MURRAY-DARLING BASIN

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (16:23): I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable me to move that this house—

(a) acknowledges the commonwealth government commitment to return 3,200 gigalitres of water to the Murray-Darling Basin;

(b) welcomes the commonwealth government's decision to invest $265 million in water recovery and industry regeneration projects in South Australian river communities to ensure our irrigators do not bear the burden of adjustment in returning the Murray to health;

(c) notes that with 3,200 gigalitres returned to the Murray-Darling Basin, the following outcomes can be achieved—

i. an average of two million tonnes of salt exported through the Murray Mouth each year;

ii. salinity kept below dangerous thresholds for the survival of native plants and animals in the Lower Lakes and Coorong;

iii. a reduced risk of the Murray Mouth needing to be dredged to remain open;

iv. water levels in the Lower Lakes kept at a level to avoid acidification and riverbank collapse below Lock 1;

v. an improved ability for flood plains to support healthy red gum forests, waterbird and fish breeding and greater areas of habitat for native plants and animals;

(d) calls on all South Australian federal members of parliament to support a Murray-Darling Basin plan that—

i. returns 3,200 billion litres to the Murray-Darling Basin;

ii. provides for the healthy river outcomes set out above;

iii. ensures that the burden of adjustment does not fall upon our irrigators; and

(e) that the time for the debate be limited to 20 minutes each for the mover and the Leader of the Opposition or one member deputed by her and 10 minutes for any other member and the mover in reply.

Members of the house would be aware that not so long ago we moved a resolution of this place calling upon all members of this house to support the government's efforts to bring the South Australian community together to fight for a healthy river. This was an issue of significant state importance, but not just an issue of state importance, an issue of national importance.

Our judgement at the time was that to achieve the changes that we needed to achieve in relation to the draft plan that had been proposed we needed to use all of the forces at our disposal to send the very clearest message to Canberra decision-makers that 2,750 gigalitres of water was inadequate.

During the period of time since that last resolution and the day we stand here, we have devoted our efforts to this campaign. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister of Australia announced a commitment to put into the river the water that it needs in order to be healthy, namely, 3,200 gigalitres—3,200 billion litres—of additional water, funded through a $1.77 billion fund to allow this river to return to health.

This funding would allow water recovery projects that would ensure that the burden of adjustment would be minimised upon communities. The water that we have fought for and gained in the commonwealth's commitment—the 450 gigalitres more than was originally proposed—will enable a number of crucial advances to be made for the health of the river and the communities that rely upon it. The motion itself outlines these advances. They are significant: exporting two million tonnes of salt annually—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Leader of the Opposition says no, they're not significant. So, exporting two million tonnes of salt annually; preventing the recurrence of acidification and riverbank slumping; reducing the risk of needing to dredge the Murray Mouth; and making river red gum forests in our Murray flood plains healthier.

I was even more pleased that on Sunday we were able to announce that South Australia had won $265 million in federal funding for water recovery and industry regeneration projects in the South Australian river communities. This funding is a major step in ensuring the burden of adjustment does not fall upon our irrigators and will be a major boost for industry and communities along the length and breadth of this river.

The extra water for the river and the funding are vital for the future health of the river and the health of the various industries that rely upon it: the $600 million horticultural industry, the $200 million tourism industry, and the $6 million professional fishing industry, industries that rely upon a healthy river.

It has always been at the heart of our contention that this river is not just a beautiful environmental asset that renders, obviously, its own intrinsic value to the South Australian community; it is also an essential part of our economy. There is no healthy economy without a healthy environment, and those two things are inextricably linked—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader will have a chance to speak to the motion.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: These are the things that we have always understood—that there is not an either/or proposition here. There is a choice to advance both the environment and the economy and the two are importantly linked. This is something the Ngarrindjeri have always understood. They have understood that not only is this essential to the health of their regional economies and the health of their environment but it is actually intrinsic to their own health. They see the connection between themselves and the river as being a much more vital one than a physical one. It is deeply intrinsic to themselves and their own sense of themselves and their sense of being.

I think that, finally, we are beginning to realise the interconnection between all these elements, and we have reached an incredibly important stage in this fight for a healthy river. So, how do we achieve this? Well, we achieve this by not sitting back. We achieve this by fighting. We chose to fight—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and I know there are a few little giggles from those opposite. They folded their hand on the first occasion. South Australia did not sit back and let these things unfold, accepting what was offered. We did the hard work—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members on my left that, if they wish to speak to this motion, they will get a chance. If they choose to interrupt they will not get a chance.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a bit of a catcall from over there. He says that there was $2 million spent on this campaign. Well, $2 million for an over $2 billion return, any business that got that rate of return I would be very proud of—very proud of that rate return.

Mr Marshall: It was an advertising campaign.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It was more than advertising campaign. It was an attempt and a very successful attempt—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Norwood is warned.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —to unite the South Australian community, and unity is a concept completely foreign to those opposite. They have division stamped on their forehead, and no more palpable example of that is of the team that sits so uncomfortably next to one another.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Norwood will leave the chamber for 10 minutes.

The honourable member for Norwood having withdrawn from the chamber.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Bye, bye, off you go.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: And, so peace is returned to the South Australia—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next member will leave for 20 minutes.

Mr Pederick: From either side?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Either side.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the voice of reason returning order to this chamber. That is precisely what we sought to do. We sought to bring together environmentalists, we sought to bring together irrigators, we sought to bring together the city and the country, and that is why, in the first four days I was in this position, I travelled to the Riverland, not an area which is necessarily known to be one of our natural constituencies, although things can alter.

We travelled to that region not because there was some political advantage but because this was an issue of state importance, and the choice that we made was to unite this state behind this campaign because we knew we needed every single South Australian behind this campaign if it was to be a successful one. So it was with that common sense of purpose, armed with the scientific evidence and making our voices heard in Canberra, that we have reached this very important stage in the decision-making process.

Can I say that we have engaged the most eminent scientists to scrutinise the draft plan. They did that work. It was independently checked. We sent that to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and made a comprehensive submission with some 71 recommendations, which have caused an extraordinary number of improvements to the plan. When the revised plan was released without the changes that were needed by the broader community, we embarked upon a more intensive phase of our campaign, the Fight for the Murray campaign.

People answered our call. More than 18,000 campaign members, more than 23,000 people followed our campaign on Facebook and almost 5,000 people sent letters to the commonwealth government, and the achievements of recent days are testament to that campaign. These are the choices that we have made in South Australia, and the choices that we made in this state on this campaign are choices that are borne out of a perspective about our state. The perspective about our state is that it is a first-class state: it is not a second-class state. It is a state that has self-respect: it is not a state that cowers and avoids a fight. It is a state that is proud of itself, proud of its communities and values them and has a sense of justice.

