Question Time

MURRAY RIVER BUYBACK SCHEME

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (16:35): My question is to the Premier. If, under arrangements agreed between the current federal and state governments, the state's powers over the River Murray have been referred in full to the commonwealth, and if there is now a strong independent authority which governs the river, can he explain to the house how Victoria can refuse to lift its 4 per cent cap on water trading?

Reports made public today reveal that the Victorian government will block the $500 million River Murray buyback passed by the Senate in recent days. A spokesman for the federal water minister, Penny Wong, has told media that the minister has 'always recognised that delivering the purchase program will require the removal of impediments such as the 4 per cent cap'.

The view is supported by the Environmental Defender's Office, the Australian Conservation Council, the Coorong Action Group, and academics, who support the conclusion that the national water deal is unworkable while Victoria holds its power of veto.

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) (16:36): It is a very good question. In terms of the 4 per cent, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is only just aware of it. It was announced last year, about four COAG meetings ago. Our response, of course, was to condemn the Victorian government for maintaining its position. I have to say—

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I have to say, however, that I noted with some interest that the deal was done in order to facilitate the passage of the legislation to secure a $42 billion worth of funding for the recovery package (I will talk about that in a second). Some news bulletins said there was extra money for buying back the water from the river. As far as I am aware, there is no extra money. What we saw was some money brought forward. The key question is—not that one would ever expect these key questions to be asked—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I am trying to give an answer in my own humble way. The point of the matter is that it is a key question; it is a question that I have posed directly to Senator Penny Wong. I have sent her a letter which asks, in essence: how much extra water will come down the River Murray as a result of the Xenophon package? Is there any—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It is directly relevant.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is no relevance to the question—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —about the $42 billion; the question is about the cap.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order. There is no point of order. The Premier is answering the substance of the question.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I will remind the deputy leader that it is about the $500 million being frustrated in terms of Victorian intransigence. I have asked Penny Wong to get from her department an estimate of any extra water. If there is, then that is fantastic. Is there any extra water flowing down the River Murray as a result of this deal done in order to get Nick Xenophon's support for the package? If there is extra money—and I hope there is—I want to know how much extra water will be flowing down the River Murray, and I want to know how much will reach South Australia, and I want to know how much will reach the Lower Lakes and when it will reach the Lower Lakes. These are questions that I will put to our federal colleagues and will keep putting to our federal colleagues.

I know the Leader of the Opposition's brilliant plan—and we saw in Frome how his strategy and tactics combine and how it works out—it was to go and put his Victorian and New South Wales colleagues in a headlock. Well, no-one will stop me from criticising the Victorian government for its intransigence on this issue. It was the same intransigence that was experienced by John Howard who said—and I have witnesses in this room—'Leave them to me.' We saw the same intransigence from Barry O'Farrell. We know what he said to the Leader of the Opposition, he told him to get out of his office.

The point is that these states have been acting in their own interest. We negotiated for a $13 billion package, we negotiated for the $3.5 billion buyback, we came up with the idea of an independent commission, which members of Liberal Party opposed. I can say this. On this day let us remember—and we saw the member for Unley at the Convention Centre where we were briefing school principals and school council chairpersons about the benefits of the education package for South Australia—that the honourable member's party opposed the legislation, whether it was about the River Murray, about fixing up the schools or about building homes. The absolute gall!

Apparently the deal with the journos was, 'Ah, Rann will be so irked that the member for Unley, the shadow minister for whatever, was there at the Convention Centre uninvited, because he voted against'—

Mr PISONI: I rise on a point of order, that of misleading the house. I was invited, because I was representing the Unley Primary School—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: I was invited and the Premier said I was not.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley will take his seat. Allegations of misleading must not be made by other than substantive motion. There is no point of order.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Apparently he wanted—

Mrs REDMOND: I have a point of order. I suggest that the Premier's response has turned to debate.

The SPEAKER: I think the Premier has drifted into debate.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Journalists were told that there might be an incident. We welcomed him there; we welcomed the fact that there was one Liberal who supported the package for schools in this state.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader will take her seat. I think the Premier has finished.