Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this grievance debate about a subject that is dear to my heart and dear to my constituents—that is, water, particularly the Murray River and the lower lakes in South Australia. There is no doubt in my mind that state governments all around Australia have mismanaged water resources, especially the Murray-Darling Basin. Interestingly, before our Constitution was adopted in 1901, our South Australian forefathers, including the grandfather of our present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, argued for water resources to be managed by the Australian government rather than by state governments. How different things might have been if we had won that argument.

But we now have a plan, and the Howard government are proposing that the whole Murray-Darling Basin be managed by the Australian government rather than by the present four state governments and the ACT. The government are proposing to spend $10 billion to fix up the Murray-Darling Basin and the problems of poor infrastructure and the overallocations by state governments. An amount of $6 billion is to go to improving infrastructure—for example, by using pipes instead of open channels that seep and evaporate.

I was flabbergasted when the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, claimed that South Australia does not have any open channels, which not only shows his ignorance of our own water infrastructure but is not helpful to our future needs. South Australia may have better infrastructure, thanks to federally funded upgrades, such as the rehabilitation of the Loxton Irrigation Scheme, but I can assure this House and the Premier that more work needs to be done. We still have plenty of overhead sprinklers and open channels that need to be replaced by more efficient irrigation practices. The Premier needs to understand that his so-called $20 million plan to build a weir at Wellington is both sheer madness and a poor use of taxpayers’ money. Even he now knows it is more likely to cost $150 million, not $20 million, which is a stupendous amount of taxpayers’ money for something temporary.

I well remember—and I am sure you also do, Mr Deputy Speaker—when the Prime Minister called the state premiers to Canberra on Melbourne Cup day last year because the government could see that there were serious problems with water allocation in Australia, particularly the Murray-Darling Basin. Premier Mike Rann’s answer was, ‘We’ll build a weir,’ without thinking about the consequences. A far simpler way to increase the ability to pump water into Adelaide’s reservoirs is to lower the three pumps below lock 1 at Blanchetown. Another thing that Premier Rann needs to understand is that the people in rural areas that rely on Murray River water want a fair deal. All irrigators in the Riverland received only 60 per cent of their normal water allocation and fear that they will have zero allocation come July. The 60 per cent allocation would be fine if the plan were shared equally between industry in Adelaide and industry in the Riverland, but it is not.

Adelaide has only a Clayton’s reduction in water allocations, with no reduction demanded for industry and virtually none for households. There is no reduction for city people to have a shower, nor is there a reduction for industry where they work. Rural people in the Riverland rightly feel miffed that the water allocations are not fair. This unfairness is supported by the member for Chaffey, a Riverland seat in South Australia, who is dancing to the tune of a city-centric state Labor government.

The Howard government has a different approach with its $10 billion plan. As I previously stated, $6 billion is allocated to infrastructure. Assuming that it will cost about $2,000 for every megalitre saved, and that half of that will go to farmers and half to government allocations, this will deliver 1,500 gigalitres in savings and an extra 1,500 gigalitres for irrigation, which will cover the 1,500 gigalitres lost when we buy back 1,500 gigalitres from overallocations. In total, it will mean no loss in wealth-producing irrigation but an extra 3,000 gigalitres in the river. To put that in perspective, that amount is equivalent to what South Australia uses for all irrigation and households over four years.

Unfortunately, Victoria is holding up the nation for what seem to be its own selfish reasons, which is a perfect example of the need for a national control rather than present reasons of self-interest. Three years ago, we all heard the mantra from Labor: we all had to put 1,500 gigalitres back into the Murray-Darling for the environment, without telling us how we were going to do that. This sounds like Labor’s plan to reduce CO emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, when we will probably all be dead, or near enough to it not to remember the plan itself. Labor have not told us how they will reduce CO emissions and who will be hurt or who will lose their job. To the contrary, the government’s plan for our water resources returns 3,000 gigalitres, but it does not hurt our wealth producers.

Interestingly, if we had returned 3,000 gigalitres last year, without this spending and without ensuring our farmers were not hurt, the river would now be dry and there would be many bankrupt farmers. That was Labor’s plan. The government’s plan will deliver the 3,000 gigalitres, without hurting the farmers and our industries. I have not heard Labor, or the Greens, who promised 3,000 gigalitres, congratulating the Howard government on its plan. Funny about that!

When was the last time a state government built a reservoir for city water supplies? In South Australia in the sixties, the Playford and Hall Liberal governments bought land at Blewett Springs and Yundi for future reservoirs. What has happened to this land? It certainly has not been developed. For 40 years, Labor state governments have either sold it off or failed to develop it. The South Australian Labor government seems to be more interested in building trams in Adelaide. A good catchcry would be ‘less trams, more dams, Mr Rann’.

The Labor state government has reaped $1 billion in the last five years from SA Water. This company has the duty of supplying water to households in metropolitan Adelaide and in many of our rural towns. The government has spent that billion dollars without preparing for our future water needs. In fact, almost a daily occurrence in Adelaide is burst mains pipes for water supply because the state government has not spent the necessary money on their maintenance, and it is causing real problems. The only answer from the government has been to take water out of the Murray River. That is very easy for the government to do. The reservoirs that supply Adelaide’s water needs are running dry, so the government simply pumps from the Murray River. This cannot go on any longer. We need to prepare for our future water needs. Let me conclude by saying that Labor does not prepare for the future, and it never has.