IRRIGATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 March 2009. Page 1797.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:23): As the lead speaker for the opposition today, I advise the house that we support this bill, as we did the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill 2009. Some of my comments will be a repeat of my introductory comments for the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill. This just goes to show how closely aligned these two bills are, and it does stress the exclusivity of the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill because of it being the first irrigation district in Australia.

This bill replaces the Irrigation Act 1994. The Irrigation Act 1994 is now at odds with the commonwealth water reform agenda, which seeks to remove the regulatory barriers to the trade of permanent water outside a given area or irrigation district by separating water from land.

There are several objectives in this bill, notably the need to take into account current management practices and policy directions and the need for compliance with federal policy directions.

Among other things, the bill removes references to government irrigation districts which no longer exist and delineates the function of the Irrigation Trust to that of service providers, rather than land tenants. Other important features relate to the federal requirement for there to be no impediment to trade of water outside irrigation districts.

In regard to consultation, we had extensive consultation up and down the river as this bill, obviously, controls irrigation on a far wider basis than the Renmark bill. We talked to people involved in the Central Irrigation Trust, the Lower Murray Irrigation Trust and people involved in private trusts, and also had communication with South Australian Murray irrigators.

We found, with our consultation, that it was determined that without exception all key personnel support the bill, and they have said that the changes are vital to allow irrigators access to water markets and also enable them to apply for exit packages, which is similar to the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill.

It is noted, and I repeat again, that the people involved in the trusts and other areas of river management were actually quite pleased by the department's extensive and responsive consultation process. They made the observation that all suggestions and requests were noted, except for those matters outside state control. If only things could be so easy with so much more.

They all agreed that certain matters under federal jurisdiction, as I indicated with the earlier bill, were the cause of a lot of aggravation: for example, the failure of the recent COAG agreement to properly vest control of the Murray to a central independent body, the weakness of the federal government in managing to get a successful outcome in negotiating with Victoria and the resulting restrictions on trade out of that state, as well as the extended grace period, so to speak, granted to Victoria and Queensland that forestall any real positive action to restore reasonable flows in the Murray Darling for several years. These matters fall into the larger process of the COAG agreement throughout the other states and the federal COAG agreement, but will not impede the progress of this bill.

Irrigators and trusts do have some related concerns that are a consequence of the changes to the act. In disposing of a water right from the land within a trust district, the cost of providing and maintaining distribution services will be shared among fewer members with a consequent increase in per member costs. Nevertheless, all trusts are strongly supportive of the changes in these bills and are keen that they progress promptly. Obviously, in regards to exit packages, that is paramount.

There were comments made through our consultation that people believe that the state Labor government should do more to effect change in federal policy-makers' thinking. I will go through some of the consultation that we have had on the bills. There was a comment from someone involved with private irrigation trusts who has had involvement with the bills for three years.

All trusts were invited to contribute and were briefed by the department twice. As I have explained, questions and comments from the floor were explained or addressed in the final bill. As I have indicated earlier, their concern is, again, with matters of federal jurisdiction. No. 1 is that the transformation of irrigators' rights is potentially disruptive. If an irrigator takes his water and sells it to the natural resources management board it leaves a lot of confusing paperwork to be dealt with. The comment was made that Victoria and Queensland are quite willing to do their own thing. Another comment was that New South Wales is seen as the potential loser. It was also noted that it could not happen quick enough that 50 per cent of all water savings are to go back to the environment.

There were also concerns indicated through the consultation process about the cost of delivery of services as irrigators exit or sell. Another comment was made about the federal minister (minister Wong) hearing but not listening. There were comments that the exit strategy is clearly not working; too many constraints and add-ons, for example, exit fees, capital gains issues, etc.

