basically what those opposite and those people supporting this motion today and this MPI are basically asking for—will take months and months and months to establish and will cost tens of millions of dollars. I know that the communities that I represent and the communities along the Murray-Darling Basin want quick answers. They want quick resolutions. I seriously believe that they do not want us to be playing politics with this particular issue.

However, I must say that I was particularly pleased that, following these allegations, the South Australian Labor government has apparently rediscovered its desire for openness and transparency. A South Australian government minister said:

The Commonwealth Government needs to step in to ensure public confidence in an open, transparent and full investigation …

I assume this means that the South Australian government will ensure public confidence by allowing open, transparent and full investigations into many other issues, such as the abuse allegations at the Oakden aged-care facility, the land sale at Gillman or the ongoing scandals involving Families SA or the Department for Child Protection.

The SA government can't credibly call for openness and transparency in New South Wales when it denies the very same openness and transparency in its own state. Only last month, the South Australian government actually voted down a bill to allow the South Australian ICAC to hold public hearings into the Oakden facility. When questioned why he supported transparency in this particular water inquiry but was quite happy to vote down transparency when it came to the inquiry into the Oakden facility, the Premier actually responded, 'It's just a separate matter that has different considerations.' He then went on to accuse the NSW ICAC of 'unfairly staining reputations' because it holds its hearings in public. I haven't heard those opposite calling out for the South Australian government to guarantee transparency in any of its actions. You know, you guys, you can't just be convenient; you have to be consistent if you're going to have any credibility in this space.

Most importantly, we need to get on with the job of delivering a plan. Nobody's interests are going to be served by the stalling of the plan—or, worse still, blowing it up. It's taken us 100 years to get to the table to agree to the actions that are needed to have a sustainable Murray-Darling Basin system, and we mustn't let all this fantastic work be derailed just because we decide that we're going to play a political game. Through cooperation and collaboration, we've got to where we are, and I have to say there's some really good news out there—great news. As of 30 June this year we had already recovered 2,083 gigalitres of water. That's in addition to the 600-plus gigalitres of water we've been able to secure through the STL adjustment mechanism. That's water that's been achieved through efficiency measures, which means it has not been taken out of productive use. It hasn't been taken out of the communities like the one that I live in, which is supported totally by the irrigation capacity that is delivered by the Murray-Darling Basin. I'd like to think that maybe somebody else who is going to stand up in this place actually has firsthand understanding and knowledge of the consequences of this plan not going forward. I doubt they do.

We also put in place the 1,500 gigalitre cap on buyback, to make sure we didn't continue to strip the very essence and ability from our communities and actually send them broke. We are on target to deliver our targets for 2019, when we said that we would have delivered 2,750 gigalitres of water for the sole use of the environment. That is a great track record. That is a good-news story, and I think it is very sad that we are standing here today jeopardising and potentially derailing what we have worked so hard together to try to achieve.

What I would say to this place is: we are but five years into the 12 years of implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We are on track and have achieved a huge amount. We have achieved this because we have worked together, all jurisdictions—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, the ACT and the Commonwealth—have worked together, and we are on track to deliver this plan that is so vitally important to every single community that lives along the river. It is also vitally important that we have a sustainable river system for those communities. We have worked together over the last five years to get to the place we are now. We have another seven years before we've delivered this plan in full. We sit here today on the edge of the cliff, deciding whether we are going to blow this plan up with politics or whether we are all going to get back together and make sure that we deliver this plan in full.

I can give this chamber an absolutely unconditional guarantee that it is my sole objective to deliver this plan. I'm not going to play politics with it; I'm not going to play games. I actually want to sit down and deliver this plan, because I believe it is the fundamental responsibility of every single person in this place to honour the commitment of those that went before us. When the Labor Party and the coalition got together and decided that we were going to implement this plan, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for cooperation between the two major parties to deliver an outcome that was so terribly needed.

