Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Water policy isn't academic.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cadell, I hope that is not a prop on your desk.

As long as it remains on the desk and is not held up in the air and made to look like a prop.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, President. Basin policy isn't academic. It's about whether towns can survive, thrive and grow and whether they can supply the needs of Australia. This is why water policy is so important. Water is life—let's not pretend anything else—and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan dictates so much of that in regional Australia. When we have a town like Bourke that has lost 40 per cent of its water supply and 60 per cent of its population over the last 10 years, you see the effect it has on communities.

The President was talking about the water I have on my table. This is water from Narrandera, from the tap. People from the city, who don't understand, will call it Narran-derr-a, but it is Narrandera. This is what people can expect in the bush. That is pure tap water that we have there.

This is why we have to go through with this. What we need is action. We can talk about royal commissions and different policies, but you can't create that unless you are the government. This is why we're here today to call a committee of inquiry that can do something now and look into the actions of one of the largest water holders in the country and how it operates, because there has been concern over the past year. There have been instances where they ceased to pump water in New South Wales because they admitted themselves that they weren't compliant with the New South Wales water-metering standards. This is the largest water holder in New South Wales saying they can pump no more because they don't comply with the rules. This is the government's water holder saying that.

If we're in these situations, we need to look at what happens. This is a water holder that has not used its allocation since it's been around. They never use their full allocation, but they continue to buy more water. When you question how much water they have bought, it is not for publication. You have to dig deep and do a forensic dive to see how much they are spending. Look at the WESA report. They're talking about $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion—up to $2 billion per year buying water rights when they aren't using the water they already have. Something is crook in Tobruk if you are spending billions to buy more water when you're not using the water you have.

Later on in this conversation, we'll hear the people of South Australia say, 'We want more water; we want more.' They already have enough water to give more water, but we are buying more water off towns, growers and communities that need it. When I was out at Louth, out past Bourke, we saw a weir. Under the framework, they had to lower the weir to build a new one because you can have no more containment or no more capture under this legislation. So they wanted to spend $70 million to lower the water security of Louth. This is a place that had put its own people on fire alerts because, over the last two months of the last season, it didn't have enough water to put out a house fire if it happened. They did not have enough water under their licence to prevent a house fire, so they went around proactively trying to do this.

What we're doing here is having a look at this, because river health is so important. No-one is saying that is not the case. But, if you go down to Shepparton and look at the river down there, where the Goulburn River and the Broken River join together, there is no ability to get the water licences they hold in that catchment out of that river, because of the choke and other reasons. When you can't get the water out of where you own it, there is no point owning it. So downstream from there, in South Australia and Victoria, all these areas can't get that environmental water flow benefit. What we're seeing more and more is that, when there are environmental releases, they cause localised flooding in agricultural areas. The water isn't going to the environment or the wetlands. It's not going to the Coorong, as so many people claim. It is going on agricultural land because there is too much for the banks of the river to hold.

That is why we're here today calling for an inquiry now, not waiting for a government to change its mind and have a royal commission on the future and not doing anything that relies on the goodwill of the Labor government. We are calling for something the parliament can do. The important part of this is that this commission would report back to the parliament, not get a report to the government, which would sit on it for months or years—forever and a day—and never reply. This would be an open policy where we can see what the concerns are going forward. Since the start of the current government, $5.9 billion has come out of water infrastructure and gone into buybacks—almost $6 billion. Water infrastructure—the National Water Grid—is crying out for funding. The Wilcannia Weir needs to be upgraded, and Wilcannia is another town that's running out of water. The state government said how much they would spend to upgrade the Wilcannia Weir, but the federal government was not able to match it, so the Wilcannia Weir is off the record—once again, another town where water security will not happen because we can find $6 billion to take water out of communities but we can't find $70 million to put water into communities. That is the farce that we deal with as we go forward.