The point was made, and I fully agree, that Murray Futures is probably not getting a fair go in South Australia as infrastructure upgrades were completed here years ago. I commend everyone involved in our irrigation districts. They have done a great job throughout the Riverland and then, later on, working through issues of transforming the Lower Murray Swamps. However, I fear that it may all have to happen again after the present drought—as far as the Lower Murray Swamps are concerned, anyway. There were more comments about the bill and the Lower Murray, such as: 'happy with the bills'; 'key industry people very satisfied with the result' and 'did not see the need to change the bills as they came through the house as they were listened to through the negotiation process.'

The federal issues remain. As someone indicated, they called it the Rudd-Brumby agreement, which was seriously flawed and gave everyone false hope that the transfer of power would be quick and effective. The comment has been made that, by the time the Victorian and Queensland grace periods expire, there might be no river left to fight for.

A common theme amongst people we talked to was that the bills had been progressed well in the consultation phase, that most of the problems still remain under federal jurisdiction and that the federal minister (minister Wong) is not listening. It was commented to us: 'So much for Labor governments working in tandem with each other for desirable outcomes.' There was also a comment made that the state minister (minister Maywald) could or should intervene to convince minister Wong that the resultant problems should be considered and dealt with.

I want to enlarge on the issue of the river in general and its management over the past few years. We at this end of the river seem to be managing the drought and over-allocation at one end of the system. It just goes to show that the Murray-Darling Basin now and into the future will not be controlled as it should be. There are too many unregulated rivers that do not come under management and too many state rights. We have seen what has recently happened with rains in the north again, very similar to last year, flooding rains through Queensland where most of that water is captured, diverted, stored and not available to flow down the system as it once used to. We have seen an issue in the Macquarie marshes where thousands of kilometres of illegal banks were built in New South Wales. To this day I believe they still have not been pushed over as they should be.

There is a huge problem with the management of unregulated water. I believe it should come under some form of regulation. With the way the basin is operated, there is really only tradeable water in the southern basin and, as time goes on, the water falls in the north will need to be managed. If that is where we go there is nothing in place to support it. I do not agree with some commentators who say that we should forget about the northern basin; I firmly believe that we should not.

There are also issues, as we go down the system, with channels that are not metered. I have had reports from people travelling through Victoria about there being plenty of water in open channels. However, there are different levels of water restrictions in different towns. As we get further south it is ironic in a sense that, allegedly for salinity control, we hold the pool levels above Lock 1, and we saw water levels below Lock 1 dropping to almost two metres below, where they were normally at 0.75, when the barrages went in.

As I indicated earlier there are massive issues with slumping. I have been at site inspections when, all of a sudden, there is a great crash and another area of the river falls in. Essentially, the bank gives way and suddenly 20 metre trees are sitting out in the middle of the river. It has become a safety issue; it is a marina issue; it is a whole-of-river issue.

Obviously, we have salinity management issues. It is interesting to note that salinity issues were being discussed back in the late 1800s when the Renmark Trust was established. I have a major concern that the death by a thousand cuts of the Lower Murray is being presided over by this state government. I do not believe that it has fought hard enough to ensure that we get more water down to protect our icon sites, our Ramsar sites, the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. I think the fact that that it is even on the table to build a weir at Wellington will doom those lakes forever, especially if sea water is allowed in.

We have seen a weir built at Lake Bonney, allegedly to control salinity, and 10 gigalitres of water had to be purchased and quickly pumped over the top. We have seen a bund put in at Narrung, supposedly at a cost of $6 million, but triple the amount of material was needed (from 12,000 cubic metres to 38,000 cubic metres), and dredging was undertaken just so that the ferry could get across.

I will never get over the picture I saw of the Narrung ferry, with an excavator dragging at each end trying to make a channel. Almost a gigalitre of water a day was being pumped to keep Lake Albert above acid sulphate levels and those pumps in water but, essentially, they were pumping silt. My guesstimate is that $50 million has been spent down there, and the government could yet walk away from it.

