HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Matter of Urgency

SUGARLOAF PIPELINE

The PRESIDENT (14:26): The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has informed me in writing that he wishes to discuss a matter of urgency, that is, that this council:

1. acknowledges the Senate's amendment yesterday precluding the taking of any new water from the Murray-Darling Basin which, in effect, bans the proposed construction of a pipeline from the Goulburn River to Sugarloaf Reservoir, predominantly intended for metropolitan Melbourne water supply; and

2. calls upon the Premier to urgently contact the Prime Minister (Hon. Kevin Rudd MP) this afternoon requesting that the Prime Minister and his government support the said Senate amendment.

There is a requirement that more than three members must rise in their places as proof of the urgency of this matter.

Honourable members having risen:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:28): I move:

That the council at its rising adjourn until Thursday 27 November 2008 at 1pm.

I appreciate that this is an unusual gesture, but I could not overlook the urgent need for the parliament of South Australia to go in to bat for its people, and hopefully for the Premier and the state government to do the same.

As I have said, this is important and unusual. However, I advise members that it happened in this council in 2001, when the Leader of Government Business (Hon. Paul Holloway) moved a censure motion against the then treasurer. Late last night the commonwealth Senate passed an amendment by 33 votes to 20. Significantly, Senators Nick Xenophon and Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens) from South Australia, Senator Fielding (Family First) from Victoria and the federal coalition opposition were among the ayes.

The Senate amendment provided that no project that had begun, or would begin after 3 July 2008, would be permitted to be constructed by an infrastructure operator. The practical effect of this amendment, as the urgency motion states, is that it would spell the end to what is a controversial north-south pipeline—better known as the Sugarloaf pipeline—to supply water to metropolitan Melbourne via a pipeline inlet on the Goulburn River at Killingworth and an outlet at the Sugarloaf Reservoir, just west of Yarra Glen, which is part of the Melbourne metropolitan water supply system.

There has been great concern and debate about this matter in Victoria in relation to food producers. I am advised that, even in the city of Melbourne, while water restrictions and water problems have been an ongoing problem there—as they have been for Adelaide—a large number of people in Melbourne city itself are very concerned about this proposal. I must say that food producers in the Sunraysia area and other parts of Victoria—and certainly food producers to whom I have spoken along the length of the River Murray from Paringa through to the Lower Lakes—have been incredibly concerned about this proposal at a time when they are desperate for not only water for food production but also water for environmental flows.

Many of my colleagues in this council and in the other house have spoken about their concerns for the Lower Lakes. Indeed, just today the Minister for Water Security has announced some water flow increase to save the dying Lake Bonney. At the same time, the Victorian Sugarloaf proposal is estimated to cost $2.5 billion with a running cost of $40 million per annum—$2.5 billion for the infrastructure commitment to this project and $40 million per annum to run it. The Victorian Wonthaggi desalination plant is also proposed, at a cost of $3.1 billion with a running cost of $100 million per annum.

Family First in Victoria, through Senator Steve Fielding, has offered an alternative proposal to that of putting in the pipeline from Goulburn to Melbourne. That proposal is to use water that would normally flow out to sea in Bass Strait, which is enough to supply 35 times the whole of metropolitan Melbourne's water needs and three times the total demand of all Victoria for potable water. It would have a smaller carbon footprint than a desalination plant. Senator Fielding has also proposed a 30-kilometre tunnel from the Upper Yarra Dam to Lake Eildon, which is a significant reservoir, in order to allow water back into the River Murray via the Goulburn River. It would provide an opportunity to increase water flow from that part of Victoria to the Lower Lakes.

It is worth while having this debate. I believe that federal senators were putting forward those sorts of arguments when they moved the amendment to effectively stop the Sugarloaf pipeline. The Sugarloaf pipeline has the approval of the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (minister Garrett). In September minister Garrett approved the Sugarloaf pipeline from an environmental perspective, but one must wonder whether the minister had any regard to the environmental impact upon the Lower Lakes, the wetlands in Victoria and, of course, water flow through the whole of the lower River Murray system in South Australia.

The Big Brother approach of Victoria in my opinion puts at expense a lot of Australian families, arguably almost all South Australian families and certainly farming families and food producers living in the communities along the lower end of the River Murray, namely, from Paringa through to the Lower Lakes, and it also jeopardises the potential environmental recovery of the RAMSAR wetlands around Hindmarsh Island in the Lower Lakes.

