MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:26): I move:

That:

1. This council notes—

(a) the purpose of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan reforms currently underway is to recover enough water to guarantee a healthy and resilient future for the basin in accordance with the best available science and that there is significant public support for this endeavour;

(b) that Premier Jay Weatherill has publicly stated that he believes 3,200 gigalitres is the minimum amount required for a healthy river;

(c) that the current draft plan and associated bills before federal parliament do not assure a minimum water recovery of 3,200 gigalitres, but only a commitment to return 2,750 gigalitres by 2019, with an additional aspirational target of 'up to' 450 gigalitres to be potentially recovered by 2024; and

(d) that the Dean of the University of Adelaide Law School, Professor John Williams, has noted that 'without strengthening the promise of 450 gigalitres additional water, the SA agreement may turn out to be a castle built on sand', subject to 'intransigence, backsliding and an evaporation of political will'.

2. This council calls on Premier Jay Weatherill to insist on his federal Labor government colleagues enshrining in legislation, guaranteed recovery of sufficient water, as identified by the best available science, to sustain a healthy and resilient River Murray.

Since the Premier announced some little while ago that the River Murray had been saved as a result of his endeavours in working with his federal colleagues, a number of people have begun to question whether all is as it seems and, in fact, whether the amount of water that we are being told is going to be returned to the River Murray for environmental purposes will, in fact, ever be achieved.

The detractors who questioned the Premier's champagne-popping announcement some weeks ago were ridiculed by many as being unpatriotic and un-South Australian, and we were told that we all had to get behind the latest deal the government had struck. Yet it is now apparent that the additional water that was promised as part of the negotiation between South Australia and the commonwealth is not at all certain to be delivered; in fact, the basin plan looks like locking in water that might not be sufficient to achieve environmental objectives in this state.

I note that, even if the federal government lives up to its word and does achieve the 3,200 gigalitre return of water to the Murray-Darling Basin, this will still fail 17 out of 20 of the environmental targets which were set by the South Australian government, which makes their overwhelming endorsement of the current deal somewhat perplexing.

The motion that is before us is quite straightforward. At its heart, it 'calls on the Premier to insist on his federal Labor government colleagues enshrining in legislation, guaranteed recovery of sufficient water, as identified by the best available science, to sustain a healthy and resilient River Murray'.

Members would have been alarmed, I think, to read in The Advertiser, under the heading, 'Public servant lets the cat about of the bag over 3200 gigalitre water promise,' the revelation that the deputy secretary of minister Burke's sustainability, environment, water, population and communities department, Mr David Parker, said that the legislation contained consequences and strong incentives to achieve a return of 2,750 gigalitres of water but that the additional 450 gigalitres was not guaranteed or enshrined. So, that had the alarm bells ringing. Also in the pages of The Advertiser on Monday was an opinion piece that was written by eminent lawyer Professor John Williams, the current Dean of the Law School at Adelaide University. What he said in his opinion piece included the following:

It's important to ensure that the commonwealth's bill fulfils the 450 gigalitre undertaking that has been given to South Australia. There are a number of features of the bill that raise concerns and warrant closer consideration and amendment by the parliament. First, the objectives will be achieved by removing constraints and 'increasing the volume of the basin water resources that is available for environmental use by up to 450 gigalitres'. This means that the 450 gigalitres is a ceiling, not a floor, below which the environmental water can fall. Guaranteeing the 450 gigalitres would require the bill to be amended to state clearly that the objectives will be achieved by 'no less than' 450 gigalitres being returned to the basin. As it stands the 450 gigalitre goal is simply aspirational, and certainly not guaranteed. The 450 gigalitres additional water is intended to supplement the delivery of the 2,750 gigalitres by the basin plan.

The professor notes that this target may itself be reduced in the future. So there we have an eminent South Australian lawyer saying that amendments are desperately needed; and I am very pleased to be able to tell the chamber that yesterday in Adelaide, Greens' leader, Senator Christine Milne, along with Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, did announce that they have amendments prepared that will guarantee the 3,200 gigalitres of water as an absolute minimum to be returned to the environment.

That is not to say that this is an ideal solution. The Greens still believe that the 4,000 gigalitres that was nominated by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists is an amount that needs to be modelled, and all the available science indicates that that was an amount that was far more likely to deliver the environmental outcomes that we want.

The alternative to amending the federal bill is, as Professor John Williams says, that it risks that the South Australian agreement will be subject to 'intransigence, backsliding and an evaporation of political will', and that if those things were to occur, then, in his words, 'the South Australian agreement may turn out to be a castle built on sand'. This is a very simple motion. It calls on the Premier to work hard for South Australia and for the South Australian environment, and an important part of that work will be the pressure that he can put on his Labor colleagues interstate. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.