For too long, Lake Alexandrina has been treated like a mine, and it will happen at Goolwa and Clayton and the regulator there. Another 30 gigalitres has been earmarked to go in to shore up the area around the bottom of Finniss and Currency creeks. We just cannot keep seeing Lake Alexandrina being treated like a mine; we need that water replaced, and we do not need a lot. It has been noted that over the next 18 months we may need a maximum of 220 gigalitres to get us through critical times. I believe that up to 400 gigalitres of tradeable water is in the southern basin, although it is hard to find out exactly what is there.

More action needs to be taken to acquire northern water. The current situation is that, as massive areas of the lake bed are exposed, there are now dust problems. Irrigation areas have been shut down, and plenty of centre pivots on the Narrung Peninsula will never work again, despite all the infrastructure that went in—the electrics, the piping, etc. The other day, I talked to a farmer and his wife who have a dryland exercise towards Langhorne Creek with a little pivot irrigation. Even with access to the irrigation pipe that is coming in under the Murray Futures scheme, they cannot afford anywhere near the water they need to keep going in the normal way by any manner or means. It is just too expensive.

All these projects have been undertaken, and we have seen stock and domestic water go into Narrung and Meningie. The irrigation pipe looks as though it will go ahead for Langhorne and Currency creeks, but I cannot get over the fact that we are taking all these stopgap, bandaid measures when, on a larger scale, with proper compensation, water could be acquired out of the northern basin and the southern basin.

I think this state has sold itself short in the whole debate and that it is time to lobby to Kevin Rudd. Emergency action could be taken, as Bob Hawke did in 1983, to take over the system and ensure that the water gets where it needs to be, whether that be certain sites in New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland; however, as a parochial South Australian, I think that, as we see what I call the carnage all around us, we certainly need it in the Lower Lakes and the Lower Murray. It is indeed front of mind when your electorate is dominated by the River Murray and when the state is certainly heavily reliant on the river.

So, I call on the government and the minister to make more representation to the Prime Minister. In fact, if the minister thought it would help, in a bipartisan way I would go with her on a deputation to him because this is serious. It is a state of emergency in the Lower Lakes.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The minister indicates something about a briefing: here we go, if we want to go down that path. There has been a lot of talk in the Lower Murray, and there has been a lot of talk in the Riverland. I have attended many meetings—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Have you ever asked for a briefing?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; I have asked for a briefing, and I am just getting to that. I am very involved in river matters, and the briefing I wanted related to the Mount Bold reservoir. We had an initial briefing during the debate 18 months or two years ago, although I do not have the exact date in front of me. It is to be noted that the minister was at that meeting with her chief of staff, and I challenged her about how much water would have to be taken out of the River Murray for the alleged Mount Bold expansion. I was told by the minister that it was nowhere the 95 per cent I said would need to be pumped from the river for the extra 200 gigalitres, and I still believe that to this day. I was told that they had organised a briefing for me, but I have never heard back from the department or the minister. It works both ways, minister, I am afraid.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No, you and your chief of staff were there, so—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Oh, Mount Bold. You never asked for one on the Lower Lakes—

Mr PEDERICK: No, I am just talking about briefings in general.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: That was 18 months ago.

Mr PEDERICK: That is how long I have waited. The minister has admitted that it is 18 months. So, what is the point in keeping to ask for briefings? I have close contact with all my community. In fact, I am a member of the Lower River Murray Drought Task Force, which has Dean Brown on board, and I make regular representations right up and down the river. The minister would be well aware of that.

One thing I have learnt from briefings is that the government will only tell you what it wants you to hear. It will not tell you about its dismal record of managing the river in this state and how it has been so electorate focused, and the dismal record of Mike Rann especially, and the minister, who just seem to think that the Lower Lakes can go to the pack. Well, I do not stand by that. It is also a part of the dismal record that, when people from Western Australia put forward ideas on buyer remediation as long ago as last May, they were only listened to by the DWLBC department a couple of weeks ago. And that is a fact.

It is interesting to note (and the minister keeps interjecting) that representatives of the DEH, after years of drought, suddenly come to meetings and say, 'Now we are going to plan on how to fix the River Murray.' Where have they been? Have they been living under a rock? They are obviously living somewhere, but nowhere near the river.

I see the reactions of people in the local communities when these government people go there and expound their so-called virtues—and Prime Minister Rudd did the same thing. They stand on the shoreline of Lake Albert or at Milang on Lake Alexandrina and say, 'This is the effect of climate change.' People will just about throw them out of the room. They know what it is: it is drought and over-allocation. The river has been over-allocated. The whole river system has not been managed properly, and it could be done a lot better.

This government has been quite happy to preside over essentially the death of the River Murray (and more international media have been taking notice of what is going on), and this government should be held to account on that. It is just disgraceful. I have seen the mental health issues, the general health issues, families torn apart over what should happen with the river, businesses torn apart and people who have gone out of business. I firmly believe that the government will have more than enough to handle if it builds the Wellington weir, with respect to managing salinity above it, because of the volumes of salt that come into the river from groundwater below Lock 1.

I am quite happy to debate with the minister at any time. The government minister will only tell me what they want me to hear: one never hears the full facts. We were told once, early in the piece, that the pumps could never be lowered. Now we are told that they can access water to minus 3 on three of the pumps and Murray Bridge can go to minus 2.1 under sea level, and that is still disputed by the government. I think that there are people inside the government who want to build structures whatever happens, and will not manage the system appropriately.

To return to the substance of the bill, we support the Irrigation Bill 2009 and note that part of the reason why we are here today is to help people to exit the industry, which is a sad thing. However, I note that the bill needs to go through. I also note that there was good consultation. Let us see a speedy passage through the house.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (16:49): I wish to speak only briefly; I am normally brief on my feet. This is an important measure. The irrigation industry in the Riverland, in particular, is exceptionally important and, as someone who represents sections of it, I am very aware of the excellent work that the Central Irrigation Trust has done in modernising the system and dealing with salt. I am also very much aware of the difficulties and hard times that many people who are reliant on the irrigation system and adequate supplies of water are having economically. I just want to place on the record that I appreciate the great challenges in which they are currently involved.

One of the things of which the NRM parliamentary committee is aware and which it has had made very clear to it is that there is an urgent need for work to be carried out at Menindee Lakes. Considerable savings could be made and more water could come through the system if those important irrigation projects were carried out. Obviously, it has probably not been in the interests of the New South Wales government to do it, but it certainly would be in the interests of people downstream in South Australia if those important engineering works were expedited and carried out.

My constituents, who have seen their allocations drastically cut and who have suffered from economic decline as a result of those decisions, want to see more water come into the system. They want a fair allocation. I think it is unfair that Victoria appears to have been looked after at the expense of South Australia. It is interesting that, when travelling in the area, wherever you go, you hear that it is always someone else's problem. If you go to New South Wales, it is the problem in Victoria. Victoria says that it is someone else, and then you get up to Queensland. All of them are very concerned, upright, good citizens and they have not done anything wrong. Well, someone has obviously taken a lot of water because it is not getting to South Australia.

I think that, if you look at the system fairly, we not only have an expectation but an absolute right to get a fair cut of the cake. One of my earliest experiences dealing with river systems happened many years ago. I remember going to Birdsville when the then minister told the council that, if it attempted to block the Cooper Creek, he would take it to the High Court because there was a very important principle involved. That clearly indicated to me the importance of ensuring that upstream people did not take more than their fair share.

