MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. P. Caica (resumed on motion).

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:46): I would like to continue, and I start by saying that the guide to the draft plan was met with public outrage. I say again that the way in which the guide to the draft plan was released into the public domain was unprecedented. A percentage of South Australia's entitlement has been put on the table, that is, around 25 per cent has been recommended to be cut from the state's allocation. The question to both the government and to the relative minister is: who is going to bear the brunt and the pain? Who will be asked to give up the water—because that 20 per cent, or thereabouts, is for South Australia's diversion water?

Once again, is the South Australian government going to be a part of that water that is required for the SDLs? That is one of the burning questions. But it appears not. That tells me that irrigators and their communities would be asked to give up more than 50 per cent of their entitlement. Quite frankly, I think it outrageous that this government is prepared to put not only the river communities and the food production of this state on the backburner, but also it is prepared to sit back and watch them self-destruct. Again, I ask the question: what business anywhere in today's society can have half their input taken away and expect to continue?

If the Natural Resources Committee is asked to put a recommendation it must consider the communities, it must consider its people, its businesses and the food production along the river corridor. Food security for all South Australians and communities for the future should be the over-arching concern.

This is a one in 100 year opportunity to get this right. With this government's input, as well as independent groups having input into the submission into the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, I think it is vital that we get off on the right foot with the new Chairman, Craig Knowles. I believe that he has good credentials. He is a man who can get the job done and he has proven that in a past life.

Again, one of the recommendations I would like to put to the committee is that, if it is looking for a truly independent submission and if it is looking for a truly independent voice, perhaps it could contact the SARC group in South Australia's Riverland. It is a credible and independent group. It is non-political. It is a group of food producers, members of local government, environmentalists and community leaders. I think that the minister has met with that group before. I think that it has credibility and that it does have a very balanced view.

If the Natural Resources Committee is given the resources needed to get on with this job, to put recommendations to the government, to the ministers and to his department I wish it a fruitful journey. Again, I ask that the communities, the food producers and all the people and all the businesses, as well as the environment and the health of the river, are put on the agenda. We do need a balance there. We do not need a one-sided argument.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:50): I rise to talk about the Murray-Darling Basin plan. When we finally get to an outcome of what we are looking at, it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is from Canberra, where we have the new man in charge who is not confident of is own board, and wondering where it will go. It dismays me that, four years down the track, after the John Howard federal government put $10 billion on the table to have a red hot crack at fixing the River Murray and the Murray-Darling Basin, we have seen very little money spent.

We have had $5.9 billion earmarked for irrigation infrastructure upgrades. I have been up through the irrigation areas in the northern basin and southern basin, as I know the member for Chaffey and the member for MacKillop have as well, and it is more than interesting. It is almost outrageous what they seem to use in their systems in the northern basin and southern basin. There are hundreds of kilometres of open channels, such as the Mulwala channel, which I think is well over 160 kilometres long, and then there are all the feeder channels which come off it near Deniliquin. These systems are replicated right throughout the basin in states such as Victoria and New South Wales.

We have licenses in the Darling side of things—they call them Magic Pudding licences—where, if the water is there, you pump as hard as you can and get what you can, and that is what they are. It is like a Magic Pudding turns up, and that is what they call them. I have noted irrigators in Queensland doing media reports on the television. When asked, 'Have you ever taken water that you shouldn't have?' one bloke looked very coy and said, 'I may have borrowed some for a while.' The simple fact is a lot of this water is unmetered and all we have is a good guess, at times, as to what water is being used.

When I went up north, I found someone with a plane that would fly me up to St George, over all the properties. I know Cubbie Station is the one everyone knows, but Cubbie gets the flak and there are far more that literally harvest water. No pumps are involved. Cubbie corners two rivers—I think they are the Balonne Minor and the Culgoa—and essentially what they do is put a dam around the corner of the river and have a graded funnel heading into their storages, and they just grab as much water as they can.