We're not just saying this government is wrong on water. Let's be honest here: state governments have so much to do in this plan, and they didn't do it. They aren't doing the work. They aren't doing the SDL work or the complementary measure works that are required under this plan. When I spoke to a state water minister who signed the deal at the time, this is the quote I got: 'I signed up for the benefits. I never thought I would have to do the work.' That is the attitude here. Without someone in charge of water, it is always somebody else's problem. So we are not seeing the work done on river health. We are not seeing the work done on catchments. We are not in the work done on carp in the catchment. Let's face it: what would these rivers look like if we didn't have these introduced monsters tearing up the bottoms, getting rid of life and killing native species all throughout? I know the communities are there. I know VicWater is very keen for a trial of carp eradication in Victoria, and I say Lake Brewster would be a great site for a trial in New South Wales. That's in the northern end of the Farrer electorate.

We're talking about doing what we have to do to put life back into regional Australia, not to harm the environment. People get up and say, 'Oh, that's stealing the water,' and this, that and the other. The old joke is that everyone upstream steals and everyone downstream wastes it, but is not the case. This is a case of no-one taking responsibility for the effective management of water throughout the chain. This inquiry would only get down to how much is being spent. It is getting away from the not-for-publications. How is the water being used? What are the successes? That is the thing. If you read the Northern basin toolkit report, you'll see some of the massive failures in national water grid funding and you won't see many successes, because the states aren't stepping up. I don't want to put a whole lot of stuff where it's not needed. The federal government has been okay with supplying the money, but the states aren't doing the work. The fact is that the federal money shouldn't be buying water back; it should be making the states do this work.

Go out to the Menindee Lakes. Under the original plan, one of the man-made ones and one of the original ones were meant to be closed down. This was meant to deepen the rest of them so we wouldn't have the evaporation problem. What is happening with the lining of channels? What is happening with the evaporation work that goes on? All of these things can be looked at. What has happened year on year with the accrual of DCCEEW water and the environmental water not being used is it is increasing the capacity of environment water in dams, so the usable water is getting smaller. If you don't use 20 per cent of your environmental water this year and it accrues in the dam, that is a high percentage of that dam that it is used for environmental water. Year on year, it gets bigger, so much less water is available in our storage units for agricultural and community use. I get that 71 per cent of our water is accrued environmental flows, but, when it is taking over the catchments—so we might have a tonne of water; we just can't use it in communities. We can't get it down the rivers. We can't get it down the chokes. When we do, as I said, we are flooding towns. We had the triple bottom line test there. It had to be environmentally, economically and socially acceptable before we went on any buyback. That has gone by the wayside.

I'll go back to Bourke again. When you go through the 60 per cent population drop, a sad stat when we talk about regionality and our Indigenous people, no-one has graduated from Bourke High School within an ATAR in eight years. In eight years, no-one has graduated from Bourke High School with an ATAR, because the population is falling and because the investment in the town is diminishing. That is the indictment. You're not going to close the gap. You're not going to help Indigenous people until the communities they live in and around are prosperous. It's geographical isolation as much as it is a racial problem, and we have to fix these things. We can't walk away from that.

Our farmers already know. They are trying to be more productive with the water they have, but, when you're out there and things are tough and the government is spending up to $2 billion a year in the market, it is very attractive to sell your water. I get that. I cannot blame you for trying to survive. But the government should not be buying the water. This is what we get down to. It should be spending this money on infrastructure to make sure the water we have is used better. Environmental uplift water is there; why don't we have economic uplift water? If a town can be better and be more, why can't a town go to DCCEEW and say, 'I've got a chance to make my community better by doing this,' after which DCCEEW leases them water? Why are we buying water instead of short-term leases when we need it? There are many more things you can look at in what we do. The latest thing this term is another 130-gigalitre buyback. Once again, I've said on the record: we don't use the water we've got, but under this we've removed the guidelines to a 130 gigalitre buyback in this term of government.

We in the Nationals and the coalition Liberals oppose all water buybacks in the basin. They have enough water. There should be no more buybacks until everyone does what they said they would do at the beginning, and you'll see you do not need them. Get rid of the carp, put the infrastructure in, build better storage, and we will be fine—I say as I'm choking. I'll have a drink of my Narrandera water! When communities don't even have safe drinking water, how can they thrive? This is why we need to fund the water treatment works as part of the national water grid. This is why we need to consider people again. It is not just the environment. It is people, and it is accounting for all water. You can't divert the channel waters that used to flow from the Coorong into the ocean and not account for them. You cannot have overland flow harvesting, where you can't take the water even though you're flooding, which causes destruction of the banks and rivers down low. If you take more water, which actually mitigates some of that flooding, you are in breach of the act. This is ridiculous.