I support the bill. I am very concerned about the plight of people living in the Riverland because they are very important to the economy of this state and this nation, and someone has to have the courage to make those tough decisions which are necessary to protect the river system not only short term but long term so that everyone in those regions has the ability to make a reasonable income and can produce for the benefit of their particular area. I support the bill.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:53): I also rise to support the bill. Much has been said in the chamber this afternoon about the perils of a failure to move in the direction we are moving, particularly with this bill. I listened with interest to the member for Stuart just then. It is a symbol of what impact the River Murray system, the River Darling, etc., has on our country and particularly on our state. The Hon. Graham Gunn, who has been here for a long time, has made some very relevant points in relation to his constituents living along the river, but my constituents, who live hundreds of kilometres away from his constituents at the bottom end around the Murray mouth and the Goolwa area, are facing equally tough conditions in dealing with the state of the river. The difference is that, at the top end, they still have water pooled up, but at the bottom end we have none.

It is a sad indictment on humanity, quite frankly, that this situation has been allowed to develop to where it is. I concur with the comments of my colleague the member for Hammond about the Prime Minister and various others running around talking about climate change—it is purely and simply drought. Drought has been a part of the Australian environment for a long time and it will be for a long time to come. I think the jury is still out on the other issues that the Prime Minister and others seem to raise from time to time.

I have followed this whole debate with a great deal of interest and I am still trying to get my head around who is telling the truth, who is telling porkies and who, in effect, really does not know what is going on. One of the questions to which I would dearly like to know the answer is: is there any water at the top end of the river? I would desperately like to know. I would like someone to tell me—and, in this case, perhaps it should be the minister who is sitting in the chamber now, the Minister for the River Murray—is there water further up the river? Audits have been called for and questions have been asked. I know the member for Mitchell has asked: what are the results of these audits? No-one seems to be able to come up with the right answer. I call on the minister to provide us with information about whether or not there is water up there—I do not know.

This bill today is a step in the right direction for irrigators and the river communities, particularly at that top end of the river in South Australia where irrigation is still taking place. Down our way irrigation is dead and buried. There is no irrigation left—none whatsoever. It is a tragedy. It is a tragedy in environmental terms and economic terms, and it is an immense tragedy to the people who have made their living around Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and the lower reaches of the Murray for so many decades.

I support the bill. I do hope that, as a parliament, we are heading in the right direction. There is bipartisan support for this bill. Although we have differences of opinion across the chamber and probably within groups on either side of the chamber, this is something that has grown out of a desire by the community to progress. I look forward to hearing some answers from the minister (hopefully) to some questions I asked a while ago, as I am sure do others. I support the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:58): We are addressing the Irrigation Bill with very similar effect to the previous bill, the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill. It is a sad day when we are having to pass legislation to aid people to close down industry in South Australia, because that is basically what we are doing here. We are enabling the closure of irrigation blocks in the Riverland, and it is a very sad day. It is more sad because the government of South Australia, for some reason which is lost on me, has not done everything it could to support the people who have been forced to the wall. I know the government will argue that it has been diligent and that it has done everything it possibly can to support these people and that they will only get by when it rains.

It is not lost on me that, if you are an irrigator today between Menindee Lakes and Wentworth in New South Wales, if you have a high security water licence—and a considerable number of them have—you are getting 100 per cent of your allocation. So, if you are growing grapes, citrus, rice (God forbid) or some other irrigated crop in that area, you are getting 100 per cent of your allocation. You come down the river a little bit from Wentworth—and it is not very far from Wentworth to Renmark—and the people at Renmark are getting 18 per cent. I think every irrigator in South Australia has a right to ask: why is it so?

Why are irrigators throughout New South Wales on the Murrumbidgee and the main channel on the upper reaches of the Murray getting 95 per cent of their allocation when in South Australia you get 18 per cent? How is it that the minister and the Premier can claim that they have achieved an historic agreement between the state premiers and the commonwealth government to have a national management regime for the River Murray?

How can they claim that they have achieved that, that this is a fantastic result for South Australia, when six months later we have to come into this place and pass legislation to allow long-suffering irrigators to walk off their properties and exit, to take a few dollars? A lot of them will walk away with only a few dollars after a lifetime of work. Not only have those very irrigators put in a lifetime of work but the product off their properties has supported the other industries in those communities in the Riverland.

