COOPER CREEK

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:19): I move:

That this house calls on the Queensland government not to permit further irrigation from the Cooper Creek or allow existing water licences to be activated and that this motion be sent to the Speaker of the Queensland Legislative Assembly by the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

Any suggestion that further cotton growing irrigation licences should be permitted to take water from the Cooper Creek would be an absolute outrage against the people of South Australia. We have seen and we are aware of what has happened to the Murray-Darling system. The Cooper Creek system is unique, it is fragile and it needs to be protected.

Once the irrigation pumps go into the Cooper Creek, tremendous damage will be inflicted on the people downstream in South Australia. The publicity that has been generated, and the public interest and comment in relation to this matter, has been absolutely amazing. Only this week on national television there were programs in relation to the dangers of allowing further irrigation from the Cooper Creek system.

The people at Innamincka clearly indicated their concern that they would run out of water. If irrigation pumps go in, there is a possibility that water would not reach the Coongie Lakes and downstream into Lake Eyre. There is no need for further irrigation licences to be activated in this part of Australia.

We are dealing with a system that runs intermittently. Lake Eyre does not fill up enough, and I am concerned that, if licences are activated, the water may never get to Lake Eyre from the Cooper Creek again, that those pastoralists along the river system will be affected because the floodouts may not be as effective as they have been in the past and that the ability for the tourism industry to expand and attract people to go to that part of South Australia will be affected.

My understanding is that over 30,000 people go to Innamincka every year. They go there to see the water, and they go there to see the Dig Tree and enjoy the other facilities. So, if the water did not flow across the causeway at Innamincka, it would be an absolute outrage, and it would be contrary to the best interests of the people of this state.

I put this motion before the house today out of my concern for the welfare of the people of this state, particularly those in the Far North. It is the proper role of this house to have a view on behalf of the citizens of this state and convey it to another government that may be wishing to take action that will be detrimental to not only current South Australians but also to those of the future.

I well recall some years ago going to Birdsville with then minister Peter Arnold to tell the Diamantina Shire that, if it attempted to block off the flow of water at Birdsville, he would take them to the High Court forthwith. We are again in a situation where people in Queensland seem to have total disregard for the effect that their decisions will have on the rest of Australia. They have to clearly understand that downstream operators do have rights.

They have the responsibility to apply common sense and fairness and, if these licences are reactivated, and huge pumps are put into the system, I fear what will happen in the future. If anyone has been to Innamincka and seen the water running across the causeway, they will know that it is a very interesting experience which, as I said earlier, thousands of people enjoy every year as they travel north. The benefits to South Australia, when Lake Eyre gets water in it, are tremendous and wonderful benefits flow to places like Marree, William Creek and other areas there.

However, if these large irrigation pumps are put in and people start irrigating cotton in Queensland, there are grave concerns that this project will have effects on the flow into South Australia. Who would ever want to see the water prevented from going into the Coongie Lakes? Who would want to do it? Why would we want even to contemplate such a foolish escapade?

It concerns me that, if something is not done to cancel these licences and put clear guidelines in place to make sure that our rights are protected, the cowboys in Queensland may go ahead and ignore us. I do not think we can afford to take that chance. This parliament has a responsibility to convey our concerns to the Queensland parliament and the government.

I do not think anyone could say that I am noted for being an irrational environmentalist. I like to see common sense applied, and I believe that common sense must apply in this case and that these people should not, under any circumstances, be permitted to engage in this irresponsible behaviour. We know what they tried to do some years ago—they still have it in their hip pocket—but it is our responsibility in this parliament to make sure, once for all, that their activities are prevented and that they never again contemplate such an irresponsible action.

As someone who enjoys going to that part of the state on a regular basis (I am planning to go up there again in the not too distant future), I ask why anyone would need or want to activate these licences? What I cannot understand is why the Queensland minister could not come out and say clearly and precisely when he had the chance that, no matter what the review came up with, the Queensland government would not permit irrigating out of the Cooper system—but he would not do that.

When we had some of these interviews on the radio programs, I indicated very clearly that, once the pumps went into the Cooper, that was the finish of the system. The minister came on afterwards and he did not appear to be very pleased with me and minister Weatherill. Notwithstanding that, we proceeded to make very clear our opposition to it. What I could not understand is why he would not come out and say that the Queensland will not permit this course of action to take place. He was under pressure. All around Australia people were saying that this is a nonsense suggestion. We all know it is wrong. I could not understand why they would not nip it in the bud—and they have allowed it to continue.

The concerns across the length and breadth of northern Australia are still being expressed. It is not just one group of people. We have the grazing industry in Queensland coming out and saying that this is an outrage. The tourist industry and the environmental movement and anyone who knows anything about it knows that it would be a disaster.

