Motions

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

Adjourned debate on motion of the Premier:

That this house—

1. Notes the following reports:

(a) the Productivity Commission inquiry report dated 19 December 2018, 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment'; and

(b) the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report.

2. Supports the Premier's request to the Prime Minister for a meeting of COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider these reports and a response to their findings and recommendations.

3. Endorses the South Australian government's position that the commonwealth, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia must continue to work together in a genuinely bipartisan way to implement the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.

(Continued from 12 February 2019.)

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (16:11): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Premier. In so doing, I am particularly pleased that the member for Mawson is here with us after his admonishing those of us from the backbench who should be doing the right thing by our constituents and speaking up. I, of course, have already done that. Doubtless, he has some photos on his phone in proof of it.

Before I plough on any further, I just make the point that I must have missed him doing much the same when the emergency services levy was increased, or when the Repat was closed—doubtless you stood up for your community then, did you—or Noarlunga Hospital being cut. You must have crossed the floor for that, surely.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: I always stand up for my community.

Mr MURRAY: Yes. Anyway, in that spirit and just by way of setting the tone, this is what we believe in insofar as this issue is concerned. We firmly believe that if the river is to survive then a necessary precondition is that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan must survive. This reality is what drives our policy. No more spin, no more games, just water delivered by a bipartisan commitment to the outcomes envisaged under the MDBP.

Minister Speirs has the complete support of this side of the house in his efforts in this regard. He is highly regarded by me and many others as hardworking, focused and a competent advocate for the environment and for his electorate. By way of contrast to the minister and this government's outcomes-focused policy, I would invite consideration of the mythical bunyip.

Mr Pederick: That's at Murray Bridge: it's not mythical.

Mr MURRAY: Thank you to the member for Hammond for providing me with a lead-in. I am not referring to the creature of the Dreaming of the Ngarrindjeri people of the Lower Murray area but I am indeed referring to the former Murray Bridge bunyip, which the Murray Bridge council website tells us was built by Dennis Newell and launched in 1972.

The website helps outline the way it worked. You put 20¢ in the slot and this static mechanical bunyip emerged from below the water and gave a very loud roar twice. The roar could be heard up to one kilometre away. The ugly looking monster frightened many small children. His name was Bert the Bunyip.

In my view, in contrast to minister Speirs, Bert the Bunyip typifies Labor's approach to the securing of water for South Australia and Labor's response to the royal commission report: lots of noise, scary faces, much splashing about, lots of myth, anchored to the spot and going nowhere, with little else being achieved. Put another 20¢ in the slot and there is more noise and more splashing, repeat.

The minister and, by extension, this government are, by contrast, about practical outcomes that will help secure the 450 gigalitres in the plan for use in South Australia. We are about the 280 projects in our Riverland outlined by minister Whetstone that are aimed at driving water-use efficiency gains as opposed to buybacks. We are about saving communities, not selling them. We are about engaging upstream states and communities to embrace what South Australia has already done, and that is to cooperatively drive water-use efficiencies—in particular on-farm efficiencies, which enhance not only the farms' productive capacity but which also, in aggregate, strengthen local communities by increasing the adaptability of their farmers and families.

We are about taking the 450 gigalitres from what the royal commission concedes is a mere unenforceable note to the Murray-Darling Plan and, instead, turning it into a practical reality. No games or spin on this side but, instead, negotiated real-world outcomes and solutions: this side, cooperative outcomes with upstream states and users, and just bunyips opposite.

It is a matter of record that the royal commissioner has adversely commented on the minister—no finding, mind you, but something rather akin, in my view at least, to a drive-by comment. The good news for the minister—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr MURRAY: I hear a bunyip speaking up—put another 20¢ in. The good news for the minister is that he is not alone; he is in august company. You will not hear this from the bunyips, but the royal commissioner also took some very hefty swipes at the MDBA, and especially the CSIRO. Regarding the CSIRO, on page 54 of the report the royal commissioner said:

In 2011, management of the MDBA improperly pressured the CSIRO to alter parts of the CSIRO's Multiple Benefits report. This rendered parts of that report misleading, as they no longer reflected the views of, at the very least, Dr Matthew Colloff, who was one of the authors. The CSIRO should not have agreed to the changes that were made.