During the term of the previous Liberal government between 1993 and 2001, the exports out of South Australia grew from some $3 billion a year to just a tad over $9 billion a year. Most of that growth was done on the back of the work we did in the food industry. Most of that export income was derived from value adding right across the food industries. Today, we see the closing down of irrigation blocks and the flow on from that will be the closing down of those value adding parts of the food industry that started to get this economy working again in South Australia.

South Australia needs exports. We need the revenues that come from outside of our borders, that come into South Australia to grow our economy, so that we can build new infrastructure and yet again become an economic force within this nation. Across the border, the Victorians are wont to call Adelaide and South Australia a backwater. They are getting away with calling us a backwater because that is the way they have been treating us for years.

Of course, we are a backwater because we allow this to happen. The Premier came in here a couple of weeks ago with a stunt, saying that he is going to mount a High Court challenge in order to challenge the very agreement that he signed off on only nine months ago on 3 July 2008. He said it was a stupendous agreement for South Australia.

Mr Goldsworthy: Historic.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, it wasn't historic; the adjective he used was even better than that. It was not 'stupendous' but it was very close to that, closer than 'historic'.

Mr Goldsworthy: World first.

Mr WILLIAMS: You know the Premier.

Mr Goldsworthy: Unfortunately.

Mr WILLIAMS: Unfortunately—Goldie, you have made me lose my train of thought altogether. The Premier signed off on this agreement and now he is saying that he wants to mount a High Court challenge to overturn that agreement. He should have been arguing—back when John Howard was the prime minister and Malcolm Turnbull was the federal water minister—that John Howard should have done what Bob Hawke did in the early 1980s in Tasmania.

Bob Hawke said, 'This is something we have to fix up. I am going to do it. I believe I have the power and, if Tasmania does not like it, they can fight me in the High Court.' That is what our Premier should have been saying to John Howard: 'you take it over, take the powers'. Instead, we have all this nonsense about negotiating, knowing full well that negotiations were not going to work because the Premier did not want them to work.

In question time today, the Premier accused the Liberal Party of putting its party before the state. Never more starkly has that happened than what happened over the sham negotiations between the states and the commonwealth when John Howard was prime minister of this country. The Labor governments collectively around the nation did not want a decent agreement out of this before that federal election 18 months ago, and that is part of the problem.

What is the result of that? We are now here passing legislation to close down more industry in South Australia. It is a great legacy of the Mike Rann Labor government. It is a great legacy, minister, of your time as the Minister for Water Security of South Australia. I certainly would not be proud to have this legacy associated with my name.

The South Australian government could have been doing and should have been doing a number of things. I congratulated the government back in September when it was dragged kicking and screaming to announce that it would underwrite the cost of providing water for permanent plantings. That was a great policy. The only problem with it was that it was 12 months too late. It should have happened the previous year, before this minister and this government kept driving water prices through the roof and driving these very farmers to the wall. That is one of the reasons why they have gone to the wall.

Ms Ciccarello interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Is that ancient history or history?

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: You did not agree with the purchase of water at the time.

Mr WILLIAMS: I argued, minister, with you last year, that you should have been going into the market—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —and buying water to support the permanent plantings. You and your colleague the minister for agriculture were aghast at the idea. You tried to tell me that the other states would not allow you to do it. Well, they would not allow you to do it last year, but now you are saying they will allow you to do it this year.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: In 2006, what did you say, Mitch?

Mr WILLIAMS: I've said a lot of things, minister. But what I have not done is gone to my constituents and said, 'I'm going to do something for you. I'm going to pass legislation, which is going to allow you to get an exit package so you can walk away from the business you've been involved in for the last 30 years.' That is what I have not said to any of my constituents, and that is what we are doing here today. It is an absolute shame.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: You haven't even read the bill yet.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have read the bill.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: No, you haven't. If you had read the bill you would not be saying it; you would know what the bill is about.