I find it extraordinary that we should even be considering not going back to the table and having a discussion about how we can get past this unfortunate situation that has been alleged by Four Corners. We need to deal with that, no question at all, but let's not play politics. We need to deliver this plan. We need to deliver this plan for the benefit of the river. We need to deliver this plan for the benefit of the communities that rely on this river. But most particularly, we need to deliver this plan for the broader benefit of all Australians. The food bowl of Australia exists in the Murray-Darling Basin. The economic activity that's generated within this particular area is massive, and every Australian benefits when the Murray-Darling Basin is doing what it can do best. We have seen massive water efficiencies and massive productive efficiencies occur through the delivery of the first five years of this plan. The opportunities to make this an absolute first-class, state-of-the-art food bowl for the world absolutely exist. I would like to think that everybody in this place will stand with me. Let's get back to the table and come up with an agreement so that we can put these allegations behind us, deal with them, and get on with delivering the Murray-Darling Basin plan in full, on time, on budget, for the benefit of every single Australian.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The millennium drought led some to conclude that drought was the new normal and the environment was facing catastrophe. The drought ended with widespread flooding. Dorothea Mackellar's 'Australia, a land of droughts and flooding rains' was never better demonstrated. However, during the drought, a plan was devised to release water from agriculture to save the environment. The result was one per cent science and 99 per cent politics. The plan calls for the return of 2,750 gigalitres of water to the environment, with a further 450 gigalitres to be returned subject to certain conditions. Since it began in 2012, water rights have been purchased from farmers in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, plus a small quantity from South Australia.

In the last parliament, I chaired a Senate inquiry into its effects, with hearings in each of the participating states. We found the loss of irrigation water was hurting rural communities. Farms no longer grew irrigated crops such as fruit or pasture. They required far fewer inputs and generated far less income. Workers had lost their jobs and moved away. Regional communities had fewer schoolchildren and volunteer firefighters, and customers in local shops. We also found a very poor understanding of the plan. Many people had an almost religious belief that the environment simply needs water, irrespective of whether it's in the right place at the right time or in the right quantities. It was even worse in South Australia. Its outrage over allegations that water is being misappropriated from the Darling and Barwon rivers in New South Wales is ridiculous, given that these rivers often run dry and only about six per cent of the water in these two rivers ever gets to South Australia.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the inquiry was hearing how 900 gigalitres of water taken from productive agriculture in Victoria and New South Wales evaporate in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert in South Australia. If Lake Alexandrina was allowed to remain open to the sea and subject to tidal influences rather than being kept closed by man-made barrages, it could be sea water that evaporates, not fresh water. Preserving an artificial environment at the expense of farming and rural communities seems very poor public policy. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was conceived in panic and is seriously flawed. Its intentions are laudable, but it is not Holy Writ. There's enormous scope for improvement.

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

I have the list of speakers here for this item. Being an MPI, people speak for different periods of time. I noticed that Senator Ruston is the speaker for the longest time on this list. The people of South Australia were listening intently, I am sure—we are being broadcast at the moment. They were listening for Senator Ruston to say one thing to this Senate—that she would join all of the other people from South Australia and all of other political parties who are calling on a judicial inquiry in respect to the theft and the corruption in New South Wales of water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

I just want to go through the number of political parties that are supporting this motion. We have the Labor Party, of course, led by Senator Wong. We have Senator Bernardi, a former member of the Liberal Party. Even he recognises that something needs to be done about the theft and the corruption of water from the Murray-Darling Basin. Even Senator Gichuhi, a new senator who hasn't been in the Senate for very long, understands that we need to do something about this issue. What a combination—Senator Bernardi and Senator Hanson-Young are on a unity ticket on this issue! And, of course, we have Senator Xenophon.

What political party is missing? Well, it's the party that's always missing when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin. It's the Liberal Party. They are nowhere to be seen. I'm pleased that Senator Smith is in the chamber at the moment. We heard Senator Ruston say, 'We shouldn't be playing politics with this issue.' That's exactly what we should be doing with this. We should be playing politics. Those Liberals from South Australia—and I'm looking directly at Senator Birmingham now—should be following the path of Senator Smith. They should be laying down the law to their colleagues and saying, 'There's an issue here that we need to be dealing with.' We saw what Senator Smith did with the issue of same-sex marriage. Those senators from South Australia in the Liberal Party should be jumping up and down day and night about what's gone on here. There's a scandal here. Water from the Murray-Darling Basin has been stolen by upstream irrigators—water that should've gone back into the environment to rescue the Murray-Darling Basin.

For 100 years, the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin were ignored. They finally got dealt with in that golden period of Australian politics—yes, I am talking about the Gillard government—when lots of things got done for the betterment of this country. That was a golden era—I see Senator Birmingham's making some notes here—of Australian politics when Tony Burke, for the first time in our history, fixed the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin. I had the privilege at that time of being his understudy. I was the Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water. It was a great day and Tony Burke built on the terrific work that Senator Penny Wong had done in this portfolio. For the first time we started to restore our great river system—our inland river system—to good health.

We need the Liberals from South Australia to stand up and recognise that there's a problem here. We can't have Barnaby Joyce as our water minister. We can't have that. He is not serious about restoring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We need those senators from South Australia—and lower house members of parliament, but particularly the senators—to stand up. Follow the example of Senator Smith. Jump up and down in your caucus. We need to get something done. (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all leave this place one day. I'm not planning on doing it any time soon. Senator Farrell's done it and come back. We all leave one day. When you leave, you'd like to think that you'll be able to look back and think you've made a contribution—a difference—in certain areas. When I leave—whenever that time may be in the years to come—one of the areas that I will look back on is absolutely water policy and the Murray-Darling Basin.

We just heard Senator Farrell talk about the alleged golden era of the Gillard government and how, apparently, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was all their doing.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about John Howard?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about John Howard? What a very good question there, Senator Hume. The Water Act 2007 was passed by the water minister at the time. Who was the water minister in 2007? Malcolm Turnbull was the water minister in 2007. He passed the Water Act—brought that into being—with John Howard and budgeted $10 billion to be able to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He put into law the process that led to that plan.

Mr Burke, Ms Gillard and others followed through on the implementation of it, and I give them credit for it. I was proud—as a frontbencher in the opposition with the responsibility for water—to at times work with Mr Burke to make sure that the Water Act, which had been passed in a bipartisan spirit, saw the Murray-Darling Basin Plan delivered in a bipartisan spirit. In government, we are determined to make sure that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is implemented in full and on time—no ifs, no buts; full delivery.

I can assure this Senate that I will never, ever let anything get in the way of the successful implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is essential to our home state. It is something that our government is deeply committed to delivering. It is something that the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, as the author of the Water Act—and the person who started the process of putting in place a comprehensive management plan for the Murray-Darling that, for the first time ever, actually analyses the Basin regardless of arbitrary state borders, which of course rivers don't recognise—is determined to see it fully implemented, and fully implemented it will be under a Turnbull government.

What we're seeing here today is a political stunt. You can tell it's a stunt, of course, when Senator Bernardi and Senator Hanson-Young pose for the cameras together. That's a pretty good sign that it's a stunt. Because of course it's an otherwise preposterous concept that those two would share a stage at any one point in time.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A parallel universe!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very much a parallel universe, Senator Smith. You can tell it's a stunt. It's a stunt, of course, because it's a motion and a proposal that ignores fact, ignores reality. It's dealing, yes, with a serious issue. The allegations of theft of water and of potential corruption in terms of the management of water licences in New South Wales are serious allegations. They ought to be gotten to the bottom of. If proven, there ought to be criminal charges that ensue. People ought to lose their jobs, if all of the allegations are true. That, of course, is why there have been referrals to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption.

You want a call for a judicial inquiry into this theft of water? Well, you've have got one–you've got one already happening. The ICAC—with the powers of a royal commission, with the powers to hear from whistleblowers, with the powers to subpoena evidence and with the powers to do everything that it needs to—has been asked to look at this matter. And I think, with the New South Wales ICAC—that has brought down premiers, brought down ministers, sent public servants to jail and initiated charges in a range of different ways—you'd be pretty hard-pressed to argue that it was anything but a proper, thorough, full investigation into these allegations.

