MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M. Parnell:

That this council—

1. Notes the likely release in November of the draft basin plan by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority;

2. Notes the concerns of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists about the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s basin plan process;

3. Notes the important work and findings on water reform prepared by the Goyder Institute commissioned by the South Australian government;

4. Notes that South Australia’s position at the end of the River Murray exposes our state to serious risk of harm unless there is a commitment to river flows that are sufficient to ensure a healthy river system;

5. Recognises that the basin plan is the single biggest opportunity to reform the management of the Murray-Darling Basin and ensure a healthy river, healthy productive communities and a long-term future for irrigation in the basin; and

6. Calls for a guaranteed minimum sustainable river flow to ensure a healthy, working River Murray that is based on the best available, peer-reviewed science.

(Continued from 28 September 2011.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:46): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this motion. I would say at the outset that there is a lot of merit in what the various clauses in the motion state, in that, yes, we should note the likely release this month of the basin plan by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—obviously of huge interest to all Australians, but particularly to South Australians.

The second point is to note the concerns of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a meritorious group of scientists who are held in high regard. On that point, I would also refer to the briefing that we held recently which was organised by the mover of this motion, which was indeed worthwhile to continue debate on the progress of the basin plan.

The third point is to note the important work and findings on water reform prepared by the Goyder Institute. Again, that is something which is worthwhile. No. 4 is to note the position of South Australia at the end of the River Murray and the risk to this part of the river system unless there is a commitment to river flows. The fifth point is to recognise that the basin plan is the single biggest opportunity to reform the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, and the sixth paragraph is also laudable.

There is one glaring omission, however, in this motion, which is why the Liberal Party will not be supporting it; that is, that South Australia has many reasons to be afraid that we will not be given due consideration in the basin plan. The principal reason for this is that 2008 appears to be the stepping-off point for base allocations for states, which flies in the face of previous COAG and state agreements, particularly the agreement of 1994-95, which was to freeze all surface water extractions. That agreement has been subject to great abuse, particularly by New South Wales, which has continued to issue groundwater licences and permit flood plain harvesting.

The Liberal Party resolves that we reserve our right not to accept a basin plan which fails to recognise the following components: that South Australia has had a cap since the 1970s; that we have invested significantly in both delivery systems and on-farm application systems; and that our irrigators have very little room left to make gains from efficiencies. We certainly agree that there should be minimum flows and minimum end-of-river flows, but our irrigators need to receive equitable treatment with basin irrigators in other states. We hold very grave concerns about what will be in the content of the draft basin plan, and therefore will not be supporting this motion.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (20:49): I rise to indicate that the government supports the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion, for the following reasons.

The Hon. M. Parnell: Hear, hear!

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: It is a very good motion, Mark. The South Australian government supports the need for the Murray-Darling Basin plan, and has always supported the use of best available science to underpin the development of the plan. The state government put the River Murray on the COAG agenda and has consistently fought for the management of the river to be based on science, not politics. The government has always maintained that South Australia has the most to lose if we do not get the basin plan right.

Science is so important that the government commissioned the Goyder Institute for Water Research to undertake a high-level scientific review of the implications of the Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan for South Australia, examining the three environmental water recovery scenarios of 3,000 gigalitres, 3,500 gigalitres and 4,000 gigalitres proposed in the guide by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

The review found that there are environmental, social and economic benefits for South Australia under the guide's three proposed scenarios. However, water recovery scenarios of 3,500 gigalitres and 4,000 gigalitres are more likely to meet the environmental water requirements of South Australia's key environmental assets—the Riverland-Chowilla Floodplain and the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. These volumes would increase the likelihood of maintaining or improving the health of the river estuarine and flood plain environments.

The work done by the Goyder Institute has been provided to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to help inform the development of the proposed basin plan and to ensure a clear scientific evidence base for the basin plan. It will definitely also be used by this government in formulating its response to the proposed basin plan.

If the proposed basin plan includes scenarios less than 3,500 gigalitres, South Australians would need to be convinced that the volume would be capable of delivering both the Murray-Darling Basin Plan Authority and the South Australian government's environmental water requirements for our key environmental assets and deliver other key objectives including salinity and water quality targets. At this point in time there is little evidence of this.

These are the cornerstone issues being addressed through the commonwealth Water Act and the basin plan. The basin's water resources are overallocated and further impacted by prolonged drought. These impacts will be exacerbated by climate change. We in South Australia have seen these effects firsthand on our communities and on our iconic environmental assets. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of the basin plan as a critical next step in the process of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin, which started with the cap in the 1990s.

In the face of ongoing water security concerns, long-term climate change and continuing environmental decline, we need to restore the balance and achieve fundamental and sustainable change, including returning sufficient water to support sustainable outcomes. We must do this so we can ensure water security for all users, so that we can have a healthy environment, sustainable food production and vibrant communities. If we do not improve the health of the basin's water resources and ecosystems, we will not achieve these outcomes.

This is not a choice between having a healthy river or a productive irrigation community, as without the former there will be no long-term future for the latter. In doing so, we need to recognise that reduced water diversions for consumptive purposes will have an impact on some communities. The state government has maintained that South Australia is the moral compass of the river and that past irrigation efficiency practices must be recognised. These issues will need to be recognised when setting sustainable diversion limits for South Australia and through the commonwealth government's support to help those communities transition and adjust.

The commonwealth's commitment to invest in bridging the gap between current diversion limits and new diversion limits under the basin plan is an important element of this support. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we must grasp in both hands. I support the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion and I urge all other members to do likewise.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:55): I thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars for his excellent contribution and his support for the motion, and I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her contribution as well. I just note, in relation to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's contribution, she did not actually disagree with anything that was in the motion. Her point was that she thought there may have been some other pieces of background information that could have been acknowledged.

Well, of course there could have been; however the crux of this motion is quite straightforward. It is calling for a guaranteed minimum sustainable river flow to ensure a healthy working River Murray that is based on the best available peer-reviewed science. That is really the thrust of this motion. Let the science inform the plan. Let the science be the basis of the allocation plan.

We know from what the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists told us when they were here in the parliament not that long ago that 4,000 gigalitres is necessary; 2,800 is not enough. Even with 4,000, we are going to see wetlands die. We are going to see some species go extinct, but at least that amount gives us a fighting chance of keeping the river going.

I acknowledge that the new Premier has certainly been talking tough in relation to his anticipated response to the release of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. We have, of course, heard similar language before, but I am prepared to give the new Premier the benefit of the doubt and I look forward to a multi-party response to the plan. If it comes out and is not based on science and sells South Australia down the river, we need to all get behind the best possible science. With that brief summing up, I would urge all honourable members to support this simple motion that really should be unanimously supported by all of us representing the state of South Australia.

Motion carried.