Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (14:49): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier update the house on the South Australian government's renewed response to the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (14:49): Yes, we have issued a new response to the Murray-Darling royal commission, which might seem a little odd given that the commission reported in 2019. But it has come not only at the perfect time to have a more comprehensive and fulsome response to a very important royal commission for the future of South Australia but also at a time when we are on the cusp of making significant advances in delivering the plan.

We need to marshal all the advocacy we can to make sure that politicians in Canberra are listening because, as here, the upper house, the Senate, is not controlled by the government. So we are going to be looking for every Liberal, particularly Liberals from South Australia, and every crossbencher to consider the merits of what is being put forward to finally make the changes required to deliver the plan.

The Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission, many will recall, was initiated because of theft of water but rapidly was expanded to understand the nature of the plan and the extent to which it was or was not being delivered. The answer is it wasn't being delivered in anywhere near the levels required. The recent announcement of the need to extend time lines, which is part of what is before the parliament in Canberra, comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention from before the commission, then the commission and, of course, numerous productivity reports as well as the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which keeps having the red lights warning this thing is not being delivered.

The royal commission emphasises that law and science ought to be at the basis of our response. It shouldn't be politics, and it certainly shouldn't be interstate irrigators' views that every drop of water that goes over the South Australian border is somehow wasted. It should be based on the law, which says this plan must be delivered, and on science, which says it must be delivered because otherwise we won't have a sustainable Murray-Darling Basin.

The royal commission report goes into some detail on the various numbers that one may have heard of. I always run out of time when I talk about the Murray-Darling Basin, but it is a 3,200 gigalitre plan, with 605 gigalitres that has been set aside for various projects that will deliver water-like activities, many of which are yet to be delivered by the other states and which have been extended if the law changes.

The reason that's important is because, if they are not delivered, all irrigators will lose allocation. South Australia at the moment has overdelivered its amount of water for that part of the plan and therefore is not at risk of having to lose much unless there is significant shortfall, in which case interstate inaction will fall on our irrigators as well. Crucially, the 450 gigalitres needs to be delivered. We have delivered something like 26 gigalitres being contracted in all the 10-odd years of this plan being in existence, when 450 is the target.

If ever you needed proof that continuing to do the same thing that is unsuccessful is the definition of stupidity, have a look at the people who are arguing that we shouldn't change our approach in how to deliver the 450 gigalitres. The royal commission has argued cogently and powerfully and based on law and based on science that buybacks as well as efficiency measures need to be part of how we deliver those 450 gigalitres. Anyone in South Australia who cares about the Murray needs to use that response as the evidence base to lobby everyone in Canberra to get that law changed or we will never have that plan delivered.