No-confidence Motion

Minister for Environment and Water

Debate resumed.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): I rise to speak on this motion of no confidence because I am furious that we are in the hands of a government that has taken its hands off the wheel approach to the extreme of allowing the Eastern States to decide what will happen to our water supply, to our river mouth and to our Lower Lakes and our irrigators.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

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

The honourable member for Waite having withdrawn from the chamber:

Dr CLOSE: The general theory the government tried to cultivate last week is that it is the adult in the room, that while the last government would fight for no reason it would be mature and sensible. Would that that were true. Really being the adult requires experience, it requires judgement and understanding, and it requires knowing who to take advice from and who might know more than you do about an issue. None of those traits was on display when this minister sold our state out in December.

The Eastern States have never been interested in ensuring that the Murray is healthy all the way down its flow. Their interests have always been in maximising what they can take from the river, not what will flow down to the river mouth. This has been demonstrated—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: You're so furious you're reading it word for word.

Dr CLOSE: My words. This has been demonstrated yet again in today's report from the Wentworth group of scientists detailing the New South Wales government's policy of water pumping to avoid sending river water over the border. Someone going into those negotiations needs to understand that and needs to act on it.

The amount required for a healthy river has always been a source of hot debate. This royal commission is going to be very useful in guiding that in the future, but it is safe to say that until today it has been South Australia on both sides of parliament that have insisted and fought for more water to come down the river so that the Lower Lakes and the Coorong remain healthy and so that that salt flows down.

We all know that in 2012 we got that 450 gigalitres inserted, not just because of Jay Weatherill, not just because of the Labor Party, but because the whole community were behind us, with the deafening silence from the then opposition. To get those—

Members interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: You know what? It is a process you have to work hard on, you have to fight for and you have to use the power that you have.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier and Minister for Industry, please!

Dr CLOSE: To get those 450 gigalitres, we need the irrigators upstream to do what irrigators here did here years ago and become efficient in their water use. That is all they have to do—become efficient in their water use. But we know that Victoria and New South Wales, with the complicity of the Liberal-National federal government, have kicked and screamed.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier, please!

Dr CLOSE: Each is terrified that they might be allowing water to go over their borders and they might pay a political price for a benefit here. If one less job was needed because an irrigator changed their processes, this would be a price too high to pay. If they were going to do it through goodwill, they would have done it already. They are going to have to do it because the law requires them.

I think we all understand that farmers and irrigators can do it tough. In a time of climate change and serious drought, they are concerned about what will be asked of them to help protect other parts of the country. For that reason, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—the law—states that the projects must be socio-economically neutral. It defines that as the participation of an irrigator in the project, so the people who have the land can choose to participate. That is critical. We know that there needs to be neutral or positive socio-economic impact, but we know that it is tested according to the law by the participation of the irrigator.

The difficulty is that the wider communities interstate are so concerned that losing water volume will contribute to the decline of those communities that they are opposed to the implementation of those works under this scheme. We know that it may have a wider impact, but it has to happen if we are to have water come down to South Australia. The submissions that the state government—the minister—signed off that were made to the royal commission and to the Productivity Commission recognise this. They stated:

The legal test is deliberately precise. It was not contemplated as a question of whether the final 450 gigalitres should be pursued, but rather a check and balance before deciding on an adjustment.

That is very sensible. That is what we need to back. But the Victorian and New South Wales governments have been touting these criteria that would further constrain this test of socio-economic neutrality, and that is there for political reasons not for ours. It is not for our water, but to try to bind up the water to make sure that there is no project that can get approved.

In its final report, the Productivity Commission gives us the best description of what those socio-economic criteria, which were agreed to by our minister, were aimed at achieving. It says 'a strict "no impacts" test is unworkable', and:

Any definition of socioeconomic neutrality that requires Governments to demonstrate that an on-farm efficiency measure would have no negative impacts is simply an impossible ideal.

In October, we had these criteria—out they came in October; New South Wales and Victoria pushed them out—and they were all about removing the power of the irrigator to be the decider and setting a test that no project could meet. They were about giving such assurances to their communities that the chance of water became an impossible ideal. That is what they were in October, and that is what they were when they were signed off by this minister.