I quote, in particular:

This conduct too represents maladministration.

What about this, on page 215? I quote:

Notwithstanding its status as Australia's leading, independent, scientific research body, the CSIRO declined to attend and participate in debate and discussion concerning matters of scientific controversy with national significance. The commissioner regards the lack of responsiveness, apparent lack of interest and presumptuous tardiness of the CSIRO in this regard as reflecting no credit on a once well-regarded institution.

On page 59, referring to a 3 May 2018 media release from the MDBA, the royal commissioner said:

This public statement by the MDBA is both misleading and inaccurate. Such is the evidence for the commission, including independent reviews referred to in this media release, that there are grave concerns that the MDBA could even generally hold the view outlined in this media release. The decision of the MDBA to issue the 3 May 2018 media release demonstrated deplorable judgement.

So more than two very large swipes by the royal commissioner against the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the CSIRO. Perhaps unsurprisingly both those organisations have very publicly, rigorously and unambiguously rejected the royal commission's findings. The CSIRO defended itself on 8 February this year with the statement:

This statement responds to allegations published in the final report of the South Australian royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin which was publicly released on January 31, 2019. The CSIRO has led research into the Murray-Darling Basin for decades, and continues to provide independent and rigorous science to inform the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

The royal commission has upheld the value of science in general, and acknowledged CSIRO's contribution to range of key scientific inputs into MDB decision-making over a considerable period. However, CSIRO refutes statements that it was pressured to change a report in an improper and misleading way by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. CSIRO uses rigorous processes to ensure the quality of our science including the robust governance and independent review processes used for this work.

We strongly reject suggestions that CSIRO scientific integrity was compromised, its independence undermined, or that it acted in secrecy.

The CSIRO has no doubt at all that it disagrees with the commissioner's findings. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority similarly defended itself on 31 January, in part releasing a statement saying:

The MDBA provided a comprehensive submission to the royal commission which outlined how the basin plan was developed, the integrity of the organisation, and the challenges to full and proper implementation.

The MDBA is confident that the basin plan has been made lawfully and is based on best available science. There is extensive documentation in our published reports to support this. The MDBA rejects any assertion by the commission that it has acted improperly or unlawfully in any way. The basin plan was passed six years ago by the federal parliament with 'strong bipartisan support and with the support of all Basin governments'. The MBDA concludes by saying:

It is vital that this work continues and that the Basin Plan is implemented in full. This is a once in a generation reform that corrects 100 years of overuse, and will take a generation to achieve. It deserves the support of all Australians.

I am sensing a pattern here that even a North Terrace bunyip could follow. The practical additional issue is that the royal commissioner is a buyback kind of guy. He does not want efficiencies. He sees them as a waste of public funds. At page 61 of the report, he asserts:

Recovering water for the environment through ‘buybacks’ is considerably less expensive than through irrigation efficiency upgrades (efficiency measures). There would need to be compelling reasons to justify the additional public expense of efficiency measures. There are none.

There was of course a slight problem for the royal commission with the MDBA being of the stated view that buybacks in fact have a negative impact on the towns and the regions in the basin where they are propagated. The commissioner deals with this inconvenience, in my view, by way of a simple possession to the contrary, namely:

The impact of water recovery generally in Basin towns and regional centres has been overstated. The reports authored by the MDBA, or commissioned by it, that suggest otherwise are deeply flawed. For example, the notion of some proportional relationship between a reduction in water and a reduction in farm production is rejected. It is accepted—

there is no mention by whom—

that such a relationship could be debunked by an economics undergraduate. There are many other more pertinent, contributing factors to decreases in population or jobs or farm revenue—these include technological change and mechanization, amongst a number of other relevant factors.

So any drop in population, jobs or farm revenue can be attributed to a large number of things other than, of course, a loss of water from a buyback. There was the additional problem of Ernst and Young report, which was commissioned in 2018. This is given some treatment at page 410 of the report in question, and I quote:

…the [Department of Agriculture and Water Resources], on behalf of the MinCo [Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council], commissioned the accounting firm Ernst and Young to provide a report on the recovery of the 450 GL of water through efficiency measures and to advise on, amongst other things, the potential socio-economic impacts of such measures. The report that resulted from this engagement…published in January 2018, reaches—

And this is the royal commissioner—

the conclusion that off-farm and urban efficiency measure projects generally have positive socio-economic impacts, and on-farm efficiency measures generally create at least positive socio-economic impacts for the participating farmers or farming/irrigation businesses. This is because those participating farmers can use water savings to increase productivity…Importantly however, the authors of the Ernst and Young Report found—

And I emphasise—

no evidence of such negative socio-economic impacts occurring [from these efficiencies].