I recall meeting with graziers in New South Wales, who only get about 40 per cent of the water they used to get on their properties in years gone by, before a lot of it was captured for irrigation. These graziers are managing to turn every megalitre of water into far more value than cotton. I am not going to bag cotton. Cotton is okay if you have the water. If you have the floodwaters, then cotton and rice are both fine, but if it is not there then they are products which should not be grown, and that is why they are opportunity crops.

When you get down to South Australia, where we are supposedly on high security water, there is a major flaw right across the system. For one year in the recent four-year drought, we only received 18 per cent allocation, and yet the Murrumbidgee was on 95 per cent for its high security water. Where is the equity in that? Also along these lines of unequal allocations, the Lower Darling was on 100 per cent allocation. There was not a lot of water, but I just cannot see the equity across the basin, where different levels of so-called high security water are at different levels. That is why there is general security water or low security water. That is the water for opportunity crops such as cotton and rice. So, that is what we have seen in the last four years, before, thankfully, bigger powers than any parliament in this country took over and refilled the river, and it is a fantastic sight to see. I was attempting to ski on the River Murray on Sunday, and it wasn't that successful I must say—

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Pushed a bit more water down towards the barrages, I think! No, it was much more relaxing on the inflatable three-seater lounge going behind the Mercruiser ski boat, I can assure you.

An honourable member: How big is that?

Mr PEDERICK: A 350 Mercruiser, plenty of punch thanks. It is an interesting sight to see with the black water going down the river, and the dirty water coming down from the Darling. You can see it when you cross the river from the Swanport Bridge or the old bridge going into Murray Bridge. You can see plenty of traces of the dirty water, but I tell you that it is a lot better sight to see than what we have had for the last four years. There are still issues, let me say that, and I know that the minister is aware of the issue of acid sulphate soils and acid issues on the Lower Murray swamps. I know that there is a meeting coming up in Murray Bridge in regards to that but, hopefully, everything goes on track, and that water can be diluted with the flows as it flows out.

But there is so much work to do on those swamps. They were rehabilitated years ago. It was a mismatched affair. Some land was rehabilitated and some land was not. I believe that minister Hill was in charge at the time, and it would have been far better to have had those swamps all managed and rehabilitated together.

Some $30 million of federal, state and farmer money was spent and, essentially, most of that money has been wasted. We have seen dairy farmers decimated, from about 120 dairy farmers down to about 20. Yes, I will admit that some of that would have been about market forces and the size of operations to remain viable, but it has certainly been some of the decisions in relation to rehabilitation of the swamps that has forced some of those people to go.

We have issues with levy banks falling away, and the government has been tardy in providing funding for repairing levy banks. We have got people with private levy banks that wanted to do work long ago. There were issues about whether they should do it or whether the government should do it. There are issues where the government likes to have the first 50 metres of freehold land by the river, but when it comes to the private levy banks there is no assistance.

Then we get further down the system through to Lake Albert and around Lake Alexandrina, and the carnage, the absolute carnage, that has happened there over the last four years. We had people, at times, spending $5,000 a week to access water. I must admit that at the eleventh hour, with federal money that came out of some of the original money that John Howard's government put up, and with the state government administrating the money, we got the pipeline through to the Currency Creek and Langhorne Creek winery regions. And, also, with some of that money, we got the pipework down around Meningie, and also along the Narrung Peninsula, and a little bit north of Meningie.

But we still have major problems. We still have issues where we have bunds in the river—bunds at Narrung that should have been long gone—but the minister only decided to write to the federal minister the other day in relation to the $300,000 needed to remove the bund. And, because that bund has not gone, there are still massive salinity levels in Lake Albert, because it is a dead end lake, there is no outlet at the other end into the Coorong, and it is causing major issues still with salinity, and the ability to freshen that lake up to what was its natural state 95 per cent of the time.

We have seen horticulture disappear from the region around Lake Albert. We have seen farmers struggling, having to dredge out their trenches to get their water into their dairies. We have seen lucerne farmers struggle. All irrigators around the Lower Lakes are having a battle. Yet, with misinformation coming from further up the river that it is all right—that the lakes were always salty and you can just take the salt—well, that is simply not true. Ninety-five per cent of the time those lakes have been fresh.

