Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Birmingham today relating to the Coorong and lower lakes in South Australia.

Senator Wong likes to come into this place and talk about how the record low inflows into the Murray have continued over the last couple of years. Senator Wong is right to talk about the record low inflows as they are occurring and she is right to highlight that. One of the key reasons why she is right to highlight that is that it demonstrates the need for urgency, continual change and adaptation to the situation in the Murray. Some 18 months or so ago the then government announced a package of reforms for the Murray. The then Prime Minister announced a plan for a clear national takeover. State Labor governments filibustered on that plan right through until after the election. They held it up doggedly and they stopped real action at that stage taking place. In the intervening time we saw a year go by of further record low inflows into the Murray—the situation getting even worse—and missed opportunities because of the actions and failure of state Labor governments to come on board with that national plan.

As we all know, late last year a new government was elected. Senator Wong, a South Australian senator, and the now Prime Minister frequently went to Adelaide and promised the world in what would be delivered for saving the River Murray and for reassuring South Australians that they could be confident that a new government would fix the problems of the River Murray. They promised extra money, which they later reneged on, they promised clear action and they promised that the states would work together and end the blame game. What has come about since then is a far cry from all of those promises and a government that has had to buy off one of their state Labor colleagues and has had to compromise on national takeover of the Murray in a manner that means we will not see effective national management of the Murray-Darling Basin until 2019, which is a long, long way away. All this was done to pacify the Victorian Labor government. Of most concern in the immediate environment in regard to Senator Wong’s response today is that we have a government who have failed to deal with the immediacy of the problems facing the Murray-Darling Basin, the irrigation communities throughout it and in particular the lower lakes.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Howard government—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Feeney mentioned the Howard government. He might care to reflect on what I said about the reality of his colleagues in Victoria. Senator Feeney, your Victorian Labor colleagues were holding the process up and were playing sheer bloody-minded politics with the Murray-Darling Basin. That was the outrage that occurred in holding it up. Now Senator Wong wants to claim record low inflows as the reason why more cannot be done. Record low inflows are the reason why more should be done quickly and immediately. It is the reason she should be taking urgent steps. We all agree with the long-term action that needs to be taken. We will argue over the details of how long it should take and how quickly it should be taken, but there are immediate things that should be done as well.

Senator Wong, under pressure on this issue, said back in June that she would seek urgent advice on these issues. She told us in this place about urgent advice, so the opposition for some time has been calling for that urgent advice to be released and for Senator Wong to bring forward the November Murray-Darling Basin ministerial council meeting to today, to September, to consider that urgent advice that she said she was seeking. Instead not only do we not get to see the urgent advice when the opposition calls for it but when the Senate asked Minister Wong to table it by midday on Thursday of last week—a Senate Return to Order motion which she blindly ignored—she came in here today and started to say that maybe she would table something but then she corrected herself and said simply that she would be coming in to make a statement.

The challenge for Senator Wong this afternoon is to come in and table clear-cut urgent advice that she sought in June of this year, to table something that is identifiably from that time and demonstrate that she was not just kidding us when she said she was seeking urgent advice. She should show us that it really does exist so that the whole country can see what possible steps could be taken by this government—that they are clearly failing to take—to address the situation in the lower lakes community. The challenge is for her to take up the challenge that the opposition has made and not to just reforms in water— (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to Senator Birmingham speak, it was really hard to tell why he seemed to be trying to attack the Labor government when in fact most of his comments and hand wringing about poor timing relate specifically to the former coalition government, which of course sat on its hands for some 11 years as these problems continued to grow and grow. Yet it was not until it feared losing an election that water emerged on its political agenda. So I find it quite interesting and greatly ironic that the coalition is lamenting time frames of months, weeks, day and even hours.

They come in here and complain about Labor’s alleged inactivity in certain time frames, when the time frames for the coalition’s inactivity extend not just to years but to over a decade. Let us get this into perspective. How long has Labor been in government? Senator Birmingham could not fit enough words into his speech to describe the actions that actually have taken place since Labor was elected—as was so eloquently articulated by our minister earlier in question time today—because we have done so much to try to catch up on the neglect of the coalition government. So it is with great pleasure that I remind the senators opposite again about the large number of activities that the Labor government has engaged in to fix the very problems that they have been guilty of neglecting for so long.