Minister Speirs is prosecuting arrangements with other states that are themselves based on and around the same socio-economic principles outlined above in the Ernst and Young report. It is extraordinary to me that, when espoused by Ernst and Young, these principles are acceptable. There is no criticism of them in the report. They are quoted as I have presented them to you. But when espoused by the minister, the very same principles somehow become a dereliction of duty or a breach of code of conduct.

To reiterate, on this side of the house we fervently believe that if the river is to survive, then the necessary precondition is that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan must survive. We believe, as does the MDBA and the CSIRO, that the best way to achieve this is to derive upstream efficiencies, in particular on-farm efficiencies based in part on the application of the methods already applied by South Australian irrigators.

We believe that this is preferable to the wholesale decimation of communities by the application of the commissioner's preferred methodology of applying water buybacks. We think it is telling that there was no record or acknowledgment by the royal commission report of the achievement of the minister in securing the removal of supply constraints or of his success in attracting $70 million in funding for the Coorong area.

Page 661 of the report we think is telling in that the royal commissioner acknowledged the evidence and submissions that there are, for example, 96 per cent of properties in South Australia being metered—that is to say that South Australian properties are accountable versus anywhere from 25 per cent to 51 per cent in the northern basin—yet, despite acknowledging that, the royal commissioner could not arrive at the assessment that more metering upstream would lead to more compliance and therefore more water returned to the river. 'Put some meters in. We'll do some buybacks. Let's do some buybacks.' Unbelievable!

We think it telling that an inquiry set up to report on water theft mentions the word 'theft' 11 times and the word 'maladministration' eight times in a 700-page plus document. We support the Premier's call for a bipartisan implementation of the pertinent points arising from the royal commission.

I grew up in Mannum, a Murray River town. A dad of one of my friends used to talk about how they could walk across the river in the 1930s when there was a drought. The eulogy in Mannum two weeks ago for my father-in-law recounted how he and his brother had the 10pm to 6am shift patrolling the levee banks in Mannum during the enormous 1956 flood. Dams, locks and weirs now help regulate the storage and flow of the system. Today's river is a construct that is built upon the cooperation of South Australia and upstream states and users. Without that we return to the 1930s, the 1950s or earlier. Environmental flows are no different.

Shouting demands for upstream buybacks is not going to get the environmental flows we need. It is a proven failure. It was the method employed by the bunyips when they were in office, and it appears to be the method favoured by the royal commission report. Only cooperative, socially beneficial upstream water efficiencies will deliver the water that South Australia requires. The minister is implementing this approach. He has our full support. I commend the Premier's motion to the house.

Mr BROWN: Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (16:28): The River Murray is of vital importance to all South Australia’s 1.6 million people, the bulk of whom are concentrated in the south-eastern corner of this state through which the River Murray flows and beyond which the land gives way to arid, desert-like, dry conditions.

South Australia is the driest state in Australia, and so the River Murray is the state's most important natural resource. The health and future sustainability of the Murray River are critical to South Australia. It is therefore a key focus of this government, and this is why I support this very important motion that the Premier has brought before parliament in the first week of sitting for 2019.

The Murray River is Australia's longest river, at 2,508 kilometres in length. It starts its long journey down the western faces of the Australian Alps, then makes its way across Australia's inland plains forming the border between the states of New South Wales and Victoria. Along this boundary, other tributary rivers join the Murray, including the Murrumbidgee and Goulburn rivers. Wentworth, in New South Wales, is the confluence of the significant Darling River, which itself is over 1,470 kilometres long and starts in northern New South Wales and is fed by tropical rainfalls in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales to the west of the Great Dividing Range.

From Wentworth, in New South Wales, the river continues before reaching South Australia. At Morgan, the river turns south for its final 315 kilometres, reaching the ocean at Lake Alexandrina near Goolwa. The Murray Mouth is the point at which the Murray River empties into the sea and is only a narrow opening that sees water build up in the Lower Lakes, being Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert, as well as in the Coorong.

