Question Time

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): My question is to the Premier. Has the government done any modelling on the likely impact on local food production and on the state economy of the Premier's plan to increase the environmental flows in the Murray-Darling Basin from 2,750 to 4,000 gigalitres?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for her question. It carries within it a number of difficulties, that is, that I have not promoted a sum of that sort. What I have suggested is that our response to the basin-wide plan will be predicated on the best science that we have available, and the best science we have available at the moment is the Goyder Institute report which says that between 3,500 and 4,000 gigalitres of water will be necessary to return the river to life. It might be worth—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is answering the question. We don't need interjections from the other side.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Madam Speaker, it is worth remembering the basis on which we entered into this arrangement. We entered into this arrangement so that the series of very poor compromises that have been occurring over decades and decades in relation to the river—compromises which have been forced upon us by parties on both sides of this parliament over decades—would come to an end and we would put the health of the river front and centre in our consideration. That is the promise of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

That is the political compact we entered into when we cooperated with those federal arrangements, and that is the arrangement that South Australia will assert. In this matter, the state's interests and the national interests coincide. In fighting for the health of the river, South Australia is also fighting for the health of the river for the whole nation. If there is ever—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can I say before the honourable member gets too excited that I congratulate her on the bipartisan approach that she took in relation to the Olympic Dam expansion legislation. That was a good decision in the state's interests and has yielded obvious benefits for the state. What I would ask her to do is carry forward that spirit of cooperation in relation to this issue. There is no doubt that my position and the state's position will be strengthened if we speak with one voice. If we speak with one voice, the state's position will be strengthened.

I have invited those opposite to participate in that consensus. I have travelled the length and breadth of the river. I have had good meetings with the member for Chaffey and the member for Hammond, at which we have tried to build a consensus up and down the river, making sure that the old debates of the past of irrigators versus environmentalists, country versus city and upstream versus downstream are put aside in the state's—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order.

Mrs REDMOND: It is a question of relevance. The question was simply: has he done any modelling on what the economic impact is or what the impact is on food production in this state? That was the question.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, I don't uphold that point of order. The Premier is answering the question as he chooses.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In fashioning that consensus, and it will become apparent that the Leader of the Opposition has completely misconceived the nature of the position that I have sought to fashion—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In fashioning that consensus, I made two points extremely clear: that is, that South Australia has borne the burden of taking a low and sustainable take from the river since 1969. We pegged the amount of water that we have taken from this river at the level of 1969 while, during that whole period (between 1969 and now), we have seen the massive over-allocation of the waters of the River Murray. South Australia has accepted a lower level of economic growth, has lived sustainably within its means and used taxpayers' and irrigators' dollars to ensure we have the most efficient irrigation system in the nation. Despite all of that—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —when one comes to analyse the nature of the problem—which is this over-allocation which has occurred over the last 40 years—and when it comes to divining what the solution should be, clearly, South Australia should not bear the burden of adjustment. So, when we call for a healthy river, Madam Speaker, it is not at the expense of our irrigators, it should be at the expense of those who have over-allocated over the last four decades.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is that consensus—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop, you are warned; and the member for Hammond.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —that we need to fashion in this state, and that will permit me to speak on behalf of all South Australians. I believe that those opposite are out of step with the overwhelming majority of South Australians who want—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —a healthy river, and they do not believe that we should unfairly accept the burden of adjustment in this state. I once again call on the Leader of the Opposition to make clear what her position is in relation to this river, and I ask her to stand with me in the state's interests.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Torrens.