If people want to talk about issues like pulling out the barrages at Goolwa and letting nature have its go, well, if we are going to go down that path, let's pull the 3,000 other structures out of the river, and all hell would break loose. Yes, it is an engineered system but it is engineered all the way through and it needs more engineering in the Eastern States. We do have the best irrigation systems in the system. We have put in the hard yards, we have worked under the cap, and people have still struggled with not being able to get their high security allocations at an appropriate level to get through.

High security is what South Australia needs because we have so many permanent plantings, and it should be on an equal footing across the basin with other high security water. It disgusts me that what should have happened instead of having these vast inequities between 18 and 19 per cent between our area and the Murrumbidgee, we could have had an equity across the system of perhaps at least 50 or 60 per cent of high security water and given people a fair go to keep going. But for a range of reasons South Australian irrigators were forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the last four years leasing water in or buying water.

It is good to see that the River Murray corridor from the lakes through to the Victorian border is still receiving exceptional circumstances. There always was that year lag with irrigation, I believe, with exceptional circumstances. I fought hard and brought the matter to the attention of the government in 2006 for the dryland areas and then within the year or so the irrigators could tell. They already were in strife in 2006 because that was quite a significant drought.

But what we need to get out of any inquiry is some surety as to where the river is going to be. I asked Mike Taylor, when he was the chair of the authority when they had the meeting at Murray Bridge, how much water would be put back into the system if we put pipes and line channels in the northern basin interstate and in the southern basin interstate? He said we would probably be able to find about 2,000 gigalitres of water. To me, that instantly says there is two-thirds of the minimum requirement, as has been discussed with proponents of the guide to the plan, of 3,000 gigalitres going back to the river.

But what we see is irrigators and irrigating communities—and I can understand why they are upset but they seem not to want to change—upset that all this water will be taken from them without any efficiency gains. I think it certainly could be done. The money has been laid on the table and it should have been done. South Australia has done 99 per cent of what it could do, I believe—probably better than that. There is barely an open channel to be seen in South Australia. What are minute return channels or inlet channels on the swamps or around the lakes compared to the systems further away?

What do we need if this inquiry does go ahead? We need it to have some teeth because people are sick of talkfests around the river. My heart says to me that they will go on forever, but we need some reality. We need to see where the guide to the plan and the initial plan is going to take us. We do need an environmental outcome for the river but we also need to have a sustainable outcome for the river because we need to sustain our irrigation communities, as the irrigation communities in the Eastern States need to be sustained. I think a lot of the water can be found in efficiency upgrades, and this is where South Australia barely has a drop to spare in any sort of upgrades of this kind, because the efficiencies have been taken.

We have got the issue of our irrigators only being on 67 per cent allocation until the end of June. I believe that is because the government negotiated away their right to get full allocation with carryover policy. Everyone knows in this place—I have spoken on it passionately many times—about the need for environmental water; but there is more water going out the barrages down at Goolwa than is coming over the border. There are about 81 gigalitres a day coming over the border and 85 gigalitres a day going out through the barrages at Goolwa. It is a fantastic thing to see.

Probably less than three days flow across the border would fix our irrigators up to 100 per cent allocation—our irrigators, all the way from the Victorian border down to the mouth. That is certainly what they deserve. In the longer term, we must make sure, especially at this end of the river, that we keep up the fight and that, if we do have a state inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin plan, it has plenty of resources thrown at it so that we can get a decent outcome, so it is not just another talkfest, and so that we can have some meaningful recommendations that the government will take up to keep up our fight to have equity in the River Murray system.

It has been darn tough four years for irrigators, and they have got some tough times to come yet, but they are all pleased to see more water flowing past their doors. I just hope that, as I said before, we do get the right result for South Australia, that we can work with the other states so that they can find equity in the upgrade of their irrigation systems, so that they can make the water savings and still grow the same amount of food.

I have mentioned the Rorato family in here before, near Deniliquin, who put in drippers one year, and it cost them $700,000—doubled their efficiency of water use. However, the year the family spent the money they could not use the irrigation system, but, the next year, when he was only on 9 per cent allocation, he could turn that into 10 per cent. That is the sort of efficiency that can be found.

