Matter of Urgency

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AGREEMENT

The SPEAKER: I have received the following written notice of a proposed matter of urgency from the Leader of the Opposition pursuant to standing order 52 which I have determined is in order:

That the House of Assembly condemns the Rann Labor government for failing to protect South Australia's interests in negotiating the memorandum of understanding dated 26 March 2008 on the Murray-Darling Basin reform and its failure to take swift and effective action to provide water security for South Australian families and businesses putting forward instead indecision, prevarication and media stunts; and calls on the Premier to stop talking and start acting, meaningfully on the River Murray and Adelaide's water security.

I ask those members who support the matter to rise in their places.

Honourable members having risen:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): Last week in the car park of the Magill Estate fine dining restaurant, the Premier must have had an epiphany, either that or he was struck by lightning and had a sudden loss of memory. The Premier of this state claims he has delivered an historic water agreement, but there is no agreement. There is no extra water for South Australia, no independent authority, no referral of state powers to the commonwealth. The so-called COAG Murray-Darling Reform Agreement is yet another of his mirages. It is one of the biggest political con jobs in our history.

The Premier today will be reminded of his own words—his own promises and demands. He will also be reminded of how he worked hand in hand with Victoria to scuttle the best prospect in a century of resolving the issue of how to control the River Murray. The Premier has not only appeased the national Labor cause at the expense of South Australia's future, he has managed to lay down and be walked over by Victoria's Premier, John Brumby, who has one billion reasons to laugh behind our Premier's back. This is what you get when your Premier wants to be the ALP president and next in line for an ex-Labor premier's overseas posting.

Let us go back in history to 2003: Mr Rann told the National Press Club that the most urgent environmental issue facing this country is restoring the health of the River Murray. That was 2003. He told the gathering, 'This is a state of emergency'. To his credit, he said what we all knew: 'It is clear that too much water is taken from the Murray'. What then has Mr Rann achieved in the five years since that speech? So, you can see how seriously they take the water crisis. They think it is a joke. The drought has made the state of emergency even worse than he imagined, yet his actions have been political rather than prudent.

On 25 January 2007, 15 months ago, in the face of economic and social disaster, our prime minister at the time, John Howard, stepped in to fix what state Labor could not. His $10 billion National Water Plan was aimed at water over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin: it promised nationwide investment in irrigation infrastructure; it promised greater water security; and it provided for a sustainable cap on surface and ground water. The comprehensive plan would undo the damage of a century of dispute between the states. There was a $3 billion commitment to buy water allocations from willing sellers, and that meant more water for the river immediately.

The key to this plan was the states transferring all their powers to a Murray-Darling Basin Commission. What did our Premier do? He began a political game, one which would keep that water out of the river, which would keep powers with the states and which would keep Kevin Rudd's political chances alive. He sold our state down the Labor Party river.

Let us recall what he told listeners of ABC Radio's World Today program on 31 January last year. He said that water management should be a politics-free zone. He said he wanted an independent commission that does not report to a bunch of politicians. He said, 'It would be a politics and a politician-free zone'—my, my. He said, 'It would have the power to actually make decisions without referring them to a group of politicians.'

As we all know, the next 10 months would see the National Water Plan held back by Victoria's refusal to sign up. How convenient! Did Mike Rann tackle premiers Bracks and Brumby with the same gusto that he tackled John Howard? No, he did not. He is a Labor man—not a South Australian man; he is a Labor man.

But what goes around comes around. When Kevin Rudd became prime minister, courtesy of a mere 10,000 votes across 11 seats, Mike Rann had a problem. The irrigators of South Australia and those affected by his water stupidity will note the way he is receiving this motion. He needed water on the COAG agenda and he needed a deal to fix the Murray, but the Murray was not on the agenda.

Even last week when they assembled in Adelaide and enjoyed the fine wines and food at Magill Estate, it was not on the agenda. Under political pressure, particularly from this side of the house, they needed a deal and they needed it quickly. But would the deal deliver what Mike Rann had insisted on under previous federal governments? No, it would not. There was no deal. This was a public show. There was a piece of paper, a press release and a proclamation. There was no real deal.

For the record, and for the benefit of all South Australians, let me expose what this Premier wanted and what he got. First, he claimed to have signed an historic agreement—bunkum! But it is not a signed agreement: it is, in its own words, a memorandum of understanding; it is a statement of intention, and intentions can change.

