Senator BIRMINGHAM (10:34 AM) —We have probably been debating this bill for close to 10 hours, through the second reading stage and the committee stage. Throughout those debates, at numerous intersections, Minister Wong has accused us and others in the chamber—but particularly those of us on this side—of playing politics with the debate. She has accused us of being overtly political throughout the debate. Perhaps the pot should look in the mirror at the kettle, because we just had 15 minutes of overt politics, of totally playing politics. However, it is not for the first time in this debate by any means—for the umpteenth time, the minister has felt the need, particularly during this committee stage, to hector and lecture on political point-scoring matters.

I would like to think that we will have robust debates here and yes, Minister, we will actually have robust political debates too—you know that and I know that; we are all grown-ups and we all recognise that politics will be engaged in just as the issues will be engaged in—but do not lecture us on the one hand about playing politics and then give us 15-minute political lectures on the other hand.

The minister knows full well that the process of funding buybacks was started by Mr Turnbull. The minister knows equally well that it was also not long before the election that the Water Act was passed; it was passed only a couple months prior to the election. It was one of the last pieces of legislation dealt with in this chamber. Minister, you know that. You know very well that that is the case. If it had not been for the fact that Minister Turnbull had allocated $10 billion of funding in last year’s budget, you would not have managed to get the funding through the razor gang this year. You would not have managed to get the extra funding that was required to have that $10 billion to be able to do these things. So you owe Mr Turnbull a lot for the fact that he put the process in place. He started things going. He started the ball rolling. Indeed, if your Victorian Labor Party counterparts had not been playing politics with this issue throughout the course of last year, throughout the lead-up to the last election, more may well have been able to be done. The minister obviously feels like she needs a little bit more loving today. She wants some commendation. Minister, I am happy to commend you.

Senator Wong —Not from you!

Senator BIRMINGHAM —No, Minister, please.

Senator Wong —Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. In case anybody is under any illusions, I require no loving from Senator Birmingham.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Humphries)—There is no point of order.

Senator BIRMINGHAM —I thank the minister for that interlude. I am sure my fiance, who is looking—I hope—to meet me on the aisle in a week or two will not be getting too concerned about any arrangements that we may have. Nonetheless, I will not give the minister the loving but I will give her the commendation. I commend the minister for the fact that building has started on the pipelines to the Lower Lakes and the Narrung Peninsula for the communities there.

It is noteworthy that two years ago, when this proposal was first made, the South Australian government were not calling for those pipelines to be built. Of course they were not calling for them to be built, because at that stage the water levels in the lakes were higher than they have been this year. At that stage, the process was in crisis but not so much in crisis. At that stage, they did not see piping water to the lakes as the solution; this year they did. And I recognise that the government acted and acted quickly to support them.

The question I pose, though, is: if the government can build infrastructure for the Lower Lakes communities so quickly, if it can fund that infrastructure so very quickly and get works happening on the ground so quickly, why can’t it do it elsewhere? That infrastructure is important. It provides water security for the Lower Lakes communities, but it does not actually save any water. It is not the type of infrastructure that is about increasing efficiencies in irrigation elsewhere throughout the system. It is purely infrastructure that provides security to the communities. That is critical, but it is not the water-saving infrastructure that is so desperately needed throughout the rest of the basin. If non-water saving infrastructure can be put on the ground and started within a matter of months then why can’t other projects where hundreds of gigalitres of water could potentially be saved—the Menindee Lakes and elsewhere—be done in months, not years? That is what we should expect from the government when it comes to delivery across the basin, not just in that one community.

What was noteworthy throughout the minister’s 15-minute contribution was that she barely mentioned the communities. Senator Hanson-Young was right to draw the debate back to the Lower Lakes communities and to the point of this very amendment, which is to ensure that some tangible support is provided to those communities. The tangible support that we have called for is to assist irrigators and communities throughout the basin to help them survive the tough times they are in. The minister was right when she said that progress would not be achieved overnight. That is why these communities need support. They need support because progress will not be achieved overnight, and they need support to be able to sustain themselves into the future. They need support so that all the businesses do not close their doors, so that all the farmers do not leave their properties, so that the marinas are not put out of business by all the boats having to be taken to other marinas, so that the tourism industry and other industries in the area are not decimated, so that the schools stay open and so that the facilities of those communities are sustained through the difficult times until progress is made. That is why this amendment is critically important. That is why it should be supported by this house. I commend it to the Senate.