Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: MURRAY-DARLING BASIN WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

That the report of the committee, on Water Resource Management in the Murray-Darling Basin: Volume 3—Postscript, be noted.

(Continued from 20 March 2013.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:30): Thank you, Mr Acting President, and it is appropriate that I rise to support the motion in your name. I do not wish to add a great deal to the comments made on the last Wednesday of sitting by the Hon. Mr Wortley but, in supporting the motion, I would just give a little bit of background and perhaps some additional information.

In fact, it was very soon after the 2010 election that the then minister for environment and conservation (Hon. Paul Caica) flagged his intentions for the Natural Resources Committee to undertake this inquiry on behalf of the parliament and, sir, you were part of that committee at that stage and you have now returned to us after your higher duties, so you would recall the fact that that was flagged to us around the establishment of the committee after the 2010 election.

As we know from the speech that was made by the Hon. Mr Wortley some three weeks ago, the committee took up the eventual reference from the parliament and got stuck into working on the draft Murray-Darling Basin plan when it was released in November 2011. Of course, it was much later than we had imagined. I think at one stage the committee had been preparing its workload to start on the draft plan in June, so it was many months later.

I think, though, the committee has made a very comprehensive inquiry and part of that inquiry included a range of field trips which varied from Lake Victoria in far western New South Wales—which of course is a significant water asset for South Australia—to the lower lagoon of the Coorong. We did cover a great deal of the Murray-Darling Basin from, as I say, western New South Wales and throughout South Australia and on those trips, we actually canvassed the views of many of the local residents.

The committee supported the general direction of the draft plan inasmuch as it aims to return flow to the river, but recommended the following improvements: salinity targets for Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert of less than 1,000 EC and 1,500 EC respectively for 95 per cent of the time, measured as a rolling average over a 10-year period; water height targets for below Lock 1, with the height of Lake Alexandrina to remain above 0.5 metres AHD for 95 per cent of the time measured as a rolling average over a 10-year period; targets that never allow water height downstream of Lock 1 to fall below mean sea level; and targets that will see the Murray Mouth open with river flows for 100 per cent of the time.

The committee also recommended that, prior to the finalisation of the basin plan, additional hydrological modelling should be undertaken to determine the viability of removing some of the operational constraints that prevent greater quantities of water and rates of flow being made available to the river and, ultimately, to South Australia. That modelling has since been conducted by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources conducted its own scientific review of the MDBA modelling, and this work was peer reviewed by the Goyder Institute.

I will not go on in that regard, but I would say that I think the committee on behalf of the parliament made a very good report. I think it was well informed, and certainly the efforts of Dr Mark Siebentritt in assisting the committee to develop the report were vital to our work. I should say, however, that, during the life of the committee's consideration of this matter, and around the time that we actually received the draft plan, new Premier Weatherill, who was only a month into the job, in what I and many others thought was some grandstanding duplication, announced his high-level task force to look at the MDB Plan.

I was frustrated, but I think not as greatly frustrated as some other members of the Premier's own party, in that really this great task that had been set for the independent multipartisan parliamentary committee to do this work on behalf of the parliament was suddenly overshadowed by, as I say, this grandstanding announcement of this 'wonderful' task force the new Premier had announced. I think that took some of the gloss off the work of the Natural Resources Committee. It certainly did not take any of the quality away from the work of the committee, but I know that some members opposite thought that it was a bit of a slap in the face to what is a well-respected, well-chaired, nonpartisan parliamentary committee. With those words, I commend the motion to the council.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I call the Hon. Mr Wortley to conclude the debate.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:37): Thank you, Mr Acting President. I would just like to concur with the contribution made by yourself and by any other speaker to the resolution. It was a very informative and long-running inquiry, and a lot of good work was done by a lot of people. The good thing about the Natural Resources Committee, of course, is that it comprises not only members of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party but also various Independents, which gives it a very good multipartisan outcome. I think it was a great report, so I would seek that this council approves it.

Motion carried.