House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Murray-Darling Basin Plan Murray-Darling Basin Plan Dr CLOSE House of Assembly Port Adelaide Deputy Leader of the Opposition Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:42): I want to use my opportunity to speak in parliament this afternoon to go through what has become the very sad story of the Murray-Darling Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. People will remember that, in order to get South Australia's agreement to be part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the other states and the commonwealth agreed that there would be an additional 450 gigalitres that would be assigned to the environment and would be largely for the benefit of the Lower Lakes, the Coorong, the Murray Mouth and generally for the health of the South Australian environment. That agreement was contingent on being able to find the water through water efficiency projects. Unfortunately, what we have experienced since that agreement is three very bad blows—strikes, if you will—against the chance that South Australia will ever see the 450 gigalitres, or certainly not see it by 2024, which was the original deadline. The first of those blows was when the Marshall Liberal government signed up to additionally complex criteria on top of the very simple criteria that existed in law in the plan for approving these projects. These additionally complex criteria were put forward by the Eastern States (by New South Wales and Victoria), states that had been clear from the start that they did not want to send the 450 gigalitres. Having said that clearly, and having in that context advanced these complex criteria for the South Australian government to agree, it was in fact, as the royal commission found, an act of betrayal to South Australia's interests. The second blow against the chance of South Australia getting the full 450 gigalitres was when the commonwealth government, relatively recently, decided that no on-farm efficiency projects would be considered—nothing on farm, be it changing over the irrigation method from open-cut channels to dripper systems—that none of that kind of work would be funded by the commonwealth government in order to deliver the 450 gigalitres. There were very strong words from the minister and the Premier when that was announced. They said that they were disappointed. I think we can really measure how much they felt about it that they went so far as to raise any criticism of the commonwealth government—that they were disappointed. The third blow is the off-farm projects that we are now reduced to. We are now reduced to off-farm projects. People often ask me, 'What on earth are off-farm projects that are water efficiency projects?' Most of the projects on the list of 34 that have been identified are things like bridges. It is very important, no doubt, for primary production and for other freight transport that bridges will be expanded and reinforced and made capable of delivering heavier vehicles. Of the 34 projects that are currently being considered as off-farm water efficiency projects, only three mention water savings. That is very worrying. The minister, in response to the question about this, suggested that this is a larger list, and it may well be. He may well be right that it is a larger list than just those projects for water efficiency, but that still leaves us with the fact that currently it appears only three of the projects that we are aware of are likely to give any water for the River Murray and for the environment in South Australia. What has been the result of these three strikes? First of all, the federal government has spent $68.1 million delivering around two gigalitres of water. If I were the environment minister in the state, I would want to ask questions about whether that money had been well spent. The second result we have seen is that an independent report prior to the cancellation of the on-farm irrigation found that, at most, we would see 60 gigalitres of the 450. I expect that would be revised, knowing that no on-farm projects will be supported by this federal government. When asked how much water he has delivered since he did this deal, the minister I think said that there is an agreement for 15 gigalitres, as if that is a great triumph. Fifteen gigalitres is better than zero gigalitres, but it has not been allocated, as far as I can tell from his answer. It has not been recovered, and 15 is a very long way from 450. My view is that, until we no longer have a National Party person as the minister for water in the commonwealth and until we have a strong South Australian government prepared to stand up for our interests, we will not see that 450 gigalitres. Let it be on the record that I desperately want us to. Time expired.