MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M. Parnell:

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.

(Continued from 14 November 2012.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:50): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this motion and I will deal with each of the points individually. The first point is 1, subclause (a), which states:

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;

The Liberal Party and, indeed, the federal Coalition would probably frame the language slightly differently. We certainly view that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan aims for a sustainable river with a triple bottom line approach, that is that environmental, social and economic concerns are taken into consideration, although primarily the environmental concerns are what is driving the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In that context, sustainability is very important. While we all understand the environmental needs of the basin, the sustainability of irrigation communities is also very important. Subclause (b) then says:

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

On that point, I say that he has said that belatedly, but 'Premier Weathervane' has also stated, I think at the outset, that 'it was 4,000 gigalitres and not a litre less' and that he was going to issue a High Court challenge if that volume was not provided to the system. So, he has changed his position, which is one in a significant list of backflips that he has undergone since he has become the Premier of this state. Subclause (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...

I have no argument with that particular subclause. Indeed, I note that the 3,200 gigalitres was always supported by the federal Coalition as a starting point. Subclause (d) I think is probably just a direct quote, so I do not have any quarrel with that. Clause 2 states:

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.

I think that point is very important, because really it is up to the federal parliament and not just the federal Labor government to ensure that the basin plan is implemented. It is something that has been debated recently and settled recently. As South Australians we need to understand that we have 11 members of 140-something in the House of Representatives, so we are a relatively politically small number of people. I think that our federal colleagues, particularly on the conservative side of politics, are to be commended for reaching agreement and having some sort of deal brokered.

I think it is significant, too, that on the conservative side of politics there are a lot of Coalition members who represent seats that are located within the basin and it is a much more difficult issue for us to try to find some agreement. I particularly commend members of the Coalition and, indeed, our spokesperson (Senator Simon Birmingham) for the work that he has done in gaining some agreement that the federal Coalition, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, will not be opposing the plan. On that point, it needs to be pointed out that the Greens senator for South Australia Sarah Hanson-Young has not played a constructive role in this debate. She is seeking to disallow the plan when there is fairly broad agreement across the political spectrum that the plan should be implemented, and I think it is probably fair to categorise her role in that as a wrecker of the plan.

The Labor Premier had signed up to the deal of 3,200 gigalitres before he had even seen the detail of the plan, so sight unseen he first declared 4,000 and then he signed up to the plan without actually having seen any of the details which I think shows what a weathervane of a premier we have who is quite prepared to agree to things based on politics without having seen the detail. We also need to look back in history to the Howard government which put $10 billion on the table—I think it was in 2007—which was for water buybacks and improvements in infrastructure along the course of the river. Again, that was opposed by this state Labor government which sought to play politics with the failed High Court challenge and, if we look back even further at a state level, the Brown and Olsen governments invested significant funds into infrastructure which improved water efficiency on our side of the border within the Murray-Darling Basin system.

We need to remind ourselves of those things because that sort of foresight could have led to much earlier resolution on these issues and would have led to an outcome which may well have taken place before the drought which has caused some difficulty, particularly for the Ramsar listed Coorong and Lower Lakes. With those remarks, while I am not going to nitpick about some of the detail of the motion, I understand where the honourable member is coming from and so the Liberal Party will be supporting the motion.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (20:57): I indicate the government supports the motion. As we are aware, scientific analysis of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's modelling shows that 3,200 gigalitres, with key restraints addressed, will deliver better outcomes for River Murray flood plains and achieves 17 of the 18 Murray-Darling Basin Authority managed flood plain flow targets in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. The scientific analysis shows that under the 3,200 gigalitres, with key constraints addressed, environmental outcomes are improved for the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth, and South Australia's flood plain shows greatly improved outcomes thereby improving the ability to support healthy flood plains compared with the 2,750 gigalitre benchmark in the basin plan.