What would a recurrent 75 gigalitres do if there was an alternative proposal? The argument from Premier Brumby in Victoria is that it would be water neutral, mainly because he was saying that, while 75 gigalitres would be going to Melbourne to supply householders there, with other initiatives they would be able to stop leakage, seepage and evaporation; and, with a more efficient technique, they are arguing that the water to Melbourne would possibly be neutral. Another argument is that, given that it is Australian taxpayers' money that is providing the $1 billion Victoria received through the COAG agreement, the 75 gigalitres could become part of the Living Murray water and come through to help to alleviate the desperate situation we see throughout the whole of South Australia along the River Murray, revitalise communities, revitalise and reinvigorate our economy and ensure we continue to see farming family food producers as we have known them in recent times being able to survive and prosper.

What would a recurrent 75 gigalitres do to the Living Murray? For starters, with the present state of the Lower Lakes, a recurrent 75 gigalitres would help to ensure that the RAMSAR protected wetlands would survive, and it would also be possible for Lake Bonney to get more than the 10 gigalitres that will now urgently be put back into Lake Bonney to prevent what I believe is a catastrophe happening, which has been highlighted by colleagues in this council, the Hon. Sandra Kanck for one, with the fish dying in the lake, etc. So, there are really good reasons for getting out there and fighting to stop the pipeline from Goulburn to Melbourne.

I remind colleagues that South Australia gets only 6.2 per cent of the whole Murray-Darling Basin system. This morning in public debate in the media on this, Professor Dean Jaensch highlighted the fact that there are problems with the handover bill. He confirmed what many of our colleagues raised in this council about it not having enough teeth and argued that there was not an absolute power of veto and absolute control when it came to the new independent authority. Whilst there has been some improvement with it, he stated—and I value his judgment—that the bill could have been much stronger. He also indicated, and many others have as well, that the only chance now to start to be serious about improving the river system would be for Prime Minister Rudd and his commonwealth government to support the amendment in the Senate and therefore ensure that the pipeline does not proceed. I think that is a pretty sound argument.

I want to give all my colleagues an opportunity to speak on this urgency motion, but I personally believe that this is a window of opportunity for the state government through the Premier to contact the Prime Minister this afternoon. We have seen other occasions when the Premier has got on the phone to the Prime Minister pretty quickly and advocated around certain issues, but I am told that, with the amendments, this bill will go into the House of Representatives this afternoon. If the Prime Minister really wanted to make a difference he could support that amendment and start to improve water flow and biosecurity and everything else that all of us really want to see happen in the River Murray system. At the end of the day, it gets back to the Premier in particular, as the leader of our state, to lobby very hard for the commonwealth government through the Prime Minister's leadership to stop this pipeline from proceeding and support the amendment.

The bottom line is that it gets back to our Premier showing absolute leadership. The South Australian community is screaming out for that. There is nothing more important on the mind of South Australians at the moment than water supply and water security and sustainability. I urge all honourable members in this chamber to support this urgency motion. Again, I want to put on the public record my congratulations to Senators Bernardi, Birmingham, Fisher, Sarah Hanson-Young, Nick Xenophon, Steve Fielding, and the senators in both the National Party and the Liberal Party federally, who made up the 33 to 20 in support of this amendment.

This is a very urgent matter, and I strongly urge members to support this motion. I trust that, if it is passed, the Premier will get on the phone this afternoon and call on the Prime Minister to support the amendment and help save the River Murray and give South Australia the chance it deserves.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:41): The first comment that needs to be made in this debate is that the standing orders of the Legislative Council obviously need urgent change. Yes, urgency motions have been raised in the past by the opposition; I have done it myself when in opposition. However, to have Independent members using it I think highlights a fault in our standing orders, and I undertake—I hope with the cooperation of the opposition—to correct that. There has always been a convention that requests to move urgency motions in parliament have never been rejected when they have been moved by the opposition, with reasonable notice. But for it to be used by minor parties in this way is an abuse.

This matter is supposedly urgent, and it was the subject of a debate last night in the Senate. I think we understand why we have had such trouble getting some legislation through and getting people to turn their attention to some of the critical legislation we have in this place. What you over there have been doing is spending your time listening to the Senate and reading the Senate debates. Why don't you pay attention to the bills that are before the Legislative Council rather than worrying about what is happening in the rest of the country? If you did so, you would realise how stupid this is.

If the Hon. Robert Brokenshire got up and said, 'I'm really stupid. I've really made a huge mess here,' it would make the point much more clearly than moving this motion. Do you know, Mr President, that one of the resolutions the Senate actually passed last night stated that critical water needs 'are the needs for a minimum amount of water that can only reasonably be provided from basin water resources required to meet human drinking, sanitation and health requirements in urban and rural areas'.

When we had the debate in this chamber a few weeks ago, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire moved an amendment seeking to expand the definition of 'critical human needs' to include permanent plantations. Last night, the Senate took a completely reverse position, and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is now trying to tell us that the Premier should ring up the Prime Minister and say, 'Support it.'

