MURRAY RIVER BUYBACK SCHEME

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:48): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of Government Business, representing the Premier, a question about the Victorian water trading cap.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Mr President, you may well have been excited to hear the news last Friday that Senator Xenophon (formerly the Hon. Nick Xenophon MLC) succeeded in compelling the Rudd Labor government to bring forward up to $1 billion in water spending for water buyback, infrastructure and stormwater harvesting, amongst other things—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That's where we are getting to—as a stimulus for the communities and the environment along the River Murray. Mr President, like me, you may have even contacted the senator, supporting his staunch and intelligent fight for South Australia—unlike some of his fellow South Australian senators.

It came to light yesterday that a significant obstacle to that package being implemented is the 4 per cent cap on water trading in Victoria. Once again we have Victoria standing in the way of water reform and delivering benefits for the whole Murray-Darling Basin system, in particular, South Australia. My questions, therefore, to the Leader of Government Business for the Premier are:

1. Why did the Premier not come out to support the Xenophon position on the River Murray last week when he was under fire for holding up the $42 billion stimulus package?

2. Has the Premier congratulated Senator Xenophon for his fantastic achievement for South Australia?

An honourable member: Has the Family First senator?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Family First senator actually supported the amendments and voted with him.

3. Will the Premier call Premier Brumby today and insist that Victoria lift its unfair and selfish 4 per cent trading cap?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:50): I can hardly let that comment go. Of course, it has been long known that Victoria has had that limit with the cap. It is scarcely something that came to light yesterday. It might have been for some people, but it certainly was not for anyone who is well informed about the water debate.

Since the honourable member talks about Senator Xenophon's position in the Senate last week and what the Premier and others might have said about it, I can inform the honourable member what the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament said about it. In his press statement, Mr Hamilton-Smith sent Senator Xenophon a message of support in his talks with the Rudd government over the stimulus package. Interestingly enough, he did not seem to send anything to Malcolm Turnbull, who voted against it.

If the reports that I have read from the Senate are correct, it seems that the Liberal Party voted against the package with and without Senator Xenophon's amendment, so it opposed it all the way through. So I think it is rather extraordinary that Mr Hamilton-Smith should be writing to Senator Xenophon but not to his own federal leader, Mr Turnbull, who voted against it. It is rather extraordinary.

There also seems to be some confusion as to exactly what would happen. It is interesting that in his press release the leader in another place said:

I have just returned from the Riverland and it is clear that the Murray needs the fast-tracking of federal money to buy water to keep the plantings alive. Irrigators face losing their livelihoods and local businesses closing without urgent financial support from Canberra.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition says when he is in the Riverland. What does he say when he goes down to the lakes? What he says when he goes down to the lakes is, 'We need water for the lakes.' Members like the honourable member aside, no wonder they are squealing when their deception is revealed, because what do they do? Why do members opposite not work out what they want to do with the water? Do they want to give more water to irrigators or do they want it to go down to the lakes? Then we have the nonsense of some members opposite who are trying to suggest that 30 gigalitres down in the lakes will be enough. On a hot day, it is about one or two weeks' evaporation. It is just extraordinary.

In relation to that, the honourable member asked about the Premier's views in relation to the agreement that was reached in the Senate last week. I am sure the honourable member would be well aware that the Premier has written to the federal minister, Senator Penny Wong, seeking assurance and asking whether that agreement will mean extra water coming down the river and when that will be. The Premier asked that exactly because of the concerns this government has had for a long time as to whether we will actually get the water.

I do not intend here to criticise Senator Xenophon, but what I think we do need to put on the record is that, if we are to get more water to our irrigators and down to the Lower Lakes, the fundamental thing is that it needs to rain. One can only hope that, with the massive amount of rainfall we have seen in the northern parts of New South Wales, some of that will find its way down here. That remains to be seen. I am sure all of us would like that to happen, because that is ultimately the only way we will be able to deal with the severe water problems we face at the moment.

It is also worth commenting that one of the problems we have, since Victoria has been mentioned, as has come to light in the past 24 hours, is that the bushfire damage will severely affect Victoria's catchment areas, and as the trees recover they will absorb significant amounts of additional water, which might well affect the water flowing into those catchments. Clearly the Victorian cap on water is something this government has been long pressing to change. The Minister for Water Security has publicly commented on it. Of course it should be changed, but how that will be done is another matter.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition in another place was so quick to jump out and support this package and—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Showing some leadership.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Showing some leadership! He goes to the Riverland and says, 'This is great for the irrigators', and goes down to the Lower Lakes, forgets about the irrigators, and says, 'Oh, we just need water for environmental flows'. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways. If we are to provide extra water in the Riverland, it will not make it down to the Lower Lakes. I suggest that members opposite work out what they want instead of trying to deceive the voters of South Australia with this duplicitous dual message by telling the Riverland one thing and the people of the Lower Lakes another.

It is important to note that on this very day there has been the opening of a scheme that was part of a $500 million or $600 million package to assist people living in the Lower Lakes by providing those people with quality filtered potable water.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Death by 1,000 cuts! This lot opposite do not even express gratitude to Labor governments, state and federal, that are spending a massive amount of money dealing with the water problems in the Lower Lakes. In the past month, in January, even in Victoria with the excessive water use caused by the bushfires, it was the lowest intake into the Murray-Darling system ever recorded. That is the heart of the problem.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is the lowest ever recorded in that month—lower than during any other summer. It is about time members opposite, instead of trying to create disinformation—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister does not require any help from his back bench, as he is doing very well by himself.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The other point I make in relation to the Xenophon package is that it was essentially a bringing forward of money that had already been provided for by the federal Labor government. It is interesting that that package was opposed by members of the federal Liberal Party.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: And he has spent nothing of it. The honourable member says that John Howard put up that money. Why did he not spend it? He had 18 months after announcing it, and he did not spend a cent of it—that is how serious he was! If you believe that a stitch in time saves nine, it may have been a lot better spent then two or three years ago than now. This government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, as was witnessed today, with the opening of the pipeline to service the people in Meningie and the Lower Lakes region. To return to the question, I certainly agree with the honourable member that the Victorian water cap is an impediment to successfully ensuring we get the transfer of water we so badly need for both our irrigation areas and the Lower Lakes?