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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Last year, One Nation senators, including myself, travelled all four states right to the mouth of the Murray in South Australia to see firsthand the workings of our Murray River and to investigate the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Last week I listened to Riverina irrigators, the Balonne Shire Council, the mayor of Charleville and Queensland farmers. People tell us that decisions on water plans are made without measurements of creek and river flows. Without knowing the quantities, water disappears into South Australia and into Lake Alexandrina, where it is wasted in evaporation and out the mouth.

The government is blowing $13 billion of taxpayers' money on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan without science and data. Will the minister please explain when the destitute people of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria will be treated with the respect of informed decisions based on science and measured data?

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

I thank Senator Hanson for her question, which provides an opportunity to correct some of the misunderstandings that Senator Hanson clearly has, given the question that was asked.

Senator Hanson made the statement that water flowing out of the mouth of the river is wasted, whereas, in fact, all of the science would clearly indicate that water flowing out of the mouth of a river system is indeed important to the health of that river system, to the discharge of nutrients and to the overall quality of water within that system—and, of course, in terms of the native fish, wildlife et cetera throughout the river system.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been based on and informed by extensive scientific research and analysis, as well as by extensive economic modelling and analysis, to seek to reach a position that has allowed us to develop a plan that ought to be implemented in full and that ought not to be politicised in this place. We developed a plan that allows us to have confidence that the entire Murray-Darling Basin will have as healthy a river system as possible for the long term. Whether it is through the northern basin, which is often disconnected to parts of the south in times of low inflows, or through the southern basin, we have confidence not only that are we extracting what is sustainable to grow our food, fibre and produce, and to sustain our farmers up and down the system, but that we are ensuring that it is sustainable, year in and year out, in terms of the allocation of water that is available by that to make sure that we have healthy river communities.

Sadly, the actions of the Senate last night put that plan in some jeopardy, and that jeopardises all of the river communities. It creates uncertainty for them up and down the length of the river system. Creating that uncertainty, of course, will harm investment and jobs. The best thing we can do is get the plan back on track.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a supplementary question.

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

Well, okay, so then I want to know the impact of the Greens' disallowance motion, because I'm getting panicked calls from St George and Dirranbandi, who will share in the loss of another 70 gigalitres, or 28,000 Olympic swimming pools of water.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Has a cost-benefit analysis been done, and what are the economic, employment and social impacts on Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria of this team of environmental home wreckers?

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Yes, I'm talking about the Greens, and Labor and the Bernardi team— (Time expired)

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hanson-Young, I asked earlier that questions could be heard. Occasional interjection is one thing; a barrage of them during asking a question is entirely inappropriate and out of order.

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

I do concur, sadly, that a wrecking role was played by parties in the Senate last night around the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and in particular the Northern Basin Review, which, it is important for everybody to remember, was agreed upon as an action way back in 2012 by the then water minister and now Labor's shadow water minister, Mr Tony Burke, because there was uncertainty about the credibility of some of the research underpinning the way in which northern basin entitlements had been calculated at the time. So there was a commitment made that there would be a fully informed scientific review, and a fully informed scientific review, indeed, was undertaken. It went through all of the proper independent processes of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and, of course, was brought then to the ministerial council, where it received endorsement from all states and territories. As I said before, it is unfortunate that the disallowance of that last night now creates great uncertainty for all of those river communities and puts jobs at risk.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question.

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

Minister, barely any or none of the water stolen from northern New South Wales and Queensland will get to South Australia. That's a fact. So why is this parliament wanting to continue breaching section 100 of Australia's Constitution and continue selling water rights overseas while 87 per cent of Queensland is drought stricken?

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

I don't agree with the term 'water stolen', but I did acknowledge in my first answer that, indeed, the northern basin is often disconnected from the southern basin in times of low inflows into that system. Of course, it is correct that, of the 70-gigalitre adjustment proposed to the northern basin, on average a very small proportion of that—only a few gigalitres—would, in fact, ever make it to the southern basin and potentially through to the Lower Lakes. That is, indeed, one of the reasons why many of the claims that have been made by the Greens in particular and some of those opposite are claims that are misplaced, are claims that misinterpret the science and are claims that ignore the reality that the northern basin—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, on a point of order.

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

Senator Birmingham, you haven't commented on the part of my question about also breaching section 100 of the Australian Constitution.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, as I've said before, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question as long as he remains directly relevant to the terms of it, and he was.

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

Everything that has been done in relation to the construction of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been in accordance with the Australian Constitution, including the referral of certain powers made by the states and territories to the Commonwealth to enable the passage of the Water Act back in 2007.