We ought to learn from the irresponsible behaviour with over-allocations out of the Murray-Darling Basin. We see it every day with our own eyes, as my colleague here understands better than most. My poor constituents up in the Riverland—Morgan, Cadell and Blanchetown—how they have suffered through no fault of their own because of irresponsible, unreasonable and unfair water allocations elsewhere in the system. What this parliament and this house needs to do is clearly indicate that under no circumstances will we permit any further diversion from the Cooper. The growing of cotton with irrigated water from the system would be an outrage, and I do not believe the community in this country would politically accept that decision.

I commend the motion to the house, and I hope the house will agree with it so that it can be conveyed to the Speaker and the Queensland parliament and, hopefully, the Queensland government and that the minister will take note of our concerns and the need to bring this foolish suggestion to an end once and for all.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (12:29): I rise to partly support the motion moved by the member for Stuart, the Hon. Graham Gunn, but also to suggest, by way of an amendment, what the government thinks would be a better way of handling this matter. I move:

Delete all words after 'Queensland Government' and add 'to refer the matter of the Cooper Creek Water Resources Plan to the Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Forum for urgent consideration and that further extraction of water be halted until there has been an independent review of the science underpinning the plan.'

So, still within the spirit of what the member for Stuart is saying, the amended motion would read:

That this house calls on the Queensland government to refer the matter of the Cooper Creek Water Resources Plan to the Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Forum for urgent consideration and that further extraction of water be halted until there has been an independent review of the science underpinning the plan.

With this amendment I seek to support the excellent submission made by the member for Stuart on this matter—and, obviously, I defer to his knowledge in this area—but also seek to say that the government acknowledges that Cooper Creek is one of the major river systems in the Lake Eyre Basin.

We know that, by world standards, the lower reaches are an exceptional example of intact, arid river ecology, including the Ramsar-listed Coongie Lakes. In flood the basins' rivers and lakes are a spectacular sight. The plants and animals that take refuge in the remnant waterholes burst into life again, and provide an environmental wonder of global renown. I know many members of this house have had the opportunity to see that wonder for themselves.

Through the work of the Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Forum, the governments of South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and the commonwealth have studied this phenomena, and I am advised that the Lake Eyre Basin's rivers are generally in good health. I am told that this was confirmed through the Rivers Assessment Project that was completed in 2008, which said that the Cooper is susceptible to inappropriate resource use, invasive pests and land-use intensification. I think this reflects what the member for Stuart has told us.

In May this year South Australia committed an extra $116,000 to projects assisting scientists, tourist operators, conservation groups and natural resources management boards to better work together on enhancing the Lake Eyre Basin. This funding is additional to the state's $125,000 annual contribution to the Lake Eyre Basin Agreement. That is why the draft Cooper Creek Water Resource Plan and the potential reactivation of sleeper licences, which would permit large-scale irrigation, is of great concern.

The South Australian government first registered its concerns regarding this in October last year in a submission to the Queensland government. The government also made it clear that these dormant licences represented a significant risk to the achievement of environmental objectives by starving the Cooper system of vital flows.

In June this year nine eminent scientists with experience in the Cooper Creek system, led by Professor Richard Kingsford from the University of New South Wales, raised their concerns with the Queensland government. Commenting on the scientific review that has informed the draft plan, these scientists described the process as superficial at best.

On 3 August this year minister Weatherill wrote to the Queensland minister for natural resources seeking his agreement to allow the lake basin scientific advisory panel to review the science underpinning the draft water plan for the Cooper. Unfortunately, to date I am advised that there has been no commitment to this.

We know from experience that trying to bend nature to fit our will is fraught with danger, and no better example is the current plight of the Murray and Lower Lakes. It beggars belief that there is potential for a terrible scenario of over-extraction upstream creating damaging consequences downstream to be played over and over again in one of our remaining pristine rivers.

I also acknowledge the significance of retaining flows from the Cooper for the water supply of the township of Innamincka, as the member for Stuart has told us, as well as South Australia's sustainable organic beef industry, valued up to $100 million, which operates in that region. As members know, the Premier and the Minister for Environment and Conservation have called an urgent meeting of the Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Forum. With a genuine commitment to an outcome in the interests of the whole of the Lake Eyre Basin, I know the government is committed to ensuring that these mistakes that have happened elsewhere do not happen here.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:35): I would like to concentrate on the tenor of the original excellent motion put forward by the member for Stuart: that this house calls on the Queensland government not to permit further irrigation from the Cooper Creek or allow existing water licences to be activated and that this motion be sent to the Speaker of the Queensland Legislative Assembly.