Now to the detail. On October 2007, Mike Rann said that supply of water to Adelaide was a fundamental requirement to any national deal. The memorandum states that any water for Adelaide's critical human needs is 'subject to agreement by the basin jurisdictions'. Even our drinking water can be held back by Victoria, New South Wales or Queensland. What sort of deal is that? Mike Rann has demanded an independent authority, but this memorandum provides for a ministerial council to decide on natural resources management programs, Living Murray initiatives, state water shares and river operations. The last time I looked, ministerial councils were made up of politicians. Who oversees all this, and who does the new authority report to? It reports to the commonwealth minister. Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not a politician?

So, after demanding a politician-free set of controls, this Premier has dumped South Australia for his Labor mates. Premier Rann also demanded a guaranteed minimum entitlement flow of 1,850 gigalitres and environmental flows of 1,500 gigalitres by 2018. This memorandum does not provide for minimum entitlement flows or environmental flows. This Premier demanded 200 gigalitres in immediate interim environmental flows for the Murray Mouth until a basin plan was developed; but, according to this memorandum, there will be no plan until 2011, and no interim flows. So far, we do not have one single bucket of water, but let us continue. There must be something in this deal, this historic deal, a world first—or was it maybe a histrionic deal.

In October last year, Premier Rann labelled the Howard plan a disaster. The Premier said:

The $10 billion will be used further up river to improve infrastructure and make water efficiencies to benefit New South Wales and Victoria, but will not create greater inflows at the South Australian end of the river.

Well, guess what? He has changed his mind. The memorandum hands over $1 billion to Victoria to improve their irrigation efficiencies.

As my colleague the member for Morphett will show shortly, reducing leakage from irrigation channels—leakage that used to seep back into the river—and putting that in a pipeline to Melbourne is a worse outcome for South Australia. So, Victorian irrigators get $1 billion while South Australian irrigators, who spent their own money years ago to become more efficient, get nothing from this Premier. Well done, Premier Rann.

Last year, our Premier said that he wanted a River Murray authority with veto powers, but the states keep their rights; no powers are referred to the commonwealth, and there is no enforcement provision to prevent states walking away from the deal. When things get tough up in Victoria or New South Wales, as tough as they are now in South Australia, they can just walk away from this scrap of paper. Where are the penalties? How will it be enforced?

Let us step aside from politics for a moment and recall the excellent work of the late Peter Cullen, co-founder of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and former thinker in residence. In his issues paper on the Murray, he outlined seven key steps to address national water shortages:

1. Buying water for the environment to return over allocated rivers to sustainable levels of extraction.

2. Regulating the extraction of water.

3. Accurately measuring our water resources.

4. Pricing water so that we only pay the real cost of supplying water.

5. Giving farmers a secure and tradeable water and entitlement.

6. Comprehensive regional planning.

7. Encourage best practice demand management.

How many of those seven key steps are on the table in this memorandum? None! As Professor Cullen said in the very next sentence, 'Unfortunately governments seem to have difficulties implementing these actions.'

What then was the Rudd/Rann/Wong deal delivering for South Australia? Nothing! There is no historic agreement. There is no basin plan. There is no independent authority. There is no money for South Australia to help its food producers. There is no guarantee of water for critical human needs. For a year, this Premier, Mike Rann, played politics. Now he is play-acting, pretending that he has done a deal. There is no deal. There is not one single bucket of water for South Australia. Mike Rann says he gets results. Well, these are the results he is getting. The boy from New Zealand came to town—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I would really ask that the Leader of the Opposition show the courtesy, particularly given the gallery has members of the public and schools, that he refer to the Premier by his correct title. I think conduct in this place is very important.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind all members to refer to other members either by their official title or by their electorate. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The boy from New Zealand came to town and has lived off the public nipple for 31 years. When challenged to stand up for South Australia, he—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Point of order!

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The Leader of the Opposition has reflected on not just the Premier but on the hundreds of thousands of—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member: What's your point of order?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: —on hundreds and thousands of—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Mr Speaker—

An honourable member: Don't get angry.

The SPEAKER: Order! I know what the Deputy Premier's—

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I mean, you cannot be critical of—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will take his seat. I do not find that what the Leader of the Opposition has said is unparliamentary and other members on my right will have an opportunity to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's comments.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: When challenged to stand up for South Australia, he sold us down the river for 30 pieces of political silver. The ALP national president, with an eye to the future, sold out every South Australian. There is no deal, there is no water and there is no honour.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:18): There is something extraordinarily phoney and fake about the Leader of the Opposition's argument today. If you want to talk—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: There's something in the water.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Normally under the provisions and traditions of this parliament, an urgency motion is called at the first available opportunity that parliament sits after the major event about which there is an urgency. This occurred last Wednesday. Tuesday passed: nothing. Wednesday passed: nothing. In fact, yesterday they ran out of questions and so, having failed to make the headlines—because that is what it is all about—what we have seen is, 'What are we going to do today? We are going nowhere.' We've seen the divisions, there is branch stacking—the usual divisions within the Liberal Party. 'So, what are we going to do?' 'I know,' says someone, 'Let's have an urgency motion, about an issue. Let's condemn the Premier for signing up'—to use your words—'to a deal,' and that is the deal that you called upon me to sign up to. Just think about this: this is how phoney and fake they are and you are.

