Ministerial Statement

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

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) (14:01): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Last Friday, the independent Murray Darling Basin Authority released its guide to the proposed basin plan that lays down a blueprint for how Australia can restore and sustain life along our most significant river system. The authority is not claiming the guide is perfect and there are many weeks of consultation ahead of us to sort through the detail, find the flaws and ensure the anomalies are corrected. We are talking about a draft for a draft before the final plan is released. As that process begins, none of us can afford to lose sight of what we have all set ourselves to achieve and that is restoring the River Murray to better health.

I cannot believe that there would be any among us in this house today who did not want to see the River Murray returned to a healthy, vibrant river once again. This is not about irrigators versus the environment. It is not about fauna survival versus food security. It is not about city versus country. It is not about one end of the river against the other end of the river. This is about developing a sensible national plan to use fresh water in a dry continent. None of us wins if the river system is allowed to die, and it is been dying from the mouth up.

The MDBA plan, when it is settled, will be about ensuring that through radical weather changes and prolonged periods of droughts the river basin remains a resilient, viable resource that supports life and livelihoods. It will lay down a framework that secures a sustainable river system that supports food production and an internationally significant ecosystem over the long term. This will require a new way of using this valuable resource, one that will keep the Murray mouth open and allow water to flow right through the system, taking with it millions of tonnes of salt accumulated across the entire basin.

It is important for us to consider how it is that we have reached this point today. As the end-users of this River Murray, it was South Australia that recognised early on the need for practices along the river to change. It was South Australia that managed to get the River Murray onto the national COAG agenda. It was South Australia that argued for, and won, the establishment of an independent body to manage the river on the basis of scientific expertise and not political pressures.

Remember that the original proposal was for it to be run by federal politicians, who would be making the decisions, and we fought hard and long to ensure that there was an independent commission making decisions on the basis of science, not politics, and on the basis of principles, not greed. We were fought along the way. I remember the cartoons saying that we were up a creek without a paddle. I remember being out on a branch on my own but, steadfastly, together we in South Australia argued for an independent commission, and we won.

It has taken years to get to the point where we now have the outline of a plan to manage the river system sensibly according to scientific evidence. The recent severe drought that affected the whole of Australia and brought the river system to its knees helped accelerate the need for reform, because it demonstrated so starkly the problems of mismanagement that have been allowed to continue for generations. Images of receding and cracking river banks, drying lakes, rising salinity levels, dying river gums, dead fish and turtles and acres of yellowing citrus trees generated huge anger in our community.

That wave of shock and anger helped drive these reforms that we are now helping to consider and shape for the future. So, the recent increase in rains and improved water conditions should not give way to complacency or political interference that will slow the momentum for change. Whilst we must assist affected communities to adjust to the changes required, we must be careful we do not get distracted by hysterical and over-hyped arguments from upstream states about food security and job losses.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: If the Leader of the Opposition wants to be on the side of the upstream states, the cotton growers and the rice farmers, be that on her head. All Australians must recognise that the River Murray is at a critical point in its existence. Historically, the Murray-Darling has been run as a river system in four parts, based on state boundaries, and not run as a river as a whole. But we all know that decisions affecting the life of the river system should be based on science, not politics; fairness, not greed; principles, not power. The MDBA guide to the proposed plan—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Go and tell that to the people at the bottom end of the River Murray. If you don't want the river to flow through the river mouth, go out there and have the guts to say so.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The MDBA guide to the proposed plan has determined that there needs to be between 27 per cent and 37 per cent of current water extractions returned to the river system across the whole basin and between 26 per cent and 35 per cent in the South Australian River Murray corridor. There are issues upon which this government will embark on a thorough consultation process with irrigators and the community as we provide feedback to the MDBA in preparation for its next two reports. We have all recognised for a long time that reduced water extractions from the River Murray were necessary.