Mr WILLIAMS: I do know what the bill is about.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: You've got no idea, mate, no idea.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister is an interesting character, Mr Speaker. She has not contributed to debate in this place all that often in the 11 or 12 years that she has been here, and now she shows that by not adhering to the standing orders and wanting to debate another member on their feet. I find it rather interesting that the minister—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: As my colleague says, the minister will get her opportunity. That is the thing about being in government—you get lots of opportunities, minister. The pity of it is that you keep stuffing it up. Here we are with a lot of these irrigators having to take the only option left to them. They have been failed by their government, they have been failed by their local member, and they are going to walk off what have been hereto viable properties, and they are going to further exacerbate the decline in the economy of this state by not providing raw materials for a range of industries which rely on their horticultural products. This is the sad reality.

The other interesting thing about the mixed messages that come out of this government is that the Premier came in here and ranted on about a High Court challenge over the 4 per cent cap in Victoria. I cannot for the life of me understand how he could do that before he had actually fixed up his own backyard through these two particular measures, because, obviously, there has been a trading cap in South Australia. I think it is sad that we have to remove that trading cap—but he is the Premier. He knows very little about what is going on, but he wants to mount a High Court challenge. What a joke.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Do you oppose that?

Mr WILLIAMS: Do I oppose the High Court challenge? I have told you what the role of the High Court in this matter should have been. The role of the High Court in this matter should have been that the commonwealth should have stepped in years ago, taken over—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: The Liberal Party opposes it.

The SPEAKER: Order, the minister!

Mr WILLIAMS: Come on, minister; you will get your opportunity, and I hope that when you do you will actually use your words and talk about what is in your mind and stop trying to make out what is in other people's minds.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Grow up, Mitch!

Mr WILLIAMS: Stop trying to put words into my mouth, minister. I have already explained it, and I will go back over it for the minister's benefit. The role of the High Court in this matter should have been protecting the commonwealth when it walked in and took over the management of the river. That is what the role of the High Court should have been.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Because your Premier was playing games. The previous premier of Victoria kept telling Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard, 'Yes; give me a couple more weeks; I'm almost there.' You know what happened; you were there. He kept saying to then prime minister Howard and Malcolm Turnbull, 'Just give us a couple more weeks. I'll have them sorted out; we're almost there.' They were—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: You have no idea, Mitch.

Mr WILLIAMS: I do; I've got a lot of idea. What I will not do, minister, is, like some of your colleagues, come in here and repeat private conversations, which I have had with people who were in the room. I will not do that; but I do know what happened, and I do know what has happened over a whole host of matters relating to water where you and your government have got it totally wrong, like the desal, and those sorts of things, with your Premier out there saying, 'Won't it look stupid when it rains.' He kept saying that for a couple of years.

Unfortunately, the opposition has been put into an unenviable position on this. We are forced to support this measure. I do not think we do that without great feelings of sadness. We do not do it with any eagerness whatsoever. We are forced to do this because we have had mismanagement in a gross way for a significant amount of time.

I would dearly love the minister to explain why irrigators in some parts of the system can get 100 per cent of their water allocation, and just around the corner, down the river a few kilometres, they get 18 per cent. I would dearly love the minister to explain that. At the time we passed the historic legislation, as it has been described in some quarters, we also adopted a new Murray-Darling Basin agreement.

Why was it not in that agreement (which I presume this minister negotiated on behalf of South Australia) that there was going to be some equity as we move forward? Why is it that our irrigators are struggling on 18 per cent? As the member for Finniss pointed out, a number of irrigators in his electorate, my electorate and the member for Hammond's electorate have not been able to irrigate for several years. Even though they have received 18 per cent, they have already had to walk. In a lot of cases, they have sold their water and moved on.

