No-confidence Motion

Minister for Environment and Water

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): I move:

That the house has no confidence in the Minister for Environment and Water and that this house calls on him to resign for acting contrary to the interests of South Australians.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (14:04): I move:

That the debate be limited to one hour in lieu of question time.

The SPEAKER: I also note that convention has been 30 minutes for each side.

Motion carried.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): I thank the chamber for the opportunity to be able to debate this important motion. This state has a proud history. This state has a particularly proud history when it comes to standing up for our Murray, for our water. I think all South Australians have a high degree of consciousness that, as a small state at the bottom end of the river, it has always been our responsibility to stand up and fight for what is ours, to stand up and fight for what is right, to stand up and fight for the environmental flows that our river so desperately needs. And, Mr Speaker—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —the truth is that our state and this parliament across both sides of the aisle have a very profound and proud history of doing exactly that. Our history for 170 years of post Federation debate has always fought for its water rights.

In 1902, the South Australian attorney-general John Gordon stood firm on the banks of the Murray at the Corowa Conference insisting on greater allocation for our state. In 1944, Tom Playford built and opened the pipeline that delivered River Murray water to Adelaide, and then in 1957, when Playford learned that New South Wales and Victoria were to share all their water diverted from the Snowy River into the Murray, he stood firm by invoking the River Murray Waters Agreement of 1915. He secured his state a fair share of the water.

Premier Steele Hall put his government on the line in 1970 over River Murray water storage. In 1969, he famously said, 'I will fight for the future regardless of the political consequences.' Premier Don Dunstan negotiated with New South Wales and Victoria for allocations from the Dartmouth Dam that were greater—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —than the total storage of the proposed Chowilla Dam. Premier David Tonkin always fought for the Murray in his term, and he in turn merged the portfolios of water and environment into one—a significant statement of government policy at the time that stands true today.

Premier Dean Brown advocated for South Australia's rights and repeated that effort in 2010, when he retired, when he made submissions to the federal parliament on the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan. Premier Mike Rann always fought for the state and our water and, most recently, premier Weatherill and his minister Ian Hunter stood up for South Australia's rights, particularly in negotiating the extra 450 gigalitres of environmental flows.

Mr Patterson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morphett is called to order.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier, please!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It is a profound list and it is a bipartisan list. All of us in this parliament stand on the shoulders of giants when it comes to fighting the upstream states for our water. It has been an issue where traditionally there has always barely been daylight between the two sides of the aisle in this place to tackle the upstream states because we know that, as a small state, we always stand a better chance of winning the fight when he we stand together.

However, unfortunately, since the election of this new Marshall conservative government that bipartisanship has broken down. The history of those giants before us, the history of this state, the profound responsibility of standing up for what is ours, that privilege was bestowed on a new water minister. At the election, we saw a change of heart. We saw a government that decided that, rather than standing together, rather than standing by the evidence and the expert advice, they were going to prove everybody else wrong. They were going to prove that they were smarter than everybody else who came before them.

The Minister for Water wanted to prove the protestations of a Marshall government that they were brilliant negotiators who would get a deal done. Before the minister even started the negotiations, he had essentially declared his hand. This minister was going to be pragmatic. This minister was going to do a deal, and the upstream states of New South Wales and Victoria saw him coming like their own little buddy. Having declared they are doing deals, the upstream states knew that this minister had politically locked himself into doing a deal, and a deal he did. He grabbed the Coorong cash like a fig leaf and declared victory. It turns out—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite is warned.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —that all of the upstream states were declaring—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —victory, too. On our side of the house, we knew that the alarm bells were ringing.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite is on two warnings.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We knew that, as is always the case with any announcement made late at a Friday night press conference two weeks before Christmas, the alarm bells should ring. No matter how intelligent the Premier might say the Minister for Water is, it always seemed implausible that, after 100 years of doing everything they could to deny our state the water we are entitled to, Victoria and New South Wales all of a sudden had a change of heart and had fallen victim to the charm—

