|
Source: Hansard
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.
|