The fact of the matter is that last year when Victoria failed to sign up to John Howard's deal, you were calling on Victoria to do the right thing and you were calling upon me to bang on the table to do it. John Howard said, 'Leave Victoria to me.' That is what he said. And John Howard failed to get agreement. So what happened is that we have seen you say the deal should be signed.

You called upon me to sign the John Howard deal even though there was no independent commission, even though there was no guarantee of Adelaide water and even though there was no mention of the Ramsar sites. The only Ramsar sites that are mentioned are those in South Australia. That is how phoney the Liberals are—talk and no action. What we saw, during the time you were in government federally, was 11½ years of talk. More has been achieved in the last 11½ weeks under Kevin Rudd than under the previous 11½ years under John Howard. Let me read your words to you in case you need—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: We know he's angry. You can see he is angry, and we know just how fake and phoney it is. Here we have a Leader of the Opposition who is constantly calling on us to bring off this deal, even though I agreed to it about two weeks into February 2007. 'Sign the deal', he has been calling. What happens? The deal is done, and now he is condemning us for signing the deal.

There is a problem for the Leader of the Opposition, because the deal was agreed to, and the signing ceremony is in July at the next COAG meeting. So, are you saying that we should not sign the deal that you have been calling upon us to sign? Is that what you are saying? Week after week you have been saying that you would thump on the table and that you would get Brumby into a headlock. Then, of course, you said that it was not on the agenda. It went quiet for a couple of days. He disappeared because he was a bit embarrassed—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: No; basically, what happened is that he got caught out. He said, 'Sign the deal: put him in a headlock, thump on the table, kick out the advisers, but sign the deal this week.' Then, the next day, he said it was not on the agenda, and that was wrong—totally untrue. And, of course, the next day, when the deal was done, he had nowhere to go. The reason he was calling on it to be signed is that he did not believe that Victoria would back down. Now, of course, we hear that he is saying that the billion dollars should not go to Victoria.

He now says that the Liberals are saying that the billion dollars of the $10 billion should not go to Victoria. Well, that is not what he said on radio. He said, 'The action is needed upstream'. It is gravity, stupid; that is what this is about. You need the work done upstream in New South Wales and Victoria in order to get the water over the border into South Australia. And, of course, obviously, when the $10 billion is carved up some of it is for buying out licences, some of it is for buying water to release into South Australia, and a lot of it is about doing the infrastructure works that should have been done years ago upstream in New South Wales and Victoria.

If you look at the problems of the River Murray, do you not think that Victoria in July would have got considerably more than $1 billion? What Victoria got is a commitment to infrastructure that has got them on board. John Howard could not do it; Kevin Rudd did. I pay tribute to the Minister for the River Murray. The opposition has played politics with the River Murray. That is all it has done, right from the start. We have a phoney urgency motion in which it is condemning me for doing a deal that it urged me to do. It cannot have it both ways. It says it is going to put someone in a headlock. Being a premier is about being a grown-up; that is the first qualification.

Threats of physical violence and threats of abuse do not get people over the line when they have the constitution on their side, even though they did not have the science on their side. I will explain. We have heard what he thinks the deal is. It has taken him eight days to get to an urgency motion. The deal was put out on the net (nationally and internationally) and released publicly, but still apparently the Leader of the Opposition does not understand it. He wanted me to sign it; now he condemns it. The signing ceremony is in July, the agreement has been made, I want to know—and I think the people along the River Murray and the people of the City of Adelaide want to know: are you now telling me not to sign the deal?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Look, he is always enraged. It is fake; it is phoney. He wants me to sign the deal. Now he has found out—because we told him—that the signing ceremony is in July. Do the Liberals want us to sign the Murray-Darling deal that provides for $10 billion of work or not? Come on tell us, because you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: No, he will not say. That is how phoney it is. It is really urgent. Last week it was not on the agenda. Last week it was a disgrace that it was not on the agenda. Last week there was going to be no deal. I was to be blamed if the deal was not signed, but when the deal is done I am condemned for it. So, I want to know by the close of business today whether the Liberal Party in South Australia wants us to sign the deal or not because last year when it was John Howard's deal—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: They are wriggling on a stick. Last year, when it was John Howard's deal, it was paradise, yet John Howard's deal did not have guarantees of water security for the City of Adelaide; John Howard's deal did not have the Ramsar sites in the Coorong and the Lower Lakes; John Howard's deal did not have an independent commission with the power to make the decisions—that is the difference.