Alongside that, the New South Wales government has asked Ken Matthews, former chair of the National Water Commission—again, a man of great integrity and independence—to undertake a review. So, within the jurisdiction of New South Wales, there are two initiatives. But I challenge anybody—any of those who are supporting this initiative—to question the independence, the integrity, the thoroughness and the rigour of the New South Wales ICAC and suggest that somehow it is unable to do the things that they claim they want to see happen. Because they won't be able to challenge that. Of course it is able to do all of the things to follow up on the Four Corners report.

But our government is not content with the fact that the ICAC and Mr Matthews are undertaking their work. We also have the ANAO looking at matters with its own independence and scrutiny here in the Commonwealth. But we recognise that perhaps—what if this is not an isolated incident? What if there are some other problems in relation to the management of water licences, the integrity rate of those water licences and the integrity of water take-offs across the basin? Which is why we have proposed that there should be a more comprehensive review that sits alongside this. It's not the review to specifically deal with the one issue of instances and allegations because, if there is criminal wrongdoing there, that is exactly what the ICAC process should uncover and deal with. But the broader review is to actually give integrity and confidence back right across all of the basin states and jurisdictions—each and every one of them—and to ensure that their licensing regime and the compliance with that regime is thorough, rigorous and appropriate. To do that, under the terms of the Murray-Darling Basin management, you need the cooperation of each of those basin states.

My colleague Senator Ruston—who now does an incredible job as the assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water, I know—is absolutely determined to see the Basin Plan, as she told this chamber before, implemented in full and on time as I outlined. I know that she is equally determined to make sure that we maintain the bipartisan commitment to this plan that has got us this far—that has got us through the passage of the Water Act under the Howard government, with Malcolm Turnbull as water minister; that got us through the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, that got us through the Abbott government when I had responsibility in this place, and now with the Turnbull government.

Consistent work to see to date is: more than 2,000 billion litres of water licences successfully recovered to meet the terms of the Basin Plan. That work will only continue successfully if we have cooperation, not just bipartisan cooperation, but cooperation of each of the states and territories, as Senator Ruston so correctly and eloquently put it in her contribution.

We must make sure that we have integrity in the delivery of the plan. That's what the review that Senator Ruston, the water minister and the Prime Minister have instigated will do. We must get to the bottom of those allegations. That's what the ICAC, the powers of a royal commission, and the other reviews will do. But, ultimately, we must deliver the Basin Plan, and that's what I and every member of this government looks forward to seeing happen with the cooperation, I trust, of every other member of this chamber too.

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

I know a thing or two about stunts and I say to Senator Birmingham that this is not a stunt. Calling for a judiciary inquiry is absolutely imperative. There should be no doubt of the need for a judicial inquiry into these incredibly serious allegations, first aired on the ABC's program on 24 July. I'll address the issue of ICAC in the brief time available. Subsequent revelations in other media outlets since that broadcast have made it abundantly clear that these allegations are just the tip of the iceberg that is emerging as a major national scandal that is challenging the ethos of our Federation. Allegations of water pump tampering, water theft and rorting, collusion between officials and irrigators, failures by officials to properly monitor compliance, the shutting down of compliance units in the face of alleged noncompliance investigations, irregularity and illegality are shocking and, together, they have an overwhelming stench of corruption about them.

Subsequent revelations of attempts to retrospectively make lawful what was a flagrant breach are absolutely inexcusable. These allegations are serious because they, in effect, reveal attempts to sabotage the $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan that the basin states signed up to five years ago with bipartisan commitment. And this is not about state against state or irrigator against environmentalist; it's about the very integrity of a $13 billion plan and the officials and politicians that are meant to implement it fully, thoroughly and fairly. If we are fair dinkum about the very basis of our Federation, if our Commonwealth of Australia is indeed about the common wealth of all Australians, then we must recognise how vulnerable the lower reaches of the Murray-Darling Basin are, and in my home state of South Australia particularly—something that my friend and colleague, the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie MP, is acutely aware of.

So when the government says there is no need for a judicial inquiry because of the four inquiries on foot, that is nowhere near good enough. It is an anaemic, weak excuse. The fact is that ICAC is limited in its jurisdiction, to one state in the basin, to New South Wales. It does not have the power to protect witnesses in other states that can come forward in terms of a broader inquiry about allegations beyond New South Wales—allegations that may relate to other basin states. It doesn't have the power to protect whistleblowers that a judicial inquiry has, because of the jurisdictional restrictions that it has.