Being a downstream state, South Australia is in the unique situation where it is at the bottom of the river system and it has a number of environments that no other basin states have to support. The Lower Lakes are large wetlands that are reliant on river flows and support many waterbirds and native plants, so our state is the custodian of the Murray Mouth.

The Murray-Darling River is one of the largest river systems in the world, but the Murray carries only a small fraction of the water of rivers of comparable size in other parts of the world and flows very slowly. The basin is flat, low lying and far inland and receives little direct rainfall, with only 6 per cent of Australia's total rainfall falling into the basin. In most years, only half this quantity reaches the sea, and in dry years it is much less, so water flow is always an issue, with estimated total annual flows from the basin ranging from 5,000 gigalitres in 1902 to 57,000 gigalitres in 1956.

The river has always been the lifeblood of many communities for generations going back thousands of years, supporting the cultural, social, environmental and spiritual needs of more than 40 Indigenous nations whose traditional lands fall within this basin. The Murray-Darling Basin covers over one million square kilometres, including large areas of New South Wales and Victoria, the whole of the ACT and parts of Queensland and South Australia. It drains about one-seventh of the Australian land mass and supports over 30,000 wetlands. The Coorong is considered to be the most important waterbird wetland in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Since European settlement, the river has seen pumping plants begin drawing water from the Murray in the 1850s. The introduction of pumping stations along the river promoted an expansion of farming and led ultimately to the development of irrigation areas. During the 1920s, locks were introduced along various locations, starting at Blanchetown and reaching Echunga. This had the effect of supporting many towns and communities along the river.

In more recent times, these communities have benefited from tourism that has brought people into these regions. The irrigation that has occurred means that the basin is one of the most significant agricultural areas in Australia, outputting approximately 45 per cent of the entire nation's agricultural output. It is truly the country's food bowl. At the same time, over this period the river has been governed by five different jurisdictions, who have all acted in their own self-interest. This has led to an overallocation of the water resources to agriculture.

The basin and its water resources also support the supply of drinking water for approximately two million people who reside within it, as well as for many people outside of the basin. The river supplies critical human needs for South Australia, including Adelaide and other cities and towns throughout the state, including Port Pirie in the Mid North, Whyalla on the Eyre Peninsula, as far as Ceduna in the west and Keith in the South-East. In particular, Adelaide's drinking water requirements from the Murray average around 100 gigalitres per annum, but they can be as high as 150 gigalitres in years of low inflows into the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Being surrounded by desert, it is entirely understandable that the security of this water supply is etched into the psyche of all South Australians. We can see that over time the river has come to have many competing facets: the natural environment, sustaining agriculture, underpinning flourishing communities and providing critical water needs. The river's health has rightfully been a high priority for South Australia's political leaders of all persuasions since before Federation and, being a downstream state, we always took an active interest in the activities occurring upstream.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the upstream states' care for the river once the water has left their jurisdiction. This was brought into sharp focus during the Millennium Drought in the 2000s, which saw the river decline to a trickle in parts. As a state at the end of this river system, South Australia felt the greatest environmental impact of a river under duress. I can remember being on Hindmarsh Island and walking out on platelets of mud to what could only be described as nothing more than a creek.

In 2006, the lowest flows into the Murray system were recorded, causing significant risk to the drinking water supplies of towns and cities, alongside the acidification of the Lower Lakes in South Australia. Salinity in the Coorong's South Lagoon rose to five times that of seawater, damaging this important ecosystem, from which it is still recovering today.

This jolted national action and forced the commonwealth and the basin states to come to the table and resulted in an initiative to reset the balance between environmental and consumptive water use and to establish a long-term and sustainable water management system for the basin overall. This included commonwealth legislation by the Howard government, the Water Act 2007, and, following on from this, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was adopted in November 2012 after the commonwealth reached an accord with each of the basin states.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is an historic bipartisan agreement about how to use the water that flows down the nation's longest river system to ensure its long-term health. This plan restricts the amount of water that can be taken from the basin each year to leave enough for the rivers, lakes and wetlands, plants and animals that depend on it. The biggest beneficiary of these increased flows is South Australia and, in particular, the Lower Lakes and the Coorong.

