MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:37): My question is to the Minister for Water and the River Murray. How can the government claim victory in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, given that the Premier originally demanded 4,000 gigalitres be returned to the basin, but has now settled for a return of just 2,750 gigalitres by 2019 and a potential additional 450 gigalitres by 2024 (12 years away), subject to a range of conditions, including funding, and now makes claims about meeting MDBA environmental targets, apparently abandoning South Australia's stated environmental water requirements, which the Goyder Institute confirmed are more rigorous?

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The question is replete with argument from its start and then the allegations of abandonment. That would be standing order 97. If inviting an argument, they cannot complain when they get one.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, and that is true. I uphold that point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The member for Norwood is interjecting again.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Frivolous points and repetitive points of order are also out of order.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. Yes, we do not have frivolous points of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister, did you wish to answer that question?

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:39): Yes, madam, I am sorry. They were making a noise and I did not know I had been invited by you to do so. Quite simply, South Australia achieved a significant win in its fight for the Murray by the federal government and the Prime Minister—

An honourable member: A Mazda?

The Hon. P. CAICA: —committing far more than a Mazda, even though—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: You just don't look the same there, Mitch.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I have said, we have achieved a significant breakthrough and as the Premier also said, the fight is not over yet by any means. Again, we do want the opposition to join with us in this as is the case with the rest of South Australia. What we have seen is the federal government committing to return 3,200 gigalitres and, indeed, committing to provide an extra $1.77 billion to recover the extra 450 gigalitres of water and address constraint—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It won't be subject if, indeed, it's passed through the parliament, which is what the Premier was talking about earlier. It needs to get passed through in that format. Quite simply, the opposition's view, without me being disrespectful on this whole matter, in particular the member for Chaffey, has been quite appalling. What we have done is get far more support from the community within the member for Chaffey's area than we have got from the member for Chaffey or anyone in the opposition. We know that the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chaffey will leave the chamber for the rest of question time!

The honourable member for Chaffey having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. P. CAICA: We know that the former deputy leader was quite satisfied to hurl up the white flag very early in the piece and settle for 2,750.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: What we did know is that, on the authority's own science, 2,750 gigalitres was not enough.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: We never signed up for that. We get 3,200. They're a little bit confused and I think they need a briefing on the process to date, but I'll keep working through this—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, order! We will listen to the minister in silence.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. What we've always said, based on what the authority's own science said that was reviewed by our state government's scientists, then peer reviewed by the Goyder Institute, was that 2,750 would not deliver. It would not deliver to the key indicator sites or, indeed, return the system to an appropriate level of sustainable health. As a result of that, South Australia requested that the ministerial council in turn—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will leave the chamber for the rest of question time!

The honourable member for MacKillop having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. P. CAICA: As a result of that, we sought that 3,200 gigalitres modelled. It has been modelled with key constraints removed or relaxed, and it's shown again, on the science, that will return the system to a much healthier situation, indeed, a sustainable level of health providing those constraints were relaxed or removed—again, based on the science of the authority itself, undertaken and reviewed by our state's scientists, then peer reviewed by the Goyder Institute, which includes CSIRO scientists.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: We say, and have always said, that whilst we didn't know what the figure was, it was always said that in the absence of science, we would say that between 3,500 and 4,000 would be around it. Where they're negligent in their views on this, or they may be just deliberately being that way, is that we've always said it would be based on the best available science. That science tells us that 3,200, with constraints relaxed or removed, with not just the $1.77 billion to recover that extra 450 gigalitres—

Mr Pederick: It sounds like a marine parks argument.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, ask me a question about that. With the $1.77 billion that the federal government has committed to, to recover that extra 450 gigalitres, coupled with extra money that is still required, and that's why the fight is not over, for infrastructure to be built along there to best use or to remove those constraints—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond will leave the chamber for the rest of question time!

The honourable member for Hammond having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: You are like a foghorn.

The Hon. P. CAICA: What we have seen is one side of the house fighting with a unified South Australia to deliver this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity; what we see on the other side is people grappling for their own positions within that, and you won't be there for very long Steven because you'll be moving along.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: This is clearly debate, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I'm sure, Madam Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! I think you have probably finished your answer and I will uphold that point of order. Have you finished your answer?

The Hon. P. CAICA: If you say so, Madam Speaker, yes.

The SPEAKER: You can finish if you have not, but you are actually out of time.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Speaker, what we need is for the opposition to get behind this campaign to return the system to an appropriate level of health. The science tells us that 3,200 gigalitres, delivered in the conditions that I have said, will do that. It is about time they got behind it instead of settling for second best.