The fact that they were released early meant that we had an opportunity to critique them, and it meant that the royal commission was able to give advice, thinking that they were agreeing with the South Australian government, because that was the submission they had received from the minister in June. In the final day of hearings, in late October, the senior counsel in his summary said:

…the probable death knell for the 450 gigalitres can be found most recently in comments by the Federal Minister, Minister Littleproud—

one of your political allies—

who has suggested there needs to be changes to the definition in the Basin Plan, and also from what has been released recently by the NSW and Victorian governments, who are contending for a change to [the section about that test].

This minister, therefore, had warning of the consequences, warning from people who better understand water and better understand intrastate and interstate politics. Being a grown-up means knowing when you are being played for a fool. Being a child seeking the approval of others leads you to think that you have had a great victory when the other players are laughing behind your back. You can just imagine the glee—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: Stick to the script.

The SPEAKER: Premier, please!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Mawson!

Dr CLOSE: You could imagine the glee when the minister's plane took off from Melbourne, and the Eastern States and the federal government sat around reviewing their utter triumphs.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader has the call.

Dr CLOSE: The truth is that we have a great challenge in getting enough water down the river. We have to face up to that. The Productivity Commission lists two of the challenges to getting that: one is a lack of a work plan to get the 450—that is what the ministerial council should have been doing—and the other was changes to those socio-economic criteria, unduly constraining the program.

Early after the royal commission report came out, I spoke to people in the media, I spoke to people in the environment movement, and they speculated that this was a case of a minister really wanting to get the right result but being bullied out of it through inexperience or lack of knowledge. This cannot be true, because if he really wanted to do the right thing by South Australia he would swallow his embarrassment, swallow the humiliation and the hurtful words from the royal commission, and he would revoke that decision because he would recognise the power of this royal commission.

They are on our side. The words of the royal commission are on the side of South Australians, and we should be grabbing them and using them against the federal government and against the Eastern States, instead of criticising them—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Industry is warned!

Dr CLOSE: —instead of criticising not only the words but the integrity of that royal commissioner.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right, please!

Dr CLOSE: I support this motion because I have no confidence that this minister has the political courage to understand that living up to your responsibilities is more important than your hurt feelings. He should resign—

An honourable member: Oh, my goodness.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: —and let someone who is stronger do the job.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (14:39): I rise to strongly oppose this opposition motion—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am struggling to hear the minister. Please, the minister has the call.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the most important piece of water reform in Australia's history, 100 years in the making, and it is critical in achieving a sustainable water future for South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: The Marshall Liberal government has always said we must have a basin plan, delivered and delivered in full. Although the previous government claimed the remaining 450 gigalitres of the 3,200 under the plan were locked in, other states thought otherwise—and, I note, so did the royal commission.

In December 2018, an historic agreement was struck between the basin states and the commonwealth. In a significant moment for South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales finally agreed to participate in a full range of water-saving projects to deliver the 450 gigalitres. The action taken by the Minister for Environment and Water in December should be applauded.

Make no mistake, if action was not taken there would be significant consequences for the people I represent, the environment and all South Australians. In stark contrast, while Labor was swearing at our interstate counterparts—that is what Labor got out of negotiating, they swore—and having fake fights—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —Victoria and New South Wales had all but walked away from the basin plan—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is warned.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —the single most important piece of water reform in the nation's history, and Labor's continued—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear the minister.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —political spin put the plan in jeopardy. Make no mistake, when the minister went to the ministerial council in Melbourne in December the plan was in jeopardy. Representing our state, with the full backing of cabinet and this government, he negotiated a package to break the stalemate that we had inherited from the previous government. Let's be very clear about this: without the agreement negotiated by the minister, with the authority of his cabinet behind him, the plan would not move forward. Who would that hurt?

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is warned.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: The food producers, families, our natural environment and all those people who rely on a healthy, working river. The December agreement is an incredible achievement for South Australia and for the people of Chaffey. It saw New South Wales and Victoria agree to fully participate in the commonwealth water infrastructure program and one of the key mechanisms of delivering the final 450 gigalitres required under the plan. Critically, this included on-farm efficiency measures, something Victorian Labor, in particular, have been critically opposed to.

We now have a program to address constraints on the delivery of environmental water, and before the ministerial council meeting there was no pathway forward to turn around the declining condition of our iconic Coorong. The minister secured $70 million for the Coorong. What did the opposition secure? How did we break the deadlock Labor created? By bringing the states to the table. This government, acting—

Ms Cook interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hurtle Vale is called to order.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —in a responsible fashion with the commonwealth, led the development of this package that will lead to actual water being delivered back to the river while ensuring that regional communities are not ripped apart—consistent with the original plan.