We know and they know that the Labor government has supported both short- and long-term measures to protect the lower lakes, particularly from the threat of acidification, and to return the Murray-Darling Basin to sustainable levels. It presents a particular challenge in the lower lakes region of South Australia and we are extremely conscious of the impact this is having not just on communities and the environment but on irrigators as well. In fact, in May 2008, the Murray-Darling Basin ministerial council agreed to provide $6 million to pump water from Lake Alexandrina to Lake Albert in order to maintain the levels in Lake Albert. Also, a high-level committee is developing risk management strategies; it is due to report within a few weeks.

There is more. At the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 3 July 2008, the Commonwealth agreed to provide up to $610 million towards water projects in South Australia, and obviously the lower lakes and Coorong areas will be major beneficiaries of this. Some $200 million of this is to support the response to the environmental problems of the lakes, and $120 million is for an integrated network of pipelines to service townships and communities and help them with their water supplies.

On 14 August the minister announced three sets of water initiatives to help deal with the critical situation in the Murray-Darling Basin: the comprehensive and externally reviewed audit of both public and private water storages in the basin; initiating a new basin-wide tender for water purchasing for the current financial year, and expanding the previously announced Queensland tender—and, I might add, increasing funding for this by $50 million to $400 million and a Commonwealth-state initiative to co-fund the purchase of properties holding large water entitlements, particularly in the northern basin.

All of these seem to be something that the coalition conveniently ignores. The time frames are extremely tight. The Labor government was elected in November of last year and yet the opposition is lamenting the fact that nothing has been done. But an extraordinary amount has been done. I have been particularly impressed with the pace of change after so many years of neglect and lip-service being paid to the area—and we have had the very important acknowledgement that the previous government only acted when there was an election in the offing. We cannot muck around with issues like this. We are facing the challenge of climate change, which is another fact of life that the coalition has chosen to ignore. All of these environmental issues are completely interrelated.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The towns are dying and you are doing nothing.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You cannot sit over there and yell at me and accuse Labor of not reacting to this when it has been Labor that has come to government in this country with a decisive election victory that, I think, in large part recognises that the community does care and is looking for leadership on environmental issues, whether it is protecting our water resources or addressing the urgent problem of climate change. It has to be placed in the context of what happens if you do not act. What would happen if we had the attitude of the former government? We would all be in great difficulty if that were the case. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak to the motion to take note of answers given by Minister Wong to questions relating to the Murray-Darling River System. Minister Wong promised us action based on fact. She promised us fact but we failed to see the facts. The Prime Minister and Minister Wong promised the Australian electorate evidence based policy. That means policy based on fact. Tragically, we failed to see it with water and, in particular, we failed to see it on the lower lakes and Coorong.

The facts that we see instead are tragic. We see the Prime Minister visiting Milang at the lower lakes, where he attributes low flows to climate change. He offends Australians and in particular the people of the lower lakes by attributing low flows to climate change. He then travels to the Hume Dam in New South Wales and attributes low levels there to the same thing. Those are the facts. Where is the evidence based policy?

The other fact we see is a COAG agreement that fails to deliver national management of water to the country. It is an agreement that keeps the Murray-Darling Basin Authority beholden to the states. It is an agreement that fails to put one drop of water back in. Indeed, in the case of the Melbourne to Goulburn pipeline, it means that water that was not taken out before will now be taken out. It is an agreement that, some would say, has been flushed down Victorian toilets to the cost of South Australians. It is an agreement that, at best, may deliver something in 2011, but allows some states to retain current allocations—in the case of Victoria, until 2019. Those are part of the tragic facts about water and the water dilemma facing our nation.

We have a government that has devised a water buy-back scheme. What are some of the facts around that? The facts around it are that the scheme fails to provide farmers with the incentive to release their water and that the scheme fails to provide other farmers with certainty and security about staying in. To the contrary, the facts around the scheme show a Prime Minister and a minister who do not understand how water works and do not understand how farmers work. The fact is that we have a minister who has talked about disadvantages of a federal government suddenly entering into the water market. On what basis, on what evidence, on what facts, does the minister base that assertion? We see a minister and a government that are too timid to act to resolve this national crisis. We have a buy-back scheme that is not big enough, not fast enough and not strong enough.

