Senator WATT (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:43): I know we haven't got a lot of time left in this debate, so I will try to keep my remarks short so that other people can have a go as well. I will come to the substance of the motion about the Bradfield Scheme shortly, but before I do that I want to observe some of the dynamics that have been happening in this chamber over the course of this week, which have been very interesting to watch and are quite different to some of the dynamics we saw before the election. One of the things I have been observing over the last few weeks, both in this chamber and more generally, is how much Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts have this government on the run on a number of issues that are of concern to rural Australians. We've seen that on the dairy code, most importantly. Earlier on in the week, we did, of course, vote for a bill regarding the dairy code, because we are convinced that the country does need to take action and take a different approach to protecting the interests of dairy farmers both in Queensland and right across the rest of the country. Of course, a few weeks ago we saw Senator Hanson manage to convince Senator McKenzie, the agriculture minister, to back down on an aspect of that dairy code, much to the consternation of National Party members of parliament and senators. We had an instance where Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts were effectively leading a matter that was of great concern to National Party senators, and she has been leaving them in her wake. Now we seem to be doing it on the Bradfield Scheme. Senator Hanson is aware that I have had a lot to say about her over the years and I'm not exactly her biggest fan—I've been quite a critic—but I will acknowledge that she does seem to be doing a pretty good job of telling this government what it needs to do when it comes to matters involving rural Australians, and we are seeing it here again with the Bradfield Scheme. Yesterday we saw a very interesting scene in relation to Senator Hanson's motion about the Bradfield Scheme, where, despite the misgivings that we know many members of the government have about the Bradfield Scheme, government members felt they had no choice but to vote with Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, because they know that they are in real trouble in their bush heartland and they are being outdone by One Nation on matters including the dairy code and now the Bradfield Scheme and water and the drought and a whole range of other things. I might say that Labor, I think, has been doing a pretty reasonable job of exposing the government's failures on those fronts as well. It will be really interesting, when we come back for the final two sitting weeks of the year, to see what Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts manage to embarrass this government into doing. People in the country aren't happy with what this government is doing and they aren't happy with National Party members in particular—or quasi-National Party members, in the form of Senator McGrath and Senator Rennick— Senator McGrath: We're LNP, mate. Senator WATT: We know your preselection is coming up, Senator McGrath. We know you have to pitch a bit to the National Party as well. Your days of being a Liberal are long gone. It will be very interesting to see, in the final two weeks of this sitting year, what other tricks Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts have up their sleeves to embarrass the National Party into action on things that they should just be taking— Senator Hanson: Tricks? It's called doing my job, Murray. Senator WATT: You are. As I said, it pains me to a degree to have to pay Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts a compliment, but they are doing a very good job of exposing some of the faults of the National Party. They really are taking the running. It will be very interesting to see what happens on a few other matters. Of course, there was one true Liberal remaining in this place. We know a number of government members have serious misgivings about the Bradfield Scheme, but they all felt they had no choice but to back Senator Hanson's motion yesterday. But the President of the Senate took a very interesting step yesterday when that motion came up. I missed this but read about it in the paper today. It was reported that not just any Liberal senator but the President of the Senate, one of the highest ranked Liberals in this chamber, decided to vote against Senator Hanson's motion, on behalf of all those Liberals who don't actually support this. Again, it will be interesting to see how some of these issues play out in the final two sitting weeks and whether the Nationals, who have been exposed as not doing their job, finally step up or whether the true Liberals like Senator Ryan continue to win the day. Senator Rennick: You mean neoliberals. Senator WATT: Senator Rennick, you've had a very good week. Let's leave it at that. I want to make sure you don't use all your greatest hits before the year is out. You have a few in your kitbag. We want to get a bit more— Senator Rennick: Don't worry; I've got plenty for you. Senator WATT: I am glad to hear you have many more to come. That makes me very happy. All I'll say on the substance of this motion, so other people can have a turn, is that Labor welcomes any serious, credible proposal to resolve water security issues in drought ravaged communities. We acknowledge, like all Australians, that every state needs more access to appropriate water infrastructure, but it is essential that we make sure any water infrastructure built in this country, given the cost and the potential environmental consequences involved, is well thought through, because projects can have serious consequences for farmers, for rural communities and for our environment. That is why we have assessment processes to determine whether projects will work or not and whether they will deliver what our communities actually need to cope with drought and support local economies. We have to get this right. We know the government has dropped the ball when it comes to water infrastructure. Mr Abbott, when he was first running for election as Prime Minister, promised that this government would build 100 dams, and we know that after six years they haven't built one. Senator Rennick: Because the state Labor government won't build them. Senator WATT: So we know they are under pressure to actually get some results around dams and around water infrastructure. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fierravanti-Wells ): Senator Rennick, I have given you some latitude, but can we hear Senator Watt in silence. Senator WATT: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. It's sort of just white noise from Senator Rennick, so I haven't really noticed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps, Senator Rennick, you might like to put yourself on the speaking list if you have a contribution to make. Senator WATT: We know that this government is under pressure about their failure to build any dams, but it is important that every project is properly assessed, will provide the water that's needed, is viable, can pay for itself and doesn't have catastrophic environmental consequences. They are the principles that Labor will be taking into account on this and any other proposal.