Our sense of justice was aroused when propositions were put to us that we did not respect our historical respect for this river. Since 1969 we have paid this river enormous respect. We understood its natural constraints, we understood that we had to live respectfully within the natural constraints that were imposed upon us by the decisions taken by the upstream states. We understand we live in the driest state in the driest populated continent. We understand that that means that we have to be smarter, more innovative, to work carefully within the natural environment, the fragile natural environment that is presented to us.

So we sought to draw on the South Australian strengths of ingenuity in living in a harsh climate, and we sought to draw on all of those strengths and draw on the unity of the South Australian people to embark upon this campaign. Just as we embarked on this campaign for this purpose, we will use this mindset to guide all of the decisions that we take in the future about this state. The truth is there are too many people in this state who are prepared to settle for second best. There are too many people who want to talk down this state. There are too many people who want to appeal to the worst instincts, the cynicism that exists within members of this community, and seek to arouse that rather than the possibility for us to be better, rather than us having the possibility to imagine a greater and better South Australia.

That is what sits at the heart of our decision-making process, and that is what sits at the heart of the great divide between Labor and Liberal in this state. This is a message we will be taking from this day forward all the way to the election, and every time you start to talk down this great state, we will be rubbing your noses in the surrender that you proposed in relation to the fight for the River Murray campaign. Mr Mazda sitting over there, who you insult us with by leaving on the front bench to this day, who told us that we should haul up the white flag in relation to this river—so paralysed are you by disunity that you cannot act to remove a man who remains a persistent and consistent reminder of the—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —embarrassment that exists on your side of politics, and why can you not do that?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Premier, please resume your seat. The member for Chaffey, you will leave the chamber for 20 minutes; you have been warned.

Mr Whetstone: I have not been warned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you have. You were warned first and then I gave a general warning to all members on both sides—20 minutes.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Point of order: standing orders provide guidance on personal attacks, quarrels and arguments between members. The Premier has been personally attacking individuals on this side of the chamber. I ask that you consider that before you eject people from the chamber on the basis that they have responded to those personal attacks. Now, if you are going to eject people from the chamber, why not call the speaker into order so that he stops those personal attacks and the ejections are not required?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all, I gave all members a warning about interjecting. I did allow some interjection to occur, and then it got out of control again. The voice I heard was, one, the member for Chaffey, who I had specifically warned earlier and, secondly, he did not desist. He will leave the chamber.

The honourable member for Chaffey having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I was doing and will continue to do is to talk about the values that have been projected into the South Australian community by those sitting opposite. The divisions that exist within their party they are seeking to export into the public debate around what should happen on this issue. Their instincts are to divide. Their instincts at their heart are to divide, to set one South Australian against another South Australian. We called for a campaign of unity. I offered that bipartisan request for unity when we had this debate some months ago, and at every turn, at every single turn on every single day that went past from that day to this, they sought to explore the divisions and the fear. They tried to set city against country, they tried to set irrigator against environmentalist—

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Premier, resume your seat. Point of order.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, there is a point of order.

Mr PEDERICK: This is debate. This motion is clearly about the River Murray and not our response to anything that comes out of the Premier's mouth. He should be telling us, as he is trying to do, what he has done for the River Murray instead of just having a crack at the opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I assume you are talking about relevance. The matter is relevance?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, absolutely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left will get a chance to respond. Premier, continue.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will explain the relevance. The relevance is that I am attempting to shame those opposite into supporting this resolution, because of the deliberate campaign of division they have engaged in over the period of time since I last invited them to undertake bipartisan support. It is not too late.

The good news for the Liberal Party, out of what has been a rather ordinary period and episode for them, is that the fight for the River Murray is not yet over. They do have an opportunity to redeem themselves and to be part of the consensus that I have sought to build in this great state to support this important state and national resource. You can still get on board by supporting this motion today and acting on it once you leave this chamber, because what it calls you to do is to go and speak to your federal Liberal colleagues. That is something that you are expertly well placed to do because—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, you won't get a second warning.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The basin plan will soon be presented to federal parliament and it will be critical that it is not blocked at that point, so the attitude of federal Liberal members of parliament is absolutely crucial. Indeed, if every federal Liberal member of parliament voted with the government—the South Australians at least—if all South Australians voted as a bloc, this would pass. There would be no issue. Advising that at an early time is not an academic matter, because it will bear on the sort of plan that the federal government decides to present to the federal parliament. They are not going to present a plan to the federal parliament that they think is going to be disallowed, so this is no mere academic exercise. Your decisions in this place to decide to do the right thing and stand up for South Australia could have a material bearing on the shape of this plan.

Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask those opposite to accept their responsibilities. For once and for all, stand up for this river, stop playing politics and get in behind this important campaign. That is why I have written to every South Australian federal MP asking them to state unequivocally their support for the basin plan, which does three important things: it returns 3,200 gigalitres to the Murray-Darling Basin; it achieves the healthy river outcomes, as set out in the motion; and ensures that the burden of adjustment is not borne by our irrigators.

That is why all members of parliament have also received a letter from me asking whether they will make similar demands of their colleagues in Canberra. That is why I have brought this motion to this house. It is vital that South Australia's resolve in this matter cannot be questioned. We are on the cusp of a historic breakthrough. We have a rare opportunity to put right an injustice that has been perpetrated on this state for over 100 years. If all elected members in this state stand as one to fight for a healthy river, we will achieve this outcome.

I will conclude by saying that this is not just a debate about a healthy river. It is a debate about a self-respecting state. It is a debate about whether we choose to be a state that cringes and cowers in the corner and shrinks from a fight, or whether we have a small view of South Australia or a great view about South Australia. We decidedly, on this side of the parliament, have a great view for this state. That will be the contest, might I say, and not just now over this issue. It will be the contest that will continue to emerge on every single issue that we put before the South Australian people in the weeks and months ahead and, ultimately, it will be the contest in 2014.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition. Before you start, I will remind members on my right.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (16:44): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection in anticipation. I rise to speak on this motion and may I say what a pleasure it is to have the chance to set out some of the realities of the government's position on the Murray-Darling Basin because it has been anything but consistent and there has never been any real plan. What I want to do is go through the motion bit by bit, look at just what it says and make a comment on each of the little bits of it. The first part, of course, is that the house:

(a) acknowledges the commonwealth government commitment to return 3,200 gigalitres of water to the Murray-Darling Basin;

Let us really have a look at that. First of all, it is not 3,200 gigalitres: it is up to 3,200 gigalitres and it is not guaranteed to return anything until the year 2024—that is 12 years away from now, that is four federal elections away from now and this government wants to get up and trumpet about this great achievement.

As far as I am concerned, Mr Premier, we do not have a plan. How can we responsibly talk about it when you have not actually given us any details? We do not yet have agreement from the upstream states—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria—the important states that are going to say yes or no.

