Murray River

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:24): I move:

That this house—

(a) recognises the importance of the River Murray to South Australia;

(b) acknowledges the contribution from irrigated agriculture to the economy;

(c) values the important role of the River Murray in sustaining the environment; and

(d) commends the introduction and the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Obviously the River Murray has been a passion of mine for many years. It is a platform that my electorate relies on. It is the lifeblood that my business relied on for a quarter of a century. The River Murray has been very topical forever, but particularly in this place through its relevance and our need to rely on the Murray since the drought, which started in about 2000.

I will give a little bit of history before I go on. The reason we have an economic base is that in about 1914 the River Murray Waters Act was passed. It was passed to create a River Murray commission. The vision was to fill the river valley with valuable water as a commodity to create jobs, build an economic base and to grow food. Water that once flowed out to sea would now be captured and would create an opportunity to grow food. It created jobs, particularly after World War I and World War II.

In South Australia, we started at Blanchetown and built Lock 1 in 1922. That continued through to 1930 when Lock 6 was completed up at Murtho. Of course, the barrages were completed in 1940 to complement the damming of water in South Australia, to create an industry that this state desperately needed, particularly after those wars, as I said. There are many different types of structures and many different reasons for those structures being put where they have been put. I have been lucky enough to watch the building of a weir at the Chowilla Floodplain and it is an amazing feat of construction to put coffer dams in and to build a structure across the river not only for the purpose of environmental and economic benefit but also to sustain the assets that come away from the river.

I am hoping that members on both sides will make a contribution today, because of the importance of the river to all South Australians—the 640 kilometres of river that flows into the state, from the border down to the mouth, and what it represents from kilometre No. 1 to kilometre No. 640. Obviously, the River Murray is one of the state's most important natural resources and it is the main source of water not only to Adelaide but to the greater state of South Australia. We have the Morgan to Whyalla pipeline and the continuation of the pipes to the Eyre Peninsula, we have the pipes from Tailem Bend down into the South-East, but we also have the Mannum to Adelaide pipeline that puts water into our reservoirs.

The River Murray is of importance particularly to Adelaide because in a normal year it provides about 60 per cent of the city's water supply, and in a dry year it provides up to 90 per cent of the water supply to people right across the state. The river is also important to the regional communities that it supports and the economic base that it provides, and is the lifeblood of my electorate of Chaffey in particular. The river provides for about one-third of the national food supply.

I will be quite brief and broad about the statistics of the importance of the river, because there are so many stats, so much importance and so many economies that come away from the River Murray. Of course, the River Murray is the main source of irrigation for about 4,000 small businesses, particularly in the electorate of Chaffey, but it supports more than that. It supports businesses in the electorates of Stuart, Schubert, Hammond, and MacKillop. It also supports a water security base for the majority of South Australia.

I do not think we can forget the importance of the River Murray, particularly during the drought. The reason I have put up this motion is that during drought, the economic base, the irrigation communities, gave up their water for the people of Adelaide, for the greater country communities, to have a water supply, so that when they turned on their tap there was water. In doing so, it really did destroy many financial bases in river communities.

Many businesses were cash-strapped and many went broke. Many businesses decided to throw the keys on the bank manager's table and move on to other pastures. It really was a very sad state of affairs. From listening to the member for Mount Gambier's previous motion, there were many suicide events, there was a lot of depression, and huge family structural adjustments were made to deal with the drought and turning off water on properties.

Many people treated their properties like a part of their family, so to turn off water on sections of their property was almost like turning off the lifeline to one of their family members. It is something I think all people in this chamber should recognise—that those river communities gave up their lifeblood for the benefit of their cousins in metropolitan Adelaide, in industry and around country South Australia, to make sure they had a continuous water supply.

The Murray-Darling Basin, as a bigger picture, is home to approximately two million people and supports almost three-quarters of irrigated agriculture in Australia. Agricultural production from the basin represents about 41 per cent of the national output from rural industries. It is not just about rural industries; it is about industries in South Australia, in metropolitan Adelaide. Many of those industries were not affected by the drought because, as they know, industrial water was not restricted.