What is happening presently in the Murray-Darling Basin will certainly happen in the area around the Cooper Creek if this goes ahead. People do not learn over time that we cannot just rape and pillage these water resources. With respect to the River Murray situation, between 1995 and 2002 Queensland tripled its storage capacity from 1,000 gigalitres to 3,000 gigalitres, and we see from that that only 40 per cent of the water enters New South Wales that used to enter from the systems involving the Darling and above the Darling. So, people are not learning from that experience, and that has a direct impact on what we receive as far as our flows down the Murray.

What is at risk here are the very livelihoods not only of people on stations and surrounding properties but also of a tourism mecca, Innamincka. We have had problems where a tourism operator there has had to bend over backwards (I am not even sure if he is still operating) in running trips up there, with arrangements that he has had to come to with the government. That community that has been there for a long time and its life source—its water source—is at risk if this goes ahead. It just beggars belief that the Queensland government is even contemplating this action. I think it should just be terminated.

We have to look at the reality. Let us not mess around. Let us not get another team of boffins up there having a look at flows and predicting flows and that sort of thing in the Cooper Creek. Let us just talk to some locals about how often it floods. Look at the science that is already there and get the facts on the ground about what has been happening with water as far as the whole Cooper Creek system.

The Coongie Lakes, which is a Ramsar site, is a beautiful area. I was there three or four years ago with the family. It is a beautiful spot in South Australia and it is recognised world wide, but it is also threatened. What we need here is proper management and we have to stress to the Queensland government that this is just not on. We cannot go on in this country just raping and pillaging our water resources, because I certainly believe that the 10 gigalitres they are talking about with respect to water licences will not be viable economically, socially or environmentally.

We have already seen what has happened with properties below St George in Queensland, which have struggled to make enough money to grow cotton. I can understand that they have set up communities around all this irrigation (this is on the Murray-Darling side of things), and that is well and good, but then I look at what has happened here in South Australia as far as the Murray-Darling system. We have places like Meningie, where a lake has been shut off to die and where fishermen are currently being paid $4.50 a kilo to fish carp out before we have a massive fish kill.

If we do not want that kind of situation repeated in the Cooper Creek system this motion must go forward (and I think it is worded more strongly in the original motion, as was the intent of the member for Stuart, who knows this country only too well), and that we should make full representations to the Queensland government to immediately stop any attempt to open up these sleeper licences on the Cooper Creek.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:40): I do not want to speak for very long on this matter, but I would like to congratulate the member for Stuart on bringing this important matter before the parliament. I agree with the member for Ashford in the remarks that she made as well. As members obviously would be aware, the Cooper is a river system, which, in some respects, is more similar to the Darling than it is to the Murray; that is, it is a flood or famine river system.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Ephemeral.

Mr RAU: Ephemeral, indeed. In fact, that was a word used in one of our Natural Resources Committee reports to describe the Darling. The fact is that there are infrequent, irregular, unpredictable rain events that occur in the catchment of the Cooper, and when they do occur, vast amounts of water are discharged through the Cooper system and, ultimately, wind up, I guess, in the Lake Eyre Basin. Those events are unpredictable, but, at the moment, it is basically a pristine river system, albeit that for most of the time it does not look much like a river system.

The idea that we have learned nothing from the terrible damage done to the Murray-Darling Basin, quite frankly, by fools issuing licences to harvest water in circumstances where it is clearly ridiculous to issue those licences and that we would be repeating that folly in respect of this large and essentially pristine river system, I find incomprehensible. I hope to goodness the Queensland government has the good sense and the wisdom as a participant in the federation to behave in respect of this river system in a way that does not repeat the stupidity of what has gone on in the Murray-Darling Basin.

We need to bear in mind that, because of the nature of these river systems, these licences, if they are activated, will result in vast storage facilities being established in remote parts of Australia. For those of you who have not had the opportunity to look into it, Cubbie Station is a good example of what these things look like where the Condamine, in effect, has been channelled into these enormous storage facilities which go for kilometres and hold something like 400 gigalitres of water.

That is the sort of thing you will be seeing in the Cooper. It will mean that, when there are big rain events, suddenly vast areas will be put into agriculture, and then these storages will consume all this water. What is the environment going to get? What is the natural ecosystem going to get? What will happen to the people whose whole lives and agricultural practices have been developed over 100 years based on the current system that operates in that river?

All the wisdom is with the member for Stuart on this one. I would hope that there is sufficient wisdom amongst our parliamentary colleagues in Queensland to see that this is a very silly and dangerous move for them to undertake, and I think that, as members of parliament, in the event that they to the right thing, just as we are prepared to give them a tickle up with this, we should issue a congratulation by the state parliament as well. If they are smart enough to do the right thing, we should have a motion saying, 'We congratulate the Queensland government for doing the right thing about the Cooper.' I hope we have the opportunity of being able to put such a thing before the chamber.