As an irrigator for more than 25 years, and representing the people of Chaffey, I know how critical the basin plan is to the future of the River Murray, the communities, the food producers and key environmental assets in my electorate that rely on a healthy, working river. The royal commission report creates uncertainty for the people of the Riverland and South Australia. A recommendation for the additional water buybacks would devastate the region, and I am not sure how those opposite would propose to get the basin plan that they were letting slide get back on track. Maybe it would be with buybacks. The food producers of the Riverland are the very people—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader and the Premier, please!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —who put food on the plates of every person in this chamber—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —yet reports recommend more—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —forced buybacks. So where does the South Australian Labor opposition in this state stand on buybacks? We have heard nothing.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is warned.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: We have heard nothing from state Labor on forced buybacks. Labor always claims to be standing up for South Australia, yet here they are, the shadow minister—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader and the Premier!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —completely silent on forced buybacks that would devastate the Riverland and the state's economy, taking more water from the river communities. The Riverland would be the first to feel the impacts if the basin plan did not go ahead as agreed, and that is why this government is working on behalf of my community and South Australian communities to ensure that the plan is delivered in full. The current plan provides many benefits, including critical human needs water, sustainability of water-dependent industries and the communities, improved environmental outcomes and improved water quality. A healthy, working, river is in everyone's long-term best interest.

I remember the Swiss cheese effect of Labor's small block irrigator exit grants in the Riverland. We had dead horticulture blocks on one side of the road, and on the other side of the road there were state-of-the-art efficiency programs in play. The cost of water under the exit program was about $1,700 per megalitre. Today, the comparison is that water has just tipped $7,000 a megalitre. Growers were forced to sell their water and still pay the termination fee. It was completely devastating and we cannot see this happen again.

It is extremely disappointing to see Labor continue to play the political games and the political pointscoring that does not give a future to the basin plan. That is all those opposite are doing today. We have seen the benefits of a bipartisan approach on water. The $265 million South Australian River Murray Sustainability Program is a prime example of that. The plan should be a bipartisan program. Instead, Labor have forfeited $25 million to South Australia as part of the Murray-Darling Basin Regional Economic Diversification Program. The Treasurer saw fit to see the end of that.

That is just another one of Labor's initiatives. They refused the funding to play pointless political games. This government is proud of how we have brought the basin states to the table and worked to move forward with optimism on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The livelihoods of hardworking people in our communities are on the line, and we are getting on with the job in delivering a plan.

The agreement this government negotiated in December is something that the people in my electorate expected, something our environment needed and something that gives all South Australians confidence in the implementation of the plan. Over the course of this parliamentary week, we have seen clearly where the Labor Party really stands on those matters.

On Tuesday, the Premier proposed a motion of great importance to the state regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. On this side of the house, just about every member spoke about the importance of the river. I am proud to be a part of a government that cares about the river and those that rely on it. That is what we heard through that motion, but what do we get from Labor? Nothing. We got silence, no contribution, no consideration—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: We got the same old political pointscoring. Today's charade continues with this baseless attack—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —on a water minister who did negotiate for the best interests of South Australia. The minister has broken the deadlock that threatened to strangle the 450 gigalitres, meaning that there is now a pathway to real water. To put that number into perspective, that is South Australia's annual consumption allocation for a full annual entitlement. The minister has done the hard work required to keep the basin plan on track, working in a mature, responsible way—

Mr Hughes interjecting:

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

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: —with no other jurisdictions. The minister has the full support of cabinet and this side of the house. He is driving delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Labor sold the people in South Australia a lemon. We are working for the river communities. They are relying upon us to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. The plan that has been negotiated will go down in the history books as one of the great achievements in federation. I commend the work of this government.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:48): I must admit, I was in two minds regarding a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Environment. Is it in our interests, as an opposition, to have a minister so tarnished with the stench of adverse comments, findings, conclusions, remarks and sentences—call them whatever you like—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —about his personal conduct, his capitulation to Eastern States' interests and his breach of at least one clause of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, to be the torchbearer for the Liberal Party on environmental issues? It is clear from the royal commission that there is a rot in the government. It is clear that it has been caught early: 10 months. It is in the first term of a new government.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The first term, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The question for us is: do we want this stench to go away? Do we want this stench to be cleansed from the government? Do we want the rot to be removed from a government that has made such an appalling decision? But the truth is that our loyalties are not to the Australian Labor Party first but to the people of South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, yes, alright.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The fake laughter.