Where does the Hon. Robert Brokenshire stand on amendments like that? This one was completely in the reverse direction to the amendment he moved here only a few weeks ago, or has he forgotten that? Really, doesn't that say it all? Obviously, the honourable member either does not understand what he is doing or does not understand what other people are doing. How can you have it both ways?

Incidentally, Liberal members supported that resolution in the Senate last night. What that means now, of course, is that critical human needs now exclude the needs of industry. What the Liberal members in the Senate also did last night with their amendment was to impose restrictions by taking this action purportedly against what is happening in Victoria, which obviously has some relevance to South Australia.

If we are to start interfering with that, what is going to happen from here? Those upstream states of New South Wales and Victoria, which have far more voters than we have, will say, 'Well, if we are going to have minority senators from outside messing around in our affairs, we will start messing around in South Australia.' Who is going to lose out of that? Who will be the big losers? We all know who the big losers will be, and it will not be Victoria and New South Wales.

I will say something in a moment about that proposal in Victoria, which is not really a matter of urgency. However, I come back to another amendment that was moved in the Senate last night, effectively enforcing restrictions on the amount of water that could be taken by population centres outside the basin: that is what they restricted in Victoria. What does that do for OneSteel and Nystar in South Australia?

A by-election in Frome is coming up soon. Just a few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition was criticising the Premier, saying that he should not be going to Port Pirie because it was all fixed, yet last night senators from this state, along with their colleagues from other states, voted effectively to restrict the water that can potentially go to OneSteel in Whyalla and to Nystar in Port Pirie.

I think that the voters of Port Pirie will hear about that and have something interesting to say about it. Yet the Hon. Robert Brokenshire says that the Premier should ring the Prime Minister and tell him to support all these amendments that were moved last night in the Senate. I am sure that our Premier will not act against the interests of the people of this state.

The tragedy of what has happened is that the old-style politics of parochialism have reverted to the River Murray. A few weeks ago, it was touch and go because the Hon. Robert Brokenshire moved his amendment, even though it was totally the reverse of one moved in the Senate last night. Fortunately, it was rejected, and it was rejected because this parliament took the position that it wanted South Australia to be part of a new movement to try to get the politics out of the River Murray.

What has happened? These minority parties that want to get a bit of political coverage are right back into it and using their numbers to try to derail it. It is a tragedy that in this country we cannot get an agreement about the River Murray. Even Europe, where 16 countries speak different languages, some of which have been fighting each other for a thousand years, can agree about the Danube, the Rhine and other major rivers. It can agree on how to manage those rivers, but for some reason it appears to escape the people of this country because we have this sort of politicking.

As I understand the project in Victoria, it was about doing what we did here some 10 years ago, that is, replacing open drains and saving a significant amount of water, some of which would indeed go to Melbourne, but a significant amount (I think it was 80 gigalitres) would go back into the river as environmental flows. That is the sort of thing the honourable member is opposing.

It was interesting that none of the Victorian Liberals in the Senate actually spoke on the bill last night. If they had all thought that what was being done by the Brumby government was so bad, you would have thought they would be up in arms, but apparently none of them found the courage to speak. Of course, some of the Liberal senators from this state supported these resolutions which, potentially, will have quite dramatic effects on parts of our state, particularly Port Pirie and Whyalla.

Those senators voted to enforce reductions in the amount of domestic and industrial water that can be taken from the Murray. It is extraordinary that South Australian Liberal senators would rather play political games than enable key industries to get the water they need to operate and employ thousands of South Australians. It will be interesting to see just how far the Senate goes.

I would have thought that the Premier of this state had far better things to do than ring the Prime Minister and get him to worry about these amendments. I suspect that, when the total nonsense of these amendments and their contradictory nature comes to light, they will collapse within the next few days—as they deserve to do.

If the amendments do not collapse and we insist on them, there is really only one outcome I can see: Victoria will withdraw from the agreement and we will be back to where we started in the 1890s. All of the momentum will have gone, and it will have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency by a few individuals to get some political coverage. You will never get total agreement on water.

In relation to the upstream users, under section 100 of the Constitution the states have an inalienable right to the use of water for reasonable purposes, and that gives them immense strength. If we are to move towards a national system of management for the Murray, and if we are to depoliticise it, we need to get the states to refer their powers. Because of section 100, the commonwealth cannot use its powers to force the states to do anything in relation to water.

The tragedy is that, in a most unconventional manner, the time of this parliament has been used to bring up an issue that essentially affects another state. Of course, the River Murray Basin affects us all but, if we are to have the Senate starting to dictate on such matters, as it has in relation to Victoria, inevitably it will happen here in this state.