On top of John Howard's deal we put in a whole series of provisions for South Australia, which were not in John Howard's deal, and now you are saying, because we have got South Australia into it, that we should not sign because you are about party and about headlines and you do not have the interests of South Australia at heart. That is the difference because, when it comes to that basic test for any leader or any premier or alternative premier the question is: are you prepared to put your state before your party? All you do is put yourself before the rest, and Iain Evans knows about that, and so does Rob Kerin.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I will explain once again. You go on radio saying that the work should be done upstream but now apparently not. I will explain to you exactly what the deal means. It states:

The Memorandum of Understanding agreed at COAG on 26 March 2008 between the commonwealth and the Murray-Darling Basin jurisdictions represents a historic advance in the management of the River Murray.

An independent authority—

which you say is not in there—you have to actually read the words:

An independent authority will be responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring of—

Basin Plan including:

a cap on surface and ground water diversions;

the provision of critical human water needs; and

sustainable industry and enhanced environmental outcomes.

The commonwealth minister—

as it was under the Howard plan—

—will be the final decision maker on the plan.

Ultimately if the minister refuses to adopt the Basin Plan the minister must report to parliament advising reasons for refusal and making directions to the Authority for modification of the Plan.

The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council will have only an advisory role with respect to the Basin Plan.

The council's other functions will be confined to managing the resource under the Basin Plan and consistent with the plan.

The commonwealth's commitment to the Foodbowl project in Victoria demonstrates the will to achieve efficiencies in water use to enhance the sustainability and health of the River Murray. South Australia welcomes the commonwealth commitment to consider water infrastructure efficiency projects in South Australia [and in other states]. South Australia will, as a priority, develop specific projects...

Obviously, we are looking at a range of projects relating to the Lower Lakes. The Liberal plan made no mention of the Lower Lakes, no mention of the Coorong and no mention of the South Australian Ramsar sites. The document continues:

The Basin Plan will provide for enhanced environmental outcomes. The Basin Plan will be directed at improving the Ramsar sites, including the Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth here in South Australia. The Basin Plan must ensure the provision for critical human needs [another provision I insisted on]. The approach to dealing with this issue should provide for certainty while preserving sufficient flexibility to cope with the differing circumstances as these arise.

I guess it comes down to the basic point that you have a Leader of the Opposition, boiling with anger, who is enraged because we brought off the deal, and that is the problem. The reason he was saying that it was not on the agenda (when he was wrong), the reason that he was calling upon me to bring off the deal, is because he did not believe that it would happen. Just as he is angry every time there are good economic statistics, just as he is angry every time there is a drop in unemployment, he is even angrier that we have agreed to a deal which, basically, is what he has been calling on me to do, and that is how phoney the Leader of the Opposition is.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (14:31): Our leader has laid out the difference, the very stark difference, between what our Premier has been saying publicly and what he has achieved as a negotiator. I suspect that our universities will no doubt soon be using the example of our Premier's negotiating debacle in management classes to demonstrate how not to negotiate. When one is negotiating a deal one should always maintain a position of strength. Never allow your adversary to take the high ground and never give away the knowledge of your imperatives—all rules which our Premier failed to heed. He argued himself into a position where it was imperative that he got a deal. As he just said, it was imperative that he got a deal—any deal.

The signature at the bottom of the page became much more important than the text of the document. John Brumby was well aware of our Premier's political imperative, his weakness, his negotiating blunder. The rest is history. We got the signature but nothing else because the signature became the prize. I doubt that the Premier had any idea of what he actually wanted to achieve in the deal. I doubt that he has enough understanding of the river system and the position of other players even to have fought the important battles. He needed only the signature. Let us examine the Victorian position and the outcomes that Victoria achieved.

Victoria wants to pipe water from the basin over the Great Divide into Melbourne. To do that it needs to convince others that it can make water savings, and claims that this can be achieved through infrastructure upgrades. Most of the supposed savings (and we are talking hundreds of gigalitres) will come from replacing earthen channels with lined and covered channels or pipes to prevent leakage and evaporation. The problem is that those who understand the system and simple hydrology know that the water that leaks from unlined channels flows via the groundwater system back into the river. This is acknowledged by the Premier's own statement that the cap under the new basin plan will apply to both surface and groundwater.