I do not believe for one minute that food security will be the problem in this debate. It is about being efficient with the water use. You can produce more food with less. It is what farmers, even dryland farmers, have had to do for many years to become more efficient as well. I am sure that irrigators across the board can do it. We must do it in a collaborative way and work with the other states, because, as we all know, states have been bickering over the River Murray for over 100 years, and, as I said, I am worried that it will go on for some time yet. We also must not forget the terrible drought we have been in for the last four years.

In my closing remarks I will recount a story about when I met with the Snowy hydro scheme people. The member for MacKillop was there and the candidate for Chaffey (before he became the member for Chaffey) was with us. I said to these people from the Snowy hydro, 'If the Lower Lakes—Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert—were only 30 kilometres from Sydney, would they be in the state they are in now?' which was a devastating state, with sand blowing, the threat of acid sulphate soils. One of those people from Snowy hydro just jumped to his feet and said, 'They'd be pristine.' So, it is about population.

Everyone knows that we are at the bottom of the river. I would like to think there is an approach across the parliament that we all want the right result for the river. We want more than just words. We want to see the recommendations taking in place and we want to see action, because the environment needs a drink, irrigators need a drink, the economy needs a drink. We must make sure that everyone gets equity in the debate. I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (16:10): I want to make a couple of points in the first instance and then I will refer to some of the matters and issues raised by the opposition speakers. In the first instance, I thank them for their support. It appears that we are in furious agreement with each other and I will clarify some of the points that were asked about, but I appreciate the fact that they have indicated support for this motion.

From the time of the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, South Australia has been a supporter of that authority and the fact that it is to be an independent body to manage the river based on sound science rather than what other speakers have indicated is the parochial state interests that always seem to have prevailed.

Also, as a state government we have indicated that the basin plan, when it is fully developed, must adopt a whole-of-basin approach that acknowledges but transcends state borders. Indeed, its principal aim must be to ensure a long-term productive and environmentally sustainable future for the Murray-Darling Basin, because it is in the interests of all users of the River Murray system that this is achieved.

It is clear that the choice is not between a healthy river and a viable irrigation industry. Without a healthy river, in the long term, the industries that depend on it will decline. We also say that over-allocation upstream must be addressed.

What we are attempting to do through this motion is achieve a bipartisan approach with both sides of the Parliament of South Australia, and we say that is vital to maximising our chances of getting an outcome that meets the needs of the river, our state and the basin as a whole. I think it is important to touch on a few points that relate to what our state seeks from the basin plan.

We say from the outset that the basin plan must balance social, environmental and economic requirements. We also say that flows in the River Murray must be increased and better managed to maintain a healthy working river system all the way through to the Murray Mouth. Also, South Australia seeks a permanent system of environmental flows in the river to the national iconic areas of the Coorong, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth that will restore and, indeed, maintain the health of this system, including during times of drought like those we recently experienced. We also must maintain the delivery of South Australia's annual critical human water needs to the River Murray which, as many speakers have mentioned, supports 90 per cent of the state's population; and this water must be secure.

The river corridor is essential to the state's economy and the basin plan must enable productive and profitable primary industries to continue, and for those communities to thrive. I noted with interest the comments of the member for Hammond who said, and I paraphrase, that there is no doubt that there will still be very much productive land being utilised in the River Murray system during and beyond the final plan that will be in place and that we can do more with the water we have got, particularly in upstream states.

The reductions in the sustainable diversion limits should be fair, and that is what the state government is seeking. It should be fair and reasonable. We also say that South Australia's early actions to cap water use since about 1969, as well as our high level of water use efficiency, must be taken into account in the development of the plan. I will not be going cap in hand and saying, 'Recognise what we do here in South Australia in such a way that causes us to take less effort in developing the plan.' What we say is that, where savings can be found (and we say the majority of the savings with respect to water efficiencies can be found upstream), those benefits should flow through to the rest of the system and be treated as a benefit to the system as a whole, not just to those areas in which those efficiencies are being found.