This was a $13 billion plan that meant communities would have certainty, with 2,750 gigalitres to be returned by 30 June 2019 and an additional 450 gigalitres to be returned by 2024. The motion moved by the Premier highlights that this government is committed to implementing the full Murray-Darling Basin Plan and will demand every drop of the 3,200 gigalitres of environmental flow agreed to by the commonwealth and basin states.

By securing the environmental sustainability of the river, the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan provides many benefits, including the delivery of critical human water needs, the ongoing sustainability of water-dependent industries and the communities that depend on them. Basin governments are now in their sixth year of a 12-year implementation program for the basin plan. The Water Act 2007 requires that the Productivity Commission undertakes five-yearly assessments of basin plan implementation.

The Productivity Commission handed its final report to the federal Treasurer on 19 December 2018 and subsequently it was published in January 2019. The report provides 37 recommendations and 29 findings to ensure timely implementation of the basin plan. The report also acknowledges that significant progress has been made in implementing the basin plan, noting that at the moment about $6.7 billion has been spent to recover around 2,000 gigalitres of water for the environment, which is about 20 per cent of the water available for consumptive users a decade ago. Water recovery is within 5 per cent of the July 2019 target, and we are beginning to see evidence of improved ecological outcomes from environmental watering.

While this shows good progress of the basin plan, South Australians were outraged when water that had been recovered for environmental flows was subject to theft, and this resulted in the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission by the former government, supported by this side of the house while in opposition. When first announced, the commission was to focus on compliance, water theft and corruption. The subsequent terms were broad ranging and led to a fundamental review of the basin plan.

The South Australian government received the royal commissioner's report on 29 January 2019 and publicly released this report two days later. It is a 746-page report containing 44 recommendations and 111 key findings. The report largely focuses on events, actions and decisions that occurred during a period when the Liberal Party did not hold office here in South Australia.

The central themes of the report include the need for increased transparency, a new determination of the environmentally sustainable level of take, better recognition of Aboriginal people, the need to factor climate change into the plan, recovering the remaining water through buybacks from the market rather than efficiencies, the role and performance of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and establishing an independent audit function.

It is important to note, as the commissioner himself recognised, that very few of the recommendations made in the report can be actioned by the South Australian government in isolation of the other basin jurisdictions, hence the Premier's request to the Prime Minister for a meeting of the COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider these reports, and endorses the government's position for all basin states and the commonwealth to work together in a bipartisan way.

Since this government was elected in March 2018, the environment minister has been working constructively with other parties to reach outcomes that improve the overall health of the river and deliver much needed water to South Australia, in particular, the promised 450 gigalitres. His first step was to restore shattered relationships across basin states.

Although 450 billion gigalitres of vital environmental water had been promised by Labor, not one drop of water had been delivered from interstate. Further, there was no road map, no practical agreement on implementation and all the while, despite the noise, the petty politics and slogans, no plan for the delivery of the 450 gigalitres. There was only a stalemate and, worse still, other jurisdictions were walking away from the table. If they walked, it would have killed the basin plan, which is the only instrument to deliver water to the Lower Lakes and the Coorong.

Throughout the public hearings, the commissioner and senior counsel Mr Beasley made very clear and rather pessimistic statements about the future and hope for this 450 gigalitres. On 4 September 2018, senior counsel Beasley said:

That's in some way consistent with the evidence called before this Commission, although the scientists that have given evidence here express the view that there’s no hope of achieving enhanced environmental outcomes from the so-called 450 gigalitres of up water related to these efficiency measures.

Then, on 5 September, the commissioner himself stated:

…what does it matter if a Plan at, say, 2100 or indeed 3200 if you believe in fairies and you think the 450 is going to be got.

Rather than more of the same fake fights and political games to draw media attention, a more constructive approach was required, with the long-term health of the river placed ahead of politics. In December 2018, an agreement was struck between the basin states and the commonwealth that broke this deadlock and provided a pathway to deliver the 450 gigalitres. In a significant moment for our state, Victoria and New South Wales finally agreed to participate in the full range of water-saving projects, including off-farm and, importantly, on-farm efficiencies projects that could deliver the 450 gigalitres.