If you want to be a centralist, if you want to get rid of the states, then I guess you would support that sort of resolution; just hand it over to the commonwealth and let a few senators who happen to have the balance of power, in combination with a desperate and directionless opposition (such as we have in Canberra at the moment), use their numbers to get all sorts of amendments and dictate what we in this state might do and dictate the future of our industries. That is unacceptable to this government, and it will treat this so-called urgency motion with the contempt it deserves.

One could say much more, but I will not take up too much time at present and will allow other members the opportunity to speak. However, I need to point out the total hypocrisy of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in moving support for a series of amendments that are in total contradiction to what he moved here just a few weeks ago.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): I rise to speak to the motion on behalf of the opposition. I also indicate that, according to my colleagues behind me and from my own experience in nearly seven years here, while it does require just three people to stand in their place and support an urgency motion, the convention has been that the member has majority support to pursue that urgency motion.

I would like to put on record that when the Hon. Robert Brokenshire discussed this with me I made the offer that we, as the opposition, would be prepared to support a suspension of standing orders to allow him to move a motion without notice at the end of question time, or after matters of interest, or at some point today or tomorrow. We were happy for him to do that; he could have raised his issue and we would not have lost question time.

As we know, question time is important, and this is the second last sitting day—unless, of course, the government comes back next week to pass the very important planning amendments. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire suggested to me that he wanted to do this because it would be a wonderful opportunity for the television cameras to focus on the Legislative Council. Well, I point out that The Advertiser has deserted us today as a result of this.

The opposition has always been opposed to the pipeline to Melbourne; it has always opposed taking water out of the Murray-Darling Basin and sending it to Melbourne via a pipeline. It is 75 gigalitres of water that is to go to Melbourne but one can see that, over time, as Melbourne potentially grows, there would be more and more pressure on that particularly strained resource.

Even the Victorian Auditor-General, when pushed, questioned the actual water savings to be gained through putting in this pipeline, and putting channels into pipelines. What is of concern to the South Australian opposition is that, while the South Australian minister, the Hon. Karlene Maywald, also expressed concerns about those water savings, unfortunately we have seen her do very little. In fact, what we have seen is what little support she has left in her own electorate.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As the Hon. John Dawkins interjects, Mr Tim Whetstone was formally preselected on the weekend to stand against the Hon. Karlene Maywald at the next election, so we will see what happens at the ballot box.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! There were plenty of interjections when the minister was on his feet, so the Leader of the Opposition will have to put up with a few, too.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you, Mr President. The interjections are as urgent as always, even in an urgency motion. One of the problems is what happened behind closed doors when the deal was done with Premier Rann, minister Maywald, Prime Minister Rudd and Premier Brumby. What we know about the 75 gigalitres of water that is likely to go to Melbourne from the Goulburn River is that it is irrigation water.

What happens when it becomes metropolitan water? It becomes a different status of water: critical human need. It is interesting to note that, if the status of the water was to change, then we would be concerned. At the moment, if it is irrigation water, it is subject to restriction when under low flow and poor availability. So, you can see that, if it becomes water for critical human need, its status changes and, again, more pressure would be put on the river.

It was interesting, looking at the debate last night, that, in the second reading stage of the bill, Family First Senator Steve Fielding did not mention South Australia at all. I might add also, at this point, when the Hon. Robert Brokenshire congratulated senators from a range of parties for supporting the bill, he did miss out two very important and distinguished Liberal senators: Senator Nick Minchin and Senator Alan Ferguson. I hope that was just an omission and not a deliberate thumbing of his nose at those two gentlemen who have served our state so well.

Another issue of concern to the opposition, in particular, with the new water security arrangements is the appointment of Robyn McLeod as the South Australian Water Security Commissioner. I am not sure whether members are aware but Robyn McLeod is a failed Labor Party candidate and, I am told, a friend of the Deputy Prime Minister. She is now our Water Security Commissioner. However, what is more alarming is that she was the architect behind the Sugarloaf Hill pipeline project and, in fact, the food bowl project. Effectively, it is a bit like putting the wolf in charge of the lambs. This is someone who has significant links to the Labor Party, significant links to the project that is going to take the water to Melbourne and, yet, she is our Water Security Commissioner. I cannot believe that.

When you look at the figures for the food bowl project and the water savings from putting water into pipes and out of channels with less seepage—as I said, the Victorian Auditor-General questioned the savings that will be achieved—clearly, there will not be any. To appoint somebody who was the architect of the project in Victoria as South Australia's Water Security Commissioner (not to mention her connections to the Labor Party) raises some serious questions.