Mr Murray interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —and the intelligence of the new water minister. It was simple. All they—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —had to do—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Settle down!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —was hold the line and this minister would acquiesce. This minister would sell us up the river. The minister argues, as does the Premier, that they have done the pragmatic thing, they have done the right thing, they have been able to secure water for our state. So here we are with a dispute on the facts. Here we have us, on this side of the chamber, saying that the fight should have persisted and that the water was coming eventually once we had a federal government that would actually do something about it. The minister argues that everyone is wrong and they are right.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is warned.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The previous government was wrong in 2017.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: His own department was wrong in June 2018. His water scientists are wrong now. On the dispute of the facts—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —who should the people of South Australia turn to for an impartial and accurate account of what actually has occurred? What independent umpire could be relied upon to establish the truth? Well, none other than the highest form of inquiry in the land, the most authoritative body that this parliament can establish. It has the same standing as the Supreme Court but a lot more investigative powers. It is none other than a royal commission, a royal commission presided over by one of the most pre-eminent legal minds in the nation, who cannot be accused of being partisan. You only have to look at him representing Barnaby Joyce. What did the royal commission say about the minister's actions?

Mr Teague interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: 'Antipathetic.' The royal commissioner said he capitulated to the upstream states.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The royal commission found, and I quote:

…no Minister acting [responsibly] 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 [on this matter] should be immediately reversed.

He also found that the minister had acted so contrary to the interests of South Australia that he almost certainly breached section 2.5, at least, of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. These words are unequivocal. They are not open to interpretation. They are there in black and white, recorded in perpetuity—an eternal record that is now synonymous with this water minister. The actions—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —of this water minister leave the state compromised in more ways than one. Firstly, there is the water—450 billion litres of water that we all collectively fought for now stands the test of not being met. In regard to the Marshall government's December deal—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —the royal commission has found, and I quote:

…that these far more onerous and expansive criteria signal the death of any reasonable prospects of recovering probably any of the extra 450 GL of…upwater.

If you do not believe the royal commission, what about the inaugural commonwealth environmental water holder, Mr David Papps? He said, and I quote, 'I would put my house on it that there won't be 450 gigalitres.'

The minister sold out our water, he sold out an environment and he sold out our state. What is left of this state's negotiating position within the commonwealth? What of its standing within our federation? The message to the federation from the Marshall government is clear. The message to the east coast states is simple: you behave badly, you treat the law with impunity, you take what is ours, you hold the line and, eventually, they will capitulate. That is the message to the federation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Child Protection is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The giants on whose shoulders they stand would be ashamed. Since the royal commission handed down its findings, what have we seen? We have seen one of the most extraordinary acts that this parliament has ever seen since its creation. We have seen a Premier who has decided to vacate the field when it comes to leadership.

Given the opportunity to respond to the royal commission, what was the Premier's initial response? The initial response of the Premier was somewhat reasonable. He said, 'This royal commission should be taken seriously. The findings should be considered in a thorough and considered way.' Not 48 hours later, the Premier who said we should consider all the recommendations, what was he doing? He was ruling out one of the recommendations: the recommendation to overturn the fact that this government had decided to sell our water down the river.

That was just the beginning. What we have since seen is a Premier so desperate to run cover for his minister that he has decided to breach a whole range of different conventions, not least of which was deciding to pay respect to a royal commission. This Premier decided to show leadership by walking into this chamber and denouncing a royal commission behind the veil of parliamentary privilege. Hardly the actions becoming of a premier. If that was not enough—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —in order to be able to do that, what did he do? He threw out one of the most sacred, important principles that this parliament has when it comes to pairs. They decided to take the advantage of a sick man in order to be able to provide an opportunity to stand up and denounce a royal commission.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Why was he doing that? Why would the Premier do that?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: All to protect a minister who was busy going interstate, selling out what we all collectively fought for.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I think the people of South Australia, I think the people of this state, are right to ask the question: who is leading us? Someone who is willing to erode the basic principles of this parliament?

