Senator WONG (1:00 PM) —The last matter that Senator Santoro was raising is interesting; he comes in here talking about the interests of children but defending the decisions of a government that continues to retain children in detention for long periods of time and refuses to let them out from behind the razor wire.

Senator Santoro —Are you going to defend them, too?

Senator WONG —Try to defend that decision, Senator Santoro. I rise today to speak on a matter that is of great public interest to South Australians, and that is the state of the River Murray. Now that South Australians have successfully resisted the campaign by the Howard government to impose a nuclear dump on South Australia, the River Murray will be the primary environmental issue for South Australians at the forthcoming election. An important public meeting was held last week, organised by the Conservation Council of South Australia and by the Australian Conservation Foundation and attended by candidates and representatives of all the major political parties. That meeting told us what South Australians already know and what parliamentarians in this place should know, and that is that the River Murray is in dire straits.

The River Murray is in serious trouble. The Murray mouth closed for the first time in 8,000 years in the 1980s and has only been kept open in recent years through dredging. We know that Adelaide drinking water, which is dependent on the Murray, is becoming increasingly saline and that, if present trends continue, by 2020 Adelaide's drinking water will be unfit for drinking, according to World Health Organization standards, for two days out of five. That is within 16 years, so time is running out for the River Murray.

Unfortunately, what we have had from the Howard government on this front is a lot of talk and a lot of fancy announcements but very little action. This government has not delivered one litre of additional environmental flows since it has been elected. It has had many high-profile announcements but, unfortunately, on the ground we are not seeing the urgent action which is required. Earlier this year, we had a COAG announcement committing to an additional 500 gigalitres of additional environmental flows down the River Murray. It is a welcome announcement but it is far too little. We know from scientists that the River Murray requires 1,500 gigalitres of additional environmental flows just to give it a moderate chance of being restored to health. We have no commitment from this government to that level of environmental flow. In fact, we have even had members of this government in the other place signing off on a report disputing that science, when no-one else who has any knowledge of this debate in any way disputes the need for 1,500 gigalitres.

The forum that was held last week was attended by hundreds of South Australians and they heard from a range of speakers. We heard from scientist David Paton, an ecologist who has done quite a number of studies, particularly around the Coorong. People should be aware that the Coorong is protected under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Unfortunately, the Coorong, which is dependent on River Murray flows and on the river's mouth being kept open, has suffered serious decline in recent years. Dr Paton told us of the dramatic population crash in waterbirds in the area, which is a demonstration of the environmental problems experienced by the Murray. One example is that there are now fewer than 2,000 curlew sandpipers, which is less than five per cent of the 40,000 which were found there in the 1980s. In 20 years, 95 per cent of that particular species has disappeared from the River Murray, which is obviously an enormous cause for concern.

We also heard from Henry Jones, a commercial fisherman, who gave a wonderful presentation. This is a man who has been working in or around the River Murray for a period spanning three generations. He spoke of his experience of the dramatic decline in native fish in the Murray. He spoke of the fact that his grandson can now only look in books for certain species of native fish which, when Henry was a young person, he could readily find when fishing in the river. Within two generations those species have all but disappeared from the river. We also heard from Keith Walker, a river ecologist who has been heavily involved in looking at what is required to restore the Murray to health, and from Professor Mike Young, who is a CSIRO scientist and member of the eminent scientific group, the Wentworth Group, that really managed to kick-start a lot of the national discussion about what was needed to fix up the river. Those scientists emphasise what we already know—that the minimum that is required from the federal government is a commitment to restoring the river and putting back into the river 1,500 gigalitres of additional environmental flows.

The only party that is committed to that and is able to deliver it in government is Labor. We have indicated clearly that our commitment is 1,500 gigalitres over 10 years, 450 of which we would seek to deliver in the first term of a Latham Labor government. The reason 450 gigalitres is important is that that is what scientists tell us is required to keep the Murray mouth open. Of course, keeping the mouth open is particularly important for the ecology of the Coorong. This is a bold plan by Labor. In this debate, people throw a lot of numbers around fairly easily. Fifteen hundred gigalitres is three times the entirety of the water that is in Sydney Harbour. It is an enormous commitment. A lot of work and a lot of leadership from the national government will be required in order to achieve it, but it is something that must be done. In terms of funding, Labor have not only matched the government's commitment to $200 million but also indicated that we will put in an additional $150 million, making a total of $350 million as an initial investment into restoring the river.

When Labor's policy on this was announced last year it was so good that we even had Senator Brown coming out and saying that Australians would back Labor on this issue. He made this comment:

`Dinkum vision'—it is unusual for the Greens to give that kind of support to the Labor Party but, frankly, I think this policy is worthy of it. Obviously, as the election approaches the Greens have a need to differentiate themselves more clearly from the Labor Party on this issue and Senator Brown, having come out in support of the 1,500 gigalitres, has now doubled his ask to 3,000 gigalitres. It is interesting to note that the Greens have taken this position when even the environmental groups, as well as the scientists, have lobbied for 1,500 gigalitres. I suppose the Greens need to make themselves a bit different from Labor on this issue.

The motion that was passed at the public meeting by the members of the South Australian public called for all political parties to commit to saving the Murray River and, in particular, for the commitment of an additional $500 million in Commonwealth funds and 1,500 gigalitres in extra annual flows over 10 years. I look forward to the Howard government actually coming to the party on this issue. At the moment their commitment is one-third of what is required to restore the Murray to health.

South Australians see this as a very important issue. It is an issue that affects us in a very short period of time. Not only does it affect the ecology of the river, given the environmental issues at the mouth of the river and in the Coorong, but also it affects our drinking water. It is an issue that we feel very strongly about and it is an issue on which the government can do far better. I am encouraged by the commitment by the environmental groups to make this a campaign issue. It should be a campaign issue that South Australians think about when they are voting in the next election and it should also be an issue on which they pressure this federal government to do more than they are currently doing to save our river.