House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Murray River Irrigators MURRAY RIVER IRRIGATORS Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly MacKillop MURRAY RIVER IRRIGATORS Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (14:54): My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain how his historic agreement on the River Murray has been of benefit to South Australia when his Minister for Water Security has stated that she expects 1,000 of the 3,500 Murray irrigators—almost 30 per cent—to exit production whilst Victoria maintains a cap of 4 per cent on exits of water from any of its irrigation districts? The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly Ramsay Premier Minister for Economic Development Minister for Social Inclusion Minister for the Arts Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change MURRAY RIVER IRRIGATORS 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) (14:54): Perhaps we can go back to a time when the current federal Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, was the minister for environment and water resources in the Howard government. After calling some years before for a special meeting on the River Murray and having had that denied by your former leader, John Howard, eventually, a one in 1,000-year drought and a one in 1,000-year record low inflow forced a meeting— Members interjecting: The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: Yes. It is interesting. I was at the meeting, and so was John Howard, when a senior official from the Murray-Darling Commission said that the river system had been engineered (this is from memory) for a one in 100-year event, and this was a one in 1,000-year event. Then there was a special meeting—you may remember the one that was held on Melbourne Cup Day. Basically, John Howard discovered the River Murray because he was staring oblivion in the face. The state Liberal Party called on me to endorse a restructuring of the Murray-Darling Commission arrangements that would involve handing it over from one group of politicians to another. I came out publicly, and was attacked by you for doing so, to urge for an independent commission to run the River Murray, based on science and on the needs of the river rather than on politics—and I was attacked around the country. I remember seeing cartoons of me up the river without a paddle, and all the rest of it. I remember the day when the Minister for Water Security brought your new federal leader into my office and he gave me a little lecture and said that no-one was supporting my idea and he became somewhat arrogant—I think that is probably the best word to describe it. I pointed out that he had a ticking clock on his own ambitions. Eventually, Peter Beattie came out and supported an independent commission and it was great that the Sunday Mail gave it tremendous editorial support. I remember that day because we saw a change nationally. Eventually, at a meeting, again, with the then prime minister, even though you had asked me to sign up to arrangements that would have been absolutely detrimental to South Australia's long-term interests, we held out for an independent commission, and we got a commitment by John Howard. In recent times, you have asked what the benefits have been. The benefits have been that, even though the drought continues, there are now new arrangements for setting a basin-wide cap, a basin-wide plan covering a whole range of issues, by an independent commission. We have also seen the commitment of billions of dollars for infrastructure, for piping. Basically, some people's IQs are so low that they ask, 'But why is this money being spent in New South Wales?' It is called gravity—that is where the water is. We want them to spend money in New South Wales so that, instead of open culverts, we see a better and more efficient form of water reticulation. Of course, we also want to see the $610 million that we have negotiated with the federal government being spent on re-engineering of the Lower Lakes; money for the Riverland; and also a water grid for the Lower Lakes so that communities down there no longer have to rely on the saline lakes for their water supply. One has to think about these issues—and an accelerated buyback, which we lobbied for. We also lobbied for a complete audit of all the water in the River Murray, because a magic pudding had been invented whereby some people (including some in politics) would go up to the Riverland and tell the Riverland irrigators, who are in a desperate situation, that there was a huge amount of water somewhere that was available for them, and then go down to the Lower Lakes and say, 'No, there is a huge amount of water for you.' Of course, what would have happened is that that big poultice of water would have gone past the Riverland where the people would have waved it goodbye—most of it would have evaporated—past the intakes into Adelaide, and then down to the Lower Lakes to evaporate, the small percentage that would get that far. This is the politics of dishonesty by those who are not on this side of the house. The Hon. P.F. Conlon House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Don't forget his policy: kidnap Brumby and put him in a headlock. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: Yes; that is right. So, when we talk about public policy, what was the advice given to me— Mr Williams interjecting: The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: You asked the question and you will get the answer. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat. The member for MacKillop. Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly Mr WILLIAMS: I rise on a point of order as to relevance. As the Premier said, I will get the answer, and the question was: why are 30 per cent of South Australian irrigators expected to exit, whereas Victoria maintains a 4 per cent cap on the selling of water? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier is answering the substance of the question. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: In terms of public policy, in terms of the maturity of someone who wants to lead a state, he said to go and put Brumby in a headlock; bang on his desk; lock him in a room. Mr Koutsantonis House of Assembly Mr Koutsantonis: Red-faced. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: Red-faced, barking like a dog, all this sort of stuff; we saw it all. Of course, he was going to demonstrate to us how he would deal with people interstate, so he flew off to a Liberal leaders' meeting in Sydney and they told him to nick off. Barry O'Farrell, the leader of the Liberal Party, laughed at him. I guess it is because being in government means you actually have to work for a living. You have to work for a living, and you have to basically do the hard yards and the hard negotiations. He could not even convince those in his own party who were out of power to agree with him. I do not know what happened to his headlock. I do not know what happened to locking him in a room: they kicked him out of the room and laughed at him publicly. So, we have the $610 million, we have the handover of constitutional powers that were acclaimed by the Sunday Mail, and we also have the accelerated buyback of water licences. We have the complete audit of water in the River Murray and we have a change in the exceptional circumstances criteria to give support to those irrigators who are not sustainable and who are asking for assistance from us. We have a change in the arrangements. We have also announced that we will step in to guarantee a water bank for those who are sustainable. That is the difference between people who work for a living and those who cannot remember what they said the day before and basically mouth off about anything.