Question Time

DESALINATION PLANT

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:23): My question is to the Premier. How can the Premier justify his calls for more water to be returned to the River Murray by upstream states when the government is mothballing the desalination plant, given that the federal government funding was provided on the basis that the plant would reduce our reliance on the River Murray?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (14:24): Very easily. It is because the long-term future water security of the state demanded that we have a 100 gigalitre desalination plant and not a smaller one. Perhaps I will take members through the chain of reasoning. I think it is common ground between us that we needed a desalination plant. It did take some time before we reached that conclusion, because we did not want to commit ourselves to such a substantial piece of public infrastructure until we were satisfied that there were no other choices. There was a very lively debate within our cabinet about the need for a desalination plant. As the drought deepened and as the evidence was presented to us we realised that we had no other choice but to make that step, so we did take that step.

At the same time, of course, the whole question of our water security became matter of some moment, given that we had the deepest drought in living memory and, of course, one that people had not contemplated really at any stage could have occurred in the state. So, what we chose to do was take the best possible advice, the advice from WorleyParsons and KPMG that, in fact, we needed a 100 gigalitres plant, and we accepted that advice. But to go to the proposition that somehow has been advanced here, that this is inconsistent with our stance on the River Murray, is nonsense.

The point about having a climate independent, a River Murray independent, and upstream states' independent source of water was to ensure that we did not place additional burdens on the River Murray. In fact, one of the things about the WorleyParsons and KPMG model was taking additional water, buying additional water entitlements from the River Murray, which would have been the cheapest option, but it was not an option we chose because it was inconsistent with our values about reducing our reliance on the River Murray. So we chose an approach that did require us to adopt a solution that involved investing in this desalination plant.

I have got to say that it was a proposition that was a whole lot more viable to be doing it with the assistance of the commonwealth who funded half of the additional increase. So we ended up paying about 10 per cent extra to go from 50 gigalitres to 100 gigalitres, a very prudent and sensible proposition, and at the same time we reached a commitment with the commonwealth that we would put back six gigalitres into the river and that we would commit to providing between 12 and 24 gigalitres as an environmental allocation during favourable years capped at 120 gigalitres over a ten-year rolling period.

So, not only were we not going to increase the burden or take on the river, and not only were we doing that, but we were reducing what we took. But I must say that South Australia takes 1 per cent of the waters of the River Murray, compared with those upstream that take extraordinary—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Those upstream that have been depleted and degrading—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Norwood, order!

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Morialta!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Adelaide and the environment takes 1 per cent of the waters of the River Murray. To be lectured by those upstream, that have depleted and degraded the waters of this river such that we are in the position we are in today, is to say, at the least, galling. Why don't they put aside politics for one moment to get behind our campaign for a healthy river?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!