If the minister wants to explain something to this house, she can explain why South Australian irrigators have been treated as they have when irrigators in other parts of the system are getting 95 to 100 per cent of their water. I am sure that is what your constituents would like to know because that is the question the constituents I talk to keep asking me, that is, if we have an historic agreement, why is it that people upstream can do whatever they like, and we are stuck here on 18 per cent?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (17:16): I thank the opposition for its support for this legislation and for the irrigation communities. I remind members that this bill came about as a result of intergovernmental agreements, starting with the COAG Water Reform of 1994 and the National Water Initiative of 2004, which required jurisdictions to unbundle their water products, which is what this bill does. A consequence of the unbundling of those products and changes to the Irrigation Act to meet the National Water Initiative components will be that people will be able to transform their licences to entitlements, which they will then be able to sell if they choose to do so.

The purpose of bringing these bills into the house is not primarily the focus of exiting irrigators, as the member for MacKillop would have us believe. Once again, the member for MacKillop did not reflect the true intent of the legislation in his second reading speech, which is a real travesty. The member for MacKillop did make some mention about the national reform that is occurring at the moment. That national reform is indeed historic, and it will result in the establishment of a new basin-wide plan. That basin-wide plan will be developed over the next two years, and it is due to come into effect in 2011. It is about new governance: new caps on surface water and new caps on groundwater.

As a consequence of the development of the new basin-wide plan, under the Water Act 2007, the Murray-Darling Agreement will be required to be consistent with that basin-wide plan, as will all other plans throughout the basin that are developed by each state in each regional area. It is a huge step forward, and it is disappointing that members opposite are not approaching this in a bipartisan manner to ensure that we can get the reform necessary.

We have seen incremental changes in the Murray-Darling Basin over many years. The most recent change before this historic change was the establishment of the first cap, back in 1996, at 1993-94 levels of development opportunity. Of course, everyone now knows that cap was set too high, but at the time it was the best that South Australia could achieve, and I commend the then premier Dean Brown, who was involved with those negotiations. Dean Brown has now chosen to work with the state government to ensure that we get the best outcome we can for our communities during this difficult time. What is needed at this difficult time is strong leadership. It is leadership that will help, not divide, our communities during this difficult time.

Information is available, and I will get the details for the member for Finniss about how much water is in the system. How much water is in Hume, Dartmouth, Menindee and Lake Victoria has been fully audited, and information is also available about the amount of water that is in the system in the audited dams. We are operating the system and, at this stage, at the end of this water year, we expect the dams will be at a lower level than they were at this time last year. So, we are moving forward into another very difficult period, and none of the decisions that any government makes during this time will be easy. However, we will work tirelessly with the community, as we have to date, to try to minimise the impacts.

The other issues raised by the member for Hammond related to the management of the weir pools in South Australia. We have a number of weirs above Lock 1 that are maintained at (or as near as we can to) pool level, specifically to manage salinity. The salt interception schemes in this state have been built above Lock 1, because that is where the majority of the salt naturally comes into the river system. In fact, 50 per cent of the salt that comes into the River Murray enters on our side of the border, and above Lock 1 is the critical area where most of that salt incursion occurs.

We have been able to arrest much of that through the salt interception schemes that we have developed over the years. However, by dropping the weir pools below weir pool level (normal operating level) for any period of time will substantially increase the salinity of the water as it flows down over Lock 1. We are doing everything we can to manage the salinity level as it goes over Lock 1 so that we can minimise the impacts on our major pump off-takes, including those at Murray Bridge, Tailem Bend, Swan Reach and Mannum. So, they are the reasons why we must maintain those weir pools.

It is important to note that even dropping those weir pools would not actually raise the level in the weir pool between Blanchetown and the barrages because the extent and size of that weir pool is so massive in comparison to the body of water that is held above Lock 1. If the member would like a full briefing on all of those details I would be happy to provide him with that information.

The bill is a very important piece of legislation. It is, of course, in line with what successive governments have committed to in the national water reform process. I commend the bill to the house and I thank members for the contribution that had relevance to the bill; the other I will not comment on.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

[Sitting suspended from 17:24 to 17:45]