People had water restrictions in their homes, but the restriction was not about production. It was about having to restrict water for their gardens and having to shower at certain times of the day. It was about being responsible and being challenged on how to use water more wisely. People did learn: they changed their garden watering and their showering techniques, they changed their nozzles and they changed a lot of infrastructure. People learnt very quickly how they could do more with less water.

The environmental and social value to South Australia is huge. I think some of the irrigators in the river communities need to be commended for being great guardians and managers of the environmental assets that come with the river and that come with the responsibility of using the river water and it is important that they be acknowledged. The tag of irrigation as environmental vandalism is a furphy, as these irrigators and irrigation groups are great custodians of the river and of the environment they manage and look after. They are the eyes and ears of the river.

Let's face it, some of these minority groups come out and look for more water and want more rights for the environment, but I ask: how many times have they ever been out and done a bird count? How many times have they ever been out and done fish counts? How many times have they ever been out and done tree counts and endangered species counts? When do they ever go out there and actually get their hands dirty on the ground like the river communities, like the irrigators and like the community groups do? The irrigators go out there and they are the eyes and ears of the environment around the river, so again I commend them.

The River Murray supplies about 40 per cent of the water needs of all South Australian communities, and much of this water is delivered through pipelines. The Riverland alone contributes about 60 per cent of South Australia's wine grapes, 95 per cent of the state's citrus, 90 per cent of stone fruit and 98 per cent of the state's almond industry. I would like to touch on the almond industry, which is booming at the moment. It is one of the saviours within the economic base in river communities because it is really going along nicely.

I commend the industry for what it has done over the last number of years to be in such a strong position. It is a small player on the world market, but the South Australian almond industry is a world leader in efficiencies and growing tons per acre. Once upon a time, growers would see one ton to the acre as instrumental to the wealth of the industry, and nowadays we are looking at four tonnes to the hectare, so that is a huge win for that industry.

I will move on a little bit, but when acknowledging the importance of the river I must just reflect on the reason that South Australia capped its take: it was an agreement. Back in the early seventies, South Australia's allocation was about 1.25 million acre-feet, which in today's language is about 1,500 gigalitres. They negotiated to have some storage in the newly-built Dartmouth Dam and they would then be reallocated 1,850 gigalitres, which is South Australia's entitlement. Along the way, we hear about how well South Australia has done with efficiency gains and how great it has been with water use. The reason is that we were capped way back then, so we have had to do more with less water. I commend the government of the day and I commend the water users and irrigators over time.

One of the important industries on the river is tourism: the Riverland, $142 million per year; the Murraylands, $97 million a year; 1.2 million visitor nights in the Riverland alone, and the Murraylands represents about 655,000 visitor nights. It is a very important industry. There is recreational fishing and houseboating. We go up there for the river experience, for food and wine and the golf courses. All that industry is a great boon for South Australia and so again the river generates another economy. It is not just about irrigation and it is not just about supporting communities: it is about what it means to our economy.

I have talked briefly about the drought and the impacts of the drought—what it means to the environment, what it means to the communities and what it means to the economy. Many South Australians are not aware of this but, as we speak, we are looking at the Murray Mouth having to be dredged. It is a sad indictment, particularly in South Australia, that we have been rolling out this basin plan and while governments (whether they be federal governments or, particularly, state governments) are taking away our economic base and taking water away from our communities and irrigators, they have achieved nothing when it comes to environmental works and measures.

When we look below Lock 1, nothing has been achieved. We had the opportunity to put a scoping study in place to put more environmental works in train. It is a highly-regulated river system in South Australia, so continuing to engineer our waterway is the only way we are going to better manage it. We look at the impacts at the Coorong and the salinity impacts at the Lower Lakes, particularly at Lake Albert, we look at the mouth silting up and we look at the barrages being old.

The state government has done nothing: they are all about political spin. I did not want to have to bring any politics into this, but it really does grind my gears that we have a Premier who spends $2 million of taxpayers' money but today has achieved nothing. Not one piece of engineering or environmental works below Lock 1 has been achieved—not one thing. When we have our next dry, which we are about to embark on as we speak, nothing will have been achieved. They have planted a few trees and that is about it. I think it is a very sad indictment.

Just quickly, before I run out of time, I am sad to hear the minister in another place say that we want to continue to buy back water and not improve our infrastructure. That is a sad indictment of this minister's thinking. I will continue my remarks at the closing of this motion.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (12:39): I move to amend the motion as follows:

That this house—

(a) recognises the importance of the River Murray to South Australia;

(b) acknowledges the contribution from irrigated agriculture to the economy;

(c) values the important role of the River Murray in sustaining the environment;

(d) commends the introduction and the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; and

(e) recognises the leadership of Premier Weatherill in bringing together industry and the community in the fight to achieve the basin plan which will ensure the future health of the River Murray.

As residents in the downstream state, South Australians have long recognised the importance of a healthy River Murray for our communities and our environment. The prosperity of the region and the long-term viability and productivity of river-dependent industries is linked to the environmental health of the river system. That is why our government, under Premier Weatherill's strong and visionary leadership, stood together with industry and community to fight relentlessly for a final Murray-Darling Basin Plan—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a point of order from the member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: The member for Reynell keeps referring to her leader by his name, which is inappropriate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members need to be referred to by their seat, not their name.

Mr PICTON: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna has a point of order.

Mr PICTON: I think the same goes for the member for Morialta as well; he needs to refer to members by their name.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sure he will. The member for Reynell has the call.

Ms HILDYARD: It was through South Australia's collective efforts that $1.77 billion was secured to recover 450 gigalitres more environmental water than was initially intended—

Mr Whetstone: No, he said 4,000 or High Court challenge.

Ms HILDYARD: —and to address constraints to delivering that water.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HILDYARD: The basin plan will help support the delivery of critical human water needs during drought, help secure the quality of our River Murray water supply, improve the effectiveness of the water market, help keep the Murray Mouth open, and provide environmental water—

Members interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: —to internationally-important River Murray—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down; I am on my feet! The business of the house is to continue in decorum and quiet. It is out of order to interject. All members will be offered the ability to speak in a silent chamber. I ask you all to cooperate. Member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: The basin plan will provide environmental water to internationally important River Murray wetlands and flood plains.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

Ms HILDYARD: And let us not forget that as a result of South Australia's campaign, our government secured around $445 million in commonwealth government funding for water recovery, industry development, regional development, regeneration, environmental works and measures projects that will provide benefits for both the environment and our irrigation and regional communities.

We have already made significant progress in implementing the $265 million South Australian River Murray Sustainability Irrigation Industry Improvement Program, with the member for Cheltenham announcing in July that grants totalling more than $100 million would be delivered to almost 100 South Australian River Murray irrigation and industry projects.

A further $25 million has also been allocated in support of the $12.5 million Regional Development and Innovation Fund, the $5 million Industry-led Research Sub-Program, and the $7.5  million Loxton Research Centre Redevelopment. To add to this, our government also secured an allocation of $25 million from the $100 million Murray-Darling Basin Regional Economic Diversification Program.

Mr Pederick: Yes, and what have you done with it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned for the first time.

Ms HILDYARD: Of this fund, $5 million has already been committed to the Murray Bridge Racing Club for the development of a multipurpose conference and convention centre at Gifford Hill.

An honourable member: Thank you.

Ms HILDYARD: It is a pleasure. To improve environmental outcomes under the basin plan, $155 million has been secured for environmental watering infrastructure on the Pike and Katarapko River Murray flood plains near Berri.

This package of projects will support our premium food and wine industry and the irrigation sector into the future. Importantly, this activity will be built on a clean environment and a healthy river system. Our current challenge is to effectively implement the basin plan and ensure all of its objectives are realised. Our government will continue to work with industry and communities and will remain proactive and vigilant to ensure that the basin plan is successfully implemented and that other basin states also meet their obligations.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:45): Deputy Speaker, can I move a further amendment?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you have it written down, of course you can.

Mr KNOLL: I certainly do. I move that the motion be considered in an amended form by deleting all words after 'That this house—' and replacing them with:

(a) recognises the importance of the River Murray to South Australia;

(b) acknowledges the contribution from irrigated agriculture to the economy;

(c) values the important role of the River Murray in sustaining the environment; and

(d) commends the introduction and the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the original motion; it is not an amendment.

Mr KNOLL: It is an amendment to the amended motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are speaking to the original motion and we would like you to speak now.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert has the call, and I do not want to hear another voice.

Mr KNOLL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Most people affiliate rivers of wine rather than rivers of water with the seat of Schubert; however, my seat does extend from the Barossa to the borders of the River Murray, from the south-east of Mannum to just south of Blanchetown, and I am pleased to have about a 100-kilometre stretch of the 2,500-kilometre river in my electorate.

In fact, this weekend we have the inaugural 'All Steamed Up' Engine, Blacksmith and Boat Festival at Mannum. There is a whole weekend worth of festivities. It will be happening on the banks of the Murray River and the Mannum Dock Museum. I encourage all of you, especially on Saturday, to get along there if you can. There will be a freshwater classic from Arnold Park to Caloote; the 20^th anniversary of the recommissioning of the PS Marion, a very beautiful vessel that graces my stretch of the water; a captain's dinner; and short cruises along the river.

Something many South Australians and many Barossans have grown up with is a pastime called going to the river, or going upriver—which I have done on a number of occasions—for weekends or day trips, to just chat around a campfire, responsibly enjoying a couple of alcoholic drinks (most likely Barossa Shiraz), getting behind a ski boat, staying at shacks just relaxing or enjoying catching up with friends. It is a pastime that many South Australians do.

These weekends or day trips up the river are significant to our local economy. Indeed, South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC) research into the value of regional tourism has found that for the three-year annual average to 14 June, tourism expenditure in the Murraylands was $97 million and $142 million in the Riverland, in the great seat of Chaffey. Seventy-eight per cent of visitors to the Murraylands and 76 per cent of visitors to the Riverland are intrastate visitors. What we are seeing here is the ability of South Australians to be tourists in their own state. I think it is very important, as we compete in a national and an international tourism market, that these two regions are able to keep people here in South Australia spending their money.

If we compare this $97 million from the Murraylands to the other part of my electorate, the Barossa, there is $150 million a year in expenditure. So when we think about the Barossa as one of the real icons of tourism in South Australia, the Murraylands and the Riverland combined, the river, competes very well. In fact, it is a larger part of our tourism economy. In the Barossa, only 58 per cent are intrastate visitors. The river provides water for the state's production of wine grapes, potatoes and onions.

The Riverland itself and the Murraylands hosts the largest family-owned business in South Australia. It contributes $2.2 billion of the state's estimated $15 billion food and production with focus around fruit, milk, vegetables, meat and grain production and processing. The Murraylands and the Riverland areas provide a lot of return to our state, and the river is very much central to that.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority figures tell us that irrigated agricultural production in the basin accounts for 49 per cent of Australia's irrigated produce: almost half of Australia's irrigated produce relies on the river; nearly 100 per cent of Australia's rice; 94 per cent of Australia's cotton; 74 per cent of Australia's grapes; 60 per cent of Australia's hay; and 59 per cent of Australia's production of sheep and livestock.

However, apart from the tourism element, apart from the broader irrigated agriculture element, one little-known way that the river has been instrumental to the growth and success of the Barossa economy has been through the Barossa Infrastructure Ltd Scheme. This is a scheme where grape growers got together and invested in their own pipeline, in their own water infrastructure and bought Murray water licences in order to get a more secure supply of water to the Barossa Valley.

Currently, approximately 50 per cent of the water used to grow grapes in the Barossa (inarguably the best grapes in the world) comes from River Murray water. Without this source of water we would see a greater reliance on underwater and surface water resources which are increasingly becoming saltier and are increasingly coming less reliable. The Barossa would not be what it is today without Bill and without the ability to get water from the river. It is an essential part of the Barossa economy.

The river is also very important to our environment, and the basin plan that we celebrate aims to increase the amount of water for the environment of the Murray-Darling Basin, ensuring sufficient water for all users. There are numerous initiatives under way. I read on 28 October in the Murray Valley Standard—and the member for Chaffey talked about this before—the dredging of the Murray Mouth will likely be necessary this summer as the condition of the mouth has deteriorated very rapidly. I commend the federal government and the Murray-Darling Basin states for agreeing to commit $4 million to ensure that the Murray Mouth does not close completely. I know that is something very dear to the heart of the member for Hammond.