What we also require is an efficient and open water market that maximises the opportunity for trading within and between basin states, whilst also recognising and protecting the needs of the environment and third parties. We also seek from the basin plan the water quality and salinity management plan that should contain management objectives, targets and policies to protect drinking water, agriculture, recreation and environmental values in South Australia.

On the matter of reductions and diversions in South Australia, I would like to make a couple of comments. As I mentioned earlier, South Australia will bear—and it is only appropriate—its fair share of reductions; however, the plan must recognise, as I mentioned, South Australia's historically responsible behaviour and that our irrigators are, without doubt, the most efficient in the Murray-Darling Basin. Cuts, as I also mentioned, should be shared equitably based on current relative levels of over-allocation.

The state also believes that the plan must take into account the social and economic impacts on water users and communities in South Australia. The quality and security of water that irrigators need can only be met from a healthy river, and the South Australian government will consider carefully, of course, how to implement any reductions through its water allocation planning processes and it will consult with water entitlement holders.

The plan must also allow for an appropriate period of transition through to any changes that will occur, those changes being a system that will have less water available for current purposes, notwithstanding, again, the comments of the member for Hammond that we support the opportunity to do much more with much less water than is used at the moment.

I will go on to address some of the comments that were made, and I will start with the member for MacKillop. Again, I thank him very much for his indication of support for this motion. However, he did talk about being confused. The member for MacKillop is often confused, and I do not make any apologies for that, but I will try to help him here. We used to have a saying in the fire brigade, 'If you don't want anyone to know anything, whack it on the noticeboard.'

I will just remind the house that, on 25 November 2010, I made a ministerial statement on the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Of course, again, the member for MacKillop raised a point of order even before I had really started, and that point of order was that it is a convention of the house that, when a minister makes a ministerial statement, he hands out a copy of his statement. The Speaker quite rightly said, 'There is a standing order there. Sit down. I can see that he is about to hand them out. Thank you, minister.' The point I am making is that this ministerial statement was handed to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I will go on to say a bit about that ministerial statement and what it outlined. It was at that time about the next 12 to 15 months when the long-term future of the Murray-Darling Basin would be determined. It went through to talk about our support of the release of the guide to the proposed plan, notwithstanding that we were all somewhat disappointed, if you like, with the processes that were undertaken by the authority with respect to the release of that guide which, on any fair assessment, one might say was quite appalling.

I went on to say that our understanding—and it remains our understanding, with a slight change at the moment—was that the agreement was to not release the proposed plan until such time as the Windsor committee, for want of a better term, had deliberated and provided its advice on this process. We understand that a 16-week public consultation will be undertaken, which is required under the Water Act, when the proposed basin plan is released. That will then be followed by the final basin plan by the end of 2011, but more likely in early 2012.

I also went on to say that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix the environmental problems facing the basin, but the main point I made in this ministerial statement was that I had, on numerous occasions, called for a bipartisan approach to an across-the-political-divide on this extremely important issue. During that ministerial statement I notified the house of my intention to move a motion requesting that the Natural Resources Committee inquire into and report on the proposed basin plan when it was released. I then went on to talk about some areas into which the Natural Resources Committee may wish to inquire and consider certain aspects of the proposed plan when it was released. Of course a proposed plan, by its very nature, means that the plan is only proposed: it is not the final plan. That proposed plan will come out and then be the subject of that consultation period.

In the ministerial statement I particularly proposed that the Natural Resources Committee inquire into and consider the following aspects of the proposed plan: the environmental impacts; the provisions for environmental flows in the River Murray system, in particular; the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth; the impact of proposals on the social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the South Australian community; whether new sustainable diversion limits had been fairly and equitably devised and applied across the Murray-Darling Basin; and, in addition, associated community adjustment issues—that is, the transition, if you like, that needs to be in place.

I went on to say that work on the referral would commence on the date the proposed plan was released, and I concluded by saying that I hoped all members of the house would welcome this move and use the opportunity to work together in a bipartisan way to address what is really the most significant reform that this country has undertaken for any amount of time, and probably the most significant reform from a primary production and environmental perspective that this country has ever faced. I urged that the spirit of bipartisanship be embraced not only in this parliament but also, of course, with our South Australian representatives in the federal parliament.

