Senate debates

Thursday, 27 November 2008

Water Amendment Bill 2008

In Committee

10:34 am

Photo of Simon BirminghamSimon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that interlude. I am sure my fiance, who is looking—I hope—to meet me on the aisle in a week or two will not be getting too concerned about any arrangements that we may have. Nonetheless, I will not give the minister the loving but I will give her the commendation. I commend the minister for the fact that building has started on the pipelines to the Lower Lakes and the Narrung Peninsula for the communities there.

It is noteworthy that two years ago, when this proposal was first made, the South Australian government were not calling for those pipelines to be built. Of course they were not calling for them to be built, because at that stage the water levels in the lakes were higher than they have been this year. At that stage, the process was in crisis but not so much in crisis. At that stage, they did not see piping water to the lakes as the solution; this year they did. And I recognise that the government acted and acted quickly to support them.

The question I pose, though, is: if the government can build infrastructure for the Lower Lakes communities so quickly, if it can fund that infrastructure so very quickly and get works happening on the ground so quickly, why can’t it do it elsewhere? That infrastructure is important. It provides water security for the Lower Lakes communities, but it does not actually save any water. It is not the type of infrastructure that is about increasing efficiencies in irrigation elsewhere throughout the system. It is purely infrastructure that provides security to the communities. That is critical, but it is not the water-saving infrastructure that is so desperately needed throughout the rest of the basin. If non-water saving infrastructure can be put on the ground and started within a matter of months then why can’t other projects where hundreds of gigalitres of water could potentially be saved—the Menindee Lakes and elsewhere—be done in months, not years? That is what we should expect from the government when it comes to delivery across the basin, not just in that one community.

What was noteworthy throughout the minister’s 15-minute contribution was that she barely mentioned the communities. Senator Hanson-Young was right to draw the debate back to the Lower Lakes communities and to the point of this very amendment, which is to ensure that some tangible support is provided to those communities. The tangible support that we have called for is to assist irrigators and communities throughout the basin to help them survive the tough times they are in. The minister was right when she said that progress would not be achieved overnight. That is why these communities need support. They need support because progress will not be achieved overnight, and they need support to be able to sustain themselves into the future. They need support so that all the businesses do not close their doors, so that all the farmers do not leave their properties, so that the marinas are not put out of business by all the boats having to be taken to other marinas, so that the tourism industry and other industries in the area are not decimated, so that the schools stay open and so that the facilities of those communities are sustained through the difficult times until progress is made. That is why this amendment is critically important. That is why it should be supported by this house. I commend it to the Senate.

Comments

No comments