MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (14:22): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is directed to the Premier. Premier, can you update the house on recent submissions to the consultation process regarding the draft Murray-Darling Basin plan and public remarks made in relation to those submissions?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (14:22): I thank the member for Ashford for this question, and I acknowledge her powerful advocacy over an extended period now for the River Murray and for the important work the Natural Resources Committee did to assist this parliament.

On 16 April, the state government released its submission on how the draft basin plan might be improved to return the Murray-Darling river system to health. We know that this river has been such an important part of our nation's history. We know that for so long now many South Australian communities have sought to build sustainable enterprises in the four decades that have passed since we capped our take from this river, and that is to our everlasting credit.

From the outset, we said that the 2,750 gigalitres proposed to be returned to the river was not enough but that we would respectfully and responsibly participate in the consultation process, and this is what we have done; we have done that diligently. We have undertaken the scientific work needed. We have said that science independently reviewed by the Goyder Institute would guide our judgement, and we said that we would reserve our judgement, based on the best available science.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The science and the scientists are clear. The CSIRO, the Wentworth Group and the Goyder Institute for Water Research have all raised serious questions about the scientific basis for the number of 2,750 and, indeed, it is clear that that number is not sufficient to allow us to meet our international obligations. Yet yesterday, the person charged with being chair of the independent authority accused the states of bringing out 'expert' studies in support of their position and suggested that his plan was better than 'no plan', and he was gently dismissive of the many submissions generated by the hard work of thousands of Australians. Such remarks are an insult to everyone in South Australia, and beyond, who, in good faith, attended those public meetings, wrote a submission or engaged in constructive debate to achieve a better plan.

These remarks also proceed from a basic inaccuracy, that is, that there is an option for 'no plan'. There is simply no option for 'no plan'. There is a water act which requires the authority to do its work, and rather than Mr Knowles making speeches I would rather prefer him to get on with his job of preparing this plan. It is not within his statutory mandate to withhold one from us, and he is obliged by statute to get on with the job of making a plan based on the best available sites—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond will leave the chamber for 30 minutes.

The honourable member for Hammond having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and not anything else. Can I say that his remarks do actually suggest a worrying mindset and that somehow he puts us in the same category as the other states and says 'Oh, there's this argy-bargy between the states and I've got to try and settle this dispute.' That is not his job. His job is to give us a healthy river based on the best available science and then equitably allocate the waters that are available to the other users of the river. That is his task. It is to get the right decision, not to somehow referee some fight. It is not some political exercise of mediation. There is a statutory mandate under the water act and we would prefer him to get on with his job rather than making speeches of this sort.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!