Grievance Debate

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:30): I rise to talk about the sad, sad tale that is the Murray-Darling Basin and, particularly for South Australia, the fate of the River Murray. We know that the basin is overallocated and that being overallocated is unsustainable. This would be the case anyway, but it is particularly and acutely a problem given the rapid onset of serious climate change.

Back when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was first being established, they tried to work out how much water the environment needed, and they came up with a figure of 750 gigalitres. It was manifestly not enough, but 750 gigalitres was all the other states would come up to. South Australia kicked up. South Australia didn't capitulate. South Australia said, 'You know what? We're not going to sign up. We're going to oppose this,' and through that process got 450 gigalitres added to the figure.

That is still not enough, but it is as much as we could get. It will make a material difference to the quality of the environment and therefore the health of the River Murray all the way up into the basin. That 450 gigalitres was to be delivered through efficiency projects—on-farm efficiency projects—whereby, for example, if a farmer in the other states was still using open-cut irrigation or spray-arm irrigation they could have drip installation put in, paid for by the federal government, and give some of the water that they saved to the environment making up, we hoped and expected, 450 gigalitres by 2024.

The socio-economic criterion that was established in the plan that was law, that is still law, is simply that an irrigator, the owner of the land, wanted that to happen. If they wanted it, then that was good enough, that was a good socio-economic outcome and it would be funded. However, New South Wales and Victoria have done everything they can from day one to oppose the 450 gigalitres, and one of the ways they tried to do that was by imposing onerous complex criteria that would make it harder for any such efficiency project to get supported.

South Australia resisted all the way until the sudden capitulation in December 2018, and that drew the now famous rebuke from the royal commission, and I quote:

It is nothing short of a capitulation to the interests of the current Commonwealth Government, and those of Victoria and New South Wales. It is so contrary to the interests of South Australians that the decision by the Minister responsible—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Chaffey!

Dr CLOSE: I continue—

is almost certainly a breach of at least [clause] 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the leader!

Dr CLOSE: The Premier's response to that—in parliament only, never repeated outside—was to call that finding by one of the top three barristers in Australia—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: —the royal commissioner and a top legal mind—ludicrous and nonsensical. So what happens? We have these pages of criteria, these hurdles for the projects to clear, and we have no projects. David Speirs, in the meantime, said, 'It's alright, the water is coming.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader will resume her seat. The member for Chaffey will leave for 20 minutes in accordance with standing order—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. The deputy leader has the call and the deputy leader is entitled to be heard in silence.

The honourable member for Chaffey having withdrawn from the chamber:

Dr CLOSE: The interim deadline of 62 gigalitres by mid-2019 comes and goes—not met. Still, 'Oh no, the water is coming. The water is coming.' In 2020, an independent report goes to the federal government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens on a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I hate to do this to you, sir, but the member for Chaffey on his way out was making gestures and mocking your ruling, in my opinion.

The SPEAKER: I did not see any gesture, nor did I observe any indication of dissent in relation to the ruling. I will consider all available evidence and, as may be required, come back to the house. I have the point of order. The member for Lee, on the point of order?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Speaker, thank you for your consideration. I just draw to your attention previous rulings by the last two Speakers of the house, the current member for Hartley and the former member for Croydon, who established a precedent of naming a member should they wish to give another member a send-off when they have already been asked to leave under standing order 137A.

The SPEAKER: As I have indicated, I have the point of order and I will consider all the available material with a view to considering the matter. On the point of order, the Minister for Innovation and Skills.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This was before your time, but one of those members who was named was then allowed back in the chamber because it was considered an error and an overreaction, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There has been—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Szakacs: Where's the veto?

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Cheltenham! There has been some—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee will cease interjecting. There has been some, shall we say, opportunity for clarification on both sides in relation to the point of order raised by the member for West Torrens. I have the member for West Torrens' point of order. I have indicated what I will do about that. With the concurrence of the house, I will consider the available material and return to the house. The deputy leader has the call. I am conscious of the interruption.

Dr CLOSE: So, to return, in 2020 an independent report went to the federal government and said, 'This 450 gigalitres is in real trouble. At most we estimate you will get 60 gigalitres by 2024.' David Speirs still says, 'No, everything is fine because my mates are going to look after me.' Yesterday, the federal government declared it will not fund any on-farm water efficiency projects. Those farms in New South Wales and Victoria that could have had efficiency projects installed will not have them paid for by the federal government because the federal government has chosen not to help get the 450 gigalitres.

We are now left with off-farm water projects. I have had a look at those water projects and some of them are bridges. They are bridges on the report that are listed to handle modern-day agricultural machinery. As long as we have a National Party MP as the federal water minister and a weak South Australian minister, we will be treated as irrelevant, and South Australia cannot afford to be treated as irrelevant on the River Murray. If the River Murray starts dying from the Murray Mouth, from the Coorong, up the Lower Lakes, it will make its way up to the other states. They are living in a fool's paradise if they think that they can get away with ignoring the interests of South Australia and ignoring the interests of the environment.

Here is what we must do. We must withdraw support for those criteria, exactly as recommended by the royal commission. We must change the plan so that the Barnaby Joyce cap on buybacks is abolished, and we have to get ready to go to court. We are going to have to lawyer-up in order to have our interests, which means the environment's interests, protected.