In the debate last night there was some discussion by a number of senators about weaning Adelaide off the River Murray. This opposition has always said that we should reduce our reliance on the Murray but that we should not wean ourselves off the Murray for the simple reason that, for Adelaide to get a little bit of water, there has to be an environmental flow or a dilution flow. We should always maintain some reliance, albeit small, on the River Murray so that we have the dilution flow. The moment we cut Adelaide off from the River Murray, there is no reason to send any water past, say, Tailem Bend. Therefore, you virtually confine the Lower Lakes to being a dustbowl. Clearly, that was something that I do not think the Senate, as a whole, really understood.

Of course, stormwater harvesting is something that this government has neglected. The opposition indicated support at the second reading stage of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's small bills. If we were in government we would not be so arrogant and pigheaded about it. We would embrace what he was doing and, in fact, he would not have needed to introduce them because we would be in government and doing what we said: investing some $400 million into harvesting and storing stormwater—which we intend to put in place after 10 March 2010.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Between $300 million and $400 million. Another point I would like to make, which I think is alarming, is that the South Australian community, through the River Murray levy, has put money into the Living Murray project to recover water in the Goulburn Valley and in the River Murray. The Living Murray project has used our taxpayers' money, so hard-working South Australians have put money into the River Murray levy, which has gone into the Living Murray project, which has gone to save water for environmental flows in the Goulburn River.

It is in the Goulburn River, and now they are talking about taking water from the River Murray. Basically, you cannot trust the Victorians; you cannot trust the Victorian government. People may scoff at that but I lived on the South Australian and Victorian border (which I have said in this place before) and I had several irrigation bores into the aquifer that traversed the Victorian and South Australian border. I had friends on the other side who did not. They went to the Victorian department and asked how to get a licence and how much they could have, and the message came back, 'Yes, you can have a licence and you can pump as much as you like because South Australia has a lot of irrigators and we are not getting our share, so you can take as much as you want.' That is the mentality we are dealing with, and we simply do not trust the government. I have had my fair share of time, and will allow others to speak.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:00): Communication is not necessarily a strong point among members in this place and I invite the Hon. David Ridgway, the next time he is aware that there is another way of getting this on the agenda without our sacrificing question time, perhaps to let us know.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is some responsibility on members of this chamber, when asked to do something such as debate an urgency motion, to ask what the ramifications of that will be: whether question time will go ahead and what effect such a debate may have on that aspect, and I rely on members of this place to take it upon themselves to ask those questions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you for your guidance, Mr President. Certainly we were taken a little by surprise. I was aware, by the time I stood up, that question time would be the sacrifice. Whether that means that this is such an abuse of process that the traditions of this parliament have been thrown out the window, I do not accept. There were probably some important press releases the government needed to read out during question time in response to questions from their own members, but this is an important issue. When we debated the River Murray bills, the Greens took the position that we would not move amendments to those bills in this place because we knew it would be given a thorough treatment in the Senate, and that is the treatment it got yesterday.

Introducing this motion calling on our Premier to urge the Prime Minister to accept the outcome of the debate in the Senate last night is an appropriate thing to do. I note that the successful amendments were joint Green and Liberal initiatives, and I also note that the Hon. Steve Fielding has come to the matter somewhat late, after most of the heavy lifting has been done, but nevertheless a good idea is deserving of support and we congratulate all those who support it. I note that the AAP Newswise this morning reported in relation to Senator Fielding:

A federal senator who voted to block Victoria's controversial north-south water pipeline has suggested the commonwealth instead build a pipeline from Tasmania to Melbourne. Coalition and balance of power senators are calling on the federal government not to overturn an upper house move to veto Victoria's Sugarloaf pipeline project. Opposition and crossbench senators on Tuesday joined forces to change the government's Murray-Darling Basin takeover bill. They added an amendment that would block the pipeline, which would carry up to 75 billion litres out of the basin to Melbourne every year.

So, it is an important issue. In debating the River Murray legislation we talked about how to get around parochial state interests. The Victorian pipeline is a classic example of a parochial state interest.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister interjects. I do not for one minute support the Tasmanian pipeline project; we need to acknowledge the good ideas as they come forward, but some poorer ideas are not deserving of support. The Victorians claim that they will save some water, and that some will go back to the river and some to Melbourne. The Greens' response to that is to say that the investments in irrigation efficiency that the Victorians are talking about to save water is a modernisation activity that Victoria should be undertaking anyway to address its over-allocation. You do not put a spin on those efficiency measures by saying, 'Let's siphon off some water for Melbourne while we're at it.' The other reason that I support the urgency of this is that we have just today, within the last hour, had the release of the State of the Environment Report, and the headline item in that report is the parlous state of South Australia's waterways. It talks about the Coorong, the river, Lake Bonney with its dead fish and the wetlands that have been closed off due to evaporation. So, if spending one hour in our last sitting week to raise this matter of national and South Australian importance is an abuse of our process, then I think we have missed the plot.