There is another issue I want to raise very briefly. I foreshadow that I will be moving, in consultation with my colleagues, for an order for the production of documents in relation to how the Water for the Environment Special Account is being spent. Right now we have one page indicating how $1.77 billion is meant to be spent in terms of the environment special account. These are matters that we must address. If we are fair dinkum about implementing this nation-building plan for the nation's food basin and to look after our irrigators and the environment in the Murray-Darling Basin, a judicial inquiry is an absolute must.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, support this resolution for a judicial inquiry. At the outset, I would just like to say that I accept that Senator Ruston and Senator Birmingham have genuinely articulated their respective positions. Senator Ruston alluded to politics in this argument. Well, the politics is not coming from this side of the table. What has caused the alleged untoward activities of these upstream irrigators who have treated the Basin Plan with such disregard or alleged disregard? What's caused it are the actions of people like the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, who said on 21 November 2016, 'You have not got a hope in Hades of delivering 450 gigs—not a hope.' And, when he was asked subsequently, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the current funding for the promised 450 gigalitres was insufficient, saying, 'You have not got a hope in Hades of delivering the 450 gigs—not a hope.'

So the Deputy Prime Minister casts aspersions and doubt on the credibility of a plan that took 100 years to make. And then, if you throw in Senator Hanson, a person who is critical of people who don't have English as their first language—and I apologise for the verbatim Hansardthis is what One Nation said:

I will tell you about this 450 gigalitres that is supposed to be on the table. That is like a guillotine over their heads. If you took away the 450, they can handle the other. They will be able to survive. They will try to do something about it. They understand about environmental. They have had to change their farming ways. But what you have done is that they feel that they are not being listened to—no-one is listening to their concerns.

What this is really all about is the seat of Orange. The Nationals lost the seat they'd held since 1947 with a 20 per cent swing to the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. In other words, the Nationals wanted to vote for anybody else but the National Party. Anybody who stood in that seat would have won except the Nationals. That's the genesis of this. Barnaby Joyce is trying to out-politic One Nation.

One Nation comes to this parliament courtesy of a double dissolution, which is owned by the Prime Minister. No-one else can take credit for that double dissolution other than the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull. He filled the place up with One Nation. They come into this argument very late and totally misinformed. They go around the country articulating unrealistic positions, giving hope to people who really have to think about their viability in a much more professional way than having Senator Hanson come here and say, 'That's all rubbish. Why do you need more water down the Murray?' That's the level of her contribution. And the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia is actually having to outgun that position. He is having to go into a country pub and outgun Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

It is an absolute disgrace, but that is what is happening with this Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It needs to be put back on track for the health of Australia, for the health of the river, for the health of South Australia and for everybody up and down the river. We cannot have it reduced to this level of crass politics, with the National Party trying to outdo One Nation in stupidity by advocating irrational, illogical positions.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the issue of water because, as a South Australian, it's an issue that is vitally important to everyone in our state, whether you live in the metro area, whether you are particularly concerned about the environment, whether you are concerned about the communities along the river who make their living from the water or whether you are concerned about an adequate and reliable supply. That's why for 100 years South Australians, as part of this federation, have been concerned about water. For 100 years we have seen the inability of the various states to work together to come up with a plan. It's only this side of politics, under Prime Minister Howard and then the environment minister, Mr Turnbull, that, in 2007, came up with the vision and the plan that became the Water Act and the $10 billion that was associated with that. For the first time, there was national leadership that said, 'How can we actually put in place a system to make this work?'

As someone who has lived most of my professional life being an experimental test pilot, I know that the best laid plans of mice and men don't always work perfectly first time around. You have to work at them to make sure they are effective and implemented well. And by and large, whilst there have been ups and downs and issues to work through, that has occurred. One of the reasons our Federation works is that, where something does go wrong in another state, we don't suddenly have to get the federal government to fix every problem. We actually trust each other around road rules and around health systems. We're able to transfer a patient from one city to another because we actually trust the regulations. States like New South Wales oversee the bodies that regulate professional standards across Australia in terms of schemes for professional indemnity. That system works. Just because there has been the discovery of what appears to be, on the face of the reporting, illegal activity, we don't need to upend a system that has worked well for our nation.