I guess members are asking what I am going on about in a very long-winded way. The member for MacKillop and others asked, 'What about some terms of reference?' That was detailed there, but you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. If I put forward what I thought were strict terms of reference for the committee, I would be told to let the committee determine what it should inquire into, knowing full well that the objective was to secure a bipartisan approach from this parliament on what ought to be this parliament's position on the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan, and, subsequently, the plan when it is released.

That was, and remains, the objective, but we put forward some terms of reference within that ministerial statement, and I hope that has helped the member for MacKillop to be less confused than he was in regard to the content and the thrust of this motion.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Because the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you do not have to respond to interjections.

The Hon. P. CAICA: That is right; I do not need to respond. But I do need to be reminded, every now and then, that I do not need to respond. It would be very helpful for you to continue to do that. Another subject—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So it would be best if the member for MacKillop did not make interjections.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Deputy Speaker, for your benefit, I presume that, when a ministerial statement is made, people will either listen to it or, alternatively, read that ministerial statement. There appeared to be no rhyme or reason, at that stage, for me to regurgitate what I had already provided to the house. However, on the basis of this contribution today, it seems necessary for me to remind the house of what was raised at that time.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is quite true. So I hope that the member for MacKillop is no longer confused.

Mr Williams: I am still confused why it wasn't in Hansard.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, but we cannot help that. There were also many issues raised by numerous speakers about resourcing. Again, I remind the house that this did not come out of the blue. When I proposed this, I had previously spoken not only to the chair but also to committee members. I met with the Natural Resources Committee and, amongst other things, the issue of resourcing was raised in the context of, 'Well, they're a bit strapped in regard to resources and a bit strapped for time, as well.' So, a commitment was given that my department's (and the whole of government, if you like) coordination of the state government's response to the Murray-Darling Basin plan would be available to them, all the technical information that is required by the committee.

As mentioned by one of the speakers, there is no need to go into it in such a way as to recommence research and inquire into things that have already been done. It makes sense for a committee that is going to report to the parliament—and, hopefully, adopt a bipartisan position with regard to this parliament's view on the Murray-Darling Basin plan—to have access to resources that have already delved into a significant number of aspects that relate to the Murray-Darling Basin plan.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I have informed the committee. I have informed the chair. I cannot make excuses. I cannot make—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, and as I remember six or seven members of this chamber are members of the Natural Resources Committee. I am happy to come to your party room meetings at any time, if you want, to ensure that you are better informed than otherwise would be the case. The member for Stuart made a very thoughtful contribution, as he always does, and I thank him for that. He also talked about the importance of ensuring that South Australia's water supplies continue and our reliance as a state on the River Murray for a variety of needs, not least of which is our critical human needs.

Along with other speakers, he raised the question about what we would do with the recommendations. Having asked the committee to inquire into this and providing the necessary resources for it to inquire effectively into the areas that have been highlighted, it would be a minister at his peril who did not heed the recommendations, knowing full well that we want to leave this parliament saying, in respect of all future discussions on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's proposed plan and subsequent plan, 'We are at one on this issue. As a parliament we are supporting not only a bipartisan approach but we are supporting the people of South Australia through the bipartisan position that has been developed and supported by this parliament.'

The member for Schubert (and I am pleased that he says he is still a mate of mine because he is a good bloke) made an interesting contribution. He talked about the need to find water savings and define water savings in a variety of areas. I met with two of the opposition's colleagues, upper house members of parliament from Western Australia who were over here earlier this week. It is the second delegation of people from Western Australia who I have met with.

The reason they come to South Australia is that, notwithstanding the fact that sometimes we are very hard on ourselves, we actually lead the nation with regard to not only the way we find efficiencies and efficiently irrigate but we also lead the nation in water recycling and stormwater harvesting. They are suffering in Western Australia, so they came over to learn about what it is that we do here so that they can continue to pursue those matters in Western Australia.