Unfortunately, the Premier can mouth the words but he does not understand what they mean. The net consequence of Victoria's plan will most likely be a net increase in extractions from the system rather than putting back environmental flows. Most commentators know this and have stated so, but South Australia could not wait to get the signature. Additionally, Victoria will be altering the status of the water to be pumped to Melbourne. It will take irrigation water—water that is currently subject to restrictions at times of drought—and convert it to water regarded as critical for human needs.

Did our Premier object to this? Alternatively, did he argue that our licence for Adelaide's water should be subjected to such flexibility; that our irrigators might use some of that water in times of need after our desalination plant has been built? Were any of these issues even contemplated?

An honourable member: No!

Mr WILLIAMS: No; just the signature. Were irrigators in South Australia, who borrowed tens of millions of dollars to purchase water to keep their trees and vines alive, considered in this deal? Those irrigators used their own money to upgrade their delivery infrastructure and on-farm irrigation systems to world's best practice. They now see their competitors upstream receive taxpayer funds to provide for the same infrastructure.

What has happened to the plan that our Premier put to Prime Minister Howard (prior to last November's federal election) to provide for low interest loans to those same irrigators in South Australia? Were our irrigators considered? No; they have been abandoned in the quest for the signature.

Were the floodwaters flowing into the Darling ever discussed by our Premier? Under current arrangements the Murray-Darling Basin Commission only gains control over water in the Medindie Lakes once 640 gigalitres is in storage. Stories abound of farmers being encouraged to divert water away from the flows to the Medindie Lakes to avoid this trigger being met, which would give the Murray-Darling Basin Commission access to significant volumes of water, some of which could well help the dying Lower Lakes and the Coorong in South Australia. Was this issue discussed? Remember: 'It's about the water, stupid, not the signature.'

When you paint yourself into a corner, when the imperative is the signature, it is very difficult even to raise other matters, let alone negotiate an advantage. South Australia has, once again, been the victim of an incompetent Labor government. The Premier has ignored the political reality that, by moving powers from the South Australian minister to the federal minister, he has simply left South Australia's interests to the whim of the Eastern States. What guarantees has he achieved for our interests?

It is fine to argue that the federal minister is a South Australian. What will happen when there is a water crisis in New South Wales with a New South Wales state election looming and a federal election around the corner? Who will be protecting South Australia's interests then? Will we still have a South Australian as the water minister in Canberra? I think not.

I will now illustrate the difference between rhetoric and action—the very reason South Australia continues to fail. Let me visit a speech that the Premier made in February. He spoke of a visit to the Lower Lakes in January and said:

At Lake Alexandrina water levels were at 20-year lows with salinity nearly double World Health Organisation standards. It was a terrifying glimpse of the future.

He went on to say:

This is a state of emergency. I have called for a special meeting of COAG to specifically address the problems of the River Murray and the health and future of all our natural waterways and water resources.

He also said, 'There can be no more alibis and excuses or, even worse, more delays.' The Premier spoke of a plan to waterproof Adelaide 'to cull our reliance on the Murray'. He talked of the amount of stormwater and effluent discharge from Adelaide into the sea. He stated:

So it makes absolute sense to be using more of our stormwater rather than drawing it from the Murray.

South Australia should be proud of our Premier, except for the fact that this rhetoric was uttered in a speech which was delivered on 20 February 2003, over five years ago. And he had the temerity to say that the was a man of action, not a man of rhetoric.

In the same address the Premier announced that he and the then Victorian premier had forged a new partnership to help restore the health of the river. He went on to state:

We have pledged to work together to improve the salinity and water quality of the river.

Five years later the truth is stark: the Premier's rhetoric is as empty and depleted as our river and our dams. His words are as barren as our orchards and gardens; his endeavour for South Australia is as hollow as an empty tank. Just as he uttered those statements five long years ago, his utterances of recent times have now proved to be empty rhetoric. Demands of independent authorities, an absolute absence of politicians, his very utterances jar with every South Australian, be they Lower Lakes dairy farmers, Riverland orchardists or Adelaide home gardeners.

If the Premier had demonstrated over the past five years his and his government's commitment to his lofty words of 2003, as South Australians, we may have some sympathy for his position. The fact that his utterances have never been matched by his actions or deeds leaves him and his government condemned. Why then has he kowtowed to the other premiers? Why when South Australia is at the end of the river system, are we arguing to give away powers in return for no benefit?

