Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Faulkner) to a question without notice asked by Senator Fisher today relating to the Murray-Darling Basin system.

I just want to repeat it, because I cannot believe that Senator Faulkner did not understand the impact of the question. The question related to the Labor government paying an amount of $24 million to buy a water entitlement of some 14 billion litres to feed into the Murray-Darling system. If you did not know too much about that proposal, one might say that it is a good initiative. But there are some concerns about that purchase, which my colleague Senator Heffernan raised in the Senate a couple of days ago, which really do demand some serious investigation by the relevant authorities. I note that Sir Rod Eddington, who is the Labor government’s trusted adviser in several areas, is a member of the board of the vendor company which is receiving the $24 million.

The purchase was to put 14 billion litres into the Murray-Darling system. But, at the same time, this Labor government are facilitating the Victorian Labor government taking out of the Murray-Darling system some 74 to 110 billion litres of water for the north-south pipeline in Victoria. I emphasis that they are paying $24 million to get 14 billion litres into the system and giving away for free something like 80 billion litres. Something like five or six times the amount of water that is being put into the river, they are allowing out. What hypocrisy, what absolute stupidity of this government and a minister, Senator Wong, who is quite clearly incapable of dealing with the very difficult issues of water in Australia. The senator is an abject and complete failure in her task as Australia’s water minister.

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

Senator Sterle interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Sterle!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy President, but I do not need it from someone like Senator Sterle. Nobody takes too much notice of what he might say. Senator Wong, the minister, has been an abject failure in relation to water and certainly in relation to the Murray-Darling system. Mr Garrett gave EPBC Act approval for this pipeline, which will suck some 80 billion litres out of the Murray-Darling system to go down to Melbourne to flush toilets. It did not take him all that long to make that decision.

It seems funny the way that the Labor government and Mr Garrett deal with applications under the EPBC Act. You see, up in my state of Queensland Mr Garrett has just made a number of decisions under the EPBC Act—quite quickly—to stop developments in Cairns and Townsville and much needed coal port developments in the Rockhampton area. It did not take him long to determine those. But it has taken him at least nine months—because that is as long as he has been there—to not make a decision on the application under the EPBC Act in relation to the Traveston Crossing dam in Queensland, an environmentally disastrous proposal by the Queensland government.

I am just making this point: what is the difference between the decisions that Mr Garrett makes elsewhere and the decision that he has made in relation to the north-south pipeline and the decision he has not made in relation to the Traveston Crossing dam. The answer is this: the decisions that he has made in Queensland have been against developers, who would have helped with some of the infrastructure that we need. In relation to the Victorian decision, it was an application by his mates in the Victorian government. In the Queensland decision, he clearly should rule against it, but it is an application by his mates in the Queensland Labor government to allow approval for that particular dam. This whole incident and the impact of Senator Fisher’s question clearly show that the Labor Party is in disarray when it comes to water policy. This needs to be emphasised.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue that has been raised today is one of great importance, as we are all aware. Indeed, last week Senator Fisher and I, along with others, were involved in an inquiry over two days—here in Canberra and then in Adelaide—into the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. We received a number of submissions from government bodies and individuals about what should happen to that part of South Australia, where that water should come from and whether or not seawater should be put into these areas where there has not been any water for some time.

One of the things that struck me about our inquiry—I understand that Senator Fisher will be speaking shortly, and she may well agree with me, as I am sure Senator Heffernan will, too—is that we need to try to depoliticise this issue and make sure that we have a solid policy base from which to proceed. Senator Fisher would agree with me that that is not necessarily occurring with the opposition at the moment.

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

You’re the government. You do something

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are people in the opposition who clearly know what needs to occur. If you listen to some of the things that that maverick senator, Senator Heffernan, says—despite some of the other things that he says—he makes a lot of sense in a number of these areas.

