House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Murray-Darling Basin Plan MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN Mr WHETSTONE House of Assembly Chaffey MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (14:53): My question is to the Premier. Has the Premier or his government commissioned research on the social and economic impact on South Australia of a basin plan which returns 4,000 gigalitres to the Murray-Darling system? The Premier has made repeated statements that a basin plan which returns a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres to the system is necessary to restore the river to health. The guide to the proposed plan includes a model which shows that under the 4,000 gigalitre scenario South Australia would have a sustainable diversion limit of 433 gigalitres, a reduction of 35 per cent from the state's 2009 baseline diversion limit. Has the Premier commissioned research to determine the impact this reduction would have on food producers and river communities here in South Australia? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: That was a very lengthy explanation, but I call the Premier. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Minister for State Development The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (14:55): The question rather falls at the first hurdle, because it has been the consistent proposition that any additional water that goes down the river, which is needed for the health of this river, should be taken from the upstream states. We say that because, over the last 40 years— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We pegged what we took from the river back in 1969, while those upstream merrily overallocated the waters of this river such that it has now damaged, depleted and polluted this most precious natural resource, this magnificent national river, this vital natural resource for our state and this wonderful internationally recognised set of environmental assets. All of those things we have understood and respected for the last four decades. Those upstream have used and abused the waters of this river. So, that is at the heart of our submission. It is at the heart of our constitutional argument that states were created equal and that, when we came together to form this commonwealth, we did so as a group of equals rather than as a mendicant state, accepting what flowed from the upstream. It is an absolutely central concept to the way in which this nation was formed that one state cannot act to damage and destroy another state. That applies to our interboundary rivers. That is why we say that any changes which are about improving the health of this river should not come at the expense of South Australia. I am mystified that somebody that calls themselves— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —a representative of the Riverland—and I suspect there might be a few other representatives of the Riverland that might bob up in the future; ones that better understand that the better way to represent the people of the Riverland is to stand together— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —with their state government and give the state government, give the state premier and give the state water minister the best possible opportunity to negotiate the best deal for South Australia. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order!