This bill calls on an open inquiry into the aspect of Commonwealth water only. It is not a free-for-all on who took what and who does what in the environment. It is narrow to the actions of government. But it is something we can do now by passing a bill that reports back to the parliament. It is a real thing. If the government, the Greens and everyone believe that the CEWH is doing the right thing, they should welcome the scrutiny and get the tick. I do not believe that the CEWH is doing the right thing at the moment. I don't believe it's necessarily bad management. I don't think it's bad operation. I think the rules under which they operate are unfair to communities and farmers. That is why we want to do this.

A royal commission may take some time; it may take two years. It comes back to government, and they look at all sorts of things. Depending on who the royal commissioner is, it may be very unsuccessful for the people that want it. But this will get to the bottom of the operations of the largest water holder in the basin. It will get to the operations of government. It will be done quicker and be more cost effective to the people, and we'll get an answer that everyone can see. Unlike we see in my Narrandera water, we want transparency in this basin. We want transparency in decisions. And we want transparency in water flows and allocation, because so much of Australia relies on it.

Like we're seeing national sovereignty and oil supply lines run out right now, we will see the same with food if we don't protect these communities. When we are putting foreign food on our foreign tables brought in with our foreign cars because we can't use Australian water or Australian resources to grow them, this is where we go. We want clear answers on environmental water, what is being done, what is being achieved and what it has cost our communities. When they come here and tell the real stories they have—as I said, storage has been overtaken by environmental water, and the environmental water is flooding irrigation areas and farmlands, and communities are suffering—it is not good enough. We are spending so much of our money covering for states that will not do the work, refuse to do the work and keep coming back and saying, 'more money for this, more money for that'. We don't have it anymore, because we're spending it on bloody water buybacks. Why does the government need more of something they have too much of?

We can make the environment blossom with the water we have using better management. We can make the farmers more efficient with the water they've got by doing works that protect it. I urge the parliament to support this bill. It is so important for the regions. It is so important for our communities. And, if we don't, we are turning our backs on our farmers.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've seen again why you simply cannot trust the National Party when it comes to water policy in Australia. It's worth remembering that, while the Liberal National coalition government was in power for nearly 10 years, they had 10 years to recover 450 gigalitres of water for the environment under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and they recovered two. They recovered two gigalitres out of the 450 gigalitres that was required under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. For the entire time that they stood idly by, we saw the environmental condition of the Murray-Darling Basin deteriorate—10 years of neglect—just as we saw in so many other policy areas under the coalition government.

Today, yet again, we see a stunt from the National Party on water policy. Well, on this one they're late to the party, calling for a royal commission regarding aspects of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. We know the only reason they've put this forward is that they know they're about to run a distant fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh in the Farrer by-election. The former leader, David Littleproud, admitted as much. Now they're coming late to the party, trying to make a name for themselves when it comes to water policy, ahead of a by-election where they know they're going to get flogged. That's what this is about.

This is not a sincere attempt from the National Party, just as we've never seen a sincere attempt from the National Party, to grapple with the very real environmental pressure we've seen the Murray-Darling Basin under, which of course is the biggest threat we see to the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Continued ignorance of the environmental needs in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a massive long-term risk to the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin. And what do we see from the National Party, who say they represent farmers? They continue to ignore the scientific reality that the Murray-Darling Basin is under immense environmental pressure and that that is a threat to the long-term future of the agriculture sector.

