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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 and government engagement with basin communities.

Leave not granted.

I therefore move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate or to provide for the consideration of any matter.

I move this motion because we know that the government is preparing for yet another guillotine, yet another closure of debate in this place, because it doesn't like scrutiny, it doesn't like transparency, it doesn't like accountability and it won't listen to people. It's a government that doesn't listen; in fact, it chooses not to listen. This bill, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is a classic example of the government choosing not to listen. It actively chose not to listen. This bill was, like so many other bills, referred to a Senate inquiry. What would you think you would do with a Senate inquiry into a bill directly affecting water policy and the Murray-Darling Basin? I think—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'd go and check it out.

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

You'd go to those communities—that's right. That's what I think you would do. You would go and listen and talk to the communities impacted by the bill. What did the Labor senators and the Albanese government choose to do with their numbers on the legislation committee? They chose not to go to any of the basin communities. They chose to conduct a committee inquiry that was solely held in Canberra. Did it go to any of the northern basin communities in Queensland? No, it didn't. Did it go to any of the various basin communities in northern New South Wales? No, it didn't. Did it go to any of the communities through the Murray and Darling systems in southern New South Wales? No, it didn't. Nor did it go to Victoria, nor did it go through the river and irrigation communities in South Australia. The Labor Party just didn't want to listen. It actively chose not to listen.

Knowing that a guillotine is coming on this bill and that the government doesn't want to listen to questions or scrutiny in the Senate, or any of those factors anymore, we present this motion to at least call upon Minister Tanya Plibersek, the Minister for the Environment and Water, to do her job of going out and listening—to do what the government has failed to do today and to comprehensively visit those basin communities who are impacted by this legislation, because their concerns are real ones. I know Senator Wong, when she held this portfolio, visited those communities. I visited those communities. Senator Ruston visited those communities. And, as I said in the debate on this legislation, the important thing when you're visiting those communities is to say the same thing wherever you are. I have stood in those communities and told them why it's important for freshwater flows to go into the lower lakes, just as I have stood in Adelaide and told them why rice and cotton have a place in Australia's irrigation industry—to actually tell the truth and be upfront and honest with all of those communities. That's precisely what Tanya Plibersek should be doing. As Minister for the Environment and Water, she should be getting out and visiting each of those communities and making it crystal clear as to why it is the government has taken action that has broken the consensus across states and territories in support of the Basin Plan.

The Victorian government doesn't support this legislation, doesn't support the action the government is taking. So we have a situation now where the Basin Plan and water reform is in peril as a result of the fact that this government doesn't listen, and it doesn't even listen to the Victorian Labor government in terms of their concerns and their approaches. This government doesn't listen in a way that tries to maintain consensus and support there. It hasn't listened to the communities and hasn't listened to a state Labor government. It's broken the consensus of political support across basin communities and across basin states and, indeed, across this parliament in relation to these reforms.

The concerns are real ones. These communities see this government acting to tear up what Tony Burke put in place, which was the no socioeconomic disadvantage test. It was a Labor government that put that test in place. It was a Labor minister, who is once again a Labor minister and a member of the cabinet today, who put in place a test recognised as important to these communities.

There is much, as I said in this debate, we should be proud of that's been achieved in water reform. Billions and billions of litres of water have been recovered and are actively managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder for the benefit of the Murray-Darling Basin system. But this is bad policy. This is a bad approach, and this is a government that is pursuing this because it won't listen. This motion calls upon the minister to listen, to engage, to do the job that she should.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill that we are seeking to resolve, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, delivers on Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard's plan on the Murray-Darling Basin, an approach that was supported by the Liberal Party but that has always been opposed by Mr Joyce and the National Party.

What we see from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate today is a pathetic attempt to hide in consultation on a plan that he knows has been in place for nearly a decade that was sabotaged by Mr Barnaby Joyce. That's what it was. So what I'd say to Senator Birmingham and Senator Ruston and all of the South Australian Liberals is you should hang your heads in shame for the way in which you have been so weak as to allow a plan that you once supported to be sabotaged by members of the National Party, who have no interest in ensuring that the plan that you had in government is delivered.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not be lectured by you on this!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, we have just had your leader on his feet. There were no interjections. We now have the Leader of the Government in the Senate on her feet, and there will be no interjections. Minister Wong, please continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two out of 450 gigalitres is what you delivered, and you come in here and pretend that you still support this plan. You allowed it for a decade—

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

You forget about the 2,750, don't you!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I'll take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who I listened to in silence. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is such a weak leader for South Australia. You should go back to South Australia and go to Adelaide and tell them, 'I allowed the National Party yet again to try and blow up the plan.' Because that's what you did for nine years. I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.