We have always had the view that it is important to get an independent authority in charge of this river, so that there can be true independent control that protects the entitlements of the environment, the economy and the communities along the river, so that there is fairness and independence in the assessment; but no, you think that standing up and bleating in this state solves the problem. You have no social, environmental or economic consensus across the basin, no detail at all on how the water is going to be obtained or delivered and, potentially, as I said, 12 years and four federal elections before you actually get any real change. Indeed, there is no indication where the funding is going to come from.

These are serious questions, Mr Premier, that deserve serious answers, not just this number that you throw at us of 3,200 gigalitres. There is nothing to suggest that this move by the Prime Minister and its lavish, almost gushing, support by the Premier is anything more than just more politics and grandstanding by this government.

South Australians actually care about this river. We know that that was the case before the last election and since the last election; that is why people down in the suburbs of Adelaide got upset about the river. Right through, it is the main issue that we fought about over the election and the idea that we needed to recycle stormwater in this state to help protect the river—remember? You promised a desalination plant that you have now mothballed, all in the name of getting a benefit to the river.

What you want is a lot of self-promoting stunts and grandstanding and that is what it is all about, in typical Labor fashion. Why else would you waste $2 million on a Fight for the Murray advertising campaign—and that is what it was, an advertising campaign—entirely in South Australia? It is not convincing any of the people in the other states who have to be convinced to deal with this river in an appropriate way.

It offered a houseboat holiday. It was such a successful $2 million. I would love to know what the people in these communities think with $2 million spent and 13,000 people—that is less than 1 per cent of the population of the state—actually signing up, with all your money that you spent.

Then there was that tough talk about threatening a High Court challenge. Remember day one? Remember day one, when the Premier said, '4,000 gigalitres, not a drop less, and a High Court challenge'? Of course, we still have not heard from you how much the last failed High Court challenge cost us.

Then there was your little stunt yesterday, inviting the media to follow you to Christopher Pyne's office to deliver a letter, knowing full well that he was not there. In any event, the Liberal MPs had been on the radio that morning asserting their support for the need for a solution for this river, their support for South Australia and their intention to cross the floor if necessary. They were all on the radio about that in the morning, but no, you had to have your little stunt; that is what it is about.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order: the leader continually refers—

Dr McFetridge: What number?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Are you still here? The leader continually refers—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morphett?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —to 'you, you, you'. That is not the courtesy that was extended by the Premier to the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the Leader of the Opposition by her proper title.

Mrs REDMOND: I apologise and withdraw my reference to 'you', Mr Premier. I will try to make it Mr Premier all the way through. Let me remind the house of the Premier's own words, one year ago today, on 1 November last year. This is what the Premier said:

...as you've seen, the Goyder Institute Report talks about numbers of 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres that are necessary to return the river to health. That's our starting point and I've said that publicly on a number of occasions...

So a year later, having said that that is your starting point, you are actually going to deliver at best—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Sorry, the Premier is planning to deliver, at best, 2,750 gigalitres for the next 12 years and yet criticises us for saying at the outset that, actually, that is a reasonable starting point because we have to balance the interests of the health of the river, the health of the communities and the economies along that river. We have to balance all those things, and this government one year ago said 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres were necessary to return the river to health, and nowhere in the next 12 years is there a plan to get us even close to those numbers. It smacks of self-serving politics and vote grabbing and, clearly, the Premier has no shame in exploiting this matter of extreme importance to this nation for some chief political mileage.

We need only look at the Premier's record when he was environment minister to know that the Murray is well down on his list of priorities. When the Premier was the minister for the environment he did not deal with this issue. Unbelievably, in his three years as environment minister, in this house he mentioned the Murray-Darling Basin only three times—three times in three years—two ministerial statements in November 2008 and October 2009, and in answer to a question in November 2009. He never put up an argument to address the river's plight and that of the irrigators and the local communities, and he never came up with solutions.

Since becoming Premier, he made a quick feel-good trip to the Riverland early on, as he said. In fact, remember yesterday he told us that they love him up there. He went up there and he told the people he would demand 4,000 gigalitres, no water from the food producers or a High Court challenge, and then he headed back to the city after making those announcements. Of course, he thinks that they do not remember up there what he said and what he is actually saying down here. Earlier this year, the Premier made another whirlwind visit, again trumpeting the 4,000 gigalitre mantra. A few months later and, what do you know, he has cosied up to the PM and he is more than happy with 2,750 gigalitres—the original amount that we said was a good starting point, until at least 2019 and maybe 3,200 by 2024—and without seeing the plan, but that is the way of this government.

Let us make things very clear: Premier Weatherill is not interested in the river; he is interested in staying Premier. He says what he thinks people want to hear. He says 4,000 gigalitres one minute, 3,200 the next, and 2,750 gigalitres is the real amount that he is talking about until at least the year 2019—what we said was a good starting point; who would have thought? River Murray reform never came from the Labor side, why would it? If it does not flow through the city, Labor does not care. Compare that with our side. The Liberal Party initiated all water reforms and, led by former prime minister John Howard, we championed the issue of the Water Act in 2007.

Not once have we changed our mind on the figures, the science, the impact on irrigators or on communities. We have been consistent through the whole debate. What we say today is what we were saying years ago. We know that water reform is never just a number and it cannot be a political stunt. It must be real and figured out properly not with just votes in mind. I listened to Julia Gillard in 2010, proclaimed by adulatory media as 'the river queen'—they love that term—for her promises on the Murray. That is two years ago and nothing has happened, and yet yesterday she got up in the parliament and proposed changes to the Murray-Darling Basin and, guess what? They are a once in a generation chance to get it right. Remember the historic agreement that the former premier told us about? Then I watched her, Tony Burke and others pat themselves on the back and celebrate a job well done.

Do not be fooled, the job is not done. The only job Labor is interested in is getting re-elected. Using the Murray River is an excuse to waffle on with flowery rhetoric that is unacceptable and an insult to the many thousands of families and businesses all along the length of this great river who are looking for real solutions and outcomes. We have heard it all before. Promises at the 2007 and 2010 elections to fix the Menindee Lakes. Fail. In 2007, prime minister Rudd set aside $400 million to fix this system which was losing 426 gigalitres each year to evaporation. Five years later, nothing has been done. Promises to release the draft basin plan two years ago, we still have not seen it; promises to have it all in place in 2014, now 2019 at the earliest, and probably 2024. You just keep putting things back. Let me move on to paragraph (b) of the motion, which says:

welcomes the commonwealth government's decision to invest $265 million in water recovery and industry regeneration projects in South Australian river communities to ensure our irrigators do not bear the burden of adjustment in returning the Murray to health.

The Liberal Party has always said that our state's river communities should not bear any burden—the weasel words used in this motion 'to ensure our irrigators do not bear the burden of the adjustment'. They could still bear a fair bit, but just weasel words to slide out of it.