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kavel, you can leave for half an hour, please.

The honourable member for Kavel having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The royal commission was warranted because of allegations of water theft, corruption, maladministration, probably by upstream states—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —probably by commonwealth bureaucrats, probably by parochial ministers in Victoria and New South Wales, and the commonwealth government did not want this royal commission to proceed. They wanted it to stop—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and they did not have an ally in the former government, but they had an ally in the new government, and no amount of fake laughter will make it different. The commission—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —is set in stone.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Industry!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The report will stand for generations. What has been said about this minister cannot and will not be unsaid. It will hang around his neck for his entire career. This inquiry will define his entire political presence in this parliament. Not only that, as the leader said—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right, please!

Ms Stinson: Selling us out.

The SPEAKER: Member for Badcoe!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As the Leader of the Opposition said, there is no higher form of inquiry. The commonwealth legislation governing royal commissions makes it an offence to criticise the royal commission—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —during its proceedings and post its proceedings. Indeed, it is against our own standing orders to criticise a royal commissioner. Now—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right, please!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —we knew that this royal commission was set to be released on a certain date.

The SPEAKER: Six minutes left. Let's settle.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We knew that the commission had asked for an extension of time, not more money—not more money. Why is it the Premier did not want an extension of time? Why is it the Attorney-General did not defend the royal commissioner?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Industry!

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Industry is warned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why is it they did not want—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Industry, please!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —the royal commissioner to have another look at what it was minister Speirs did in December? Perhaps these bureaucrats may have given evidence—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Perhaps they were seeing the advice he relied on.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Perhaps they were more worried about him giving more evidence. But I have to say that loyalty is a fine attribute. It is a fine attribute—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and the Premier is showing lots of loyalty today to his minister. I have to say, it is a heroic amount of loyalty that this leader is showing. So loyal—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —broken pairs—he actually had to have a motion on the first day of parliament and then try to blow up proceedings so dramatically to show his support that he made this a bigger story than he thought it was going to be by his own remarks—remarks he read out. He pre-prepared it. Now—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier, please!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —imagine every Liberal MP—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Industry, please!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —saw this loyalty today, every backbencher seeing the loyalty of this Premier to this minister.

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Police!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So loyal. In fact, it reminds me of a comment about the 1993 election. In that 1993 election, Graham Richardson said of my favourite Liberal leader, John Hewson (of whom the Premier reminds me a great deal), that he was stupid and he was stupid often. This loyalty to this minister will hang around the neck of every Liberal backbencher.

What do the Liberal MPs who want a right of veto on farming land think of the Premier wasting so much time and capital on a minister who has had adverse findings in a royal commission? What does the member for Newland think about a Premier who is prepared to go to the wall for a minister—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —who has had adverse findings in a royal commission while he has to defend TAFE cuts—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —bus route cuts and Service SA cuts?

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Industry!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What does the member for King think about this piece of loyalty—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It is almost over.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —by this Premier for that minister when she is out defending Service SA cuts and when she is out defending bus route cuts? What loyalty is shown by the Premier to his ministers but not to his backbenchers?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Every day this stench remains in the government. It remains on all your heads. As we get closer and closer to the next state election, remember this: when the ads are running with the captions from the royal commission about the conduct of your water minister, think of all the constituents you have had to defend to this government.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Premier's man—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: What do you think about your conduct with your water minister, Susan? What about Ian Hunter's conduct, Susan? What do you think about Ian Hunter's conduct?

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Primary Industries will cease interjecting.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —is on his expenditure and revenue committee and now he decides on budget measures—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —while you are all out there defending his decisions. The only time the Premier spends capital is to defend him, not Newland, not King, not the regions and not even the member for Adelaide—a minister in the cabinet. That is absolutely—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —no defence. This minister's career—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Premier, by defending this minister, thumbs his nose at the royal commission, the people of South Australia and, sadly, the lifeblood of this state, our river. If he will not do what is required of him morally and force this minister to resign, the people of Black will take care of it at the next election. Every day, between now and the next election, we will remind them. Minister Speirs' career is over. It is over before it began. He may win this vote today, but he has lost the only thing that matters in politics: credibility.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, one moment.

Mr Pederick: Coming from you? You have no credibility, Tom. What an outrageous statement. What a clown. How many speeding fines, Tom?

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond can leave for five minutes and come back and vote if the vote is on.