If anyone in this parliament does not know that there has been an over-allocation over the years that has caused this problem, they must have a particularly dim view of their own existence in this place. Indeed, the commonwealth has already begun the process of buying back water for the environment and, so far, it has purchased about 50 gigalitres of water licences from irrigators in South Australia alone. The commonwealth remains committed to buying back all the water necessary from willing sellers to meet the required reductions. It is not compulsory. The buy-back will be from those who want to sell their water allocations. This government, in the meantime, has its own concerns—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Leader of the Opposition! Be quiet.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: This government, in the meantime, has its own concerns about the MDBA's guide released on Friday, and we will be doing all we can to be heard on these issues. Our concerns focus principally on the high level of investment in water efficiencies that have been adopted by South Australian irrigators over many years and our early action taken to cap water use—in stark contrast to many irrigators in upstream states who have not been recognised in the MDBA's guide. This government has made it clear to the MDBA that it should recognise the prior action of the South Australian government and Riverland irrigators—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: If members opposite think that a draft of a draft is too late, then the only solution that they would ever have to any problem is to hold up their hands in surrender, because they are the white flag party.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: If members opposite think that it is time to give up on the River Murray, then go outside and raise the white flag. This government has made it clear to the MDBA—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will sit down for a minute.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, ma'am. The government has made it clear to the MDBA that it should recognise the prior action of the South Australian government and Riverland irrigators to invest in water efficiencies when making a final determination of by how much each area should have their allocations reduced. In other words, we will be arguing that years of hard work to do the right thing should be recognised—years of hard work by South Australian irrigators supported by successive governments of both sides of politics—and that prior effort should be recognised.

Irrigators in the upstream state would do well to come to South Australia to see some of the technologically-advanced efficiencies that have been adopted by irrigators in South Australia. On a visit to the Riverland recently with the Minister for Water and the River Murray, I was briefed by two irrigators about the new technology they use to track every drop of water they use.

Via a computer program, they were able to demonstrate to me on screen where each drop of water had been deposited and the current water moisture content of every square metre of their irrigated property. Every litre of water they extracted from the river was being used wisely and sensibly to maximum effect. These irrigators were also, in effect, water scientists. They had invested in water technology, educated themselves in computer programming and were impressively proficient at both food production and water usage.

These South Australian irrigators are the way of the future. They are already proving that there is a better way—better than using open channels that are subject to huge rates of evaporation, and better than using flood irrigation methods which are hugely wasteful and which return animal faeces and pesticides into the river flows.

The simple reality is that there has been an overallocation of water licences for too many years, and far too much water is being drained out of the system. According to the guide, scientists are advising the MDBA that between 3 billion litres and 7.5 billion litres per year is needed to be returned as flow to restore the health of the basin.

We know that this will have a social and economic impact, and the MDBA has begun the process of consultation across the basin to study a range of scenarios that it hopes will, in the final analysis, return up to 4,000 billion litres of permanent flow into the river system—permanent flow down the river, permanent flow down to the Murray Mouth, permanent flow down to the Coorong and permanent flow to the Lower Lakes; all the things that members opposite now seem to be advocating for upstream states rather than for South Australia. Tackling the problems—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader will be quiet.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —of the River Murray will not be easy but nor is it optional. We simply do not have a choice. The South Australian government will be preparing responses to the MDBA's guide and to the actual proposed basin plan when it is released—most likely, early next year.

Our responses will be based on careful analysis and facts. They will be informed by our scientists, our policy makers, our irrigators and our communities. The Minister for the River Murray will be conducting community information sessions in Murray Bridge on 15 November, in Berri on 17 November and in Adelaide on 18 November to discuss these matters and to hear the views of South Australians and to help us develop our formal response to the guide. The minister and his department will also keep talking with key groups in South Australia who have an interest in how the basin is managed.

Throughout this period and over coming months, as the proposed basin plan is refined and released for formal consultation, we will continue to seek a basin plan that restores a permanent system of environmental flows that reach the Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth, while still providing for viable and productive industries and communities into the future. All of us want the River Murray to be returned to good health and to become, once again, the lifeblood of our nation, and we must never lose site of that goal.

We cannot allow the current better position in terms of water flows, our reservoirs and the upcoming desal plant opening to allow us to be complacent about taking on this issue permanently, because, ultimately, this will be the test of our nation's resolve. Are we going to squib it; are we going to listen to the other side who prefer to do nothing?