Indeed, South Australian irrigators, as we know, are the best and most responsible irrigators in the country. That is why we have always said they should not have to give up any more at all to see this basin plan come to fruition. They have been so efficient and all the people upstream need to be brought up to their level of efficiency before they are asked to contribute another drop towards the health of this river.

Indeed, I did a trip along the river with our rural and regional council back in 2003, and I know a number of my colleagues were with us, and it is just remarkable the degree to which they have improved their efficiency on farm. It is just extraordinary that they are able to do what they do. There is none of this open channel drainage where you have got 50 per cent evaporation. Indeed, it is more than that.

They have companies that do topographical maps of the river blocks that they are going to irrigate. They can tell them, because of the soil type, exactly what sort of grape or other thing they should be growing there and what the moisture requirements are. They actually run from a computer to tell them how much moisture is in the soil, whether it is going outside the band that is required and, therefore, whether water is needed. They can check their computer for whether rain is likely. If it is not likely and they do need to put water in, it is not even done by sprinklers overhead: it is put down into the ground where it is needed, and it is via pressing a solar operated button at the pump at the front of the property to bring the water on. It is so high-tech and efficient that the other states have a mile to go before they get anywhere near the efficiency of our irrigators.

The commonwealth government's decision to invest this $265 million in water recovery and industry regeneration projects in the South Australian community is (pardon the pun) a drop in the ocean. John Howard earmarked $6 billion for this purpose and now the government is crowing about having got $265 million. Further, how will the responsible irrigators of this state access any of these funds? Think about the people who are citrus growers, for instance.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please keep your voices down.

Mrs REDMOND: Citrus growers in this state had to pull out their trees because of the drought, because they did not get the help that the government could have given them and did not in those years of better economic activity in this state. They now have to wait for up to five or six years for new plantings to bear fruit. Again I ask: where is the detail; where is the time frame; where is the consideration of South Australian irrigators who have been doing the right thing for more than 40 years; and where is the guarantee that they will not be made to bear any of the burden whatsoever of the adjustment that they are talking about? Paragraph (c):

notes that with 3,200 gigalitres returned to the Murray-Darling Basin, the following outcomes will be achieved:

i. an average of two million tonnes of salt exported through the Murray Mouth each year;

This two million tonne figure is actually, at best, arbitrary. There is no science. We do not even know how much of this flow is going to be delivered, so there cannot possibly be an assertion as to how much salt you are going to get through. Paragraph (c) continues:

ii. salinity kept below dangerous thresholds for the survival of native plants and animals in the Lower Lakes and Coorong;

Again, how can you possibly achieve this outcome with no idea of the details of the plan and how much water is going to be coming through? Paragraph (c) continues:

iii. a reduced risk of the Murray Mouth needing to be dredged to remain open;

The science says, using the figure of 3,200 gigalitres—which I remind members again will not be achieved until at least 2024, if we ever get there—the Mouth will be open in nine out of 10 years. Do you know what? It also says the same thing for 2,750 gigalitres.

Further, what if there is a drought in the next decade? Then what happens? It is all aspiration without any idea of how to get from where we are now to where we aspire to be. The motion continues:

iv. water levels in the Lower Lakes kept at a level to avoid acidification and riverbank collapse below Lock 1;

It is very obvious to me that if you send down this much water from the upper reaches, you will have bank collapse below Lock 1. If you push water through all at once, the river will not cope. You may recall that your own Scott Ashby recently asked them not to send down too much water, for fear that having 80 megs a day would actually cause riverbank collapse.

The Hon. P. Caica: Rubbish.

Mrs REDMOND: That's what he said; your own Scott Ashby wrote to—

The Hon. P. Caica: No, that's not true.

Mrs REDMOND: He did; we have got the letter. He wrote to them and said, 'We can't afford to have more than 60 come down a day—

The Hon. P. Caica: He said, 'Tell us about it'.

Mrs REDMOND: He said, 'You can't afford to have more than 60 come down a day because of the fact that it will cause riverbank collapse. The motion continues:

v. an improved ability for flood plains to support healthy red gum forests, waterbird and fish breeding and greater areas of habitat for native plants and animals;

Well, anyone would support that if it was accurate. For example, red gums are the most water intensive trees along the river. What the government should be addressing are the black box gums which grow at the back of the flood plain. The government's objectives will make no difference—not one iota—to the future of any red gums; it is pure ignorance, and shows a complete failure to grasp even the most basic facts. Paragraph (d) provides that this house:

(d) calls on all South Australian federal members of parliament to support a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that—

i. returns 3,200 billion litres to the Murray-Darling Basin;

ii. provides for the healthy river outcomes set out above;

iii. ensures that the burden of adjustment does not fall upon our irrigators...

Again, what is the plan? I am in constant contact with all the federal MPs on this side and, as I said earlier, they have already committed to real reform for many years. May I suggest that the Premier turn his attention to the federal Greens, with whom you are in bed, and the Independent MPs, and perhaps, even further, reflect upon the fact that when Penny Wong was the federal water minister, she did nothing.

I wonder whether our Premier ever asked Penny Wong—with whom he had a very good relationship—to do anything about the river while she was the federal water minister. The time is well and truly over for the Premier to stop playing politics on this issue. We need practical action, not posturing for cheap points; we can all see through that.

The food producers, irrigators and the local communities that live along the river deserve better than what this government has given them. They do not want slick ads; that achieves nothing. In fact, it would have been better to spend the $2 million up in the river communities to actually help their economies. They do not want sweeping announcements followed by delay after delay. They do not want the slippery Labor approach to the facts: fudging them one minute and ignoring them the next.

The Liberal Party, on this issue, has and remains the true party of water reform. We are consistent and we are transparent. We do not play with the facts. We want fair and balanced outcomes, and we will not support an important piece of legislation without even seeing it. We want a solutions-based approach, we want to know where the water is coming from, how it will be applied, where and when money will be spent, and we want assurances—absolute assurances—as we said, that South Australians who have been doing the right thing for many, many years will not be compromised by this government and their approach.

We will support a basin plan that delivers a balanced outcome socially, economically and environmentally, but I seem to remember that when the first one came out, the previous premier got up and said, 'You know, we've got to support this right away.' Wasn't that what the previous premier said? 'We've got to support this wonderful draft plan.' That is, until they realised that the communities all along the river were in uproar about it, and rightly so, because it had concentrated entirely on the environment, to the exclusion of the social and economic factors that have to be taken into account.

We will support a basin plan that delivers a balanced outcome socially, economically and environmentally. We will support a plan that delivers improved water security for all water users along the Murray-Darling system. We will ensure that our water users are recognised, not penalised, for being responsible and efficient for the past 40 years. I call on the Premier to take the politics out of it, start being sensible, and start considering some real solutions. I believe that is the least that he could do.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:04): I rise to very enthusiastically support this motion. I must say that I do not know what the position of the leader is after that 20 minutes, and I note that the deputy leader, who got 10 minutes, did not come back at all to show support. It just shows where they are at.

