MURRAY-DARLING BASIN

Debate resumed.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have spoken on this matter.

Mr Whetstone: I didn't finish it, though.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you did. If the Premier wishes to speak he will close the debate.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (12:45): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know why the member for Chaffey wanted another crack. He probably wants to have another go to revise some of his earlier remarks, because they were very ill-advised remarks. Can I thank all speakers for their contributions and especially members on this side of the house who stood with the people of South Australia to fight for a healthy River Murray. I also want to particularly acknowledge one member on the other side of the house, the member for Frome, who stood up and put his name forward as an ambassador to fight for a healthy river. He along with many hundreds of thousands of people around this country have come together and added their voices to this important campaign, and the victory is their victory.

Yesterday, the commonwealth Labor government tabled the basin plan in the federal parliament. The basin plan provides for 3,200 billion litres of water to be returned to the river. That is 450 billion litres more than the draft plan proposed just a year ago. The commonwealth government has also committed $1.77 billion to provide this extra 450 billion litres of water for the river's health, $265 million for water recovery and industry renewal in South Australia's river communities to recognise that the burden of restoring the river's health should not fall on our irrigators, and just yesterday, $155 million to rejuvenate the Riverland flood plains and so help iconic species like the Murray cod and river red gum. Can I just say that—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —I want to thank—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is warned.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you. Can I just correct the erroneous assertion that was made by the member for Bragg before, when she suggested that the extra 450 gigalitres that was to be purchased by the $1.77 billion was not secure. If I could just quote the remarks that were made by minister Burke the other day when he announced the Murray-Darling basin plan. He said these words:

up to—

which is in the present legislation which is about to be amended—

is not the Commonwealth's position. Our position is to provide money for the 450 gigalitres. Work is being done on amendments to the bill to make sure the bill itself accurately reflects the Government's commitment and that will be made clear.

So, for those who were trying to advance the idea that that money was not there and it was not directed at the 450 gigalitres and to the extent that that language was unclear, the commonwealth is going to clarify that. I want to thank the many South Australians who brought about this result: the tireless effort of our public servants, the rigour of the scientific scrutiny of the draft plan and its modelling, the constructive approach of our irrigators and river communities, despite the fact that there are those opposite who were seeking to divide those communities and pull them apart. Despite the fact that there were upstream irrigator interests who were trying to split the irrigator community—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and have them—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members on my left were heard in silence. They will grant the same courtesy to members on my right or else they'll be leaving the chamber.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Despite the fact that there were upstream irrigator interests that were trying to create a pan-irrigator interest across the whole nation, the South Australian irrigators understood their best interests were sticking with the South Australian government and acting together as a community of interest here in this state. So, we brought together advocates for the environment movement and thousands of South Australians who joined the Fight for the Murray campaign, and together we have had a great victory, and it sticks in their throat. It sticks in their throat.

This was an outcome that seemed unthinkable to some a year ago. In fact, it still remains unthinkable to those opposite. Unfortunately, members opposite chose not to stand up for our state like those in the broader community, and they have simply fallen out of step with the broader South Australian community on this issue. They gave up right from the start, kowtowing to Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce rather than standing up for those they are meant to represent. Even when we debated this motion this month, those opposite were unable to bring themselves to indicate a position on it. Indeed, earlier today, despite the fact that the federal Coalition has actually changed its position and supported this plan, the member for Hammond could not bring himself to say that he supported this resolution. In fact, he went on to say that 2,750 was still a good start. This has been their position.

Who could forget the words of the opposition water spokesman about the draft plan when it was released earlier this year, after declaring in February of this year that 'something is better than nothing'—that great principle: something is better than nothing—he went on to say, 'This is obviously not a Rolls Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we are quite happy to drive in the Mazda. The reality is we are not going to get everything we want and this is a very good start'—2,750, a very good start. The member for MacKillop was not the only culprit.

Mr Whetstone: What's the plan? What's the number? What's the number to the plan, Jay?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, you are warned for the last time.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: What makes this all the worse is the comments that were uttered by those opposite were also those that were made by the opposition leader, who in April said in this very chamber, about the 2,750 gigalitres to the river, 'It is at least a starting point. An agreement with a starting point is probably better than another option.' South Australians must be scratching their heads at this opposition, they are so divided that they just continually add to their list of half-baked ideas: the one-way expressway, a patched-up RAH, nothing more than a good start for the River Murray instead of actually doing something to save it.

The opposition leader is not without some sense of shame because she did say on radio, shortly after the Prime Minister's announcement, 'But you know the amount of water certainly is close to what we have always said we were prepared to agree to.' So, in the face of the 3,200 gigalitres what she then wanted to say is, 'Well, actually it was our idea all along. It was our idea all along.' I mean, the dissembling on this, the sheer gutlessness of this is something of which those opposite stand condemned.

It is pretty hard to detect in them any sense of generosity, any sense of acknowledgement of what has happened here. What they should be doing is admit that they got it wrong from the start, that they should have told South Australians straight out: 'We are wrong, We didn't fight for you and we now acknowledge that the correct approach was that advocated by the South Australian government.' Fortunately, those opposite, probably more out of a sense of survival than anything else, in the federal parliament have realised where their interests lie and they have decided to support the Murray-Darling Basin plan and, presumably, the legislation that locks away the 450 gigalitres plus the $1.77 billion extra.

We hear today that Tony Abbott has used the last Coalition party room to commit the opposition to supporting this plan. So out of step are those opposite that they cannot even get in tune with their federal colleagues, who have decided—because they could see what was going to happen if they did not support this legislation and this plan—finally, to get on board. This should be a day of celebration for this state. It is an extraordinarily good result. You only need to take one look at the plan to see South Australia's—

Mr Whetstone: You never even looked at it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Looked at it? We almost drafted it, mate. Just look at the plan and see it in its terms. You will see where they were going and what the South Australian difference has been. It is there in black and white: $1.77 billion plus $265 million plus $155 million, that adds up to in excess of $2 billion of value extracted from the commonwealth to South Australian interests. Those opposite were whingeing about the fact that we threw a few million dollars at the campaign to actually save this.

There are a few business people in this chamber. I am looking at one, a good businessman from down in the South-East. I think he would regard $2 million for $2 billion as a good deal any day of the week. Those opposite should add their voices now to those who have been standing with us consistently. They have refused to be prised apart from us. The irrigators, the environmentalists, the city and the country have stood with us, and the reason they stood with us is that they trusted us to deliver the result that has been achieved.

Motion carried.

[Sitting suspended from 12:55 to 14:00]