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Someone who is willing to undermine the integrity of a royal commission, all to achieve a political end while meanwhile selling our water out.

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kavel is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: This chamber should be willing to do what the Premier will not, and this chamber should be willing to do what the Premier cannot, and that is show leadership on the Murray, and that is to make sure that this parliament shows no confidence in this minister.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:18): That performance was a little bit like—

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —the pathetic trickle of water that the former Labor government secured for South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You look at it and you think, 'Was that it?' Half the time he was talking about pairs.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mawson is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: He could not even address the subject of the motion that the opposition moved—more empty rhetoric from a hollow, vacuous opposition here in this place, an opposition not prepared to do what they need to do to represent the people of South Australia. Can I say this—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —I think the Leader of the Opposition had a week that sort of reminds me of the final line from The Hollow Men. I am not referring to—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Ramsay is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that documentary that I think pretty much describes your government. I am talking about the T.S. Eliot poem, The Hollow Men: 'Not with a bang but a whimper.' This is the culmination of the week. They came in with all this bravado that they were going to unpack this royal commission report and destroy—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —the environment and water minister. They ran out of questions after day one. Yesterday, they were moving on to budget measures. But, of course, he had promised the caucus this big return to parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: What a pathetic effort we have seen in this parliament today. Let me tell you, sir, what the opposition has relied upon.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The royal commission has—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —based their entire criticism on suggesting that the Minister for Environment and Water has breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Let's take a look at what the Ministerial Code of Conduct says.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Leader of the Opposition helpfully points out that I should be looking at point 2.5.

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Mr Speaker, if you do not mind, I might read this into Hansard.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Are you ready for this?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It states:

Ministers should not make an official decision without first giving due consideration to the merits of the matter at hand and the impact the decision is likely to have on the rights and interests of the people involved and the citizens of South Australia.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Any reading of that—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Giles is called to order, as is the member for Elizabeth.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —would suggest that there has been no breach whatsoever of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. What is asserted by those opposite is that somehow the Minister for Environment and Water—

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright can leave for half an hour under 137A. Thank you.

The honourable member for Wright having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —without any consideration whatsoever, turned up at a meeting and sold out the state. That is what those opposite have asserted. We completely and utterly reject that. If you had been paying attention to the debates this week, we have already gone through this, but I am going to go through it again and I will try to do it as slowly and deliberately as possible so that maybe you might be able to get your mind around it.

The reality is that the Minister for Environment and Water considered the situation that we had, considered the mess that we inherited from those opposite, who presided over the stagnation of negotiations for an extended period of time, he listened to his department and he listened to stakeholders. More than that, more than making a kneejerk reaction, he consulted his cabinet colleagues. He not only consulted and laid out the cause—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —but he sought and received unanimous support from the cabinet and my strong endorsement. So, far from this being—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —a kneejerk reaction, this was a carefully—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Police, do not taunt the opposition.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —considered decision and, I might say, a decision we would make again. If it were tomorrow, we would make exactly and precisely the same decision.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will tell you the reason why. Because, unlike the vacuous arguments put forward by those opposite, we care about the people of South Australia. It is a statement of fact that those upstream jurisdictions had vacated the field. The negotiation, which was, by the way, originally presided over by a state Labor government and a federal Labor government to determine the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and return 2,750 gigalitres of water from irrigators back into the river and then an additional 450 gigalitres of what they call 'upwater' was negotiated by the Labor Party, who asserted, time and time again—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that the 450 gigalitres of upwater—

Dr Close interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —was locked in and guaranteed. Did the royal commissioner find that it was locked in and guaranteed? No way. He said there was no such guarantee. I did not hear anyone from the opposition say—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I would like to hear the Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —'Oops, got that one wrong.' It was not locked in. This Murray-Darling Basin Agreement struck in 2012, to go through to 2024, was all carrot and no stick. There was no way of making those states, if they did not want to return the water, do so. The only way—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to do that was to get cooperation. What did those opposite achieve in their time in government in terms of that 450 gigalitres?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: One.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Did it come from New South Wales?

