More speeches

National Water Commission Bill 2004

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the National Water Commission Bill 2004, which is about such an important issue. Water and our use, or misuse, of it is one of the most important issues currently facing this nation and our current practices are just not sustainable. I recently came across something that further backs this up, which I will share. It is an article entitled 'Solving our water headache'. It says:

The Water Services Association of Australia predicts that Australia's major urban areas will have a water shortage of over 800 gigalitres a year by 2030 even if we have recycling in one-quarter of new developments and all consumers reduce their water use by 10 per cent.

That's a shortage greater than Sydney's current use. The shortage is due to a combination of city growth-three million more people by 2030, climate change and the need to provide more water to our rivers and estuaries.

I think this shows that this is clearly a situation which requires urgent consideration.

In particular, I would like to speak on the Murray River and the urgent challenge that we face in order to save it. As I mentioned throughout the recent campaign and in my first speech, I feel particularly passionate about this crucial issue. This is something that I share with many within my electorate and, indeed, within South Australia. I note the contributions made by both the member for Grey and the member for Hindmarsh but I also state that this is not just a South Australian issue; this is a national issue that we need to put a focus on to address. Whilst I have some concerns within this bill that I will detail in a moment, I must say that I am delighted that it has made it here.

I, like no doubt many other South Australians, was somewhat confused about the Liberal Party's position with regard to saving the Murray, with all the flip-flopping that was going on in South Australia earlier in the year. I am speaking, of course, about some of the member for Barker's comments and his support of the push by coalition backbenchers to postpone fresh water flows. The member for Barker stated:

My mind hasn't changed-every scientist we spoke to said we need a lot more work done before we make a decision on the 500 gl.

Whilst it is alarming that when everyone else can recognise the urgency of the plight of the Murray the member for Barker instead wanted us to sit back and remain inactive, I am pleased that we are here now discussing this and I hope that we can get on with the job.

I must say that I am also surprised and disappointed that we are only now debating this legislation. It should be noted that this government has failed to address issues of water reform with the appropriate sense of urgency and it is shameful that the reform process, formalised by COAG back in 1994, has not been progressed by the federal government. I think Australians can legitimately ask where the government has been on this issue for the last eight years.

As the member for Hindmarsh outlined so articulately earlier, South Australians are particularly well aware of the significance of the current plight of the Murray. This is for a number of reasons. Obviously, the geographic location of the river and the first-hand implications of its demise are major factors, but I think it is important to also acknowledge the strong leadership role that the Rann government has played in championing the Murray's cause and fighting for its ongoing survival. Equally, this is an issue which many have got involved in at a community level. I was pleasantly surprised at the huge number of people within the electorate who have spoken to me about their deep concerns for the river's health.

The South Australian branch of the Australian Conservation Foundation have done a fantastic job of increasing community awareness and co-ordinating community campaigns on this issue. I think they-in particular, Arlene Buchan-should be commended for this work. It is some indication of how strongly South Australians feel on this issue that over 4,500 South Australians have signed the ACF's postcards urging for action on the Murray. ACF know, as do the Labor Party, that leading scientists have reported that 1,500 gigalitres are required to save the Murray. I intend to constantly remind the government of this until we see the action required.

These additional flows are critical to the Murray, but there is more that must also be done. We need to change the way we use our water, as well as the amount. I would like to now share some of the major new initiatives which are currently being progressed in my state of South Australia. These include the Waterproofing Adelaide initiative. This is a project that seeks to establish a blueprint for the management, conservation and development of Adelaide's precious water resources to 2025. A draft strategy has been released, following the release of a discussion paper. The strategy proposes a vision for reducing the city's water consumption, better managing our water systems and developing new sources of water.

Another new initiative is the prescription of the Eastern and Western Mount Lofty Ranges. As part of its duty of care to the community and the environment, our state government is taking action to hold water use at current levels while it undertakes a detailed assessment to accurately determine water resource use and future trends. Yet another new initiative in South Australia is the Urban Stormwater Initiative, in which our state government and the Local Government Association are working together to develop a new catchment based management approach to progress stormwater re-use and flood mitigation.

We must change our attitudes on the river and actually start coming up with some innovative new approaches to water reform. I support measures to establish a National Water Commission, but there are some concerns. One of the most alarming elements of the current proposal is the suggestion that the money would come from the states' national competition payments. These payments are paid to the states and territories for continuing reform in competition practices in trade, retail, business and government-such as Sunday trading, for instance. These reforms continue to provide an indefinite tax revenue benefit to the Commonwealth. In effect, it means that the money set aside for South Australia or for other states in the form of these payments will be diverted to pay for the federal government's water policy.

I think it is a disgrace that, whilst the government is willing to go on a multibillion-dollar spending spree during the election and whilst it is happy to throw money around at a variety of other ventures, this government will not put up new funds to address this urgent issue of water in the nation. This concern has been shared by many. I would like to take the opportunity to share some of the words which were included in a letter to the Prime Minister regarding this issue, which was signed by all the premiers and chief ministers of the states and territories. In it they stated:

Your decision to fund the water policy by cutting at least $1.6 billion in competition payments to the States and Territories means you are effectively robbing our governments to pay for your policy. In addition to this you seek additional payments from the States and Territories to fund the key projects promised in your policy.

This will put intolerable pressure on the delivery of key services by the States and Territories. It will inevitably have an impact on hospitals and schools. This is an unnecessary assault on State and Territory Budgets, given the Commonwealth Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook ... released on 10 September 2004 showed a cumulative underlying surplus of over $25 billion over the forward estimates period.

The government must be serious about addressing these critical issues and it must demonstrate this commitment by putting up new funds.

I would like to address a further concern, which lies in clause 44 of the bill. This clause prevents the commission from publicly releasing any information about the progress being made or the state of our water supplies without first getting ministerial approval. This clause is a disgrace. It is clearly in the public interest for the community to know whether the commission is satisfied that enough is being done. The commission will be able to make recommendations-for example, it may well recommend that water flows be increased to 1,500 gigalitres, as committed to by Labor-but under the secrecy clause the public will not know that unless the minister decides to admit that the coalition is not doing enough. I do not wish to pre-empt the minister's actions, but I think we all know that it is unlikely that the public would ever hear about this. This is not open and accountable government. On an issue that is so important and that the community feels so strongly about, we must put politics aside and let the facts be known.

A further concern was outlined yesterday by the member for Wills in his second reading amendment, and that was with regard to clause 8. I support the member for Wills and his very valid point that the states must get a fair say in the appointment of commissioners. We must view water, our use and re-use of it, as a national priority. We must commit appropriate resources to delivering effective water reform and we must act swiftly and boldly to save our River Murray. I urge the government to treat this pressing issue with the priority that it requires.

More speeches