With those few words, again I congratulate the honourable member for bringing the matter forward. I know it is a matter about which he has a great deal of personal knowledge, and I can say that, as far as the work of the Natural Resources Committee (of which I know the member for Ashford is also a member) is concerned, the honourable member's knowledge and insights about the remoter parts of the state have been invaluable to other members of the committee. I could almost go so far as to say, if the member for Stuart expresses an opinion about what is going on in those parts of South Australia, the rest of us would do well to pay attention to what he says.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:45): I will be very brief. I commend the member for Stuart for this motion because it is very timely. Not only is it timely but also it is critically important. People came into my office yesterday and said, 'What are you'—meaning us in here—'doing about this issue?' I was able to refer them to the Notice Paper and this motion from the member for Stuart. They were quite pleased that the parliament was expressing a strong view, and that is what I want to do.

The member for Stuart has probably flown over the Cooper Creek more times than I have had hot lunches and knows more about the geography and so on of it than any us, but the essential issue is that, if the Queensland government allows any further irrigation or existing licences on the Cooper Creek to be activated, in my opinion that is just verging on the criminal. It is outrageous. I think that in some ways this motion is very mild, and I am not sure that it really reflects the strong feeling of South Australians about this sort of behaviour.

This is cowboy behaviour if what is being suggested occurs. If people are allowed to suck the life out of the Cooper Creek and deny its natural flow down, that is outrageous, and, as I say, bordering on the criminal. I fully support this motion.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (12:46): I am very pleased that the member for Stuart moved this motion today, and I certainly hope that political perspectives do not take away from the importance of this issue. It is an extremely important issue for South Australia. I think that the member for Stuart's motion is very good. I support our amendment, but I think that we have to go a step further. The Coongie Lakes is an area that I visit on a number of occasions. I feel very passionate about this; and it was good to hear the member for Stuart speak so passionately about it also.

I know that he is a regular visitor to that area. He is very lucky to have that area in his electorate. I wish that it was part of my electorate, but it is close to the border so I am comfortable with that. It is one of the most beautiful, tranquil, serene and spectacular areas in this state. It is hidden away because it is so far away. Most people do not have the opportunity to visit, and I think that we are very lucky that we have been able to go there on a regular basis. We must preserve that area at all costs. It is just wonderful.

A few weeks ago I travelled through the area with an Aboriginal couple. It is the gentleman's land; it is where his family and his people come from. Not only did I see the spectacular beauty of the nature up in that area but also I was able to absorb a lot of the Aboriginal history and culture which is very significant there. I had a look at the area through new eyes and I enjoyed it incredibly. Coongie Lakes to me is one of those areas we must preserve, and the thought of the water being taken away from there is just disgusting.

The Cooper Creek, of course, is also part of that area. That is the site of the Burke and Wills expedition and where they died. I have been to all those sites along that creek area. Innamincka is just a wonderful spot. I love to visit Innamincka. In my family it has quite a significant historical background. My former in-laws, Harry and Barbara Breuer, lived there for a number of months back in the 1940s. He was the local police constable and she was the local nurse. As happened many times over the years at Innamincka, the local police officer married the local nurse and produced some dynasties from there. Certainly in the Breuer family this was the case.

When they lived there they used to talk about how, at one stage, the creek flooded and they were cut off for about three months. They were not able to travel south. They had a young baby at the time. No meat was available and they lived on fish for three months. That is what they had to survive on. I do not think they ate fish after that ever again. It was apparently an incredible area. The whole area was flooded; you just could not get through. That used to happen regularly with the Cooper Creek, I understand.

Cooper Creek is also very significant. The permanent waterholes along there have been watering people for thousands of years, and the wildlife, the flora and the fauna in that area are just phenomenal. People should go and visit, if they are able, though it is a very long way away.

I hope that we are able to work out some sort of agreement with the Queensland government. I think what it is doing is disgraceful. I think we seriously have to put some pressure on the Queensland government to make sure that this does not happen. Unfortunately, because they are so far away from us, they do not understand the consequences of water being taken from our state. We have seen the devastation with the River Murray. I am not sure how we are ever going to resolve that situation, and I certainly do not want it to happen in the Cooper Creek area.

I certainly support any action we can take to prevent this from happening. As I said, I do not want political perspectives to get in the way of this. I hope we can work together, that the member for Stuart and I can work together on this, and that we can work together—opposition and government—on resolving this issue and getting the Queensland government to do the sensible thing, the good thing, for our state and for the rest of Australia.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:51): I thank members for their contribution. The opposition is prepared to accept the amendment, because I want to see a unified approach to this particular matter. We should not allow any minor differences to get in the way of the importance of ensuring that we protect the Cooper system against what would be irresponsible behaviour if these water licences were to be activated. Not only do we have to protect it in the short term, we have protect it in the long term, to make sure that this controversy never happens again.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.