Murray-Darling Basin QT

Senator VAN: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Wong. Minister, you will recall the floods of 2022 and 2023, when vast amounts of water travelled down both the Murray and the Darling systems, through South Australia and out to sea. Does the minister know how much water flowed through the system during those flood times? I accept that information may need to be provided on notice.

Senator WONG(South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) : Yes. I am aware, as I think all Australians are, of the floods which occurred in the period to which you refer and of the effect on river communities, including in South Australia—as Senator Ruston would attest to—as a consequence of those floods. What I would also say is that I also, like many other South Australians, would go down to near the Murray mouth, and there was a lot of water coming through, a lot of pollution, obviously, and a lot of topsoil. It was a really difficult time, I think, for people both downstream and upstream, as a consequence of those floods. I think Senator Watt will be able to speak more broadly about the flood response from the Commonwealth government. Certainly, it was a very difficult time for many communities.

However, that doesn't obviate the policy point, which is we know the Murray-Darling Basin Plan hasn't been delivered by those opposite. And we know that, over 10 years, the divisions which are now on display in the coalition, as between the National Party and some parts of the Liberal Party, particularly those from South Australia, meant that that plan was not delivered. We now have those opposite intent on wrecking a plan that they undermined whilst in government; that is the hard reality.

What I also would say—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator WONG: It's so predictable, isn't it? What I would also say to you, Senator Van, is the fact that there was a lot of water as a consequence of flooding does not obviate the broader policy problem, which is how do we deal with over-allocation and sustainability, environmental flows as well as economic sustainability. All of these matters are matters the government has seized on.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Van, a first supplementary?

Senator VAN: Can you tell us what the current state of the Lower Lakes is?

Senator Ruston interjecting—

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) : Senator Ruston has suggested an answer to that, but I suggest it is a bit too flippant for me to use. On this we are aligned, I think. I would say to you I am aware that some from other states have very strong views that are different to mine and different to the government's on this. When we look at the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, our focus is the health of the whole river system. I have been water minister previously. I know the argument that some of the upstream communities and some lobbyists have about the Lower Lakes. My view is we need to look at the sustainability of the whole system and that is what the plan seeks to do. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Van, a second supplementary?

Senator VAN: I agree. It is the whole system that needs to be looked after. Given, as I said in my two-minute statement earlier today, that the Murray is suffering from overflow and too much water running through it, isn't there a better way than buybacks, which are going to kill farming communities, and getting more water down the Darling into the Murray and into South Australia rather than continuing to damage the Murray River?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:47): The fact that we have extraordinary flooding in one season does not obviate the need to implement the plan. It does not work. I would make the point that in nine years those opposite, who were committed to delivering 450 gigalitres with their implementation—or non-implementation—of the plan delivered two out of 450. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.

Senator Davey interjecting—

Senator WONG: Senator Davey, this is Senator Van's question. I am happy to take a question again from you on water. But my point is that if 450 gigalitres were supposed to be delivered and two were delivered then obviously we have to look at it in different ways. We have outlined how we will approach that. The minister has said we need more time to deliver the water based on the expert advice. We need more options to deliver the remaining water, including water efficiency infrastructure projects and voluntary water buybacks—voluntary water purchase. We want more funding to support communities where those buybacks have impacts.