The member for Mount Gambier made a thoughtful contribution, as he always does, and raised the issue of resources, which I think I have addressed in my contribution here today. One of the issues that has been raised (and not just by the member for Hammond but also the member for Chaffey) is that we still face major problems. It is critically important for people to realise that, whilst nature has delivered a significant mount of water, for which we are all thankful, there are still problems associated with what was the unprecedented drought, whether it be the matter of the levy banks mentioned by the member for Hammond, the riverbank slumping or, indeed, the proliferation of acid in the lower swamps area which are the result of water coming into the system.

So, it is a bit much for people upstream to say everything has returned to normal. What we have, thankfully, is a very good system at the moment that is being fed with a lot of water, but the problems associated with the drought will be ongoing for a period of time.

The member for Chaffey raised issues related to, amongst other things, irrigators' needs. He was probably, as is his wont, a little bit melodramatic about other issues with respect to some of the irrigators facing destruction up there because of the decision to keep them at 67 per cent. I have seen the first briefing from ABARE in relation to what is being produced in the Riverland area, and, of course, I want that confirmed by PIRSA with respect to the type of year they have had.

Again, I remind the member for Chaffey and the house that, when meeting with irrigators on my second day back from annual leave, I requested from them the identification of anyone who was suffering with respect to their levels of production as a result of being on 67 per cent. To date I do not think that we have received any information from any of the irrigators about people who are in particular dire straits as a result of the 67 per cent allocation they had been provided with. I am still awaiting that information, if indeed it exists.

What the member for Chaffey did say, which was critically important, was that the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan needs to satisfy the environmental needs, and I think that we are at one on that, too. If we have a healthy river system the benefits are going to accrue for those people who ply their trade on the river—the irrigators. The member for Hammond also mentioned—and I will paraphrase him here, and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—that dryland farmers have been doing it for years. They know that their level of production is going to increase dependent upon the health of the land that they plough or till.

I was over on Eyre Peninsula just two weeks ago (hosted by the member for Flinders), and I visited a group of young farmers, one of whom was Mr Treloar's brother, but also I met with other young, progressive farmers. I was astounded to see that one of the paddocks of the member for Flinders was trialling production. Most people would know more about it than me, but they had a hostile layer, a clay layer, and that was affecting production.

They chopped up that clay layer and added some organic material to it. The first year after they had done that they had an increase of about 50 per cent in production for that area. The next year was a 300 per cent production increase on the 50 per cent they had already got. My response, of course, was, 'Well, I bet that made the ears of all your neighbours prick up,' because that is a fair increase in the level of production in that trial area.

The point I am making is that, just as is the case with dryland farming and the fact that they are going to improve their level of production, it is dependent upon the health of the land on which they ply their trade, and the same applies to irrigators. We need a healthy system for the most benefits to arise for irrigators in other forms of primary production who rely on that healthy system.

I finish by highlighting a couple of comments made in the member for Hammond's contribution. He highlighted upstream over-allocation and harvesting and the inefficiencies of irrigation practices further upstream, and I thank him for that acknowledgment. I do believe that significant water can be returned to the river through efficiencies in irrigation practices upstream. Again, that is one of the things that this parliament will need to focus on when we say that the Murray-Darling Basin plan—where efficiencies can be found—has those efficiencies or those savings shared across the basin for the benefit of the basin as a whole.

I conclude by thanking members for their support for what I think is a very important motion, but, again, I remind members that comments have been made that hundreds of millions of dollars have been used by irrigators to keep their heads above ground. I just remind the house that it was this government that spent tens of millions of dollars making sure that we purchased water to keep permanent plantings alive in the Riverland during what was the most unprecedented drought in anyone's living memory.

We have been very supportive of our irrigation community. We will continue to be extremely supportive of our irrigation community in recognising the role that it plays for our regional and hence our state's economies. One of the ways by which we can be supportive and show ongoing support of our irrigation community is to make sure that this parliament adopts a bipartisan approach that is being proposed, with respect to the Natural Resources Committee's deliberation on the plan, and, in doing so, show that we not only support irrigators but we support the people of South Australia and support the system as a whole, and we want that system restored to an appropriate level of sustainable health for future generations to be able to enjoy.

Motion carried.