Honourable members: No.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Or Queensland?

Honourable members: No.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Victoria?

Honourable members: No.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It must have come from the ACT?

Honourable members: No.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Oh, no, they took it off of South Australia. These brilliant negotiators—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —took more water from our river communities in South Australia. But for some reason they were doing a great job.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I tell you what, we will not be taking any—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —lessons or advice from those opposite on how to act in the best interests of the people of South Australia. This is a complex arrangement. People have been bickering and fighting over the River Murray and the Murray-Darling Basin for more than a hundred years.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It was the Howard federal government back in 2007 that passed the Water Act here in Australia. It took some time then until the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was arrived at. Some want us to rip up that agreement. Well, I just say to you that we are not going to be ripping up that agreement: we are going to be fighting for every single drop of water that we are entitled to.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You had your turn. The Leader of the Opposition had his turn. He came in here and read the speech that Kevin wrote for him—nothing from the heart whatsoever—

The SPEAKER: Premier, please!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —more vacuous nonsense from the opposition. We speak from the heart over here. We know what we are talking about. We have an excellent minister who is putting the people of South Australia first.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Your flimsy argument relies on one single issue, which is the Ministerial Code of Conduct, suggesting that there was no consultation or no consideration, and we have just outlined very clearly that there was. We are very happy with the decision that we have made.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Giles is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As we consider this issue of ministerial accountability—and we reject the claim made by those opposite that there has been some breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct—it is probably useful—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to reflect on what a breach of a Ministerial Code of Conduct might be.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Sir, I have been encouraged by my team to perhaps provide some encouragement. For context, I could maybe reflect on this: if a minister kept vital information from the public about our broken health system in the lead-up to an election, would that be a breach?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Industry is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: If a government or a minister failed our most vulnerable younger citizens, I think that would be a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and there should be a recognition. Or, if a minister had comprehensively failed in terms of TAFE in South Australia, out they would go. Or, if they failed our most vulnerable older citizens, it is time to walk the plank. Or, if there were constant verbal abuse and swearing at senior members of the Public Service, surely that would be a breach—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Police is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, requiring—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —the chamber to pass—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —a successful no-confidence motion in that minister. But I did not see any of those opposite voting in those instances to get rid of a minister or supporting a no-confidence motion.

I would, however, ask the chamber to consider where there had been successful no-confidence motions in the past. In fact, there were two—not one but two—successful no-confidence motions passed on the former Labor government's water minister, the Hon. Ian Hunter, in the last session of parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The question is: after he had two successful no-confidence motions passed on him, did he resign?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Goodness gracious me, that is a little bit embarrassing.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is a little bit embarrassing.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kaurna and the member for Lee are on two warnings. The member for Playford is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reality is that the people elected a new government. They wanted a government that was going to move away from petty politicking. They wanted a government that was going to act in the best interests of the people of South Australia to deliver outcomes for the people of South Australia. That is why, at the very first opportunity when the parliament resumed, I came into this house and we moved a motion seeking the support of those opposite, and it was not political. Unlike what we have seen from those opposite this week, it was not political.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It sought to note two important documents for consideration by the parliament: the Australian Productivity Commission report and the royal commission.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reality is that those opposite did not support the motion to note those documents. Then we asked the parliament to support our call for the Prime Minister to call a meeting of first ministers along the basin. Did they come in here and support that? No. Then we said that we needed to get all those jurisdictions back to the table and work in a bipartisan way, and they did not support that. They did not even speak on it. They could not be bothered. Such was their interest in the real outcomes for the people of South Australia that they could not even get Kevin to write a speech on that.

The reality is that this is a very important issue. It is a complex issue. We would do well as a state to work in a bipartisan way—no more petty politicking, no more clinging to seven sentences in a 746-page report where there was no finding, there was no recommendation—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe is on two warnings.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —against the Minister for Environment and Water. We believe he is doing an excellent job, and I ask this house to completely and utterly reject the proposal put forward by the opposition.