Only a few short years ago we faced the likelihood of environmental catastrophe, the result of a prolonged drought, the most severe drought on record, as well as record low flows over the South Australian border. These conditions exacerbated the damage that had already been done by the over-extraction of water from the Murray-Darling system by upstream states over many decades.

As well as facing an environmental disaster through the drought and low flows into the southern basin, as a state, we also faced the threat of significant economic and social damage. Of course, traditional owners along the length of the river in South Australia also incurred cultural damage. So, to have reached the point now where we have a commitment to return 3,200 gigalitres of water to the Murray-Darling Basin as well as support for our regional communities that rely on having a healthy river is an exciting prospect, given the long battle South Australians have had to fight to secure a sustainable future for the river and its communities.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on addressing the consequences of the drought, and large parts of our state were brought under tight water restrictions; yet, despite these efforts, the severity of the drought saw some towns and parts of Adelaide come close to running out of water supplies as it became clearer that we could no longer rely on the River Murray to meet our water needs.

Our fortunes changed in August 2010 as it began to rain right across the basin, but ecosystems and communities are still dealing with some of the impacts of the drought, even today. There is nothing more certain: with the natural cycles and, on top of that, the impacts of climate change drought will visit us again. Indeed, climate scientists tell us that the drought we have just gone through is a glimpse of the future, where we can expect drought to become more frequent and more intense.

I do note again that this is a debate in the house, and I wonder which way the leader and the deputy leader will vote. I also note that this motion is so important to them that they are not even in the chamber.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Neither of them.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Neither of them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe those comments are quite out of order.

An honourable member: Why?

Mr GRIFFITHS: They are out of order by convention of the house.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Morialta, I do not need your assistance. The member for MacKillop is correct. Minister, please do not do it again.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I apologise, sir. The deputy leader and the leader, along with the several other deputy leaders that are here, are, in essence, always here. Is that what we are saying?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: The vibe. The vibe is here.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The vibe, that is right.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Except we know.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, that is right, we know. The commitment that South Australia has won from the Gillard government to return 3,200 gigalitres—450 gigalitres more than the 2,750 gigalitres proposed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—has the prospect of dramatically improving the environmental outcomes for the basin as a whole and the South Australian environment in particular. We have succeeded in achieving this despite the lack of support from those opposite, from the leader down, who have been telling South Australians that we should accept 2,750 gigalitres as the best we could do without upsetting the upstream states. In fact, we had the then deputy leader of the opposition tell The Advertiser on 18 February this year:

This is obviously not the Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we're quite happy to drive in the Mazda. The reality is we're not going to get everything we want and this is a very good start.

Well, on this side of the house we are not prepared to run up the white flag and accept second best. We are not prepared for a very good start. What we are prepared to fight for is a good end point, a good result, and that is what we are going to get.

The return of 3,200 gigalitres of water, along with the removal and the relaxation of key constraints in the system that would impede the most effective and efficient use of that water, will enable more key environmental targets to be achieved, a proposition that is backed up by our scientists and supported by the Goyder Institute for Water Research.

I could not understand a lot of the leader's comments because, quite frankly, she was wrong in a lot of them. A lot of what she asserted was absolutely wrong, and she finished off by not determining a position on this particular motion at any rate. The environmental benefits accruing from this commitment to more water in the River Murray include:

the delivery of flows sufficient to keep the Murray Mouth open without the need for dredging in at least 95 per cent of years, with flows out to sea occurring every year;

the export of an average of two million tonnes of salt through the Murray Mouth each year, helping to ensure that salinity levels are kept above dangerous thresholds and ensuring the continued survival of plants and animals in the ecosystems of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong;

a minimum operating level of 0.4 metres above sea level for 95 per cent of the time, with an absolute minimum of zero metres for 100 per cent of the time as measured in Lake Alexandrina, this helping to protect the lakes from acidification events and minimising riverbank collapses below Lock 1;

enabling the prioritisation of the delivery of environmental water to the Coorong in times of drought; and

providing flow regimes to secure the periodic delivery of flow regimes up to 80,000 megalitres per day to help protect and restore healthy flood plain habitats, to maintain connections with the river and support fish like the iconic Murray cod to survive, as well as encouraging the breeding of numerous bird species.

It will not just be the South Australian end of the river that stands to gain from the commitment that South Australia has won from the Gillard government. The science tells us that 3,200 gigalitres, with constraints removed, will mean that the authority will be able to achieve 17 out of 18 of its key environmental targets, including all those in South Australia, and the 18^th target, which relates to the Hattah lakes in Victoria, will see considerable improvement.

Under the authority's 2,750 water recovery target—which upstream states have opposed, anyway—only 11 out of the 18 targets would be met. While the upstream states have failed in showing real leadership in demanding a sustainable future for the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australia has been able to obtain a commitment from the Gillard government that not only benefits our part of the basin but, as the Premier said, in fact will deliver significant benefits right across the basin.

The Gillard government's commitment to the future health of the river is backed by a funding commitment to the tune of $1.77 billion through what will be a legislated fund specifically for recovering the additional 450 gigalitres required to remove constraints. It is also important to note that the water will be recovered through on-farm irrigation efficiency projects, which, of course, have direct benefits for our irrigators in addition to returning water to the environment. The leader asked, 'Where's the water going to come from?' Well, it is going to come from those people who have been squandering it and wasting it in an inefficient way for far to long.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is. With this in place, what justification is there other than continued self-interest and utter disregard for South Australians downstream for the upstream states to oppose a plan that returns 3,200 gigalitres of water to the river? Given this situation, as the Premier so eloquently pointed out, what justification is there for South Australia's federal Liberal members voting to block such a plan?

As alluded to earlier in my contribution, South Australian irrigators and the communities in which they live also stand to gain from the commitments we have won from the Gillard government. Indeed, the Premier has always made the point that the health of the economies of our river communities is inextricably linked to the health of the river itself.

We have always made it clear that our decision to cap our take from the river in 1969, and the indisputable fact that our irrigators were early adopters of water efficiency irrigation technologies (and I am a bit of a technosaur, but our irrigators know how to do it, as was pointed out by the leader) justifies our demand that our irrigation communities should not have to bear the burden of adjustments related to returning the Murray-Darling Basin to health.

In this regard, minister Burke's announcement last weekend that the Gillard government has committed to funding $265 million—and I know that the member for Chaffey does support this because all his community does—to support our river communities through the process of adjustment is a vitally important step in recognising past responsible behaviour, and it is an announcement that has been welcomed widely in our river communities. I can only concur with Ben Haslett, who represents South Australian Riverland communities, when he said on ABC radio on Monday:

For the last 40 years the Riverland's done a lot of hard work with regard to irrigation efficiency and really need to take that next step forward and some of those things aren't just about water underground, they're about the processes downstream from producing the food as well. Funding like this, if it's targeted well, will go a long way to helping us move in the direction we need to.

