MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:43): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Water and the River Murray a question about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On the last day of sitting, in response to a Dorothy Dixer question, the minister congratulated his government on securing an additional 450 gigalitres of water under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, bringing the total commitment to 3,200 gigalitres. I asked the minister back then by way of a supplementary question: is the additional 450 gigalitres that he referred to guaranteed or is its inclusion in the plan better described as an aspirational target? The minister replied:

...I can advise that the 450 gigalitres has been locked in as a result of our Premier campaigning for a better outcome for our state.

I am going to try again. My questions to the minister are: is the guaranteed minimum figure of 3,200 gigalitres included in the commonwealth legislation and, if so, where, and can he name the section? Secondly, if the 3,200 gigalitres is not included in the legislation and the only guaranteed figure is the original 2,750 gigalitres, how can the minister assure this council that the water will actually be delivered to South Australia?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:45): Let me try to help the honourable member once more, and I thank him for his most important question. As I have said many times before in this place, and as I am quite likely to say many times into the future, given the tangent of these questions, the final Murray-Darling Basin Plan represents a fantastic and significant victory for South Australia. The Premier and the former minister for water and the River Murray led a successful campaign. The Hon. Jay Weatherill led a successful campaign that united our state, which brought together government, irrigators and Riverland communities and led to significant changes to the draft plan. Our demands, as always, were based on the best available science, and I will repeat that phrase ad nauseam because it was, which shows—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The best available science is the only thing that rational governments can base their decisions on, the Hon. Ms Lensink—which shows that 2,750 gigalitres was insufficient for the health of the river and that 3,200 gigalitres was required to ensure the health of the basin. Those opposite begged us not to push for a better deal for the state, they continue to cavil at such a thing and they won't stand up for South Australians. They are supinely prepared to go with whatever the Eastern States, or indeed their federal counterparts, demand of them, but that is not what happens in South Australia. We will stand up for the state and we will continue to do so.

Members opposite were prepared to accept a plan which would have failed to ensure the health of the river and they would have tried to have sold that to the state as being a positive outcome. Of course, they deserve to be seen for what they are: supine, absolutely lacking in backbone, refusing to stand up to their party at the federal level, refusing to stand up to their party in the Eastern States governments and they will never ever stand up for South Australia.

Throughout the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan the South Australian government actively championed the interests of the River Murray and its communities, seeking a level of water recovery that ensures a healthy river system, restores environmental values and provides for viable and productive industries and communities into the future. The Premier established the Murray-Darling Basin Plan task force, comprised of key ministers, chief executives from across government, as well as the chief scientist and the chair of the Goyder Institute for Water Research, to oversee the coordination of the state's response to the basin plan.

The task force led to the development of the state government's policy positions and formal submissions on the basin plan based on science, expert policy analysis and community input. The government made four formal submissions on the various iterations of the draft basin plan, as well as submissions to five related parliamentary inquiries. Did the Liberals opposite make any submissions to parliamentary inquiries at a federal level? How many did they make? I am not aware they made any. I am not aware they made a single submission.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Clearly, the accusation that the Liberal Party in South Australia stands for nothing has hit home. Importantly, the government undertook significant community industry engagement, including the Fight for the Murray campaign, which saw over 19,000 people pledge their support, attracted over 28,000 followers through Facebook and Twitter and resulted in over 5,000 letters demanding a better plan be sent to the Prime Minister. These efforts, the efforts of the whole community of South Australia, absent those opposite, delivered a better basin plan for our state.

Everyone who was involved in the campaign—river locals, South Australians concerned about the future of our most important natural resource—deserve our congratulations. They achieved a great win for South Australia, including complementary commitments that will support improved environmental, industrial and community outcomes in South Australia, as well as basin wide. There is now a commitment to return more water to the River Murray so that environmental outcomes consistent with recovering 3,200 gigalitres of water can be achieved. This is written into the basin plan.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Again, the Hon. Ms Lensink cavils about the use of science. She says science doesn't matter. You make a statement; don't worry about backing it up with scientific information. Should scientific information enable you to do it more efficiently or come up with a different answer, she says ignore it. That's not how we operate, Mr President.

The plan includes improved salinity targets and minimum water level objectives for the River Murray below Lock 1. The plan requires the authority to develop a constraints management strategy to remove constraints to successful environmental water delivery. I am advised that $1.77 billion in commonwealth funding has been committed to recover the additional 450 gigalitres of water required to achieve 3,200 gigalitres of water recovery and to address constraints.

I do not know what other guarantee the honourable member wants in the answer to his question. The commonwealth has put $1.77 billion on the table to guarantee this water. I think that is probably worth a lot more than something that the honourable member says he wants in writing—$1.7 billion of commonwealth money is on the table to find that extra water.