In addition, the commonwealth had agreed to invest in specific initiatives in each jurisdiction to help accelerate return of the final 450 gigalitres. Critically, this government also secured $70 million in investment for the Coorong and acknowledgement by all basin ministers of the Coorong to the overall health of the basin. The Coorong is a fragile landscape and this is a huge win for South Australia.

Finally, a basin plan that had been stagnating without hope and had previously delivered one gigalitre of the 450 gigalitres—none of which was from upstream states—is now a basin plan that can move forward with optimism. A critical pathway negotiated by the minister that delivers 450 gigalitres back to the environment is surely in the best interests of South Australia.

Unfortunately, in his report, the royal commissioner gave a brief commentary of his views on the recent negotiation of additional socio-economic criteria for the assessment of efficiency measures projects, despite neither he nor his senior counsel attempting to contact the minister to seek further information or justification following the December ministerial council meeting.

Respectfully, I have to disagree with the criticism towards the minister, which I believe is unjustified. Rather, the minister has acted strongly for our state and for the basin as a whole. The efficiencies projects, which will deliver the 450 gigalitres, because efficiency gets real water into the system. South Australia was the first state to cap the volume of water on licence for irrigation back in the 1960s, and has since become a world leader in delivering these efficiency programs, especially in the Riverland. It has provided significant benefits to producers and their local communities.

If New South Wales and Victoria can participate in these programs, it will change the existing culture and overcome this fear. The member for Hammond spoke of the open canals that are currently used in New South Wales, with examples of nine gigalitres being required to send down the canal for distances of over 100 kilometres to deliver two gigalitres of stock water—massive inefficiencies. Once the upstream states get started, our view is that the fear will subside and increasing numbers will want to participate to gain the benefits of these programs on offer.

Another example of overcoming this fear to deliver real water is the Murrumbidgee Gunbar pipeline, which will replace open canals with piped water and save 10 gigalitres per annum. An example of how fear can be overcome can be found in the comments of the users group chair, Don Low, who farms just north of Hay and who was initially against the scheme. He stated:

We were faced with the fact that everyone wanted to keep the open channel system. We've had it for 70 years and it's a good way of watering stock. We came to the conclusion that we have a very low allocation and we were using six times our allocation to fill our dams.

I look forward to many more programs like this being put in place to return real water to the Murray.

The recovery of the 450 gigalitres remains non-negotiable. With the program criteria agreed at the ministerial council in December, there is now a pathway to deliver this water, with the minister taking a leadership role. We also expect basin first ministers to take action, which is why the meeting requested by the Premier will be so important. What we need, as South Australians and Australians, is strong bipartisan support and leadership to deliver the agreed basin plan and achieve the environmental and social outcomes that are in the best interests of South Australia and the broader basin community.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:45): I rise today to speak in support of this motion put forward by the Premier that notes:

That this house—

1. Notes the following reports:

(a) the Productivity Commission Inquiry report dated 19 December 2018: 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment'; and

(b) Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report.

2. Supports the Premier's request to the Prime Minister for a meeting of COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider these reports and a response to their findings and recommendations.

3. Endorses the South Australian government's position that the commonwealth, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia must continue to work together in a genuinely bipartisan way to implement the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.

This is very crucial to South Australia, as has been pointed out by many people here today. We need to bring together all those jurisdictions to make sure that we work with the commonwealth to get a collaborative approach, to share ideas and to get a solution that is truly bipartisan and put to one side the petty party politics that we have been hearing about in the media and from those on the other side.

We need a solution for the River Murray. It is in our DNA to protect the River Murray here in South Australia, being a downstream state, as you have heard from many of my colleagues prior to my contribution today. We must put our differences aside and we must put the environment and the people of South Australia first. This is what the people of South Australia elected us to do after 16 years of being consistently let down, day after day. We are not interested in playing games. We want to deliver strong action for the Murray-Darling Basin, for the Murray-Darling river, and for the South Australian people, so they can continue to treasure and make use of this wonderful resource.

The Marshall government will continue to work to put South Australia first, to put our world class environment first, to put the South Australian people first and to put our regions first. Whilst those opposite may not agree, as the Minister for Primary Industries says, regions matter. This is one of the most important ways the Marshall government is committed to supporting our regions. When the Labor government were in power, they never cared about the regions. South Australian people and the many wonderful, genuine people who live and work in our regions were left to suffer for too long under the former government. The Marshall government is committed to supporting and growing our regions.