We've already seen, in the run-up to the Farrer by-election, one of the New South Wales independent members, Helen Dalton—I think her electorate is Murray—call for a royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We've seen a similar call from one of the Independent candidates in the Farrer by-election, Michelle Milthorpe. So, finally, the old National Party warhorse gets moving, in the last day of these sittings, before the Farrer by-election, and what do they do? They copy what everyone else is doing and say they want a royal commission—no originality, no ideas, no future thinking about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, just terror from the National Party when it comes to the Farrer by-election, because they've already given up the ghost. So they're now clutching at straws, copying policies that have already been announced by other candidates running in that by-election. That is what is going on here this morning—not a sincere attempt to grapple with the very real issues facing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the communities that rely on that water flow.

In contrast to the National Party, our government is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including meeting voluntary water purchase targets and delivering water efficiency and infrastructure projects. We don't believe it needs to be one or the other. If you listen to the National Party, they will say it needs to be only water efficiency and infrastructure projects, without water buybacks. Our view is that it needs to be both. They always ignore the fact that this government has put billions of dollars into funding water infrastructure upgrades and water efficiency measures in the Murray-Darling Basin. They are an important part of ensuring that the Murray-Darling Basin remains strong into the future, but so are voluntary water buybacks.

And Senator Canavan: I think this is the very first time any of us have ever heard him take an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin. Could that be because there's a by-election coming up in the electorate of Farrer? All of a sudden he's concerned. Senator Canavan is of course the man who said that farmers were not the core constituency of the National Party. Now all of a sudden he's worried about the farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. It's almost as though he's become the leader of that party all of a sudden and is worried about what's going to happen in that by-election!

The reality is that the latest Murray-Darling Basin Authority Basin plan evaluation report and Sustainable Rivers Audit tells us we are better off with the plan and that the water we've recovered for the environment is helping rebuild river health to secure the long-term sustainability of the basin, its industries and its communities. As I've said, rebuilding the health of the Murray-Darling Basin through a combination of voluntary water buybacks, water infrastructure projects, water efficiency projects and other measures is vital to the long-term future of the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin. Any political party that claims to be standing by the future of the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin would be supporting the plan, not trying to pull it apart, as we constantly see from the National Party. The plan has also increased opportunities for communities to be more involved in decision-making, with more transparency and accountability in the decisions.

As a government, we recognise that the basin still faces challenges, and our government will continue to work towards a healthy basin for all its users. We recognise that buybacks have had an impact on some communities. But that plan has also delivered water security to significant parts of the country, including in South Australia. There's a reason the National Party recorded less than one per cent of the vote in the South Australian election—because South Australians know that the National Party are complete vandals when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin, and South Australians treated them accordingly. It's an inconvenient fact for the National Party, but agricultural production in the basin has continued to grow while more than 2,000 gigalitres—four times the size of Sydney Harbour—have been recovered to put the system on a sustainable footing. Water recovery has been voluntary and farmers have been compensated when they've chosen to sell their water rights, with these funds able to support investment and growth in their properties.

Our government has made a record investment in supporting community transition under the Basin Plan, making $300 million available to support adaptation to a future with less water. We have also worked to prioritise non-purchase options, committing more than half a billion dollars to improve water efficiency through infrastructure upgrades like making irrigation networks more efficient for our farmers. The Basin Plan's original settings reflected a necessary step change to ensure extraction returns to an environmentally sustainable limit. The 2012 sustainable diversion limits were designed to balance productive water use with restoring the basin's long-term health. Achieving that step change requires a mix of water purchase, efficiency investment and sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanisms, including the 450-gigalitre program.

When it comes to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that body manages the Commonwealth's environmental water holdings and has achieved significant environmental outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin over more than a decade. This includes supporting native fish to spawn, birds to breed in wetlands and threatened frogs to expand their range. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which people refer to as the CEWH, manages the Commonwealth's environmental water holdings very efficiently. It also invests in complementary on-ground activities that improve river and wetland health and what can be achieved with the Commonwealth's environmental water. The CEWH has contributed funding for infrastructure to improve connectivity, the re-snagging of river reaches for fish habitat, the removal of barriers to fish movement and the installation of fish screens for protection from irrigation pumping.

