Senator WONG (Minister for Climate Change and Water) (10:39 PM) —I will make a few comments, first, to acknowledge the contributions made to the debate by all senators. I particularly acknowledge the contribution made by Senator Nash to the previous debate and, notwithstanding that I did not agree with a lot of what she did, the obvious workload that she took on in that regard.

I welcome Senator Minchin’s indication on behalf of the opposition that the opposition will not be insisting on the amendments. It is clear that in the opposition wiser heads have prevailed. Senator Minchin made a few accusations and criticisms and some strong rhetorical points in his contribution. I do not propose to respond to them on behalf of the government tonight. I think that many of the issues have been well traversed in earlier debate and the government’s views are clear. Despite the rhetoric, the fact is that the opposition are not insisting on their amendments, including in relation to the pipeline. That is the indication from Senator Minchin. As I said, we welcome the fact that wiser heads have prevailed.

As I think I said in the second reading debate, the first agreement in relation to the River Murray was in 1914. In 1992 the latest version of the Murray-Darling agreement was put in place. From 1914 to date we have not had a management regime, an architecture, dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin that recognised the simple fact that rivers flow across state borders. The legislation before the house puts that architecture in place for the first time. It is architecture that delivers a whole-of-basin approach. It seeks to manage the basin as a whole. For the first time in this nation’s history it will set a cap based on science. For the first time in this nation’s history it will ensure that that cap and the basin plan, after consultation, ultimately are decisions of the Commonwealth minister. Importantly, it will also ensure that the basin plan is undertaken by an independent authority, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Can I make this point: I think it is 12 months tomorrow since the Rudd government ministry was sworn in and there has been a substantial amount of progress on water in that time. We see this bill before the Senate, which, as senators know, required a very extensive set of negotiations with the states, for the first time engaging the enabling and referral powers upon which some of the bill is predicated. But I want to make it very clear to the chamber that the government understand that there is a lot more left to do. We are making progress but we do understand that the challenge of the Murray-Darling Basin is an enormous one. It is one that is compounded by the inaction of the previous government. It is compounded by years of failure to manage the basin properly and sustainably—

Senator McGauran —What about the Brumby government? Do something!

Senator WONG —Senator McGauran, there is a certain tone to the debate which, I do not know if you have noticed, we are seeking to engage in at this point. What I was saying was—

Senator McGauran —Stop talking piously if that is the tone you want.

Senator WONG —I am just wondering, Madam Chair, if Senator McGauran has finished his interjections.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crossin)—I am sure he has, Minister.

Senator WONG —I was saying that the government recognise that there is a lot more to do in the Murray-Darling Basin. We are battling, all of us—and by that I mean the communities of the basin—the effects of climate change, the mismanagement that has occurred in the past over allocation as well as the current drought. We recognise that communities in the basin are facing very difficult times indeed, and we recognise the scale of this challenge. One of the things that I have often said as minister is that we need to do things in the short and medium term as well as the long term. The things for the short term and medium term are the policies of the government—the purchase of water and the investment in infrastructure in order to ensure that we can do more with less, to ensure that we are more efficient and to ensure that we maintain and continue to grow viable productive irrigation industries, because, of course, that is the economic base that is so important to basin communities. We need to purchase water to return water to the river to deal with a very significant environmental problem that occurs up and down the river, but we also need, in the longer term, to change the architecture of the management of the basin.

I am very pleased tonight that the opposition are not insisting on their amendments and will support the bill. We do believe this is a very significant step forward because it will enable, for the first time, this basin to be managed on a whole-of-basin approach. That is a very significant thing, particularly if you consider when the River Murray agreement was in place and what has not occurred between 1914 and now. I thank senators for their contributions to the debate.

Question put: