House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Murray-Darling Basin MURRAY-DARLING BASIN Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill: 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. (e)	that the time for the debate be limited to 20 minutes each for the mover and the Leader of the Opposition or one more member deputed by her and 10 minutes for any other member and the mover in reply. (Continued from 1 November 2012.) Mr SIBBONS House of Assembly Mitchell Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (17:42): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the River Murray. For the past 100 years, management of the River Murray has effectively required agreement by the states. For more than 100 years, the River Murray has continued to suffer at the hands of parochial state self-interest through overallocation and the inefficient use of water; the result has been a steady decline in the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. As the state at the bottom of the system, South Australia has continued to pay the price. Not three years ago, we were faced with the worst drought in living memory. Flow from over the border into South Australia virtually ceased and emergency water plans, such as supplying bottled water to households in the Adelaide metropolitan area, were under serious consideration. The Lower Lakes dried up and exposed up to 20,000 hectares of acid sulphate soils. Turtles in the lakes became sick, suffering from a range of health problems, including tubeworm, shell rot, eye and skin infections, and respiratory problems—and many died. Parts of the Coorong were five times saltier than the sea, riverbanks collapsed, and the Murray River was on the brink of an environmental catastrophe. The environmental damage caused to the Murray in South Australia has been extreme, and it will take many, many years to recover. Another sustained period of drought, with continued over-allocation, would very likely cause irreversible damage to the Murray-Darling River system as a whole. Rivers die from the mouth up, and the damage to the Lower Lakes and the Coorong are clear warnings of what the future will hold for our eastern neighbours and river communities if we do not act. For the first time in 100 years, we now have an opportunity for change. We have a chance to ensure that the health of the Murray-Darling Basin as a whole is our first priority. In 2007, the federal parliament passed the Water Act, requiring a plan to be made to restore the basin to health. It set up the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, an independent body charged with the task of coming up with a proposed plan in consultation with the states and the commonwealth. The MDBA presented its proposed basin plan to the federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Water, minister Burke. The plan proposed that 2,750 gigalitres be returned to the river. The South Australian government did not believe that the proposed amount of water was adequate to ensure a healthy river system now and into the future. Even the MDBA admitted that the return of 2,750 gigalitres would only meet 11 out of the 17 key environmental outcomes it needed to achieve. At South Australia's insistence, the MDBA modelled a higher water recovery figure of 3,200 gigalitres, with key constraints removed or relaxed. The new modelling, which has been analysed by our scientists and independently reviewed by scientists from the Goyder Institute shows that if 3,200 gigalitres are returned with key constraints removed or relaxed, then we can meet 17 out of the 18 environmental targets, rather than 11. The MDBA's own modelling showed that 3,200 gigalitres with relaxed constraints would create a much healthier river system both in South Australia and the Eastern States. However, the Liberal opposition remain unconvinced. They continued to urge us to accept the MDBA's inadequate plan for fear of upsetting their colleagues in the Eastern States. However, the state Labor government stood firm on behalf of river communities and the people of our state. We know how important the Murray is to all South Australians. We know that future generations will not forgive us if we do not fight for every necessary drop of water to ensure the health of our river for them. So, the Premier launched a campaign asking all South Australians to support us in getting a better deal for the environment and our irrigators, and 'Fight for the Murray'; a campaign that in May of this year the Liberal opposition shadow minister said aimed to 'whip up some hysteria in South Australia' and a campaign that in July in this place the Liberal opposition shadow minister called a 'simple, tawdry political campaign'. The Liberal opposition said we should cooperate with the MDBA and accept the proposed plan, however flawed it may be in delivering environmental health for our river. But South Australians did not agree with the Liberal opposition; they supported us in droves. More than 18,000 campaign members did not think the fight was tawdry politics. More than 20,000 who followed it on Facebook did not think they were being whipped into hysteria, and the 5,800 people who sent messages to the federal government demanding a fair go for our river's health did not think the fight was unwinnable. They understood that South Australians only take 7 per cent of the surface water extracted from the basin—the majority of this is for irrigation—while other states account for 93 per cent. They understood that, 40 years ago, South Australia capped its take from the river, aware that not limiting our take would be unsustainable. They understood that our irrigators had already done the hard yards, investing to improve water efficiency and minimise waste. They see that upstream states have continued to increase their take from the basin, without consideration for the environmental impact of doing so. South Australians are fully aware that eastern irrigators use open channels and flood irrigation to distribute water, with losses in excess of 50 per cent. They know the large areas of land are being used for rice and cotton growing, which are by far the biggest users of water per hectare grown. They knew that it was time for South Australians to get a fair deal for our River Murray, and that this was worth fighting for. On Friday 26 October Prime Minister Gillard announced that the federal government was committed to returning 3,200 gigalitres of water to the River Murray. On Sunday 29 October the federal Minister for Water, Tony Burke, announced a $265 million commitment by the federal government for water recovery and industry regeneration projects in South Australia's River Murray communities. This will help us to ensure that the burden of restoring the river to health does not fall on our river communities. We have done the right thing for decades. It also represents a major win for all South Australians and shows what can be done when we stand up, united behind what is right for both our state and the river as a whole. There is still more work to be done. The legislation, including the Prime Minister's comment, for the return of 3,200 gigalitres needs to be passed by the federal parliament—no easy task. Naturally, all South Australian federal Liberal politicians will need to support their constituents who elected them by supporting this legislation. We know that the upstream states and their Liberal governments have made it clear that they will try to sabotage any plan that returns 3,200 gigalitres to the environment. This is why the Premier is calling on all South Australian representatives in the federal parliament to do now what is right—to stand up for South Australia in a way that their state colleagues have refused to do on this issue and not meekly defer to upstream states. Let us take advantage of a once in 100 years opportunity to do the right thing for the Murray-Darling Basin, the right thing for irrigators, the right thing for the river communities, and get a plan that returns 3,200 gigalitres to the river. Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN House of Assembly Stuart Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:50): I certainly agree with what the member for Mitchell said in his opening remarks. I think his recounting of the history and how we all got into this situation was quite accurate, but then he started to put his own personal spin on things. He is a very decent chap, but I do not agree with the things he said towards the middle and the end of what he was saying, so what I will do is stick to the facts. Fact No. 1: the electorate of Stuart contains the very important communities of Cadell, Morgan, Blanchetown, and Murbko in that area, so this is a very important issue for me and the people I represent. Fact No. 2: I would like to refer the house to the Natural Resources Committee standing committee of parliament and its 64^th report, into the Murray-Darling Basin. I think that anybody with a fair mind would consider it to be a very good report and a very good direction in which to head. I am sure that the Premier, the government and the Minister for Water have had a look at that report and taken that direction heading on board, but the problem is that they have come here trying to sell us an agreement that actually has no teeth. I agree with what they are trying to achieve, and I think any fair-minded person would say that increased flows without damage to river communities would be a very positive thing, and there is no doubt about that. I think we also all know that, after years and years of water buybacks, we have used that tool as much as we actually can without damaging communities and particularly South Australian communities. It is also true to say that there needs to be work done on easing of constraints. I have no trouble at all with the direction in which the government is trying to go, but the problem is the government is trying to sell us an agreement as though there is a guaranteed outcome, and it is a fact that that is not true. The additional 450 gigalitres of water the government is trying to secure for us would be terrific—there is no doubt about that—but to say that they have secured it is just grandstanding. It is not true to say that that has been secured. To get a total of an additional 3,200 gigalitres of water coming down the river every year would be fantastic, but this agreement gives absolutely no security that that will happen—no security whatsoever. In fact, I suspect it is very unlikely to happen because the agreement has the extra 450 gigalitres as a ceiling, as the most possible, but it is an upper level target that probably will not be achieved. So, it is just not true to try to tell us, regardless of where we stand on this issue, that this is an agreement that has secured that water. There is actually no penalty in this agreement for not achieving the target, so we will find out in 10 years' time whether this has happened. There is no penalty for anybody involved if it does not happen, there is no possibility of exceeding the target, and I suspect that what will happen is that we will not achieve it. I agree with the member for Chaffey when he says that infrastructure upgrades that reduce waste of water in other states are probably the single most important area for us to focus on. While I have a very strong interest in the Murray in the electorate of Stuart, as does the member for Hammond and the member for Schubert, there is nobody in this chamber from either side of government who knows nearly as much about the River Murray as the member for Chaffey. I think that the things that he says the whole house should take great heed of. I believe that, while the aims of this agreement are admirable, the reality is that for the government to say that by signing up to the agreement they will be achieved is untrue. It is not a fact. The reality is that there is talk about targets only. There is no substance, there are no guarantees, no penalties and no secure outcomes of this agreement. So, great target, great thing to aim for, but essentially what we have got here—and this is an opinion—is the emperor's clothes. We have got the government trying to sell us something which looks fantastic but which actually has no substance—which actually is not there. The government is trying to tell us that, if we sign up to this, these outcomes will be achieved. The reality is that the government cannot actually say that. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my right will have a chance to speak if they wish to. Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN House of Assembly Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Minister for Transport, who is clearly completely up-to-date with fairy tales, reminds me that it is the Emperor's New Clothes, not the emperor's clothes. Thank you for that, minister, I really appreciate that. We have the Emperor's New Clothes here trying to be sold to us. Great aim, great target, great thing for us to be all working towards, but what the government says is a guaranteed deal is not that at all. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.