Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Faulkner to my question about the empirical undertakings for the government’s decision on the one hand to put water in and on the other hand to take water out, which applies equally to government decisions to take water out on the one hand and put it back in on the other. The Prime Minister promised Australians evidence based policy. Tragically, in respect of water it is becoming clear that there is no method to Labor’s water madness. There is no evidence based policy formulation and, as a consequence, there is no accountable action being taken. This means both a failure to act strategically and a failure to act transparently in respect of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Senator Faulkner’s answer exhibited this failing essentially in three ways. The first way in which this failure to deliver strategically and transparently is illustrated by the government is in respect of bringing water back into the system. The second way that this failure is demonstrated is in respect of having a plan to bring water back into the system. What is the evidence based plan to redistribute it on a fair and equitable basis? The third way in which this failure is demonstrated by the Rudd government is in respect of the lack of a strategic plan and the lack of transparent actions to better collect, store, use and reuse water.

Senator Hutchins is right to the extent that he says that this is a national problem that demands national solutions. It is not about state versus state or, should I say, it should not be about state versus state, nor should it be about city versus country and nor should it be about user versus user. But Senator Wong is also right when she at another time said, ‘We are faced with some very hard choices.’ Well, Prime Minister Rudd and team, take the hard decisions, do the hard actions, because hardness of necessity in this context means some will have to bear pain. Where is the Rudd government’s evidence based policy to underpin what the government must do and must have the courage to do in inflicting some of that pain to bring the Murray-Darling Basin back in terms of its ability to water Australia—and water Australia it can. So, in respect of the government’s failure to act strategically and transparently in bringing water back into the system: that means its failure to address the overallocations and that means its failure to bring back into the system water which is already available.

The Rudd Labor government proposes instead to buy Toorale Station, to purchase a food and fibre production unit. Where is the government’s empirical analysis that shows that Toorale Station is the right place in Australia—one of the best places, presumably, in Australia—to take out food and fibre production at a time when we are facing food issues globally? Where is the government’s empirical analysis to show that Toorale Station is one of the best places to take out of food and fibre production and give to the environment? Let us hope that the government actually visited Toorale Station and did a bit of an inspection tour and ensured that Toorale Station is a place of national interest that justifies returning it to the environment as a national park.

On what basis does the government justify its buyback plan for irrigators? Where is the evidence based policy in terms of giving irrigators the incentive to put water back into the system—to give back, essentially, the overallocations? All the government has demonstrated thus far is a failure to understand water use and a failure to understand farmers. Sorry, that is not all they have demonstrated, but it is a significant part of the failure that they have demonstrated. (Time expired)