In summing up, the government will be opposing this bill. It's a stunt from a desperate National Party, which, in 10 years of government, effectively tore up the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, failed to recover the water necessary for the long-term health of the basin and, in doing so, betrayed the farmers they say they represent. If we want to have agriculture continue and the communities that support that industry continue well into the future in the Murray-Darling Basin, we have to face up to the reality that that river system remains under great environmental stress and that situation is not going to be made any easier as a result of the impacts of climate change—something the National Party also deny is a reality. We cannot continue to sell the agriculture sector and the communities in the Murray-Darling Basin down the drain by continuing to ignore the scientific reality that this river system is under stress and that that is going to increase as a result of climate change. That's why we need to see through the plan, which involves a combination of voluntary water buybacks, investments in water efficiency and investments in water infrastructure. That is the way to secure the long-term health of the basin, the communities that rely on it and the industries that rely on that water. We will be voting against this stunt, which is all about trying to salvage the National Party's reputation in the Farrer by-election and copying policies that have already been put out there by a range of other parties who are much more up to the task of dealing with the future than the National Party.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure, as Leader of the National Party in the Senate, as somebody sitting in the chamber who lives in the basin, in Wodonga, and who was born in the Murray-Darling Basin, to speak on the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Commission of Inquiry Bill 2026. I've watched, my entire political career, the impact of this Basin Plan on families, on food production, on the environment and on our future sustainability.

The minister stands up and talks a big game. This is the guy that had the great privilege of being the agriculture minister of this wonderful country, and he sells our agricultural industries and our regional communities down the river. If the Labor government thought they had a track record on agriculture food production and water policy, they would have the guts to run a candidate in the seat of Farrer—but they don't. They know that Albury, Griffith, Narrandera, Deni and everyone else in the seat of Farrer knows the Labor Party has turned their back on them and their families' future because they refuse to examine the rolling-out of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in a significant way.

The minister also fails to, in his contribution, recognise that the 450 gigalitres was never part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and was never part of the original agreement. It was a side deal done by Tony Burke to get it through, and taking the 450 gigalitres out of the basin was only to be done if you could prove there had been no social, economic or environmental damage. To a man and woman in the National Party, who represent and live in this community, we can take you, minister, any day of the week, to the communities that have been decimated as a result of this plan, from the agriculture industry screaming for responsibility about water to the many environmental sites that have been damaged by the way this environmental water holding is being used—the Barmah Choke screams it; the forest is literally dying because we are watering these trees too often for too long.

The very environmental outcomes you talk about aren't being achieved by the very base political approach to water policy that the Greens and the Labor Party pursue. It's all about the gigalitres. To anyone outside of the basin, it's giga-babble. But, if you say you're getting more gigalitres in Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne or Brisbane, they think it must be a good thing. Well, it's not. More doesn't mean better, just like how more sugar isn't better for you or eating more fat isn't good for you. Taking more water out of the basin doesn't naturally mean you're going to have better environmental outcomes. We know that. We've done so many Senate inquiries over the last 10 years into this. We've had scientist after scientist come in and say the level of fish stocks is on the increase. We don't need to be talking about gigalitres of removal as the only way to assure river health, community health and industry health.

That's the great farce of the politics that is played with the basin and basin communities by all sides of politics that don't live in it. We're absolutely sick of it. The Victorian Farmers Federation today put out a release saying that new analysis shows the basin water buybacks are sending Victorian agriculture broke and backwards. That's information the Labor Party doesn't want to hear. The minister hasn't even the respect to read the bill before the Senate today. This isn't about holding a royal commission. This is about actually ensuring that we can look into this right now. We know the Prime Minister doesn't want to actually look into this. We know the Labor Party doesn't want to have a deep dive into the impacts of the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

As a responsible party of government, what we have put forward today, what the shadow minister for water, Michael McCormack, has developed in consultation with others, and which Senator Cadell brings before the Senate today is a bill that brings a commission of inquiry forward. It is time limited and targeted. It is something the Senate today could vote to support and that, from opposition, we could actually see implemented. It is something we could do, instead of waiting for the Labor Party to get their act together. The Labor Party, Anthony Albanese and their partners, the Greens, have made it very, very clear how they're going to pursue water policy for basin communities. They're not just coming to fulfill the gigalitres required under the plan itself, they're coming for the 450, which was never part of the plan. They're using water buybacks to get it. They don't care about the health of the river, they don't care about the health of our communities, and they do not care about the sustainability of our agriculture system. In government, we did fight hard to increase supply, fund better efficiency projects and embrace water policy that backed our regional communities and our farmers, who are key to the national prosperity of our country.