The one thing that clearly comes out in all this is that if there were more water in this Murray-Darling system it would be used. But the fact is that we have not had sustained rainfall for some time. There are many communities in these areas that are very frightened about their future. That is why I say that this should be depoliticised. As we saw only last week—and Senator Fisher would agree with me—one of the minor parties, and I am talking about the National Party, took opportunistic shots during the inquiry. They took any opportunity to try and scare people and came up with bandaid solutions, or tried to pull magic out of the sky to make available water that is not there.

I say to the opposition: the water is not there. We are being confronted with issues that I am sure none of us would have wanted to have to deal with. But the fact is that there is no water. If you listen to some of your senior colleagues—

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

There is no water, but you are taking water out and sending it to Melbourne.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will sit down and listen to you in silence.

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

Do not acknowledge me, then.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have some very difficult demographic decisions that are going to be forced upon us in the next few years. I do not think that any of us like it. You cannot come in here with a South Australian badge on or a Queensland badge—

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

Senator Fisher interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Fisher, I note that you are down next to speak in this debate, so I suggest that we listen to Senator Hutchins in silence.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have to come in here representing the Commonwealth of Australia. This is an Australian difficulty—an Australian problem. It is no good saying, ‘They are taking water from us up here and they are transferring it here.’ It is no good saying, ‘They are stealing it from New South Wales and they are not giving it to the Queenslanders.’ I am sure that even Tasmanians would like to get into the act just so they are not ignored.

This is a very serious issue. People are very frightened. Their futures are at stake. They are demanding of the Commonwealth government and of the Commonwealth parliament some serious leadership in this. People should not come in here and say, ‘They are stealing water from the Murray and giving it to Melbourne,’ and ‘They are stealing water from the Murrumbidgee and giving it to South Australia.’ We have to come in here and act responsibly, particularly—and I say this to Senator Fisher—the major parties. You would recall, as I do, the opportunistic actions of the Greens last week. They had to be checked by the CSIRO the next day. There are plenty of people out there who are going to exploit this for political reasons. It is up to us in the major parties to make sure that that does not occur.

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

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of comments by Senator Faulkner. This of course is my first opportunity to congratulate you formally, Mr Deputy President, on your accession to your position. I am very pleased to see a fellow South Australian in a senior position in this chamber. Of course we do have another fellow South Australian who is doing an absolutely fantastic job at the moment on this issue of water, and that of course is Senator Wong. I would just like to put on record my congratulations for the steps that she has taken to deal in a serious way with the issues of water, particularly for my own state. I think it contrasts very dramatically with what we saw under the previous Howard government. It was full of South Australians—

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, Hear!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Minchin was one of them. It was full of South Australians. There was Senator Hill, Senator Vanstone and Mr Downer, and even Mr Pyne got there in the end. It was full of South Australians, but not one drop of water was purchased for South Australia despite all of those South Australians being in that cabinet. This previous government never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity when it came to the Murray River.

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

It is losing water very quickly—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has taken the issue of water security—

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

Senator Fisher interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You had your go. Let me have a go now. You never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity when it came to the Murray River. Now when we finally get a South Australian minister who is prepared to do something serious about the water issue—for drinking water in South Australia, for water for irrigators but, most importantly, to bring the Murray back to life—

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

Senator Fisher interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have got a minister who is prepared to do that and what do we find?

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

With what? How?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a minister who is prepared to do that and what do we find? We find the opposition criticising the decision to buy this station. At last somebody is starting to do something about the water issue in South Australia, and it is the Labor government.

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

Senator Fisher interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Fisher, you have had your turn. I suggest you listen to Senator Farrell in silence.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a government now that is prepared to do something about saving water in South Australia. This is the down payment; this is the first instalment of a Labor government that is prepared to bring the Murray River back to life. I made the comment in my maiden speech that I am the only South Australian senator actually born on the Murray. I was born in Murray Bridge in 1954. I remember what it was like back then when we had free-flowing water. We have not got that any more because for 12 years the opposition simply ignored the issue of water. Labor is now starting to do something about it.

