Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) in returning the rivers to health;

(2) condemns any plans to walk away from the MDBP that will undermine the health of the system and the rivers;

(3) notes the good work of the Member for Watson in his former role as the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who was able to deliver a once in a century agreement of the MDBP;

(4) expresses concern that the Member for New England, as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, is walking away from the plan by refusing to return 450 gigalitres of water to the Basin;

(5) recognises that:

(a) removing too much water from the river is bad for irrigators and communities, and devastating for the environment in the long term; and

(b) South Australians in particular deserve the water they were promised; and

(6) reinstates its commitment to implement the complete MDBP.

This is an incredibly important motion. It's actually a motion I tabled in this House before we saw the revelations on the Four Corners episode in terms of alleged theft of water from the Murray-Darling Basin. And the reason why I originally tabled this motion was serious concern that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources was walking away from the commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is serious. And, since I tabled this motion in the House, we've seen even further concerns about this minister and his ability to deal with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

We are all acutely aware, none more so than people in South Australia, of the issues facing the Murray-Darling Basin, and the most recent issues are serious allegations of water theft from upstream that threaten the future and confidence of the Basin Plan. We are all too aware now, I think, of the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister when these allegations were made. Faced with these serious allegations, he first dismissed them as a local issue. Then he went to the pub and he suggested there was some sort of conspiracy theory going on with Four Corners. We heard in this House last week member after member trying to discredit the Four Corners program rather than deal with the substantive issue, which was our serious allegation of theft. We saw member after member—it must have been in their talking points—actually try to say Four Corners wasn't telling the truth: 'There isn't truth in what Four Corners had to say.' At the same time, they tried to pay lip-service to the fact that this is an issue.

Now, many people have been very shocked by the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I know the people in South Australia were very concerned that those Liberal members of parliament, particularly from South Australia, voted against a judicial inquiry last week in this House. It is incredibly disappointing and upsetting.

But I want to take people back a bit. It was only late last year that the Deputy Prime Minister did foreshadow his intention to walk away from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This was a historic plan that really sought to address the damage done by overextraction and severe drought for over a century. We're talking about a plan that could not be delivered for over a century. And, when that plan was delivered, it was very clear that the intention was to return 3,200 gigalitres to the river. That was very, very clear.

So, it was awfully concerning that late last year we had the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources actually writing to the state minister for environment and water in South Australia, saying that this was not going to be achieved. That is incredibly concerning: that this minister isn't taking the plan seriously and isn't actually committed to delivering the plan.

As I said in November, the Deputy Prime Minister did write and say he had no intention to deliver the extra 450 gigalitres that was promised. This letter made it crystal clear that to protect the interests of upstream farmers South Australia would be made worse off. This is deeply, deeply concerning. I would really urge that this government commit to the plan and commit to the figure of 3,200. That's all we're asking them to do, to commit to this. This is an important point to have confidence that we can restore this system to health.

I have regularly said in this place that it is a false dichotomy to say that this is irrigators versus the environment, because we know in South Australia that if you destroy the river it is no good for anyone. It is not useful for irrigators to be pumping salty water onto their crops. That doesn't work. It's no good for the environment and it's no good for the communities that use the basin. It's no good for anyone to have a dead river system. That is why this plan is so important. That is why it needs to be backed in by this government and why it needs to be taken seriously by this government.

See this speech in context