These are the people we send our kids to school with—the men and women who get up every day and do more with less. But they are at breaking point. The southern connected basin, in particular, has borne the brunt of state and federal government water policy—all in the name of saving South Australian seats in Adelaide. At what cost? The men and women who I have listened to personally, who have farmed this land for generations, are at breaking point. Having a government who arrogantly comes into this chamber and pretends that they give a shit—sorry, that's very unparliamentary; I withdraw. To pretend that they care—you don't. The great privilege of holding ministerial positions, of being the Prime Minister, is that you can make change. Instead, you've chosen to come after the 450 gig and decimate our communities with water buybacks.

The reason we want to see a commission of inquiry is that we think these communities deserve to have a say. They are absolutely over inquiry after inquiry. They have inquiry fatigue. They think that people genuinely are asking their view and expertise on how we can use water and how we can have a better approach to policy, yet what they see—they put submission in after submission, whether it is rice grows, whether it is the dairy industry, whether it is the horticulture and cropping industry or indeed the local councils and community groups.

When you look at what Narrandera, a town in New South Wales in a developed country like ours—this is their drinking water, Australia! This isn't from Africa. This isn't from some undeveloped country. That's from the basin community, and it is a direct result of a failure of water policy from this government—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Acting Deputy President, props are inconsistent with the standing orders.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you could, please remove the prop, Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, come on! That's okay; I won't use it as a prop. This is what you're expecting—

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I apologise. I need to ask you to please not.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't drink the water like the Narrandera residents have to do, but I'm not going to—

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I would like for you to complete your speech, but I need to ask you to remove it.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not hold it up as a prop. But I think it says a lot about this chamber that they do not—

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I ask you to please remove the bottle of water from your table. The attendants might assist you with that.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that shows Australians that they're not just offended by what we say; they really don't want to know what's happening outside—

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I would like you to finish your speech. I ask you, please, to put the bottle of water under your—thank you. I appreciate that.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd do anything to assist the Senate!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's passing strange that they're offended by what I say, and now when I bring into the chamber not just the lived experience but the water that Australian citizens in New South Wales are expected to drink, you're offended to the point of shutting that down. Honestly! Is it any wonder people are fed up with the Labor Party and this government and the Greens, who facilitate their abomination? That is the water that our citizens are drinking because of your policy decisions. It's offensive to you and it should be offensive to you. It's embarrassing and shameful to all of us!

The commission of inquiry is a term-limited examination of how we can use science better. We know we don't need to take more water from the basin to get the environmental outcomes we need. We know that. The science is clear. You don't want to hear it, but it's clear, so let's make the decision to pause the buybacks, stop raping these communities of their water assets and actually have a commission of inquiry. I commend the bill to the Senate. We have so much more to say on this, and it's unfortunate that this debate will be concluding. When it does, I'll seek to just adjourn. We want to be able to discuss this more when private senators' time is able to come back.

In terms of basin communities, it says everything about this government that they do not want to hear from these communities. They're not running for the seat of Farrer, because they don't care. The Prime Minister promised that he would govern for all Australians. Well, that actually means that, when you have the opportunity to stand up and represent them, you take that chance. Cooey, Albo! By-election—you're nowhere to be seen. For those Labor voters in the seat of Farrer, if you care about the basin, as I know you do, and you actually appreciate the role of water in the sustainability of your communities not just out in Griffith or Denny but indeed in Farrer—it actually underpins your entire economic ecosystem—then you will be backing those candidates that want to see agriculture thrive, community sustained and the environment flourish.

And, yes, we're hearing the Greens and the Labor Party screaming across the chamber that, somehow, we're out of touch. Well, I am happy with every single speech I have made on water policy in the 15 years I've been in this place. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.