This is an important motion. I urge all members to support it because, if we allow states such as Victoria to let their parochial interests override us, heaven help the process of the joint management of the Murray-Darling.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (15:05): When I was approached to support this motion, I checked the standing orders and found that we would miss out on question time, so I was a bit taken aback by the statements made at the beginning of the Hon. Paul Holloway's contribution when he said that standing orders need to be amended or changed because this has happened. The standing orders do not talk about the conventions: they only tell you the rules. If, indeed, it is the intention that it has to be a majority of people supporting the suspension of standing orders, or whatever—the introduction of a matter of urgency—then perhaps it should be amended. However, reading it does not tell us that. So I was shocked by what the Hon. Paul Holloway said, because there are six crossbenchers here and only seven government members and, maybe after the next election, there will be even more crossbenchers than government members. So, it was quite an amazing thing for him to say.

A little over 12 months ago I attended a meeting of the Murray-Darling association in Dubbo, and that was not long after the Victorian government had announced it was going to build this pipeline. The irrigators from the Goulburn River valley were absolutely ropable. They were angry that water that they believed ought to be left in the system one way or another was going to be sent to Melbourne.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It may well be good for irrigation. We have heard arguments in recent times that Adelaide is located in the wrong place in relation to water. Had it been located right on the banks of the River Murray, I do not think we would be using any less with the population that we have. The only advantage would be that we would not be using the electricity to pump the water. So I think that sort of argument is a bit of a furphy.

The Hon. David Ridgway talked about the debate in the Senate last night when comments were made about Adelaide needing to wean itself off the Murray. I used to hold that view, but I take a contrary view now because I do not think any other state or region would care as much for this river as do South Australians, and weaning us off the Murray is probably the wrong thing if we want the natural environment along the Murray to survive in any way, shape or form.

So, it is disturbing on the one hand to hear people saying that we in South Australia should be weaned off the Murray and then hearing the arguments that this pipeline must be constructed and water taken down to people in Melbourne. I heard on the radio this morning Premier Brumby saying that if this pipeline is not constructed the people of Melbourne will be running out of water in 10 years. Well, there is a cheaper solution—and a less technological one—and it is called limiting your population, and it applies to Melbourne just as much as it applies to Adelaide. Quite simply, we have more population here in South Australia than our water supplies can support, and it looks like the same thing is happening in Melbourne. So let us go to a simpler and much less expensive solution.

I also want to record that the Natural Resources Committee of parliament earlier this year visited a number of communities and spoke to irrigators along the Murray and its tributaries. Unfortunately, my notes are at home so I cannot say this with absolute certainty, but I think it was in Shepparton that the irrigators told us that they were responsible, effectively, for this pipeline plan. They went to the government and said, 'If you can give us some money to upgrade our irrigation system, we will be able to save you X megalitres of water and, in exchange for that, the water that is freed up will be able to be used for the people of Melbourne'.

That was during the time of the Bracks government. From that perspective it would appear—and I have not been able to verify this from my memory or to check with anyone else about how accurate it is—that the water savings in that area would then go to Melbourne. If it is true, then this pipeline is water neutral. However, I am concerned that we could see greater offtake of water sent down to Melbourne in the longer term than what was originally proposed. We also have to take into account climate change. We know that as a result of climate change we will get less rainfall, and with less rainfall there is at least a 30 per cent reduction in run-off. I do not believe that that has been taken into account in determining that water will be able to be taken from the Goulburn River and sent to Melbourne. I suspect—and, again, I have not had the time to check out all the technicalities—that the figures about the amount of water available are based on current flows and storage rather than what might be the case in 10 or 20 years.