We do have a national approach of a review. Mr Ken Matthews AO is leading the investigation from a national perspective. He was the chair and chief executive officer of the National Water Commission, so he knows the people, the system and the stakeholders. He might find examples that need to be explored further. We already have underway the New South Wales independent investigation, the ANAO audit—another national investigation—but, importantly, the referral of allegations to ICAC, which is a body with the powers of a royal commission. So our federation, which works in almost every area you care to point out, will work in this area. We need to trust the stability of our federation to get this right in the interests of all the communities along the Murray-Darling Basin. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I come to this debate on the urgency motion from a rather unique position. I'm really not interested in the politics of what has gone on. I recognise and acknowledge that there are a great many people who have taken more serious and significant interest in the health and wellbeing of the Murray-Darling Basin system and the Barwon-Darling Basin system than I have over a great many years. They have been diligent and applied their skills and knowledge to getting favourable outcomes, and I thought we had that agreed. What concerns me about this is that there are allegations that have been aired on the ABC that demonstrate, indicate or suggest that activity that some would say is criminal and some would say is corrupt has taken place. These things have taken place by individuals who are linked to ministers or political parties. They extend into areas which call into question the reasonableness, the efficacy and the potential corruption of politics.

I just want some answers. To be honest, I've been around long enough not to trust governments to investigate themselves or their own. That's not to say that they can't do a good job of it, but I just am sceptical enough to recognise that cover-ups take place when people don't want to get to the truth. There is too much here. One of the benefits of having a relatively large nose is that you have a nose for BS. You can pick up the aroma of nonsense when people are telling it to you. Every single one of my antenna went up when I saw that. Since then I have spoken to people who are not South Australian but are deeply concerned about the health and viability of the Barwon-Darling river system, who are deeply concerned by what is happening in New South Wales and others who are concerned by what is happening further downstream. I just want to get to the truth.

Quite frankly, given the links of the New South Wales government and some representatives that have been involved in this, some representatives of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, and given the links I asked about in question time today involving some in the National Party, I just think we need to make sure that there is an independent judicial inquiry—not to solve it all but to get the facts on the table and say: 'There is a significant problem here and we now need a more substantive inquiry. We need a royal commission'—or whatever it is—'further down the track.' That is my position. I do not care about the politics of this. I'm interested in getting an outcome to make sure that the river system is healthy, that it is serving New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and that people are doing what they are committed to do rather than covering it up.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate this afternoon on this urgency motion, quite naturally, has reflected the importance that South Australia places on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I've got to say that, as someone who cares about the basin, I'm incredibly grateful for the efforts of South Australians and the advocacy of South Australians over many years, because they have played a very important role in asserting over time a call for political reform. I want to focus my remarks today on the consequences for New South Wales and specifically for the Barwon-Darling area because I know this part of New South Wales. It is important in this debate to be thinking about the consequences of failing to deliver on the plan in this area, with all of its complexity and fragility.

The Barwon-Darling corridor has a system of rivers and lakes and wetlands and flood plains, and that provides habitat for more than 10,000 birds—and that includes the iconic brolgas. The river red gums that grow along the banks of the river system and the flood plains of this system stretch out with different kinds of eucalypts and their names resonate in the popular imagination when we think about western New South Wales and its environment: the poplar box, the iron wood, the mulga, the white cypress pine.

The system is actually like a big funnel and it channels the in-flows from the tributaries further north, like the Barwon, the Macintyre, the Weir and the Culgoa. These are systems that up until now have been reasonably unregulated. There aren't big dams on the rivers, and the rivers for the most part have an integrity in the way that their flows mirror the natural flows that characterise most Australian river systems in fairly dry areas. There is a remarkable Indigenous heritage—40,000-year-old fish traps at Brewarrina protected by the World Conservation Union.

