HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Final Stages

The House of Assembly disagreed to the amendments made by the Legislative Council.

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendments.

We have had a long debate today in relation to the particular amendments that were moved in this place and, at this time of day, I do not believe it is appropriate to repeat all of the issues involved. I will simply state that the legislation before us which refers powers to the commonwealth in relation to water is a very historic bill. It has taken 120 years since this issue was first discussed in the pre-Federation conferences until the actual referral of power from the states to the commonwealth government.

I believe it is imperative that that reference of powers be done in a uniform way from all the states to minimise any risks that could lead to this whole issue being opened up again. We have a very difficult situation in relation to the River Murray at the moment. We are facing one of the worst droughts ever recorded. It is imperative that we take this opportunity to ensure that we have this referral of powers, so I urge the committee to not insist on the amendments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal Party will be supporting the motion to not insist on these amendments, and I will briefly outline our reasons. During the period from when we first placed our position on the record and in the meantime, a couple of us have spoken to the community liaison, the Hon. Dean Brown, who provided the explanation that unfortunately we did not receive on the record in this place. He has outlined the difference between critical human water needs and high security water needs and explained that, if we were to insist on the amendments, some of that water would be the equivalent of what is nationally high security water. We also do not wish to hold up the passage of the bill. We continue to support the sentiments behind the honourable member's amendments but we will not be insisting.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I understand that it is late but I will spend a few minutes summing up if I may. First, I can count—that is one thing I did learn—and, clearly, the numbers will not be there for me to insist on the amendments. I place on the public record first and foremost my appreciation of the opposition and the Hon. Ann Bressington for supporting the amendments; it is appreciated.

I am disappointed at the way the government has gone about almost holding a gun at the head of many people in relation to the debate in another place (which I did sit in and listen to) with respect to what I reckon was a pretty pathetic reason for not allowing the amendments.

The government has an exit package to say goodbye to permanent plantings for those who want to pull them out. However, this state government has failed, unlike Victoria and New South Wales, to have a proper irrigation plan and a proper food bowl plan for South Australian irrigators. I am very disappointed about that. The irrigators with permanent plantings in particular, but all irrigators, deserve at least a plan. What I heard today was a government that is on the run and scared to upset number one—its federal colleagues. It is very unfortunate that a government—and, particularly, a minister and a Premier—will put the idealistic approach of a partnership between the federal government and itself before the best interests of South Australians.

Family First supports industry, but I find it pretty frustrating that no pressure and no initiatives have been put forward to address water savings by industry, whether it is stormwater harvesting, catchment, recycling or whatever else. Industry has had no restrictions placed on it whatsoever, yet people are bleeding big time right along the River Murray system. I know how some government ministers and members work, and, because I am a dairy farmer, I noted with interest that the ministers in both houses were happy to highlight the fact that my amendment was not doing anything for dairy farmers.

Well, let me say this: I will do a lot for dairy farmers, all South Australians and all industry sectors as best I can for as long as I am in this chamber without fear or favour and without doing deals with the federal government, which tries to get a press release out as quickly as it can to say that, through legislation, it has championed for 100 years to hand back the powers. It is rubbish. Every member who has spoken knows that these powers are a joke, that this legislation could have been much stronger and that the Premier and the minister could have fought so much harder for a better deal for South Australians than they have.

It is about a quick fix, it is about spin and it is about getting to the next election hoping that the government will jump over the line. That is how government has been operating, and that is not good enough for people in the Riverland and along the River Murray. I will be highlighting to those people how pathetic the government really was in working for the best interests of water allocation entitlements. I want to reinforce the fact that New South Wales and parts of Victoria have a 95 per cent allocation or high-security water, yet it is 15 per cent here. When it comes to dairy farmers and vegetable growers, the fact and the truth of the matter is that the amendment I was hoping to get through meant there would not be any irrigation for dairy farmers but they were guaranteed stock water to keep their stock alive.

There was not going to be any water for vegetable growers, and that is most unfortunate. This was an amendment to at least ensure that the permanent plantings could be kept alive. It is a very disappointing situation as far as I am concerned. Again, I thank the opposition and the Hon. Ann Bressington for their support. This is not the bill that it could have been. There are a lot of question marks over whether South Australia—when we finally do see a plan—is going to get any better go than it has in the past. I feel less than confident with the way in which the government has gone about this whole approach. I have been pretty strong, but it is from the heart. This is truthful stuff.

I have had a stomach-full of the spin, the rhetoric and just trying to get that front page story. In my opinion, today the irrigators along the River Murray who have got $1.5 billion worth of permanent plantings have been done over by the minister, the government and the Premier.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have had a gutful of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire grandstanding in here trying to delude farmers in this state that he has some miracle cure for them. He has not. There is lot more one could stay about it, but it is high time that, after 120 years, we got this important piece of legislation passed.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I agree with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in saying that the Labor government, the minister and the federal government have failed to protect permanent plantings adequately in the agreement they reached in July this year. Having failed to secure an agreement, regrettably it is too late to achieve that same outcome in this legislation. South Australian growers with permanent plantings were sold down the river in that agreement, and it is a matter of regret that we cannot save the situation by this legislation.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I reiterate that I still support the amendments of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for the reasons that he stated and also because this parliament is here for the people of this state. We are supposed to be the ones standing up to the federal government, where necessary, looking out for the best interests of this state. As was said in the second reading speeches, this bill could have been better. Just the fact that the minister could not answer a straight question during the committee stage on whether or not we have a food bowl plan was of concern to me. Obviously, we do not. It is a case of taking it as it comes, flipping a coin and see who comes out of this at the end with land to work on and, for the rest of us, having local food to eat. I think it is a great shame.

The tactics used in this bill are no different from the tactics used in the WorkCover legislation, the legal practices bill and even, this week, also, the Hon. Rory McEwen's tactics to bend and break the cockle industry in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. There is a pattern here, and we should all hang our heads in shame that we give in to the bullying tactics of this government every single time.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind members that parliament does not always agree with a member's point of view, and I am confident that everybody elected to this council does their best endeavours for the South Australian community. That will be reflected in the vote–whatever the vote may be. I think that when members stand up to put their point of view across they should be prepared to listen to the other members' points of view and, if they are not, perhaps they should not play a role in democracy.

Motion carried.


At 18:22 the council adjourned until Tuesday 11 November 2008 at 14:15.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT