MURRAY RIVER IRRIGATORS

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:54): Did the minister raise the issue of South Australia's irrigators only being able to access 67 per cent of their water allocations this water year at the December 2010 Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and, if not, why not?

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (15:55): I do thank the member for this question. It is very nice to actually get a question on water. I guess the point that I would make is that in 2010—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, I actually did. I think you are a bit confused, Iain, but I will help you out later in becoming less confused. In 2010-11, South Australia will receive its full entitlement flow, with the maximum amount of water being allocated for consumptive purposes. Quite simply, since October 2010, licensed water users in South Australia have had access to 67 per cent of water, which totals 422 gigalitres, plus 228 gigalitres allocated as carryover, effectively giving River Murray irrigation communities access to 100 per cent of its entitlement.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will get to you in a minute. On average, irrigators have access to 105 per cent of their entitlement, with the majority of carryover water being held by irrigators.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for MacKillop!

The Hon. P. CAICA: The opposition has been irresponsibly encouraging claims that the River Murray irrigators are currently being forced to spend millions of dollars buying water from interstate to meet production requirements. The opposition's ingenious solution to this fictitious situation is to breach our agreements with other basin states. Indeed, the honourable Leader of the Opposition has made an extraordinary statement to the effect that, if she were premier—and it may happen one day, but it would be a long time off, I expect, because I think there will be others down there wanting the job—she would simply get on the phone and tell the other states that we were going to ignore agreements and take all we want.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Do you want an answer?

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, the question was did he raise this matter at the ministerial council and, if not, why not?

Mrs Redmond: And the answer so far is, no, he didn't raise it.

The SPEAKER: Minister, do you want to respond to that?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I think that it has to be put into perspective, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Last time I remember, I can answer questions the way I want.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: What, of course, the honourable Leader of the Opposition displayed was a staggering ignorance about the basic geography of the river—this is a very important point—in that its source is to our east, and it is also exactly the kind of attitude that has brought the Murray-Darling Basin to its knees in most recent times. The Department for Water, in consultation with PIRSA, have provided analysis of the current situation within the River Murray irrigation community and, in particular, its impact on crop production.

Ms Chapman: Why wasn't it No. 1 on the agenda?

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Bragg! I warn the member for Bragg.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This information provided a valuable basis for my recent discussions with Riverland irrigators in Waikerie. At that meeting, it was confirmed that there is no evidence that irrigators are or will be required to spend millions of dollars buying water from interstate.

In aggregate, there is plenty of water currently within the South Australian irrigation community to meet our current crop requirements. Actual water use for irrigation is significantly down on this time last year due to the relatively wet and cool season to date and it is not anticipated that the current allocation decisions will have a significant impact on crop production. There may be, however, a relatively small number of irrigators who, because of their crop type, their financial situation and because they are not holding carryover water, may experience some difficulty.

For most of the irrigators that I met it was a matter of principle and concern that the current level of allocation might herald a change in policy with regard to future levels of allocation. I assured them that this is not the case, as I also assured them that the government is negotiating permanent storage rights that could be used to provide permanent carryover arrangements in the future. As a result of that meeting some practical suggestions were discussed that might address the current imbalance in the distribution of water between irrigators.

The critical thing is this: it will require a degree of trust and collaborative action. We obviously cannot expect that from the member for Chaffey. Last month, on radio he claimed, and was subsequently quoted—I am just getting to the nub about whether I speak to people or not, so this is important—in The Weekend Australian as having spoken with both—

The SPEAKER: Point of order, the member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: As meritorious as I am sure the contribution of statements by the member for Chaffey would be, I wish he had been at the ministerial council meeting because at least we might have an answer as to whether you raised it or not.

The SPEAKER: I am not sure what that point of order was, but minister—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will finish answering the question.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will, Madam Speaker, and again—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I was mentioning, as a result of this meeting some practical suggestions have been discussed, but the critical thing is it will require a degree of collaborative action, and I have mentioned about the member for Chaffey, but last month—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order: the minister is making reflections on another member.

The SPEAKER: In consultation with the Clerk, I am not sure it is about reflections, but minister, would you please get on with your answer and finish your answer.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will, Madam Speaker. This is about rural—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: I can't say that because she will determine whether they are frivolous or not, but that is not for me to determine. The member for Chaffey—and this is about who talks to whom—as was reported in The Weekend Australian, having—

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister is now debating the answer. The question required a simple yes or no answer. Did he raise the matter at the ministerial council or did he not? Yes or no?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am getting to it.

Mr WILLIAMS: You are getting to it! You have been 10 minutes and answered nothing.

The SPEAKER: I can understand your point of order, member for MacKillop, and what you are trying to say. However, the minister can answer the question in the manner he chooses. He has said that he needs to put this into context, but I am sure he is now going to finish his answer.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am going to finish it very soon, Madam Speaker. On 12 January, the New South Wales minister wrote to the editor, correcting the member for Chaffey's delusions, stating that he has, and I quote: 'never spoken with Mr Whetstone about the matter'. More recently, on radio, he has practically—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: The question was about a meeting that happened in December and the minister is now talking about events that occurred in January, and debating. All we want is a simple answer: yes or no.

The SPEAKER: As I said, the minister can choose to answer the question in the manner he chooses.

The Hon. P. CAICA: What I find very interesting, of course, is that the member for Chaffey has stated on radio that he has been stalking me, and of course, I have had no contact from him for months, except for one letter in December which I responded to. Two weeks ago, in this place, the member for Chaffey claimed a constituent was being denied the ability to generate $15 million—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: how can statements of the member for Chaffey possibly have any relevance here? He is clearly debating this matter, poor debate as it is, and he should be either be brought back to it or sat down.

The SPEAKER: I go back to my original point that the member can choose to answer the question anyway he chooses. However, he is straying very close to debate.

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I was saying, $15 million worth of food production in 90 days, as I said, because they didn't have 100 per cent allocation—they were your words. Unfortunately, you have not identified this person, produce a business plan, identify a crop, nor say how much water was needed so that this situation could be verified. I am sure if it existed there would be lots of your friends up there who would gladly give this gentleman some water.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: You're delusional.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I'm delusional? The man who takes credit for the Labor Party's federal government water policy before the election, and you call me delusional! I have assured the house that there is currently plenty of water available within the South Australian irrigation community and I am sure the member for Chaffey's constituent would have no problem, as I said, finding other irrigators. The government, and our government, will continue to take a responsible and strategic approach in ensuring the long-term security of water for all South Australians and we will leave the pathetic cheap scoring of points to the opposition.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: I have raised the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Pathetic am I? Oh, Steve Bradbury, please be quiet.

The SPEAKER: Minister, I am directing you to finish your answer.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am going to abide by that direction, Madam Speaker, as you would expect from me. I have discussed 67 per cent allocation, and indeed carryover, and permanent storage arrangements, with many people in this state and outside of this state.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!