South Australians have endured a long and tough five years since the Premier mouthed those platitudes to the National Press Club. The points he raised were relevant then, but they are much more relevant now. The amazing thing is that over the five years so little has been done: no stormwater harvesting, no increase in recycling, a desalination project moving at a snail's pace, and a proposal to build a new dam at Mount Bold to increase our reliance on the River Murray.

Even more importantly, five years on, our Premier wants to sign an agreement which provides for New South Wales to continue under its current water plans until 2014 and Victoria to continue without change until 2019, except that in Victoria they will be taking even more water from the system and converting it from irrigation status to critical human needs status.

I am at a loss to understand what is in this deal for South Australia other than having John Brumby's signature. South Australia needs more water—not in 2020: it needs it now. John Howard proposed $3 billion to be used to address overallocation by purchasing legal water entitlements. Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong proposed to spend just $50 million on water purchases. Remember the Premier's line about no more alibis or excuses or, even worse, no more delays. The grand plan of John Howard to meet the challenges of over allocation is now in shreds and South Australia's position is even more dire.

Rainfall will help but everyone, even our Premier, knows that the system is broken. We cannot make it rain but we can repair the system. Unfortunately, that will take a leader of action—not the task for a spin doctor.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Small Business, Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Trade) (14:42): Firstly, in contributing to this debate, I express my deep concern regarding the opposition's attitude towards what is one of the most significant milestones in a century towards better management of the River Murray system. I also express my deep concern regarding this ill-conceived urgency motion and the rhetoric that has been placed on the record in this place in regard to what has been achieved during the past week and, indeed, over the past 12 months. The Liberal opposition's phoney attention to water is absolutely astounding. The phoney rhetoric and attitude towards the seriousness of the drought—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Let me go back in history and, instead of allowing the Liberal opposition to continue to rewrite history, let me look at their track record. At the 2006 election, their commitment on water was to have a plan by 2009. There it is in black and white in the Liberal Party's platform on water at the 2006 election.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: A point of order, Mr Speaker: I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say and I cannot hear it.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. Members of my left must contain themselves. The Minister for the River Murray.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: In their 2006 election platform, it was all about developing a plan by 2009. This government has been getting on with the job of implementing—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will come to order.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: —actions, actually investing in our water security, investing in projects that will deliver real water.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss will come to order.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Twelve months ago, for the first time since I have been a member of parliament, we saw the federal government take water as a serious issue. It had been in government for almost 11 years, and in 11 years we could not get the strong leadership we needed at the federal level to deliver the national reform required to better manage the Murray-Darling Basin.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and any points that they wish to make by way of interjection they can make in the course of the debate. It is not necessary for them to call out and try to shout down the Minister for the River Murray.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Just over 12 months ago, in January last year, I would be the first to say that I was absolutely delighted that the Howard/Turnbull team finally announced that they were going to look at a national approach to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. That is something that South Australia had been calling for—not just for one decade, not for two decades, but for many decades—that there be strong leadership from the federal government in regard to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin system.

In South Australia we have enjoyed a very strong bipartisan approach to issues relating to the River Murray prior to this particular Leader of the Opposition. We have actually seen an Adelaide Declaration declared in this place—an Adelaide Declaration that resulted in the Living Murray, which was to deliver, and is to deliver, 500 gigalitres as the first step towards reducing the over-extraction of the River Murray.

That was a substantial effort and it was done with this government and with the former minister for the River Murray and minister for environment, the member for Kaurna. The member for Kaurna had an extraordinary impact at the national level in regard to getting the Living Murray off the ground. He achieved that with the extraordinary support of all members of parliament, not just state members of parliament but also federal members of parliament, right in this place—the Adelaide Declaration.

We enjoyed a bipartisan approach to South Australian water before that, with a motion that was moved by the member for Kaurna to establish a select committee on the River Murray in this place. That select committee took 18 months to investigate issues and put on the table a whole range of recommendations that are and have been implemented. Many of those were about an independence to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, an independence that was also called for by Professor Cullen.

When the Howard/Turnbull plan was launched in January last year, it did not include that independence. What they sought was a complete federal takeover—hand it from one group of politicians to another group of politicians and hope for the best. That was never going to achieve the national reform necessary to get the changes that we need in the interests of the basin, which will ultimately be in the interests of South Australia.

What South Australia was successful in negotiating and delivering—and our Premier took it to the other premiers—was a commitment from the Howard/Turnbull government to amend their plan to include an independent authority. That independent authority would ultimately report to the federal minister, and if the federal minister chose not to accept the recommendations of that independent authority then that minister would need to put on the table of both houses of parliament his reasons for not doing so. Over the last 12 months—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Finniss.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: —negotiations have occurred to try to deal with the myriad issues of bringing the national plan to fruition. There were a lot of issues, and there is no doubt Victoria was a sticking point. Victoria held out there and said that they did not want to sign up to the plan, they believed that everything was fine, they were doing okay and the rest of the basin was of no interest to them.