I might not necessarily agree with all that has happened in the Senate and I might not necessarily agree with everything that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has said, but this is a critical issue. It has been worthy of the discussion. It would have been unfortunate if there had been a mechanism to shut down this particular discussion. Recently, we passed legislation to hand in our powers over the River Murray. Although I think that South Australia got dudded in the COAG deal and that Victoria is very much the winner, I certainly would not want to see the agreement—how ever limited it is—fall on its face. I do not believe, however, that discussing this matter this afternoon will result in that happening.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:12): I indicate my wholehearted support for the motion and I endorse the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. My comments will be fairly brief but, before I turn to the motion itself, I want to address some of the comments made by the Leader of the Government. I understand that it is convention that the opposition, in general, would raise urgency motions in this council. I think when our standing orders were compiled many years ago that was entirely appropriate. It was entirely appropriate because there were no crossbench or Independent members at the time. However, things have changed. The reality is that there are six members in this council who are either members of minor parties or Independents—which is over one-quarter of the representation of this chamber. I disagree with the suggestion that one-quarter of the chamber should not be able to do something like what is being done today on a rare and exceptional basis.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, the two Independents, the Hons John Darley and Ann Bressington.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, that is another issue. Nonetheless, members understand the point I am making. The truth is that we have six members who represent over one-quarter of the chamber and, whilst I agree that urgency motions should be moved with due thought and appropriately, the reality is that six members have a voice, as well, and they should have a right to use it. If one tracks a graph of the representation in this place, one sees that in the very early days the two major parties occupied all the seats in this chamber. These days it is vastly different from that situation, and that needs to be acknowledged. Certainly, I indicate that, if there was any move to amend standing orders to the effect indicated by the Leader of the Government, Family First would strongly oppose the move. In relation to the actual motion itself, I want to be clear about what the motion says. It states:

That this council:

1. acknowledges the Senate's amendment yesterday precluding the taking of any new water from the Murray-Darling Basin which, in effect, bans the proposed construction of a pipeline from the Goulburn River to Sugarloaf Reservoir, predominantly intended for metropolitan Melbourne water supply;

How can anyone disagree with that aspect of the motion? It is just a statement of fact. The motion continues:

2. calls upon the Premier to urgently contact the Prime Minister (Hon. Kevin Rudd MP) this afternoon requesting that the Prime Minister and his government support the said Senate amendment.

Members may have different views on that; that is fine. That is why we have an urgency motion and that is why there is an opportunity for debate. Family First strongly supports the idea of the Premier contacting the Prime Minister and fighting for South Australia's water, urging the case and putting the case forward that, if the Victorian government does allow the building of this pipeline, every year it will suck from the River Murray some 75 gigalitres that otherwise would flow down the Murray. How can that be in the interests of South Australians? It is absolutely not in the interests of South Australians. As Premier of this state it is incumbent on him, I believe, to go in to bat for us and to try to prevent that. It is the interests of this state to prevent that.

Furthermore, when one considers the arrangements that were reached at the COAG agreement, Victoria received an extra $1 billion to shore up its signing on to the agreement in the final instance. What is it doing with that $1 billion? I will tell you what it is not doing: it is not building a desalination plant or doing anything other than seeking to get more water from the already crippled river system. How is that in South Australia's interests? That water flows down to South Australia; we need that water. I think it is incumbent upon this chamber—and our Premier, as the motion provides—to fight tooth and nail to stop that water being pulled out of the river.

This river is in desperate trouble. We are seeing a circumstance where the river will be changed forever, and we cannot sit by and let that happen. If the River Murray does not require an urgency motion, given the events of the past few years and indeed last night, then I do not know what does. I support the motion.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:17): I will be very brief, as well. I would like to say to members of this council and yourself, Mr President, that we live in the driest state on the driest continent, and it has been foreseen for decades that there would be a 1 in 100-year drought and that we would face a water shortage in this state. I remember reading through Hansard going back to the 1990s where stormwater harvesting was on the agenda back then. We know that the Salisbury council out north started that initiative some 25 years ago off its own bat and has received very little financial or any other support from either major party in this place to expand that project—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It got a lot of money from the federal government.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I said from this chamber and from this state government—and I think that shows that we in this state have had a very shortsighted approach to the long-term future of this state.

I was surprised to hear this morning that this pipeline will now put Victoria on the map for withdrawing water from the Murray while we in South Australia are weaning ourselves off it. I heard the Minister for Water Security, the Hon. Karlene Maywald, on the radio yesterday saying what a wonderful effort South Australians have made to follow water restrictions and save water; and we've got the results, and rah, rah: aren't we great? At the end of the day the saving of all that water has come down to the deprivation of the rights of the people of this state to flush their toilet and to be able to keep their gardens alive.

I know that sounds menial to some, but I have got aged pensioners in my street who have lived in those homes for 40 years, and now their life is their garden. It is their pride and joy, and they have invested time, money and a lot of emotion in those places, which are their palaces. On the purse strings of an aged pension they have very little else to look forward to than the spring and summer months when they can get out and tend their garden. Now I see an 80 year old lady over the road carrying buckets of water to water the trees on the footpath and the plants in her garden. She is not doing that because she has to but because she is trying to be a conscientious water user.

What has this government done to assist the citizens of this state and to ensure that our water is secure and that we are guaranteed a water supply? On the radio this morning, I heard that people from Skye are not even connected to mains water and rely on rainwater. What has been done in the past 10, 20 or 30 years to prepare for this period of time?

