Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

In responding to Senator Birmingham’s comments, there are a number of issues that I want to place on the record, because there were some, perhaps, errors in what he put to the Senate. The first, to be very clear, is that the government did support an inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin. We put up terms of reference which in large part were adopted by the opposition and the crossbenches and which included important issues like ensuring that we took consideration of Adelaide’s water supply. I would have thought that Senator Birmingham would have welcomed the fact that, in the context of a discussion about the Murray-Darling Basin, we will ensure that Adelaide has sufficient drinking water.

The second is that Senator Birmingham made some comments about the confidence of South Australians. I say to Senator Birmingham through you, Mr Deputy President, that he comes from a party whose frontbenchers have criticised water purchase, which he advocates, and a frontbencher from which has called for the lower lakes to be flooded with seawater, which he opposes. So, if Senator Birmingham is going to come in here and lecture the government and the Senate on taking people into confidence, perhaps he should take South Australians into his confidence and tell them which of the varying positions on the Murray-Darling Basin is actually the opposition’s position, because the reality is that Senator Birmingham and his colleagues from South Australia are saying one thing now, in the week leading up to the Mayo by-election, whilst their frontbenchers and colleagues upstream say something different. Until the coalition deal with the issue of how to balance different users in a good policy way, they will never deal with the political schism and division that exists on their side between members of the National Party and members of the Liberal Party who occupy safe seats upstream. That is the reality.

Finally, it appears—I am not sure from his contribution—that Senator Birmingham failed to recognise two points that I made in my statement. The first is that the precedents on which we rely were put forward by his party. The second is that we are holding ourselves, particularly in the context of this motion, to a higher standard than was ever shown by the Howard government. If he had listened to my statement, he would know that what I said to the Senate as the responsible minister was that the submission would outline the options as at June and take into account developments which have occurred in recent months. So I have made it clear that, consistent with precedent from the previous government, we will not be tabling the advice but, because I do believe that this is an issue that deserves public scrutiny, I have made it clear what the submission will canvass. That, Senator Birmingham, is a far higher standard than any of the ministers in your government to whom I have referred held themselves to when refusing an order for production.

Question agreed to.