In the case of the people of the Coorong and the lower lakes, we have a lack of action. We have a government that has made promises and has sought advice on options as to what to do about the dire circumstances facing the lower lakes, yet has failed to produce that advice. We have a government that has failed to take the community of the lower Coorong into its confidence in considering what the lower Coorong may face in the future. Indeed, we have a federal water minister who says that in 10 years time she wants to be able to see that the federal government has turned around the situation and to see a river system that provides water for Adelaide. On what basis, on what facts, on what evidence, has the minister made that decision? And why is the minister not talking about weaning the good city of Adelaide off the Murray and leaving the Murray for those communities who have no choice? (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, there are not many things that I congratulate the opposition on, but on your election to Deputy President I do congratulate them. I know that you will serve the Senate very well. Let me say that I have sat here and listened to tripe coming from South Australian opposition senators, bearing in mind that a couple of them have only been here in the Senate in the last couple of years. For them to sit there and lecture us on this side about the situation of the Murray-Darling Basin after 11½ long years—I did not think I would have to use that line again—because, in what I think were Senator Fisher’s words, we are not fast enough, not strong enough—I say, through you, Mr Deputy President, fair go, Senator Fisher! We have been in power on this side for nine months.

Through you, Mr Deputy President, we are unlike your side over there, who sat on your collective bums for 11½ years and never realised that there was a problem with water in the southern half of Australia—for 11½ years. There was not a word until, 12 months out from the possibility of a federal election, the previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, decided that there was a problem in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, give us break, Senators opposite! No wonder I pick up the paper and I read headlines at certain times about how embarrassing question time can be. By crikey, I am so glad the writers do not have to listen to the broadcasting of motions to take note of answers coming from that side. What an absolute diatribe! What absolute rubbish, to lecture us on the problem in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Through you, Mr Deputy President, I congratulate Minister Wong. Let me look at the achievements of Minister Wong in a very short period of time. I think it was in the first month that Minister Wong had negotiated the signing of Kyoto.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For 11½ years, for you lot, it did not exist. You did not want to know about climate change. You were sceptics, saying, ‘Let’s keep our heads buried under the table,’ and hoping that no-one would realise that not only did you not have a clue but you did not give a damn. Then you come in here and lecture us about what we have done in nine months.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, I remind you to address the chair.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly will, Mr Deputy President. Let me talk about a certain reference to the committee that I chair, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I am joined on that committee by the good senator Senator O’Brien. There is a reference to that committee for which we have already advertised for submissions and for which we are going to be paying visits to Adelaide and Melbourne. Unlike senators opposite, we want to hear about it. We want to know what the problems are down there. We want to hear from the communities, the irrigators, the growers and all those involved in the Murray-Darling Basin. We want to hear from them. We do not need our Prime Minister, all of a sudden, 12 months out from an election, to think: ‘Oh my goodness, how can I deflect all these issues around Work Choices and the issue of the sale of Telstra? Let’s throw up the Murray-Darling Basin. Let’s recognise now that there is a problem.’

To those good people who rely on the Murray-Darling and all the tributaries and the rivers down there, whether they be through their communities or farming or whatever—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, Senator Bernardi just opened his mouth and said that I have never been there. Through you, Mr Deputy President, I beg to differ, Senator Bernardi. When I was a truck driver in my previous life—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, you doubt me! Through you, Mr Deputy President, do you doubt that I have been down there, Senator Bernardi?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There are far too many interjections. Senator Sterle should be heard in silence. Senator Sterle.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not mind taking interjections when senators opposite are talking rubbish. I have been down there and I will be down there again, Senator Bernardi. I might not have my blue singlet on, driving my truck, but I am dying to hear from the people who rely on the lower lakes and the Coorong. And we supported that reference. I will be on that committee, I will be down there listening and I will be taking back to the minister everything that I hear down there because it is a major issue. Minister Wong should be congratulated because she is doing something about it. Minister Wong was talking about this in opposition. Minister Wong did not wait 12 months out from the election to say all of a sudden, ‘Uh-oh! We stink because of what we have done with Work Choices; we had better start talking about other things like climate change and drought.’

