Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That was another interesting contribution from the government to this very important motion by the member for Kingston. The member for Kingston has been incredibly consistent in her defence and advocacy for what is a vital national icon. It doesn't belong to a farmer. It doesn't belong to a city dweller. It doesn't belong to an environmentalist or an irrigator. It doesn't belong to one generation of Australians. It belongs to the nation's estate. It's part of our glorious continent, and we have an obligation to take care of it.

This has been a long time coming. As the member for Kingston pointed out, this agreement has eluded previous generations. In fact, one of my Labor predecessors, the first member for Wakefield, Sydney McHugh, is on the record of the Hansard in 1939 asking a question about the Murray to then Prime Minister Menzies in his first incarnation as Prime Minister. So this has been a long time coming—a concern about irrigation and a concern about water for what is an industrial purpose, essentially. It's not farming in the normal sense of the word; it's agribusiness.

This agreement eluded previous governments. Yet we had prime ministers, from Howard onwards—Howard, with Turnbull as his then water minister, and then Rudd and Gillard—adopting a bipartisan approach with a bipartisan plan in order to make sure that this vital national icon was protected. What did we find? What does this House find? What do South Australians find? What do all those concerned find about our river, our national icon, whether they be graziers, South Australian farmers or environmentalists? They find that this divided government, with its weak Prime Minister, is so desperate. The Prime Minister is so desperate that he is prepared to sign away his own achievement under Howard. That was the price of the Turnbull-Joyce government. You never hear the words 'Turnbull-Joyce', except from National Party ministers. They're very keen on talking about Turnbull-Joyce. The reason why is that what they got was control over this water.

What they decided was, if they couldn't rip this agreement up, because that was too obvious, they'd take the cheese grater to it. What they'd do was that they wouldn't make sure that there was any compliance; they wouldn't enforce it. And with that agreement—whether it be nudge-nudge, wink-wink or whether it be actual complicity with the New South Wales government and its public servants—I'm sad to say, as revealed by the Four Corners report, what we have is basically a billion litres of water simply going missing. The idea is that these agreements will be enforced in some states and for some farmers and for some communities but not for others. That's essentially what has happened—the New South Wales government has been let off the leash, and it's been let off the leash so that this great fraud against the Commonwealth can be perpetrated.

When someone steals water, it's not like stealing sheep, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. It's not like stealing sheep at all. It's a fraud against the Commonwealth, which is a very serious crime. It's a very, very serious crime; far more serious than swiping a few sheep.

See this speech in context