It is just a shame that the member for Chaffey remains out of touch with the mood of his electorate and can only throw rocks instead of getting behind the Premier's campaign for a better deal for South Australia.

I want to finish off by saying this: this is not the end of the struggle. We need to ensure that these gains are not thwarted by cynical political manoeuvrings in the federal parliament. It is essential that all South Australians get behind us, particularly the opposition.

Time expired.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:15): I rise to speak on this wedge motion. More than anything else, this motion demonstrates the Premier has absolutely no shame when it comes to grandstanding and exploiting an issue of supreme importance for cheap political stunts. It illustrates this government's unmatched hypocrisy on water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. How dare the Premier even suggest—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order: I ask the member to withdraw the word hypocrisy; it is unparliamentary language.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, minister, I have to rule against you.

Mr WHETSTONE: How dare the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold on. Member for Chaffey, there is a point of order, from your side.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: My recollection, Mr Speaker, on that point of order is that accusing a member of being a hypocrite may be unparliamentary, but I did not hear the member do that. In a general sense, he referred to statements by the government as hypocritical or hypocrisy. I do not think that is unparliamentary. It is not a direct attack at a member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Waite, I actually said, 'I rule against the minister.' I am glad you took up all that time just to tell me that I was right. Member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: How dare the Premier even suggest the Liberal Party is not committed to water reform? It was the Liberal Party that started this process, and it was the Labor Party which made a complete mess of it. The Premier is obviously ignorant of the facts, and quite probably by design. The Liberals in Canberra and in South Australia have been leaders in water reform. The Water Act was an initiative of the Howard government in 2007 and followed the groundbreaking Coalition water reform policy such as the Living Murray Initiative, which has delivered more than 800 gigalitres of environmental flows.

It was the Liberal Party of South Australia which first proposed to diversify Adelaide's water resources and reduce the city's reliance on water supplies from the River Murray. It was the Liberal Party of South Australia which proposed to harvest Adelaide's stormwater, benefits of which were returning an environmental dividend to the Murray and reducing pollution in Gulf St Vincent. It was the Liberal Party which first proposed Adelaide's 50 gigalitres desal plant, the cost of which would not cripple South Australian households with massive water bills, and the main benefit of which would be reducing the amount of water taken from the Murray for Adelaide's supplies.

We have always been committed and consistent to water reform for the basin. In contrast, the government's record on water reform in the basin has been appalling. It has been dictated by political expediency. It has been hypocritical in the extreme, and it has been on record talking tough but doing nothing, of taking credit when there is no credibility, and it has exploited South Australia to score cheap political points.

Labor's one real contribution to water reform in the basin has been to blow out the cost of Adelaide's desalination plant project to $2.2 billion and then mothball it. It is a $2.2 billion lemon that does not return a single drop of water to the river. Labor had no intention of helping the river with this massive project, the cost of which has crippled South Australian households and businesses with outrageously high water bills.

Labor said this plant would reduce Adelaide's reliance on the river. Everyone believed this meant reducing the amount of water taken from the river to supply Adelaide. It was years before the government revealed that was not the case. Even the federal Labor government was fooled. It threatened to withhold its $228 million contribution to the expansion of the desal plant unless there was an environmental dividend to the river. Instead, the state government bought the water on the open market at yet more expense to South Australian taxpayers. It gave up $212 million in GST revenue. The net benefit of this government dancing around on its broken promise and avoiding its responsibility to the Murray was a paltry $6 million, and then the government announced the plant would be mothballed because the water from the River Murray was cheaper.

All this time the Premier has been pretending he is champion of the River Murray, but the desalination plant debacle clearly demonstrates his hypocrisy. It was a disgusting episode of the grubby politics this government has been playing in the process of Murray-Darling Basin water reform. The political game playing has also been manifest in the government's inconsistent position on the number of gigalitres it has demanded be returned to the river under the basin plan. Within a week of the Premier taking office (with the assistance of his faceless union mates) he visited the Riverland and told the community he would demand a minimum of 4,000 gigalitres under the basin plan without taking water from food producers and their communities.

Earlier this year he visited the Riverland again to launch his taxpayer-funded $2 million vote-grabbing campaign and told the assembled media that the best available science was that 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres was necessary to save the river. He threatened to destroy the plan with a High Court challenge if he did not get his way. Last week he stood grinning next to the Prime Minister, side by side, and declared a victory by settling for up to 3,200 gigalitres. Now he has the temerity to ask for our support for his diluted demands. He has the gall to say he will personally campaign against federal MPs who do not back his diluted demands.

Federal Liberal MPs in South Australia do not fear the Premier's threats because they are committed to fair and balanced water reform that delivers a healthy river, and because they know that this state government is well and truly on the nose here in South Australia. They know that, until a basin plan is actually tabled in the federal parliament, they are acting in the best interests of South Australians by withholding judgement. How could anyone possibly state their support for such an important piece of legislation until they have seen it?

What the Premier should do, instead of blatant grandstanding and engaging in grubby politics, is adopt the South Australian Liberal Party's consistent position on the basin plan. South Australians are indeed unfortunate to be saddled with a Premier who does not have the courage or the vision to cast aside politics and adopt a solution-based approach to water reform in the basin. Instead, he is more focused on the big announcements involving numbers and claiming credit where he has no credibility.

On Sunday in Renmark, he was claiming credit for the $265 million program to be provided by the commonwealth to South Australia for recovering 37.5 gigalitres from irrigators. While we welcome this announcement, credit really goes to the hard work of the South Australian River Communities and its committee. Much of this funding is also dependent on eligibility rules for the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program being changed. The government must ensure these rules are amended and underwrite this Water Industry Alliance initiative to guarantee that the water is delivered. We do not want another disastrous failure like the recent PIIP-SA scheme.

On Friday at Goolwa, the Premier again was claiming credit for another federal government announcement about delivering a further 450 gigalitres to the river by 2024, bringing the total of the basin plan up to 3,200 gigalitres. What is 3,200 gigalitres? It is a number that is not guaranteed. The $1.77 billion in funding announced on Friday does not guarantee 450 gigalitres; it is up to 450 gigalitres. It is a number that is untested against the environmental, economic and social realities of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is a number, it is not a solution.

In 2010, 23,000 gigalitres flowed into South Australia—more than 12 times the state's minimum annual entitlement—and yet we still have high salinity issues and other environmental problems at the Lower Lakes and the barrages. Numbers do not solve problems. Premier, solutions solve problems, which is why the Liberal Party of South Australia has been proposing them and communicating them to the federal government, to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and to its federal Coalition colleagues.