There was a statement earlier from Senator Fisher about Minister Wong mentioning, because there is not a lot of water down there, drought and climate change. Senator Fisher queried that. I ask you, Senator Fisher—and I said to Senator Bernardi—did the Chinese pull the plug out? Is that what happened? Or on the other side of the earth did they let the plug out so the water has just run away? How ridiculous! Of course it is climate change. We know it is climate change. We are going through one of the greatest droughts ever. But we will not be talking about it; we will do something about this and it will be led by one of the best water ministers that this country has seen for a long, long time. In fact I take that back; the best water minister. She is actually going to do something. She is not going to sit back there and talk about it. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is amazing to sit here and listen to the pious rhetoric that is coming from the government benches. It is absolutely disgraceful—they send in here to debate a taking note of answers motion about water someone from the ACT and someone from Western Australia. They could not get people who are further away from the crisis that is confronting the good people of South Australia and the lower lakes than the two we have heard from. At the very least, Senator Wortley has had the decency to come down here and express some solidarity for the South Australian senators on this side of the chamber who are concerned about the dire straits that South Australians and those in the lower lakes are finding themselves exposed to. And all the time we are raising these concerns, all the time we are putting forward alternatives and vision and initiatives to help ease the burden on the South Australian lower lakes communities, this government does nothing. We now see how seriously they take this critical issue.

Just last Friday, Minister Wong put together the seven people for the National Water Commission. How many South Australians do you think were on there? Seven? No. Were there five? No, there were not. Were there three? Were there two? Was there even one? Not one single South Australian made it on to the National Water Commission board. It is a sad indictment. Senator Wortley, I know you feel the shame of the government. You feel it because Minister Wong has once again given up on South Australia. She has said that there is nothing she can do. And she has proved it.

What about the debate today. I came to it just a bit earlier. How important is this to the South Australian senators? We have a whole batch of new ones over there. Do you think they could make some sort of contribution? Do you think they could bring a new fresh perspective? No. They have gone missing in action. They have not even bothered to turn up. They are not prepared to stand up for their state even though they were just elected to represent their state’s interests. So, what do we have? We have a critical environmental issue with local wildlife, graziers, vignerons and whole communities dependent on these lower lakes. And what is going on? Absolutely nothing.

Labor have no sense of urgency about this—although they do say there is an urgent requirement for reports. Senator Wong as the minister requested urgent information. Over the last couple of months we have asked her to provide that information. Do you think we have seen it? No. Unfortunately, it was so urgent that it has not been able to be tabled yet. But it does not even matter if she has got the information, because she is doing absolutely nothing with it. This is a government of, ‘Do nothing.’ And, sure, you should hang your head in shame, Senator Sterle, because you know it yourself. Even though you are not responsible because you are on the back bench, you should be ashamed of your frontbench colleagues because they are letting the people of Australia down. I know that you might have some empathy for some people in rural communities because you have driven your truck through the lower lakes. I would love to know which towns you have got to. But the fact is, not many people on the government side have actually been down there to do anything. Sure, we have had the Prime Minister go down there and mouth a few empathetic words and then wash his hands of it and say, ‘It’s a 50-year program on climate change,’ and utter all sorts of stuff. We have had Minister Wong mouth all sorts of sympathetic words and then fail to turn up at community rallies. She has failed to turn up and observe first-hand the pain that the people in these communities are going through.

We have seen a failure from this government. I would say to the people of Mayo and to the people of Barker who are suffering under the inaction of this government: ‘Don’t give up, because the coalition are going to be introducing legislation to ease your burden.’ We will challenge the government to finally put up and help those people of the lower lakes. And they have a chance this week to send a very clear message to Mr Rudd and his band of snake oil salesmen. A snake oil salesman is any person who peddles a product with exaggerated marketing but of questionable or unverifiable quality, and that is exactly what we have got from this government. A bunch of snake oil salesmen selling snake oil, selling hopes and failing at every turn. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.