House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Senate Water Bill Amendment SENATE WATER BILL AMENDMENT Ms FOX House of Assembly Bright SENATE WATER BILL AMENDMENT Ms FOX (Bright) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for the River Murray. Will the minister explain the consequences of amendments to the definition of 'critical human water needs' during the Senate debate on the water bill last night? The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD House of Assembly Chaffey Minister for the River Murray Minister for Water Security SENATE WATER BILL AMENDMENT The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (15:03): I very much thank the member for Bright for her question: it is an extremely important question. In addition to the issue of the amendments that are looking to prohibit projects such as the Sugarloaf pipeline to occur, another amendment was also moved and supported by the Senate to change the definition of 'critical human water needs'. This is quite an extraordinary amendment, particularly given that the Liberal Party in South Australia supported an amendment in our upper house (the Legislative Council) to expand the definition of 'critical human needs' to include permanent plantings. In the Senate, however, the Liberal Party has done exactly the opposite: it has supported an amendment to limit critical human needs further. That amendment to limit the critical human needs definition will have a substantial impact on South Australia. Under the definition within the act that was put to the Senate, 'critical human water needs' included not only that which is required for drinking water and urban uses but also to provide for water to industry in circumstances where a failure to provide water would cause prohibitively high social, economic or national security costs. By the Senate amending this and taking out that provision within this legislation it means that companies such as OneSteel, Nyrstar, wineries, abattoirs and GMH no longer have access to water through critical needs provision within the definition of critical human needs. The Liberal Party in this state supported an amendment in the upper house here to actually expand it, and then in the Senate the Liberal Party supported narrowing it, to the detriment of this state. It is an amendment that I am strongly opposed to and every South Australian should be strongly opposed to. Our critical human needs water underpins water into people's homes and those critical needs for industry to enable this state to continue to employ people and to continue to generate economic wealth. It is a nonsense to suggest that critical human needs should only include drinking water and that towns such as Dubbo, Wagga and Mildura will not be impacted by this. Their industries will still be able to happen, but it is outside the basin in South Australia that we will not be able to do it. I think that we need to understand the consequences of your political folly, when the Liberal Party supports these kinds of amendments in the South Australian Legislative Council and upstairs in the Senate in the federal parliament. It may seem like short-term political gain, but putting in place the amendment that was spoken about earlier today (which is to not permit the taking of water for additional uses outside the basin), puts at risk the referral of powers to the commonwealth for the management of the basin in the longer term. What stupid fool would do that? Why would anyone want to put that at risk as a South Australian? No-one from South Australia would want to put at risk the referral of powers to ensure that we get a basin-wide approach to the national management of the Murray-Darling Basin. I do not support any action that will be taken to actually reduce water taken for the environment. There is no action across the basin that anyone in South Australia should support that will reduce water for the environment. In fact, the referral of powers to the commonwealth is about getting water back into the environment. A couple of projects in Victoria are controversial. There is no doubt that they are controversial and I will tell members about those projects. There is one thing that this government in this state is supporting and that is more water for the environment. More water for the environment is what this government is supporting. I will give members a little bit of history; the former water minister, Malcolm Turnbull, went around this nation several times talking about different water projects and one project that he touted as leading nationally in relation to water reform and water infrastructure development. I remind members opposite that that project happened to be just south of Perth. It was a major irrigation district redevelopment at Harvey Bay and the government in Western Australia paid a considerable amount of money to upgrade the infrastructure of that Western Australian irrigation district. For that investment, they ran a pipeline from the south of Perth, into Perth and took that water that was saved out of that irrigation rehabilitation up to Perth. The Hon. R.J. McEwen House of Assembly The Hon. R.J. McEwen: That was okay. The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD House of Assembly The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: That was okay; and that is why, when Malcolm Turnbull put up his water bill last year, before the election, he did not propose that this pipeline should be opposed. What he supported was more water for the environment. He supported investment in infrastructure that would be split 50-50. Fifty per cent of the infrastructure investment would go to the environment and 50 per cent would go to other uses (consumptive uses), to deal with climate change and to deal with the fact that people would have to learn to do more with less in the future. The argument in Victoria is whether that 50 per cent saving should be distributed between irrigators and Melbourne. That is a debate for Victoria. South Australia's focus is on getting more water back into the River Murray. If the investment of federal money into Victoria results in more water for the river, then that is a good outcome. If Victorians want to debate between themselves whether there should be more water for irrigation or more water for people, that is a debate for them on the water that is available for consumptive purposes. Our only interest in what happens in the River Murray and the Murray-Darling Basin is that there is more water for the environment. Our Premier has written to the federal minister, who is assessing this under the environment protection biodiversity and conservation act, to seek a guarantee that there will be a significant benefit for the environment in this project, and we have received that guarantee. The fact that the Victorian community is debating whether the water that is saved for consumptive purposes should go to irrigation or to Melbourne is a debate for Victorians.