Federal Liberal MPs listen to us, Premier, not to you. While you as minister for the environment during the drought gave virtually no regard to the plight of the river, I was in Canberra meeting with federal politicians about water reform—Liberals, Greens, Independents and Labor. I was involved in developing the Howard government's national water plan, and as little as two weeks ago I was in Canberra again lobbying Liberal MPs about our solution-based approach to water reform.

Our solution is simple and delivers a win for all stakeholders in the basin. It does not lie with the arbitrary number of gigalitres to be returned to environmental flows, but with how and from where the water is obtained, and how it is applied to the basin's environmental assets. We have consistently called for an audit on all savings which can be made in the basin without compromising food production and regional communities, and for these savings to be prioritised and applied before the imposition of sustainable diversion limits.

We have consistently called for engineering works that enable the most efficient application of environmental water to offset the burden of water reform on irrigated food producers. Examples include the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, and the Menindee Lakes. The Menindee Lakes are an example of Labor's lack of real commitment to water reform. They are an example that Labor's promises, like those uttered at Goolwa and Renmark in the past week, cannot be trusted. In 2007, the Rudd government allocated $400 million to fix the Menindee Lakes system where, on an average, 426 gigalitres of water each year is lost to evaporation.

Time expired.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (17:25): Speaking in support of this motion, I will first touch on the historic context within which the substance of the motion sits. The issue of management of the rivers and tributaries within the Murray-Darling Basin and allocation of the waters therein predates Federation. Historic records indicate that this issue was the most contentious and divisive of all the matters considered in the lead-up to Federation and the one that eluded final resolution.

Prior to the first sitting of the 1897-98 Constitutional Convention, which was held in Adelaide, Sir Richard Chaffey Baker, President of this parliament's Legislative Council, issued the following statement to South Australia's newspapers as to why South Australia should support Federation, and I quote:

The question concerning the water of the River Murray which arose between New South Wales and South Australia some time ago has never been settled and is bound to arise again in more aggravated form as more and more water is used for irrigation on the headwaters of the River Murray and its tributaries. In the absence of Federation, there is no authority to settle this or any similar question and both it and the ever recurring dispute between South Australia and Victoria are examples of questions which give rise to friction and dispute and sometimes ultimately end in animosity.

There are a number of interesting aspects to the statement by Sir Richard Baker, a fine conservative. First, he acknowledges that the issue of disputation between New South Wales and South Australia, which was the sufficiency of water for navigation by South Australian vessels, would worsen as more water was extracted from the River Murray.

South Australia's concerns have now shifted from water for paddle-steamers to the health of the Lower Lakes, Murray Mouth, Coorong and the Riverland-Chowilla Floodplain. However, the causes of aggravation remain, namely, overallocation of water for irrigation by the upstream states.

The second interesting aspect of Sir Richard Baker's newspaper statement is his reference to the 'ever recurring dispute between Victoria and South Australia'. This disputation between Victoria and South Australia on this state's view that 2,750 gigalitre water recovery scenario was inadequate must be viewed against the historic intransigence of Victoria on the issue of over-allocation by that state.

The third aspect of Sir Richard Baker's media statement lies not in the content but the context. It was made during the Federation drought, which extended from the mid-1880s to 1902. The same externalities were at play in the pre-Federation debate as the ones that surrounded the commencement of the work on the preparation of a plan for the Murray-Darling Basin, namely, drought. Finally, Federation did not achieve the objective of providing an authority to settle issues such as overallocation, whereas, importantly, we now have such an authority.

The final constitutional outcome for the River Murray is embodied in section 100 of the Australian Constitution. As I mentioned, the River Murray issue was raised in the lead-up to the Adelaide session of the Constitutional Convention and debated during that session. When the convention moved to Melbourne, that issue took centre stage and took more time than any other issue. It was publicly debated for a week, moved to private conference, then brought back to the public arena for another week of debate in February 1898.

According to the historian John La Nauze, the fierceness of the interchanges were incomprehensible to the Tasmanians and Western Australians, the process being more an endurance test than an exercise in clarification. What was at issue was the desire of the upstream colonies to preserve their independence and protect their right to use the River Murray for irrigation while South Australia wanted to prevent them from diverting so much water that it would dry up the channel and threaten navigation. Section 100 of the Commonwealth Constitution appears to meet both sets of demands. It reads:

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for [and I stress] conservation or irrigation.

As I mentioned, this state's original concerns were that of ensuring adequate water in the channels of the Murray, the Murrumbidgee and Darling for the purposes of navigation.

Now, this state's focus lies squarely on that other concern of section 100, which is conservation and what constitutes reasonable use. Interestingly, the word 'reasonable' was inserted at the suggestion of that other significant conservative statesman—and I use the word 'statesman' with great respect—South Australian Sir John Downer during the Sydney session of the Constitutional Convention.

It is this state's position that reasonable use would have to ensure greater water recovery than that under the 2,750-gigalitre scenario and, for this reason, the motion acknowledges the commonwealth government's commitment to return 3,200 gigalitres. The Goyder Institute for Water Research maintains that a large percentage of the South Australian flood plain, including the Riverland-Chowilla Floodplain Ramsar site, would remain under elevated risk under the 2,750 scenario, as would other vulnerable sites outside our state.

For this reason, the South Australian government has publicly campaigned to ensure that the additional water required, which the Goyder Institute indicates is the 3,200-gigalitre scenario, be provided by the upstream states. This view has been supported by additional research undertaken by the basin authority and accepted by the federal government. Our view in calling on the upstream states to make a major contribution to providing additional environmental flows is in recognition of the fact that South Australia took the hard decision to cap water allocations in 1969, whereas New South Wales and Victoria continued to allocate water to new irrigation ventures.

This overallocation was brought home to me several years ago when I travelled on the Sydney road via Hay, after not having travelled on that road for at least a decade or two. I was absolutely staggered at the amount of land around Hay that was under irrigation, whereas, 20 years ago, it was reserved for dryland farming for sheep grazing. There has been an absolutely staggering increase by the New South Welshmen of the amount of land under irrigation, which brings me to another matter raised in the motion.

Not only have we applied and abided by a cap on extractions for the past 40 years, we have also applied ourselves to maximising the economic return to our irrigators from the water that we have by applying world-leading irrigation technologies and practices. So efficient are South Australian irrigators that we have found that we are largely ineligible for the nearly $190 million in Australian government funds allocated to South Australia for irrigation infrastructure upgrades because of the work done in South Australia over previous decades. The South Australian government sought recognition of this fact and this has resulted in a commitment by the federal government to invest $265 million in water recovery and industry regeneration projects in South Australia against new criteria.

What is clear and what is enunciated in this motion is that the massive expansion of irrigation activity by the upstream states has stressed the basin's ecosystem to the point that areas within the basin, particularly within the lower reaches in South Australia, are under threat of collapse. It is also clear that the earlier 2,750 gigalitre water recovery proposal was manifestly inadequate, and this position was steadfastly maintained and promoted by the Premier and the South Australian government. Our position was supported by the science and the science has now been accepted by the commonwealth government.

