Grievance Debate

MURRAY RIVER

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:05): Today, we gave the Minister for Water and the River Murray the opportunity to lay down exactly what the government's position is with regard to the River Murray. Yet again the minister refused to inform the house of the government's position, just like the Premier has been playing ducks and drakes with this issue for so long. On the very day that the MDBA tabled the draft plan—I think it was 20 November last year—we saw the Premier come out and start talking about a High Court challenge. Before he had had any opportunity to read and analyse the document, he started to talk about a High Court challenge.

Ever since, we have had the Premier and the minister saying that South Australia would not be accepting the plan, that they were going to demand more water than what was proposed in the plan. Several times they have been quoted—both the Premier and the minister—as saying that they wanted this to be directed by the best science, and the best science was telling us that the number was somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 gigalitres of water returned to the environment.

Today we asked the minister a simple direct question: is it the case that the government will not accept a plan that delivers anything less than 3,500 gigalitres? Guess what? The minister would not say yes. Why not? Because the minister and the Premier say one thing in South Australia to their domestic audience here, but are obviously saying other things when they are upstate. When they are in the upstream states or in Canberra they are saying something different. We know that the minister came out of a ministerial council meeting saying something completely different to what they have been saying here in South Australia.

It is outrageous that this government would behave in this manner. There is a significant number of people whose livelihoods depend on the outcome this debate. Communities up and down the river want a sensible outcome for South Australia; they want an outcome that delivers positive environmental benefits, but they also want an outcome that sees that the communities and the people who live and work up and down the river can survive and can have a viable future.

Yet the government is just playing petty, low class politics. It says one thing here in South Australia and something else upstream. I was delighted to read The Advertiser this morning. The minister and the Premier have been caught out, because it has now been revealed that the minister will say one thing in Sydney or Canberra and another thing here in Adelaide. That is why the minister refused to answer the questions put to him here in this parliament today.

What really irks me is that this government is going to use $2 million of taxpayers' money to try to cover its tawdry tracks. This government is taking $2 million of taxpayers' money, whilst the budget is going out of control, for an advertising campaign. It will not be about putting out the facts, it will not be about overcoming misinformation; it will be about the government trying to garner votes. This will be a simple, tawdry political campaign by a government that is bereft of ideas, a government that does not understand the river or the people who rely on the river.

This is a shame, that this government has no position yet wishes to garner $2 million of taxpayers' money to shore up its political position. It is no wonder that the Premier is in China. He knew that the ministerial council was going to expose the government this week, and he made sure that he was not in the state. It is a disgrace, and he should be condemned for it.

The SPEAKER: Member, your time has expired; and I think you had better sit down before you expire, by the sound of you. The member for Florey.