The honourable member for Hammond having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I am giving you another 30 seconds.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Thirty seconds. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The minister's career is over. It is over.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right, be quiet!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The house should remove him to save the people of South Australia from him and for their benefit, or leave him there for ours.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (14:57): That was quite an extraordinary performance. It was noteworthy that the member for West Torrens could not even keep a straight face throughout his entire debate—the rot and stench that he puts down with the fig leaf and seven sentences in a 700-page report. The whole basis of a no-confidence—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —motion is set apparently on a failure to uphold the Ministerial Code of Conduct. That Ministerial Code of Conduct has at its centre that ministers should always be focused on the rights and interests of the citizens of South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Order, members on my left!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: So let's talk about the rights and interests of the citizens of South Australia, or indeed the environment of South Australia, or indeed the rights and interests of the communities on the River Murray served in this parliament by members on this side who care deeply about those communities and who are notable in this week—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —having contributed to a motion in this house that calls on this house to speak united as one to the federal government and to other basin states in coming together to work for the interests of the River Murray—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —for which those opposite could not bring themselves to say a word. Indeed, it is two months today—two months it is—since the ministerial council where we came to this agreement backed by the cabinet and backed by this parliament, now noting as we did yesterday in the parliament without dissenting voice, without any voice at all from those opposite, that that agreement was in the best interests of South Australia. That agreement is a pathway to water. That agreement is a necessary compromise that enables us to do better than those opposite did in their 16 years in power.

Let's go back. The Leader of the Opposition spent some time talking about history, more than 100 years of history of discussion about the River Murray and what he characterised as fighting for the River Murray. It is interesting; what does fighting for the River Murray mean? He gave some examples in his speech.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: But the member for Chaffey reminded the house of the way that the Labor Party's—

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe can leave for 10 minutes and come back for the vote.

The honourable member for Badcoe having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —legislative councillor who was the water minister at the time had two motions of no confidence in him passed by the Legislative Council. It had no impact on his behaviour. We all remember, and we were reminded again today by the member for Chaffey—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —of the behaviour of that water minister, who conducted his negotiations in restaurants and late-night establishments on Leigh Street by swearing and shouting at interstate ministers. We turned across the chamber—as the Leader of the Opposition said, yes, he was fighting for South Australia—and we asked: is that something the Leader of the Opposition supports?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Let him deny it if he did not say absolutely that he was fighting for South Australia. At the time, there were some people on the other side who were embarrassed by the behaviour of the former water minister, the legislative councillor. There were some in the Labor Party who said that that was not an appropriate way of behaving, but now we have an understanding—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —of the standards that we expect. If the Leader of the Opposition stays in that role any longer in the Labor Party or, God forbid, ever gets a ministry again, those are the standards we expect from the Labor Party: ministerial standards as exemplified by the member for West Torrens. It is a matter of record, the way he behaved to public servants during his time as a minister. Now we have a Leader of the Opposition defending the behaviour—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —of former water ministers swearing, using absolutely extraordinary language at dinners, after dinners and before ministerial council meetings to counterparts we needed to get to the table. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the extraordinary temerity to talk about the way that adults behave and the way that children behave, yet I have to say that in her two years as an education minister, or in her year since as an education shadow minister—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —she would not be at all surprised if any adult in any room with children behaved the way that the Labor Party's former water minister did. Let's have a look at another former Labor water minister, though, and what she had to say about the way our current water minister handled the situation in question.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The entire case made by those opposite hangs on seven sentences in a royal commission with one set of comments. No finding—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is on two warnings. If this continues, you will be leaving.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Did you see the way that they behaved?

The SPEAKER: Yes, I did—three and two; they have had more removed.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that the Minister for Environment deserved sanction, no recommendation that the Minister for Environment should deserve sanction. A comment is a person's opinion and it is not that of a deity, as has been pointed out. It is worth noting that those opposite and the member for West Torrens seem not to understand that there is a difference between the way—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that we talk about a royal commissioner during the course of a royal commission and after the report has come. At any rate, the question is: did the Minister for Environment behave in a way that upheld the rights and the interests of the citizens of South Australia? He did. Is the decision that was taken in the best interests of South Australia? Those opposite—

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

The SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, you can even up the ledger and leave for five minutes, thank you.

