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

My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Prime Minister and the state of South Australia. Earlier today in the House of Representatives talking points in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin were distributed by the party responsible for the government's water policy. They claim that South Australia no longer needs fresh water. Does the minister believe that science no longer requires fresh water for South Australia?

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

I've not seen the talking points that Senator Hanson-Young refers to, but, very clearly, fresh water is important to the survival of all civilisations—to state the obvious. Indeed, freshwater flows are important to the health and sustainability of river systems. And, as Senator Hanson-Young well knows, the operation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan under the Water Act 2007, introduced by the Howard government, was established to try to put in place sustainable diversion limits for the first time ever across the Murray-Darling Basin, and to date it's been very successful in doing so.

The Basin Plan has managed to recover some thousands of billions of litres of water that is now held under entitlements by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder for the more efficient and effective management of environmental assets across the basin. In doing so, consideration is given particularly to matters around flow rates and ensuring that in terms of those flow rates there is a system that is as well managed as can be possible, noting the significant challenges in the system, which is now much more highly regulated than it was in its natural state and has many demands placed upon it—quite reasonable demands.

Water is not only essential for human consumption and for environmental sustainability but also essential for food production, for agricultural productivity. These are important considerations across the basin as well. That is why our side of politics has always sought to ensure that we have a system that is sustainable and that also respects the needs and interests of all basin— (Time expired)

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

Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?

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

Given that the National Party's water policy is so wacky, dangerous and anti-science, how can the Prime Minister allow the National Party to remain in charge of his government's water policy? How on Earth can the Prime Minister keep the National Party in charge of the water portfolio?

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

It's the policy that matters, and the policy of the government is clear in terms of its continued support of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, to be implemented cognisant of all the matters that have been discussed by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council over the years. Those who pretend that the settlement of the Basin Plan by then Minister Burke was simply a binary, straightforward affair are ignoring the fact that, at the time, considerations were given to ensuring that water recovery—particularly in relation to the so-called up-water, as it was described at the time—was to be undertaken and must be undertaken in ways that are mindful of the social and economic impacts of such recovery. They've always been important points. They remain important points in terms of ensuring that the Basin Plan is implemented in a way that is respectful and effective for all the communities who rely upon the river system. (Time expired)

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

Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question?

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

The National Party are wanting to hold Adelaide's water supply to ransom. When will the Prime Minister stop negotiating with these water terrorists?

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

I refer to all of my previous answers in that regard and reject the premise of the question that Senator Hanson-Young has put there. These are, and always have been, very serious issues. The government's commitment to ensure the Murray-Darling Basin is managed in a way that's consistent with the Water Act and consistent with the Basin Plan is resolute. The government's respect for the importance of that and for our communities in South Australia is also resolute. The government has made that clear in the last 24 hours.

The advocacy of senators and members of parliament for their own communities is also very important and something to be respected across this place—that is, the advocacy that I bring and you bring in relation to South Australia and the advocacy that others bring in relation to their communities as well. I acknowledge and respect that, but the policy position of the government remains clear. (Time expired)