MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:05): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, representing the Premier, a question on the draft Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: This morning, along with large numbers of other members of parliament, I attended the public consultation session conducted by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on the draft Murray-Darling Basin plan. The Premier was in attendance, minister Caica was certainly there—in fact, I think most parties were represented. From this chamber I think that the Hon. John Darley was there, my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks was there and, in fact, all four South Australian Greens MPs were in attendance.

As we have just received in a tabled statement from the Premier in another place, the Premier presented to Craig Knowles, the Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and also federal minister Burke, a copy of the report prepared by the Goyder Institute for Water Research, which showed that the draft water plan if implemented would be inadequate to sustain the environment in South Australia. The Premier in his statement, and I just repeat these brief words, says:

The report states: '...the ecological character of the South Australian environmental assets...is unlikely to be maintained under the basin plan 2,750 scenario.'

And that 2,750 is the proposed allocation of additional environmental water to South Australia. We know that that amount is less than what not just the Goyder Institute but also other scientific groups, such as the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, suggest is needed; and it also reflects the advice that the government would have had from conservation groups, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth and the Conservation Council of South Australia.

Yesterday the Victorian Environment Defenders Office published legal advice that the draft plan is not consistent with the commonwealth Water Act 2007 and therefore it is open to legal challenge; so, we have two important bits of information: one is that the draft plan is not going to fix the South Australian environment; and, secondly, it is probably illegal, anyway. My questions of the minister are:

1. Does the government's own legal analysis agree with that of the Environment Defenders Office, namely, that the draft plan is not consistent with the Water Act? If the advice is similar, what does the Premier intend to do with that advice?

2. If the draft plan is not substantially revised to ensure sufficient water flows into South Australia to maintain a healthy functioning river system, what confidence does the Premier have that federal South Australian Labor MPs and senators will vote in the interests of South Australia regardless of the position taken by the federal government?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions. Indeed, the Murray-Darling Basin plan is an issue that is very important to the Weatherill Labor government, and it is an issue that the Premier himself has taken a very keen interest in pursuing. Just in relation to some general background, I have been advised that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released its proposed basin plan in November 2011 for the public to comment over a 20-week period, concluding on 16 April 2012, and then a six-week review follows by the MDB Ministerial Council, and formal adoption is expected in late 2012.

The plan proposes to reallocate 2,750 gigalitres per year for environmental use to be recovered through a buyback of water entitlements and water infrastructure upgrades and operational efficiencies. The Premier has indicated his wish for a united position from key groups from South Australia and has outlined critical deliverables from the plan; a balance of environmental, economic and social considerations, meeting the river health objectives of legislation; and recognition of past action by South Australia, that is, a capping of the water entitlements and investment in water use efficiency in the past.

Initial analysis, confirmed by the Goyder Institute, whose report was released today, shows that the science behind the water recovery target indicates that the plan is unlikely to deliver critical environmental objectives to South Australia. That is a very serious position for us to be in. This government has been prepared to take this fight to Canberra and to take it all the way. We are hell-bent on defending the integrity of our river, both environmental values and also the very important irrigation communities that depend on that infrastructure. With those few words in relation to the detailed questions that the honourable member has asked, I will refer those to the Premier in another place and will bring back a response.