The management of water in this area is absolutely critical to the health and resilience of all of those assets, all of that natural heritage. People like to talk about how much water flows down the river like it's a big pipe, but actually what matters in Australian river systems, which are highly variable, are the floods—those situations where a big pulse of water comes down the system, spreads out over the banks of the river and into the flood plains—and it is that flooding process that provides the habitat for bird breeding, for frogs, for lizards. That is the process that drives biodiversity in western New South Wales, and so when we are talking about corrupt practice, about water theft, about illegal activity, about the collusion between government officials and the industry they are supposed to regulate, about disrespect at best from a government minister for the fundamentals of the plan, we have a serious problem.

It is not enough for governments to investigate themselves or for departments to investigate themselves. We need an investigation with substantial powers that can get to the bottom of this behaviour. A body like a judicial inquiry that can protect whistleblowers, that can compel people to give evidence and that can undertake the necessary investigations to understand what is going on and to protect the integrity of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak on this matter of urgency submitted by our parliamentary colleague from the Northern Territory, Senator McCarthy. Senator McCarthy would like this chamber to consider the need to establish an independent national judicial inquiry through the Council of Australian Governments following allegations of theft and corruption in the management of water resources in the Barwon-Darling Basin. While I applaud Senator McCarthy for bringing this matter to the attention of the chamber, the idea that a judicial inquiry is necessary to investigate and prosecute breaches of state law is entirely inappropriate.

The debate in this chamber is very, very important, and it gives me great pleasure to speak on this matter, as the proper and prudent management of precious water resources is not just a matter for South Australian senators, but it is also very dear to the hearts of my own constituents, particularly those in rural Victoria. And I agree wholeheartedly that the misuse and mismanagement of common water resources cannot be allowed to continue. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister, and Assistant Minister Ruston, have jointly announced that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will conduct an independent basin-wide review into the compliance with state-based regulations governing water use.

But, far more importantly, the state of New South Wales is taking great steps to respond to and investigate the allegations levelled in a recent Four Corners report. The New South Wales government has launched an independent investigation into the allegations made on Four Corners, led by Ken Matthews AO, a highly respected man of great integrity and, in addition to that, the matter has also been referred to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, the ICAC. These state-level actions are entirely appropriate, given that the allegations raised in the Four Corners report relate to breaches of New South Wales state law. Now, I'm not in a position to explain to Senator McCarthy the nature of the Australian Constitution, but I am indeed surprised that the Labor Party can't see this very clearly for the state matter that it is.

There is no denying that issues of water theft and corruption in the management of the basin resources are extraordinarily serious, and, quite clearly, irrigators in every relevant state and basin communities must be able to have confidence that the rules that govern water use in the Murray-Darling Basin are being followed to the letter. It is for this reason that I am in fact encouraged by the dual actions taken by the New South Wales state government, and I commend the New South Wales state government for their expedient action on this matter.

Calls for a judicial review or a royal commission are quite another issue. Quite frankly, even though I have great respect for Senator McCarthy I am disappointed that she has reached back into that old Labor toolbox of calling for an expensive and unnecessary royal commission or judicial inquiry. A judicial review is an independent legal process that could take up to 12 months, cost millions of dollars and require the cooperation of the New South Wales government and potentially other basin states. It isn't necessary; it isn't expedient; it isn't constitutionally appropriate—and it is an unconscionable waste of taxpayer money.

Water is understandably an emotional issue for many Australians, not least of whom are the basin communities that owe so much of their prosperity to the shared water resources. Water theft is unconscionable. I thank Senator McCarthy for raising this important issue in the chamber, but we must resist the call from those opposite for a costly, unnecessary inquiry into this matter. (Time expired)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start my speech, I'd like to seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Leave not granted.

I will continue to speak on the matter then. The Murray-Darling river passes through areas which receive little rain. In these dry areas water is gold, providing people with drinking water and water for agriculture. The recent allegations concerning the Barwon-Darling river are disturbing, but theft and corruption are not confined to this part of the Murray-Darling river system. We need a judicial inquiry into the Commonwealth purchase of water throughout the Murray-Darling Basin because we are paying for environmental water that is ending up in hands of large irrigators and others.