What are we going to do? The first thing we want to do is secure drinking water for South Australia. The best way of doing that in the longer term is through a desalination plant. The South Australian state Labor government was prepared to do something about that and, in order to support them, the federal government came to their assistance and what might have been a 50-gigalitre desalination plant will now be either an 80-gigalitre or, with any luck, a 100-gigalitre desalination plant. That is going to start the process of getting us water security in South Australia for drinking water.

What else are we doing? We are starting to buy stations like Toorale Station as part of a long-term process to increase the amount of water that flows into South Australia. Adelaide needs about 230 gigalitres of water a year. The Murray, as far as it relates to South Australia, needs about 900 gigalitres of water. We are starting this process of buying it back. The previous government did nothing to do that. We have started this process and we will continue to do that. We will continue to buy water. We are not going to force people who currently have water rights to sell those water rights, but we are going out there into the market to purchase this water to get it to where we need it, which is South Australia. We are not prepared to risk Adelaide’s long-term water supply so we are leaving some of that water— (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Faulkner to a question from my colleague—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I know she knows I know her name: Senator Fisher. I have some very serious concerns about this whole debate. The answer given by Senator Faulkner really leads us to the crux of this problem around Toorale Station. The purchase of Toorale Station shows such a lack of strategy and such an ad hoc approach that it is representative of the entire approach that the government is taking towards the situation with water around this country. I agree with my colleague Senator Hutchins when he referred earlier to ‘taking the politics out of this’. To my mind, there is no bigger issue at the moment for this country than water and how it is managed. Taking the politics out of it is very difficult because, as colleagues in this place know, we sit on either side of this chamber, as in the other place, and there are varying views.

Today I would like to talk about the impact that decisions like buying Toorale Station have on regional communities. We talk a lot about the situation with water around this country. We argue backwards and forwards across the chamber and through the media, but we have to remember that this is about people. This is about people who live in communities. It does not matter whether they live in Adelaide, Melbourne, along the Murray or anywhere else in this country that is dependent on water because it is those people that are being affected by our decisions—the decisions the government make and the decisions that we try to get them to make or to change as the opposition. It is an absolute responsibility that we get that right because those people out in those communities need us to make the right decisions.

Where this gets incredibly difficult is that it has not rained. It does not matter how much policy we put in place, how many determinations we make to change policy or to do things differently—it has not rained. And around the country we collectively have to understand how important that very simple statement is. Mark Twain once said, ‘Whisky is for drinking and water is for fighting over.’ We have to stop fighting over this and put some practical, sensible policy measures in place. We have got to stop arguing about whether or not CO2 is causing climate change. We have to accept that the climate is changing, regardless of the reason for that climate change.

I am very concerned about the lack of planning and strategy that we are seeing from the government in terms of how their policy decisions are going to affect communities—not only rural and regional communities but also those metropolitan communities at the end of the line, if you like. There were references before to a committee, which is running an inquiry at the moment, commenting on the fact that there is a lack of information about the social and economic impact that is going to be brought on rural and regional communities as a result of the decisions on policy being made around water. And Toorale is a classic example. Around 100 jobs are directly being lost. The local community up there is going to be significantly changed in how it operates and, indeed, whether it is sustainable. And yet we have seen no investigation from the government of any kind on the social or economic impact on the community. And yet they have made an ad hoc decision to buy Toorale Station. There can only be some major implications. As I understand it, the government did not even go there to have a look, to actually see. They are working from some kind of evidence or advice provided. They have not even been to have a look.

So my absolute concern is that this strategy is ad hoc. We have seen recently a $50 million water buyback by the government, which effectively bought airspace in dams. I understand that we need to be concerned about the environment. We all are. There is no-one more concerned about the environment than farmers. I can tell you that now. It is their livelihood. It is how they live; it is how they make a living. I did notice that in one of the answers before concern was expressed about the impact on the environment of the pipeline in Victoria. There was no mention of impact on farmers and regional communities! I implore that we all work together on this but I argue that the government is going down a path of ad hoc strategy which needs to be fixed because there are significant life-changing ramifications for those people who particularly live in our rural and regional communities right across the country.

Question agreed to.