On 15 November 2012, the Minister for Water and the River Murray wrote to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia recommending that the commonwealth parliament should consider amendments to the bill to strengthen the bill's intent to enable the recovery of the additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water. A copy of this submission was also provided to the Senate Committee on Environment and Communications. On 19 November 2012, the Senate Committee on Environment and Communications recommended that the words 'up to' before the reference to 450 gigalitres additional water recovery in the objects of the bill be removed.

Minister Burke indicated in his speech to the Press Council in Canberra on 22 November 2012 that he would be introducing amendments to the bill to strengthen its intent. He said work is being done on amendments to the bill to make sure the bill itself accurately reflects the government's commitment to returning 450 gigalitres and that it will be made clear.

In addition, as an outcome of discussions with the Premier, minister Burke wrote to the MDBA requesting changes to the basin plan to include reference to an additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water above the 2,750 gigalitre benchmark in the current basin plan, along with the 3,200 gigalitre environmental outcomes to be pursued.

The final basin plan as made by minister Burke on 22 November 2012 reflects the changes sought by him and underpins the commonwealth's commitment to return 3,200 gigalitres as announced by the Prime Minister in October 2012.

I should also make mention that, in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin plan itself, like all in this chamber, I am pleased that the government's Murray-Darling Basin plan has now been guaranteed clearing its final hurdle by the opposition in the federal parliament. I understand that the opposition has stated that it will enjoy their support. I believe the river is far too important to South Australians to be playing politics with it, and I acknowledge the work of the South Australian opposition members in bringing about the support of the opposition for this plan. This is a significant win for South Australia in its fight for the Murray.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:01): This will be a very brief summary. I would like to thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Carmel Zollo for their contribution. It appears that we are all in furious agreement in relation to the words of this motion, but for very different reasons. We have each, it seems, put our own unique interpretation on what the motion means. The Hon. Carmel Zollo takes the operative provision of the motion, which calls on Premier Jay Weatherill to insist on his federal Labor government colleagues to enshrine sufficient water in legislation.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo says, 'Well, he's done it.' I beg to differ; he has not done it. In fact, he has been part of a deal stitched up with Barnaby Joyce and others in the federal parliament which, in a worst-case scenario, could see even the 2,750 gigalitres reduced to as low as 2,100—remarkable. Yet, having stitched up The Advertiser and having managed to get a feeling out there in some parts of the community that the knight on a white horse has saved the River Murray, I think it is quite disgraceful that the truth of this deal, this plan and the amounts of water involved has not come out sufficiently.

I will correct the record in relation to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's comments when she referred to my colleague, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, as not playing a constructive role and being a wrecker. I would point out that the starting position that the Greens took was a few years ago with the original science. I think there was the CSIRO and a few others. We started at 7,800 gigalitres and we ended up with 4,000, which the Wentworth Group said was the bare minimum needed to bring the river back to health.

However, in more recent times the Greens actually accepted the 3,200 gigalitres. What my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has been doing in the federal parliament is trying to lock in a guaranteed minimum of 3,200 gigalitres, and clearly that has not succeeded. Today, the old parties joined together and voted against the Greens. The 450 gigalitres extra is absolutely aspirational. Whilst I am not a betting person—the Hon. Rob Lucas has taught me that betting with one's parliamentary colleagues is usually a poor deal—I bet that that water will not be seen, that by the year 2024, that 450 gigalitres will not be seen. Hopefully I will be here to say 'I told you so' to the Hon. Carmel Zollo and others.

I think the role of the Greens needs to be recognised, and I think history will recognise that we were the ones standing up for the environment and for the science. The deal that has been struck is a deal to try to preserve seats in the upstream parts of the catchment in New South Wales and Queensland and it has been at the expense of South Australia and its environment.

So, whilst I am pleased at one level that this motion will have, I think, unanimous support, I am disappointed that the way things have turned out in Canberra has meant that we have a suboptimal outcome. I think we need to do what a former premier once invited us to do—that is, to pray for rain and to do it daily.

Motion carried.