The issue of getting the deadlock broken is about getting proper negotiation, dealing with the issues of each of the jurisdictions concerned and progressing those issues. Since the change in government, we have seen great work from Malcolm Turnbull up until the time that he decided he was not going to negotiate any more and he would just legislate with what he had. The new government picked up the mantle and commenced negotiations to get this plan delivered.

The plan has now been delivered, and I give great credit to Senator Penny Wong, who has undertaken an enormous job as the Minister for Water Security. She is a South Australian senator who has been able to deliver on this plan.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the member for Finniss.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I would just like to talk about some of the incorrect information that the opposition has put forward in relation to the national plan. In particular, I would like to talk about the project in Victoria. The opposition continues to suggest that this is about sending water to Adelaide.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: To Melbourne. My apologies: to Melbourne. If it looked at the memorandum of understanding, and if the opposition had any understanding at all regarding national water issues, it would understand that the commitment in the memorandum of understanding is subject to due diligence, first and foremost. Secondly, it is Stage 2 of the Food Bowl Improvement program, which does not include a pipeline to Melbourne. How about that? It is not even the same project. What it is talking about is a different project which is being funded by the state government of Victoria and its irrigation community and which is not part of the federal government commitment.

Another thing that is critically important for the underpinning of the future supplies into South Australia—not just for critical urban needs but underpinning the security of supply to our irrigation communities—is ensuring that the basin-wide plan includes critical urban needs. We were unable to get a commitment to critical urban needs from the previous government. We have achieved it under this government. The basin plan will now include provisions for critical human needs. People actually matter. People need water, and the 1.1 million people in Adelaide—and the myriad country communities that are dependent upon the River Murray in South Australia, including Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, all the Riverland townships, including my own electorate, down to Murray Bridge—are critical human needs.

For the first time, the basin-wide plan will consider that critical human needs must be considered in developing that plan. It has to be there, and that was a significant gap in the previous proposal.

The other component of the contribution from the opposition is in relation to taxpayer funds for irrigation. It has quoted twice this week from a press release issued on 22 October by the Premier. This is the phoney nature of the representation of the opposition in relation to this matter, because it has quoted extremely selectively from this press release and taken it totally out of context.

The Premier's press release actually refers to comments that were made by the former prime minister John Howard, who said in Adelaide that Adelaide should set about becoming independent of the River Murray for its water supply. The Premier went on to say that the prime minister's water vision for our state totally undermined his $10 billion rescue plan for the River Murray and the undertakings he gave to South Australia. It means that, amongst other things, the $10 billion will be used further up river to improve infrastructure and make water efficiencies to benefit New South Wales and Victoria, but will not create greater flows into the South Australian end of the river. That was referring to the comments that the prime minister made. If the prime minister's comments were put into practice, that would be what would happen.

Members should read the full press release and not take it out of context. The phoney representation of the opposition, in its phoney urgency motion today, is incorrect. It is dishonest in its implication.

The opposition also referred to a speech made by the Premier at the Press Club in 2003, setting out a whole range of measures that the government was putting into place back in 2003 to plan for the future, remembering that the opposition had as its election platform in 2006 to develop a plan by 2009. Well, it was back in 2003—let us get the order of this correct—that this Premier was putting on the table the development of the Waterproofing Adelaide strategy. The Waterproofing Adelaide strategy is a substantial document and the Waterproofing Adelaide strategy is now being built on by the further infrastructure investment that this government has not only committed to but has started to deliver. We are building a 50 gigalitre desalination plant. We are doing the work to establish and double the size of our reservoirs in the Adelaide Hills.

That is another point that the opposition is deceitful on. The South Australian licences for our metropolitan Adelaide from the River Murray are a rolling licence of 650 gigalitres. What we intend to do with increasing our capacity in the Adelaide Hills is not to increase our reliance on the River Murray, but to reduce our reliance on the River Murray—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: —when it is in its most stressful times. We have a rolling licence, and at the moment given the way the system is operated—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: —and has been operated in the past, Adelaide depends most on the River Murray when the River Murray is under its most stress. By expanding the reservoir capacity in the Adelaide Hills we can actually rebalance that licence—rebalance it, not take more—to ensure that we can have less impact on the River Murray particularly in extremely dry periods. We will also have the increased capacity in those reservoirs which will augment and support the desalination plant. It is a sound plan. We are also investing in the interconnection between the north and the south systems within the Adelaide distribution grid to ensure that we can distribute water properly and efficiently across those two systems.

