Murray River

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:14): I would like to talk about the platform on which I came into this parliament which was about reform. It was about the River Murray and ways that South Australia could negotiate a better outcome for our water security. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is something that I have pursued for a very long time. I think back to 1996 when I first went over to Canberra to lobby the federal government. Back then, there were many different opinions, and as time went by the most significant meeting for me was with the then environment minister, minister Turnbull—we had prime minister Howard—to negotiate a better deal for South Australia.

While we were doing that, the undertaking of the federal government at the time was that we would look at the fact there was only a certain amount of water in storage, there was a certain amount of water being used for consumptive use and it did not add up, so at that point in time governments were relying on rainfall, and that was a real concern. Over time it has evolved. We are trying to mend 100 years of overextraction, and it is of real concern to me now that what we are seeing is a huge amount of political pointscoring.

We are seeing all sorts of politicians—whether it be the Premier in South Australia, the federal opposition, Independents—out there scoring cheap political points while all the irrigators and the communities are doing the hard yards. They are the ones giving up their water for environmental flows, they are the ones who are going through the heartache of having to restructure and install new and more efficient methods of using their water.

What we are now seeing is this pointscoring, and why? We are in a progress phase. We are trying to implement the 2,750 gigalitres by 2019. Yes, we are going through a review phase at the moment. Yes, we have the ministers coming to the table. Nothing is going to change while we still have the same legislation in place. Yet, we have politicians standing up and taking points for no apparent reason other than their own. The people of the Riverland, all of the river communities and the irrigators are the ones doing the hard yards.

We have a minister in another place, a foul-mouthed minister, who yells abuse at women ministers, who yells abuse at an acting prime minister, who walked out on an opportunity to better negotiate a deal for South Australia. South Australia's contribution out of the 2,750 gigalitres will be 183 gigalitres. We are about 20 gigalitres short, so we are going along quite nicely. By 2019, we are on track to meet the 2,750 gigalitres. All states have agreed to do that. The further 450 gigalitres has been a contentious issue, but it is legislated. There is $1.77 billion on the table for environmental improvements on farm, various constraints and ways that we can get environmental water down the great River Murray and through the Murray-Darling Basin.

The issue I have at the moment is that the Premier of South Australia negotiated with the then prime minister Gillard an extra 450 gigalitres—$1.77 billion to achieve that 450 gigalitres. He agreed that there would be no adverse social and economic impacts and that all the water will come from the eastern states. South Australia now has to contribute another 36 gigalitres towards the 450 gigalitres, so where is the Premier's promise on not having any adverse social and economic impacts on South Australia, let alone pointing the finger across the border and saying, 'You are going to have to achieve all of that water?' It is having a huge social and economic impact.

Steven Marshall, the Leader of the Opposition, is committed to 3,200 gigalitres, a full rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Let me assure you, Deputy Speaker, that he has been over and visited the assistant water minister. He has been over and visited the PM. It is not about a photo opportunity. The Premier of South Australia has missed the photo opportunity, and that is what he is dirty on. Steven Marshall has acted responsibly and has backed 3,200 gigalitres of water to come back into the environment.

What I want to ask the South Australian government is: how many environmental works and measures below Lock 1 have they achieved? Where is the audit of the South Australian government's water organisations to find efficiencies in their businesses so that they can contribute towards the basin plan? There are none. What every South Australian and every Murray-Darling Basin person wants is a healthy working river—and that should be the priority, not a number that distracts from the main game. The main game is putting water back into the environment while maintaining a healthy working river with viable communities and viable irrigation to grow food for our economy for our people. There is much more to be said on the Murray-Darling Basin.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately, it can't be said today.