We have not been in government for a year, and I am proud to say that I have been fortunate to travel to almost every corner of the state and chat and listen to local residents to hear what issues are affecting them. I have been to Port Lincoln and towns on Lower Eyre Peninsula, including Cummins, Arno Bay and Tumby Bay, with the local member for Flinders. It was great to listen to what the people in this community had to say. I have visited Yorke Peninsula with the local member for Narungga, and again, he is in touch with the people in his community. It was a pleasure to join him and talk with and listen to the people of his local community. In both these places, I had the opportunity to sit down with farmers and listen firsthand to their concerns, something those opposite never did.

I have been to Mount Gambier and the Limestone Coast several times and, importantly, I have been to the Riverland, the heartland of the member for Chaffey, the champion of the regions and the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. I have been to the heart of the Murray-Darling in South Australia. I have been to Loxton and Renmark and met with the people there who volunteer their time and efforts to their local sporting clubs and to their local emergency services charities, like the CFS and the SES. These wonderful volunteers are the heart and soul of our Riverland community.

I was also in Waikerie about a month ago with the member for Chaffey, where I met with farmers, fruit growers and CFS volunteers. While speaking with them on a range of issues, their reliance on the river and the ebbs and flows of the mighty Murray were obvious. With the member for Finniss, I have also made my way to where the Murray finally meets the sea. I have been to Victor Harbor to meet the volunteers of the Victor Harbor-Goolwa Sea Rescue Squadron and to Goolwa to meet the volunteers of the CFS brigade there.

Again, it is hard to have a chat with anyone out there without coming back to the state of the river and what plans are in place for its health. I am not speaking for their conversation skills, as I am sure anyone would agree that, when you catch up with people in the regions, they love to tell a yarn. They love to chew your ear and they love to have their say about what is important to them in their community. I know from these firsthand conversations that the river is very important to these people, their community and every aspect of their life.

The river is the lifeblood of these people. It is how they make their money; it is how they put dinner on the table for themselves and their families. Through exports, both domestic and international, it is how other people put dinner on the table for their families. The export of resources grown on the River Murray plays a major part in South Australia's economy. The River Murray in South Australia plays a massive part in contributing to our state's tourist economy. Taking a houseboat or camping along the river, going waterskiing and having a barbecue or a bonfire on the riverside is an iconic Australian holiday, and we need to make sure that this pastime is a possibility for Australian families for generations to come.

Over the past few days, through the media and from those opposite, we have heard what I said at the start we do not need to do with this discussion about the River Murray: we do not need people playing petty politics. It has come to light that, in 16 years in government, those opposite were there at the table when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was put together. We worked with them in a bipartisan manner to make sure that we could get the best outcomes for South Australia.

We have seen, and the minister has become aware of this in his time as minister of this portfolio, that the numbers are quite confronting and quite daunting. The minister has become aware that in their time—the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was put in place as a 12-year plan, and we are just over halfway through—the amount of water that they have had come down that river is one gigalitre, and that was actually sourced from within South Australia. So we are over halfway and those on the other side of the house delivered one gigalitre. That is the number that they are working on. The minister on this side of the house is focused on getting the 450 gigalitres.

In some quarters, he has been chastised by those opposite for wanting to get a better return for the River Murray. It makes me scratch my head, and it makes it hard for me to fathom how those on the other side can do the maths and think that their one gigalitre is a better return for South Australia than the 450 gigalitres that the minister is talking about.

I know that they will point to the royal commission report. It was some 746 pages long, with 44 recommendations and 111 key findings, but they will point to a couple of paragraphs in there. That is what they will point to, yet they do not point to the cold, hard facts that I have just stated: that in their time in government, working on this plan, all they managed to get the upstream states to do was nothing. One gigalitre came down the river on top of what normally flows, and that came from the South Australian jurisdictions.

The minister on this side has been working very hard to make sure we have a better return for South Australia. He watched very closely, and he saw the way the previous government operated. It had pushed away the upstream states from the table and from this negotiation. To his credit, he brought those states back, got them to the table and started working closely with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and the commonwealth to get us the outcomes we need to improve the River Murray for all South Australians.

The commission's personal criticism of the minister, while not criticising the ministers involved in the negotiations of the entire plan, is inconsistent and unfair. We have to remember that this plan was put together as a 12-year plan. It has been in place for more than half its life and the previous government failed to deliver. It really is a point that must be stressed and must not go unnoticed. The Premier made it very clear that there are significant questions as to whether the minister received procedural fairness and I support his claims that the minister has been very open, very public and very up-front about what he has done and how he has delivered this.

I will wrap up my remarks and say that on this side of the house we are very aware across the regions that a healthy River Murray is good for everyone. We know that the minister has worked tirelessly to make sure that he gets a better outcome for South Australia, better results for South Australia, more water flowing down the river so that we can have a productive, prosperous River Murray for all South Australians well into the future.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (16:55): I would like to thank all members for their contribution to this debate. We first, of course, received the royal commission's report into the Murray-Darling Basin plan when this parliament was not sitting. We were on our summer break. As members would be aware, some weeks before that, we also received the Australian Productivity Commission's report into progress with regard to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We have made it very clear to the people of South Australia that these were important documents and they needed to be considered as a matter of priority for the government this year. We made that statement on multiple occasions.

This was the very first item of business when the parliament resumed to make sure that we could table these two important documents for our state to consider at its earliest convenience. We tabled those documents. We moved the motion seeking support from members in this house to essentially require the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to convene a meeting of all of the basin jurisdictions' first ministers and, of course, to try to work in a bipartisan way to get all of the states and the Australian Capital Territory back at the table to deliver for the River Murray.

This, if you like, is an issue which has been bubbling away for more than a century. There has been a lot of fighting along the River Murray. There have been a lot of people who have put their own interests first and that is, of course, a major problem for us here in South Australia because we are at the end of the river. Of course, being at the end of the river we are in an unenviable position where, if the other states do not do the right thing, we are in a world of pain. That is why we were supportive of the former government's negotiation to arrive at the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which arrived in 2012.

The motion that we have moved this week was not a political motion. It was a motion which was designed to have, if you like, one voice from South Australia receiving these reports, calling for a meeting of first ministers of the basin states and the ACT and, of course, making sure that we could work in a bipartisan way to get people back at the table so that we can, importantly, deliver those environmental flows that have not been occurring because the other states had essentially decided that they were not going to participate.

It is somewhat disappointing that those opposite have decided not to participate in this debate. I do not think it sends the right message from our state to the other basin states and the ACT regarding our resolve in this parliament. From our perspective, we remain resolved to always act in the best interests of the people of our state, to make sure that we can maximise the amount of water that goes back into the River Murray so that we can have those environmental flows that will of course not only preserve the River Murray flow but, importantly, look after the Lower Lakes and the fabulous Coorong. For those reasons it has been disappointing that we did not hear from those opposite. They have had two days to make a contribution, but they have not had any speakers. It is very difficult to understand what their motivation is for not participating in this non-political motion.

We have said very clearly and repeatedly that we will be considering the recommendations provided in the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report. We will be considering those and making a response in due course. We would like to hear from the other jurisdictions—the Queensland government, the New South Wales government, the ACT government and the Victorian government—for the very simple reason that many of the findings and recommendations do not actually relate to actions we can take by ourselves in South Australia; they actually require a considered response.

Some of the recommendations relate to individual jurisdictions, some require different jurisdictions to work together, some relate to the federal government, some relate to the commonwealth Auditor-General and some relate to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority itself. It is not as if South Australia can respond to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan royal commission by itself.

I think what we have all realised during this process is that, being at the end of the stream, we do have to work in a way that is going to ensure we put the interests of the people of South Australia first. With those words, I again reiterate my grateful thanks to all the people who have contributed. I commend the motion to the house.

Motion carried.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A point of clarification, sir: the Premier just told us in his remarks that he had tabled the report of the royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin in the parliament. Could the Clerks please advise the house where that document was tabled?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can I just say that I do not know whether I said 'tabled' the report, but I have the motion in front of me that says 'notes the following report,' and that was the subject of the motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Dr Harvey): For the clarification of the house—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Dr Harvey): Member for West Torrens, for clarification, the report has not been tabled in the house.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Why did you just tell the house you tabled it? Why? Just tell the truth.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Dr Harvey): Member for West Torrens—