The argument we have today should not be around the environment on one hand and agricultural users on the other. In fact, Senator Birmingham, who has charge of this area in the federal government, said in a speech last year:

Debates about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin should not and cannot be reduced to a choice between the environment and agriculture.

That statement is extremely true and those who understand it best are the farmers who work with the river themselves. As I travel my electorate and talk to farmers, and also tourism operators, they are all very keenly aware of the health of their river. They can see it; they live amongst it and they work with it. They are invariably the best custodians of it because they live and breathe it and it is very much the basis of their livelihood. I say, in moving forward, that we need to move beyond this simplistic debate and realise that we need to have a coordinated approach to looking after the health of the river.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan itself was an historic milestone. It was supposed to be 4,000 gigs or a High Court challenge, it can return 3,200 gigs to the river. The benefits include supporting the delivery of critical human water needs, keeping the Murray Mouth open, flushing salt from the system and providing environmental flows to precious River Murray wetlands and flood plains.

This motion is extremely important because of the importance of the River Murray to this state. It is also important to bring this to the attention of the house because we are at the bottom end of the system. We are the ones who are invariably the beneficiaries or the ones who are punished by decisions that are made upstream. We are the ones who have to deal with the consequences of the oftentimes poor management, over the history of this country, of the River Murray. Again, I thank the member for Chaffey for bringing this to the attention of the house. It is extremely worthy and extremely important and I have been very glad, on behalf of the people of Schubert, to have been able to contribute.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond—and I will make sure no-one speaks over the top of you.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:54): Thank you, Deputy Speaker; I really appreciate—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That means you.

Mr PEDERICK: —your much-needed protection, and hope that members on the other side will take heed. I acknowledge the motion moved by the member for Chaffey, that this house recognises the importance of the River Murray to South Australia, acknowledges the contribution from irrigated agriculture to the economy, values the important role of the River Murray in sustaining the environment, and commends the introduction and the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I acknowledge the attempted amendment of the member for Reynell, insomuch as I was very pleased to hear the acknowledgement of the diversification fund, the $100 million fund across the four states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. It is interesting to note that the three other states have got on with this funding program, as far as I am aware, yet here in South Australia we have not seen that $25 million rolled out. However, what I was pleased to hear in the member for Reynell's contribution is the fact that she mentioned that Gifford Hill at Murray Bridge was still to get that $5 million. I am pleased to hear that, because I have been hearing so many rumours about that $5 million.

I would like to acknowledge our federal government, in particular the minister and member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, in announcing that that money would be made available to Murray Bridge, and especially to the racing club development. That was made before the state election this year. In line with that, those of us on this side of the house, as far as the state Liberals go, had paired another $5 million as a grant and $10 million as a loan to that project. I believe that project, over 30 to 40 years, will stimulate at least $1 billion in investment in the local region around Murray Bridge.

Some people have asked me why I support racing so much, but it is not so much about the racing industry, with this project, but about getting the racing club out to a track—the actual new track is being developed—and there is also going to be a 3,500-allotment housing development there over time as well as a school, and potentially a tavern. It will be like a major suburb of Murray Bridge. So it is about regional development, and I would like to know whether the regional development minister has been making any comment about this with his Labor friends.

It is a big project, and it is in limbo at the moment because it is still awaiting these federal funds. I am fairly hopeful that the state government will match the funding commitments that we made in opposition, going into the last election, because this is something that will be a dynamic proposal if it can just get a little help to get going. There has been about $50 million already expended on the site, the track is in place, there is a tunnel to get the horses through the centre of the track, and there is the potential for an artificial track so that racing can be held when other places are rained out. That is all in the planning stage to go there, and the built facilities—the grandstand and club house facilities—need to be built as well.

So there is a lot of potential there, and I just want to see the government look at a project like this and see what it can do as far as contributing to a regional economy that has really suffered during the drought. I can assure members that the period from 2006 to when the drought broke in about September 2010 was a very, very trying time not just for the state but also for river communities like mine and like those in the seat of Hammond, which were heavily impacted when the river dropped by about two metres. I thank you for your protection today, Deputy Speaker, and seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debated adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.