I have just one more point before I conclude. I am not claiming to be an expert on this issue. I have probably come into this water debate behind the eight ball compared with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition and others in this place. However, I make the point that, if our water and our food bowl are not secure, where are we as a state? We know what Mr Brumby, the Premier of Victoria, thinks of South Australia. He thinks we are a backwater—and we are being treated like a backwater.

From where I sit in this place, I see a Premier who is not prepared to go into bat for this state on the water issue. Sure, we will build a desalination plant. We have heard Professor Mike Young tell us that the price of our water is going to have to increase. How do people on low incomes—on pensions or whatever—reconcile their measly pension? Does that mean that, if they cannot afford water, they go without?

What is the solution to this? We are not hearing solutions put up by this government. We are hearing desal plant, but what else? What are we doing to save the Murray? Absolutely nothing. What are we doing to save the Lower Lakes? Nothing, or very little; the absolute minimum. We knew this was coming. Both major parties knew this was coming, and they have sat on their hands for decades and allowed our River Murray to get to the stage where it is taking its last desperate breath for survival.

So, yes, this motion has been put forward by the crossbenches, because it is time this parliament actually stood up for the people of this state and gave them a voice and expressed their concerns and got it on the public record that there are some people in this place who are prepared to maybe break the rules to get this stuff on the record to let the people out there know that we are truly concerned for their wellbeing—not for the politics behind this, and not for the agenda of each of the states behind this but for the citizens of this state.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (15:23): I rise to speak about what I consider—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have sat here and listened to all the arguments without saying a word, so at least have the decency to allow me to speak now. Let me make it clear: what your federal counterparts did last night is going to come back and bite you all on the backside; there are no arguments about that.

You wait until every industrial user in this state finally finds out that you supported an amendment that took them out of the definition of 'critical human needs'. You wait for the phone calls. What are you going to do when the wineries, OneSteel and GMH suddenly find out that they have been taken out of the definition of 'critical human needs'?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That is what the amendment does. Secondly, it seems to me from the contribution made by the Hon. Ann Bressington that the crossbenches have taken control of the issue and that they are going to do something. This resolution means jack shit. Even The Advertiser could not be bothered to listen to the rabble.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: On a point of order, Mr President. The honourable member is using unparliamentary language in this place.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not think the President heard any unparliamentary language.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: What these amendments have done is not only remove every industrial user from the definition of 'critical human need' but they have also put at threat the whole notion of state and federal cooperation. This action has now put at risk the referral of powers to the commonwealth. It amazes me that there seems to be such a nasty streak in some people who are worried about the Victorians. Of course, the Victorians have been very neglectful.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No; what you are doing is not going to help South Australia. All my life as a union official, people would come to me and complain about what one person was getting and what another person was getting. I always said to them, 'Pull your head in, Charlie, because you are better served worrying about yourself and not worrying about what he is getting.' This is the problem—the nastiness and the bitchiness of, 'Oh, no. Victoria is getting this!' Wake up to yourselves and worry about what we are doing and not about what Victoria is doing. I find this worrying about Victoria disgraceful.

I am worried about this state, and I know that the bill that was debauched yesterday would have handed the powers to the federal government so that things could be done. What has now been done by the actions of the Greens, some of the Independents and the Liberals? Nick Xenophon is much smarter than most of you in this place and was far too smart to support the removal of the industrial users. He said:

I indicate for the record that I have been convinced by the minister in relation to the argument with respect to critical human needs, and I am concerned that the definition proposed by the coalition is unnecessarily prescriptive and may have some unintended consequences. So, for these reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

We all have a lot of regard for Nick Xenophon. He understood—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. A. Bressington: You are a liar and a hypocrite!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That is so powerful, Mr President!

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter has a point of order.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I certainly do—unparliamentary language from the Hon. Ms Bressington. I ask that you, Mr President, ask her to withdraw.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I withdraw that.

The PRESIDENT: I would hope so. It was very un-Australian.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: There will be an election in Frome very shortly. I know that this has breathed new life into our campaign because, once the people of Port Pirie understand some of the amendments, they will be absolutely appalled. Where you thought that the Country Health Care Plan had breathed life for you into the country areas and into Frome, it will all be unwound now because you are supporting them purely for political reasons and not for the best interests of South Australia. For purely political reasons, you have supported amendments that will have devastating consequences for this state.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Do you think the member for Gray would support that?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That would be quite interesting because, as I said, it puts a whole new meaning into the campaigns for Gray and Frome. The problems regarding water in this state will only be fixed up at the national level. Because of the very nature of the states, where they look after each other, they will not fix up this problem. I say to the crossbenchers: far from taking the issue into your hands to fix up the problem, you have made it worse.

The PRESIDENT: After such a colourful contribution, I call on the business of the day.

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