House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Desalination Plant DESALINATION PLANT Mr WHETSTONE House of Assembly Chaffey Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:34): Today I, too, rise to talk about the desal debacle that this state is now presented with. The announcement that the Premier will mothball South Australia's desal plant at Port Stanvac is an absolute blow to all South Australians and, most of all, to food producers and their communities who believed that it would reduce Adelaide's reliance on the Murray River; and, to most South Australians, reducing reliance means reducing the take. Initially the plant was a 50 gigalitre plant with a capacity that would diversify Adelaide's water resources. We were deceived and led to believe that it would take less in times of a shortfall of supply. The government's decision to expand the Liberal's policy 50 gigalitre plant to a 100 gigalitre plant came at a huge burden to every South Australian water customer, remembering that every food producer and river community member gave up a large capacity of their income, their property value and their savings to accommodate the critical human needs water needed for the majority of this state. The decision smacks of policy on the run, with a lure of extra funding for the doubling of the plant. The extra $228 million of federal funding was the sweetener. Now, every South Australian has had to give up the $212 million in GST revenue, and then there was a further six gigalitres back to the commonwealth government, and that was at an estimated cost of $10 million. That is a net gain of $6 million. It is outrageous; and today we hear the Premier saying that there was no net loss to South Australia. Today we have a $2.2 billion lemon on our shores, and the message it sends to the commonwealth government, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Eastern States is that we want more water for our river but that we are not prepared to be part of the solution. The Premier came to the Riverland beating his chest when he was first elected and said that 4,000 gigalitres is what we need for the river, no water from the food producers and the threat of a High Court challenge. Then we hear that the Premier based his argument on the Goyder report, suggesting that we needed 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres backed by science. That report came at a cost to South Australian taxpayers of $500,000, but today we hear that the Premier now wants to back a 3,200 gigalitre model based on modelling with reduced constraints. The Premier cannot make up his mind—one minute he wants 4,000, then he is backing science at 3,500 to 4,000, now he is calling for modelling on 3,200. The Premier has spent $2 million on a campaign that will not put one drop of water back into the river. Again, the Premier has sold the Riverland communities a donkey and, again, they will be pressured to make up the shortfall for South Australia's SDL contribution to the basin plan, which has every chance of not even getting up due to the Premier's demands without being part of a balanced solution. The balanced solutions are here in South Australia, yet this government continues to deny that there are solutions. The Premier's solution is, 'Let's add water. Let's put more water into the river at the expense of food producers, at the expense of river communities, at the expense of every South Australian.' Again, the Premier is basing his argument on a self-promotion $2 million campaign. One minute he is believing a science-modelled report and he is now relying on modelling from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on 3,200. What is it Premier? Is it going to be plan or is it going to be political spin?