As the motion states, this parliament now calls on all South Australian members of parliament to support the Murray-Darling Basin plan that returns the 3,200 gigalitres and does not impose the burden of adjustment on our irrigators who have prudently worked within the cap for four decades. Essentially, we are calling on South Australian representatives in the federal parliament to satisfy section 100 of the Australian constitution to ensure reasonable use of the water for environmental purposes.

Time expired.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:35): In 1775, Samuel Johnson stated that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I know who he would be talking about if he were here today because the Premier did nothing but try to invoke patriotism, and patriotism is used by scoundrels when they do not have a good argument, and that is what the Premier does not have.

Every South Australian understands the importance of water, every South Australian understands the precarious nature of this state's water supply, every South Australian understands the importance of a healthy flowing river, not just to meet our water supply needs but to underpin significant food production and economic activity in our river communities, and every South Australian understands the importance of the protection of the environmental integrity of the river and its flood plain.

What every South Australian has also come to understand is the penchant of this government to oversell and under-deliver. The hallmark of this government is to do just that. Rhetoric and spin dominate its every utterance, and this motion is simply another element in that continuum of spin and deceit. To illustrate my point, I note paragraph (b) of the motion and its reference to the commonwealth promise to invest $265 million in water recovery and industry regeneration projects in South Australia. Let me quote from a government press release. It starts off by saying:

Infrastructure projects to make irrigation systems and water use along the River Murray much more efficient—which will release billions of litres more water into South Australia—can begin this year.

That press release is dated 27 March 2008—4½ years ago. No wonder South Australians are cynical, and no wonder South Australians no longer believe what this government is saying, just as we were told that the plan would be developed independent of politics and that decisions would not be based upon, to quote the same press release, 'political considerations'.

Last week's visit to South Australia by the Prime Minister and the statement regarding the river basin plan was all about politics, just as this motion and the Premier's announcements are all about politics. South Australians are sick and tired of hollow Labor promises and this latest ruse where we have been promised an outcome to occur some time between 2019 and 2024 is audacious even by Labor standards.

Does anybody really believe that in 12 years' time, after four more federal elections, the federal water minister of the day, of whatever political persuasion, will feel obliged to fulfil a vague promise made this week by the Prime Minister? I use the word 'vague' deliberately as this is what it was, notwithstanding the Premier's grandstanding. Anyone listening could be excused for believing that minister Burke is about to table a whole of basin plan enshrining the figure of 3,200 gigalitres as the volume of water to be recovered from existing consumptive use and applied to environmental use. Unfortunately if they did, they would be sadly in error. However, they could be excused as this is what the South Australian government is intent on having them think.

Let us, however, reflect upon what federal minister Burke does plan to table shortly in the commonwealth parliament. Last Friday on public radio, ABC radio host Anna Vidot put the following proposition to minister Burke:

We're not talking about adjusting things from 3,200 up or down; you're still talking about a 2,750 gigalitre figure that could be adjusted up to 3,200, is that what you're saying?

Minister Burke's response was, 'That's exactly right.' Let us be perfectly clear about this: minister Burke will table a whole-of-basin plan based upon recovering 2,750 gigalitres by 2019, including water recovered from efficiency gains made through expenditure on works to improve both delivery and on-farm systems. The proposal will include an adjustment mechanism which could recover a further 450 gigalitres under strict guidelines described by the minister, and I quote further: 'The rule is it can only happen through methods that have no downside, social or economic.'

According to the Premier, we have a commitment from the commonwealth to return 3,200 gigalitres to the river across the basin. Quite clearly, according to the federal minister, the plan will commit to 2,750 gigalitres, with an opportunity to possibly increase this by further savings found through efficiency gains beyond 2019. Let us not forget that the original Howard government plan set aside almost $6 billion for the very purpose of delivering efficiency gains through works and measures both on delivery and on farm. South Australians can be excused for being cynical that a further 450 gigalitres will be freed up at the end of this process in 12 years' time after four more federal elections.

The Premier and minister referred to the Mazda and deliberately insinuated that I used a car analogy with regard to the basin plan. Let me disabuse the house of the misunderstanding with regard to this matter—a deliberate misunderstanding. Almost 12 months ago, when the federal minister released the draft plan, a public meeting was held of Riverland stakeholders at Barmera to discuss—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you were warned. You are out for 10 minutes.

The honourable member for Colton having withdrawn from the chamber:

Mr WILLIAMS: A meeting was held at Barmera to discuss community response to the draft. Karen Martin, the Chair of the South Australian Murray Irrigators Association, summed up her response by stating that the draft plan was not a Rolls Royce but appeared to be a very good Mazda and she felt that the Riverland communities might be happy to drive a Mazda. My crime has been to accept that feedback from the Riverland community.

The opposition's position has consistently been that the draft plan at 2,750 gigalitres returned to the environment was a good start. We said that because we believed that it was achievable. We believed that it would be acceptable and we believed that the benefits would be significant. We have said a good start because we believe that the future management of the river should be dynamic. We believe that we need to continuously monitor the outcomes of our management with a view to modifying the management regime as necessary where it is demonstrated that outcomes can be improved or need to be improved.

We do not accept that the constraints to river flows are artificial, as the Premier claims; just as the South Australian department of water knows that the constraints are real and present real challenges. That is why in March this year Scott Ashby, head of the South Australian department of water, wrote to the MDBA with a plea not to allow more than 60,000 megalitres per day into South Australian as it would cause flooding. That is a real constraint, not artificial.

The opposition wants the whole-of-basin plan to deliver the best outcome but we are not going to deceive the South Australian community about what is achievable and what is not achievable. The motion of the Premier calls on the South Australian federal members to support a plan that returns 3,200 gigalitres to the Murray-Darling Basin. According to federal minister Burke, he will not be presenting a plan which does this so I believe that the motion is seriously flawed.

That will not worry this government, because they do not care about the truth. That is why this government has spent some $2 million of taxpayers' funds on an advertising campaign which includes statements about the ongoing elevated salt levels in Lake Albert. The truth is that Lake Albert (which happens to be in my electorate) remains saline not because of low river flows: it remains in this condition as a result of this state government's incompetence and broken promises. The government promised to remove the bund placed in the Narrung Narrows as soon as it was no longer necessary—that did not happen—and the government's ham-fisted efforts see the flow path through the Narrows, vital to the lake's timely recovery, still seriously compromised.

Actions speak much louder than words and this government is condemned by its actions. This government remains full of rhetoric and spin, but deficient on delivery. To revert to the motor-car analogy, this government is not presenting us with a Rolls Royce; it is not even presenting us with a Mazda. I believe this government is clearly driving a 1960 Kombi covered in flowers, and this government is just as removed from reality as those who painted the flowers on that Kombi.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Sibbons.