House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (13:59): Sir, I rise on a matter of privilege. On 12 February the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier the following question: Supplementary question to the Premier: given the Premier's previous answer, will the Premier rule out reversing the deal his minister agreed with the upstream states, as called for by the royal commissioner Bret Walker QC? With your leave, Mr Speaker, and that of the house I will explain. Leave was then granted, sir. The Leader of the Opposition went on to explain: The royal commissioner states, on pages 414 and 415 of his report, and I quote: '…no minister acting reasonably could consider these changes to the criteria to be anything but totally antipathetic to the interests of South Australia, and the South Australian environment. South Australia's agreement to these changes should be immediately reversed.' In response, the Premier told the House of Assembly: There was, sir, and most of it incorrect because—… If there's just some chance I might be able to answer the question, I can explain to those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Will you rule out the recommendation of the royal commissioner?' This was not a recommendation of the royal commissioner… And now the guy who wants to be the leader thinks it was a finding. Look, the reality was—… I know those opposite, busy with those by-elections, had no chance to actually read a report that was so critical to our state, nor the Australian Productivity Commission report. We did. The reality is there are 111 findings… We have read it: 111 findings; none of them related to that issue… There were dozens of recommendations; none of them related to that issue. Read the report. His statement is incorrect and misleading. On page 62 of the royal commission report, in Key Findings, entitled Chapter 9: Efficiency Measures and the 450 GL, finding 9.10 states: The recent criteria agreed at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting on 14 December 2018, at the behest of the Victorian and New South Wales governments, is another example of the lack of commitment by the commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria to delivering the 450GL. The South Australian government's agreement to changes to the socio-economic criteria for efficiency measures is antipathetic to the interests of South Australia, and the South Australian environment. It is doubtful that much of the 450GL of upwater will ever be actually recovered for the environment through efficiency measures, and especially under the new criteria agreed. Further, the royal commission then, in Responses to Terms of Reference, Key Findings and Recommendations, on page 73 makes recommendation No. 11, and I quote: If efficiency measures are retained as a means of recovering water for the environment, including the 450GL, no changes should be made to the test for determining neutral or improved socio-economic outcomes in sec 7.17(2)(b) of the basin plan. Insofar as the criteria agreed at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting on 14 December 2018 alter that test, they should be abandoned as they were likely to result in the failure to recover that water. I believe that the Premier has deliberately and intentionally— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —misled the House of Assembly and that a prima facie case exists for the establishment of a privileges committee. I ask you, therefore, to give consideration to my matter of privilege and rule if a motion to establish a privileges committee should be given precedence over other business in the House of Assembly. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, member for West Torrens. Obviously the Chair's role is confined to two aspects: (1) does the matter prima facie impinge on privilege and also deal with whether the matter is of such importance that precedent should be given to dealing with it as soon as possible. There is a fair bit in that, so I will defer my decision and come back to the house once we have processed it and asked for all relevant materials. I imagine most of them have been handed to me.