The honourable member for Mawson having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —using that one comment, seven sentences in 700 pages, say, 'No, it's not.' They say, instead, that that deal should not have been done, that negotiation should not have been done and that there should have just been continued argument and continued standing up for the people of South Australia, which is what I submit this minister did. The government is not alone in thinking that getting the other states back to the table was indeed exactly what we meant by standing up for the best interests of the people of South Australia. Having a pathway to water is standing up for the best interests of the people of South Australia. We have tested Labor's plan—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —of how to get 450 gigalitres of water. They got one-quarter of 1 per cent of it: one gigalitre out of 450. Is the rest coming? The Leader of the Opposition is next, but he says yes. When? He says 'eventually'. In this debate today, 'eventually' is the best he can come up with. We have a minister who has New South Wales and Victoria and, rather than shouting at them—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left! Five minutes to go.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —and swearing at them and calling them names, he has brought them back to the table and we have a pathway to 450 gigalitres. We have a pathway to water. You know what? Karlene Maywald agrees with him. When asked on the radio—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —if the minister's behaviour was such that South Australia will significantly miss out now that this test has been applied to the water, as indeed the royal commissioner suggests and as those opposite suggest, Ms Maywald said, 'I disagree entirely.' She then said later:

…if minister Speirs had gone to the table and said, 'Here's my negotiation position. I'm not changing,' well that's not negotiating and what would have happened is the 450 would have been off the table altogether.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Ms Maywald, with whom this side of politics has disagreed extensively over a period of time—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —is able to leave her politics at the door and describe dispassionately what she believes is the right course of action. If the minister has negotiated a sensible course of action—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear the minister.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —then why cannot those opposite? The fact is that we contest that Ministerial Code of Conduct by the actions of those opposite over a period of time. We know that they did not live up to it in their personal conduct. But I come back—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —to that first statement: the rights and interests—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —of the citizens of South Australia. This is a government that is focused on meeting the needs, the rights and the interests of the citizens of South Australia, and we will be judged by our outcomes. We have a KPI to meet to ensure that this minister is able to achieve more than all those opposite did in 16 years. Can he do better than one gigalitre?

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I think he will. I think that he will do better than one gigalitre because that is all—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that was able to be achieved.

Dr Close interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy leader! The minister has the call. Three minutes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Let's not forget that at one point, in 2011, the former premier was saying that nothing less than 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres of water could possibly be acceptable. Then he signed up to an agreement that said 2,750 gigalitres and maybe 450 more. Certainly, the transcripts of the commission do not suggest that there was a lot of expectation that Labor's plan would deliver any more than the one gigalitre it did. What we have in South Australia is a minister who keeps at his heart at all times—as do all our ministers, as do all on this side of the chamber—the rights and interests, the best interests, the best outcomes for the people of South Australia. This is tremendously important.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: We have had two months since this agreement was reached in December, a day on which there was a press conference. There was no hiding this agreement: there was a press conference. It has taken two months for the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition to come into this house and have anything to say. It has taken two months—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —for Kevin Naughton to come up with—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —some talking points on this issue. It has taken an entire parliamentary sitting week for them to come up with talking points, but it is notable. We have a motion of no confidence. It is one of the things about opposition: you have to build up the tenure; you have to build up the pace. Jay Weatherill has talked about this. Pat Conlon has talked about this. They criticised it. They said the thing is that if you are going to have a motion of no confidence on the third day you have to make sure you build up to it. You have to make sure you build up to it—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier will cease taunting the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —while you make sure that you make the case. They had two days of opportunities to start building that case—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier and leader!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —as we debated a motion that was critical to the needs of South Australia's future. They said nothing. They had, in fact, two months to talk about this issue, to talk about this, and they said nothing until the findings of the royal commission came out when they latched on to these seven sentences in a 700-page report. That is all they have. This is why they are arguing so hard about—

Mr Hughes interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Giles!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —the theological implications of a royal commissioner—

The SPEAKER: Theological?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —because if, of course, the royal commissioner is not a deity, as has been suggested, then that is all they have left. That one statement is all they have.

Dr Close interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy leader, please!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: We have a shadow minister for environment who has informed us today—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that she has spoken to some people in the media and she has spoken to some people in the environment movement, and some of them do not think it was a good idea. We have a Minister for Environment who spends his time visiting communities talking with scientists—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left! Nearly over.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —taking advice from his department, taking advice from a range of people, talking to the cabinet, building a position and negotiating with people interstate—doing the job that he is sworn to do. He is an outstanding Minister for Environment. This motion is a joke. The opposition has failed. I urge all members to vote against this stupid motion.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 16

Noes 25

Majority 9

Motion thus negatived.