The Murray-Darling problem goes beyond private and government corruption. It involves the wastage of the $13 billion of taxpayer money committed to fixing the problems of the river system. We cannot replace Darling River flows by releasing water held in dams like Hume weir and sending it down the Murray. This strategy is flawed. The low banks of the Murray cannot contain excessive man-made water flows. The result is catastrophic floods, damaging the environment and farmers alike. The so-called facts on which the present Murray-Darling Basin plan rests need to be revisited by an independent body, because the Murray-Darling Basin Authority does not engender any confidence.

I was informed—I did not hear the speech myself—that Senator Fawcett made the comment that I had no idea what I am talking about and that I haven't been there. Let me bring to the attention of the house that Senator Burston, Senator Roberts and I made an extensive three-day tour of the Murray-Darling river from Melbourne right to the mouth in South Australia. We talked to communities. We talked to the farmers who are going under and losing their businesses and who are destitute because they are not being listened to by politicians. How many members of this house have bothered to take the time to go and investigate this and speak to not only the farmers and the communities, but the businesses who will lose their livelihoods because this is not being sorted out?

Knowing this, from having acquainted myself with the situation in Victoria and South Australia, I also went to St George in Queensland. They are also affected by the regulations that have been brought in. At one stage the Murray-Darling was looked after by 35 people; now it is in excess of hundreds. Why do we need that many people? This whole thing has to be taken out of the hands of profiteers who are making money out of this. Let's utilise the water. It is like gold in this country. It needs to be managed correctly and in the best interests of Australians.

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

I rise today to speak in favour of a judicial inquiry into areas of the Murray-Darling Basin and the allegations of immense corruption, theft of water, dodgy election donations and cover-up after cover-up. We know that some of these allegations were aired on the Four Corners program some weeks ago, but we know others are starting to seep out as well. And what did we hear from the New South Wales government and then followed up by our own water minister, Barnaby Joyce? First denial, dismissal that this was of any concern to anybody outside of New South Wales, and then ridicule for those of us who live further downstream.

I can tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, that in the week following the airing of those allegations on Four Corners, I went down to the Lower Lakes in the Coorong in South Australia at the mouth of the Murray. I spoke to the local community there, and they are fed-up. They are fed-up with being treated as second-class citizens who live in the Murray-Darling Basin. For decades, they have fought to have a fair share of water. For decades, they have fought for the river to be given its required allowance so that it can continue to thrive, live and be a healthy, functioning river system. What they heard in that Four Corners report, the subsequent comments from New South Wales ministers and then our own federal water minister was dismissal and a total lack of concern.

This is grand theft—$13 billion of Australian taxpayer money being spent to buy water that is designed for the environment to keep the river alive so that everybody who lives throughout the basin has the opportunity for sustainable industry and to keep those communities that rely on the river going. The river needs enough water to survive, and we know at the bottom end of the river system—the Lower Lakes in the Coorong, where the community that I visited a couple of weeks ago live—that that section of the Murray-Darling Basin is the lungs of the river. If you don't have the lungs of the river working properly, if you don't get that flush of salt out to sea, if you don't have enough water at the bottom end, the river will die. Scientists have told us that over and over again and, at the height of the drought five years ago, we saw with our own eyes just how much devastation the theft of water upstream was causing the rest of the river system.

The attitude from our federal water minister Barnaby Joyce has undermined, significantly, the goodwill of all member states of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and to ensure that we all work together for the health of the river. And we know what Minister Joyce's attitude really is towards the Murray-Darling Basin and for those of us who live downstream. All he needs is to get a few beers into him at the Shepparton pub and he starts telling anyone who will listen that he hates greenies, doesn't give two hoots about environmental flows, and thank goodness the Nationals are in control so that the big irrigators continue to suck out more water. A few beers and the minister is mouthing off about how much of a hero he is, covering up the corruption and water theft upstream in the Murray-Darling Basin. He is unfit to be the water minister. He has a conflict of interest and, if the federal government is serious about restoring trust in the Murray-Darling Basin and how it should be managed, they must deal with the biggest and the weakest link—and that is Minister Joyce.

There is no way Minister Joyce should be in charge of the nation's iconic river system. He doesn't care about environmental flows. He doesn't care about anyone who lives downstream; all he cares about is the election donations coming from those big corporate irrigators.

Question agreed to.