We are in the grip of the most extreme drought on record but the opposition appears to have forgotten that. We are in the grip of the most extreme drought and the South Australian community is currently on enhanced—

Mr VENNING: I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, the honourable member's time has expired.

The SPEAKER: It has expired. The Minister for the River Murray needs to complete her remarks. The member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (14:57): We just hear the same speech time and time again from the so-called Minister for Water Security, and it goes on and on. We want less waffle. We want more water. In support of this motion, I want to bring to the house's attention the human dimension of inaction on the River Murray.

Once the state's dairy showpiece with a vibrant industry regarded around the country as among the very best, operated by second, third and fourth generation farmers, using water that nobody else wanted; dairies in the region are now almost non-existent. Those who have stayed are using truly desperate and dangerous methods to try to reach water they are entitled to: their so-called 32 per cent allocation.

While many 60, 70 and 80 year olds in the city are busy getting on with their lives, with no restriction on water use inside the house, their counterparts around the Lower Lakes are crawling around the mudflats on their stomachs, dragging pipes behind them in a frantic effort to reach the ever-receding waterline, and this is for water for critical human needs. Not irrigation: that has stopped.

These are our fellow South Australians, mothers and fathers, cousins, grandparents. They have been growing our food, producing our milk, contributing to the state's economy and reputation. We do not seem too keen to help them now that they are suffering the effects of the disaster that is none of their making. This government has failed them and failed to safeguard South Australia's interests.

Here we are in April 2008 debating the inevitable: no water in the bottom end of the River Murray—Australia's greatest river, soon to become Australia's greatest shame. In the 17 months since the Premier's uncosted announcement of a weir, which has since blown out tenfold, nothing substantive has been done to address the inevitable consequences of low flows, let alone no flows.

Recent media coverage of the situation around the Lower Lakes has finally woken up people to just how much communities are hurting. The graphic images of desperate people struggling has finally hit home. Suddenly, others further up the river have a taste of what it could be like for them if the management of the river is not fixed quickly. Yes, I know that there is a new memorandum of understanding, one that was held back for another 12 months to allow the Labor Party machine to maximise political gain, but even that does not offer any real assistance to our struggling fellow South Australians with the problems they have right now.

Consider this: in the days following last week's announcement, there was little empathy from the government on the impending doom the people of the Lower Lakes were facing. Whatever general plans the government had to ensure the continued supply of water for critical human needs for other South Australians, it carefully but clearly avoided the issue of what would be done for the people around the Lower Lakes. It was clear that they were going to be left to fend for themselves. To their credit, these people have battled on with little or no help until now—now that there has been a very public hue and cry about it, and now that the government has finally realised that it cannot go on ignoring the issue. We hope it has.

The government was quite prepared to sacrifice the environment below Wellington—and I notice the transport minister's glee at that—and all the people whose lives depended on it. But, suddenly, out of the blue, there is a plan to save Lake Albert from acid sulphate soils. How ironic! The government has gone from a position of abandoning the whole of the Lower Lakes and Coorong, and everyone around them, to suddenly showing compassion for the environment. There is still no real assistance for the critical human needs of the people who live around the area, but the government will spend $6 million to save a piece of that environment from possible total destruction.

Do not misunderstand me; I am not saying that this plan should not go ahead. I am merely making the point that the government's priorities—

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I am talking about the wall between Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina. I am merely making the point that the government's priorities in this whole situation are inconsistent. All we have been hearing from this government for the past 12 to 18 months is the mantra, 'It's not our fault; it's the drought, and we can't make it rain.' Well, the government has forgotten that we have been in drought since 2002.

I put it to the houses that, if we accept that every bit of water in the entire river system is rainfall—that is, it would not be in the river if it had not fallen from the skies somewhere, some time, even in the northern basin—then I suggest that the government can make it rain. It may not fall from the sky directly above us, but anything that comes down that river is rain. What the government has to do to make it rain is get some more of it from upstream, now and forever. That is the key to this disaster.

It seems grossly unfair that, in the $10 billion deal, $1 billion is gifted to Victoria to fix its archaic infrastructure, and the efficient people at the end of the system have to beg on their bellies to get a few bob to help them. As was said by Sally Grundy, whose family operates the last farm on the whole of the Murray, 'We are the first to feel the effects of no flows and the last to get help.'

Time expired.

At 15:04, the time for debate having expired, the matter stands withdrawn.