MURRAY-DARLING BASIN

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (16:37): My question is to the Minister for Water and the River Murray. Does the minister have any concerns regarding the federal Coalition's plan to strip $650 million from the Murray-Darling Basin funding?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you had your opportunity on dairy milk.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:38): Goodness me, they are particularly touchy over there. I thank the honourable member for his most important question. It is a very important question for our state and particularly for the river communities.

In the final week of the federal election campaign, the Coalition announced its plans to strip $650 million in funding from the Murray-Darling Basin, previously earmarked for water buybacks, and push that funding allocation into the out years of the federal budget. This is a slap in the face for our river communities. It undermines everything that South Australians have fought so hard to achieve in relation to the River Murray and the water.

Signing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan represented a significant victory for South Australia, a significant win for the River Murray and a significant win for the communities that rely upon it. We secured, as a state, $1.77 billion dollars in commonwealth funding from the Labor government to recover the additional 450 gigalitres of water required to achieve 3,200 gigalitres of water recovery and to address the constraints in the system.

Importantly, this government secured commitments from the commonwealth government for $445 million in funding for water recovery, industry regeneration, regional development and environmental works and projects in our state. It is now clear that the Coalition government does not take the health of the river seriously, certainly not on the South Australian side of the border, nor do they have any regard for the irrigators in these communities. How else could they commit to something that could delay environmental water flows to our river, environmental water that is desperately needed to restore the health of our river systems?

Those opposite pride themselves on their advocacy for those in those regions, but where were they when this government took up the fight to their Liberal colleagues in the Eastern States for a better deal for the Murray-Darling Basin? They were being asked to forget the Rolls-Royce version we were demanding and to settle for the clapped-out Mazda.

With their track record, we know what the Liberal opposition's response will be to the federal Coalition's announcement: they will accept second best for the state once again. They will let their colleagues in Canberra walk all over them and let their colleagues in the Eastern States dictate how we deal with this most precious of resources. We in South Australia—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We in South Australia remember what it was to be in a drought. We remember the damage done by overallocation of this precious resource. Our irrigators have done the right thing for decades. They are the most efficient in the country, and they deserve better. Our river communities deserve better, and our river deserves better than what this federal government has proposed.

Throughout the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the South Australian government actively championed the interests of the Murray-Darling Basin and its communities. We based our fight on the best available science available to us at the time, and that science said that more water was needed for a healthy, sustainable river. It was a non-negotiable that we needed more water to ensure a healthy river system, to restore environmental values and to provide for viable and productive industries and communities into the future, and it must flow downstream, not stop at the border.

We brought together industry, irrigators, Riverland communities and everyday South Australians who cared about the future of the river and our state. We took the fight with the Eastern States right up to them and ultimately secured a basin plan which secured the health of the basin for long into the future. That required a federal government to work in partnership with us.

What is most concerning about the details of the incoming government's overall position on water buyback is that it remains completely unclear. The Coalition's election costings paper—released, I should say, in the last hours of the campaign—states that it would rephase four years' worth of water buyback spending over six years. However, as the paper includes only budget estimates to 2016-17, the full detail of the new funding profile is not readily apparent to us. I have grave concerns about what will happen after that time—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: And you should have grave concerns, too, the Hon. Mr Dawkins. It is about time that you stood up for those river communities. It is about time that all of you over there stood up for South Australians living on the Murray. But, no, supinely, they will bend over once again to those Eastern States Liberals who control the politics of water.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We will see how well the Liberal federal members of parliament for South Australia stand up for South Australians in the coming months. We will see how well they defend the River Murray and the communities that depend on it, and I have to say that, at this point in time, I have not seen much to recommend them to me. I have grave concerns about what will happen after that time. I understand that the likely effect of this 'rephasing', as it is called, will be to slow and compress the pace of approved water purchasing. This means that the bulk of any remaining water—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Well, no-one's getting any percentage in here. The minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have deep and grave concerns about what will have happen after 2016-17. I understand that the likely effect will be to slow and compress the pace of required water purchase. If this means that the bulk of any remaining water purchase is delayed until the later years of the buyback period (2017-18 and 2018-19), it could result in a risk that there are not sufficient willing sellers during this period and increased risk that the gap may not be bridged by 2019.

This would have implications for states being able to comply with the new sustainable diversion limits in the basin plan from 1 July 2019 and may result in associated uncertainty for basin communities, and the ability for businesses to plan for their future, and a delay in the return of water to the environment. This announcement is also concerning in the context of other proposals to cap buybacks.

I am advised that, in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia on 12 June 2013, then Senator Barnaby Joyce stated that, if it won government, the Coalition would cap water buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres. I am advised that the cap on water buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres is likely to make it more difficult for the gap between current diversion limits, the new basin plans, sustainable diversions limits to be bridged.

The cap will be particularly concerning if it also limited water purchase as part of irrigation efficiency proposals including as part of the South Australian River Murray Sustainability Program. Of course, this is something that the Eastern States Liberals have been pushing on the federal government to adopt. Will those opposite oppose what the Eastern States are forcing the federal government to do? Are they going to stand up for our state and work with us on this side of the parliament to persuade the federal government to achieve better results for the Riverland communities? Recent history suggests that they are not prepared to stand up for South Australia.

We are beginning to see the benefits of these increased flows to the river. The rehabilitation of long-lived vegetation, including iconic river red gums, black box, river cooba and lignum have been observed across the basin and greeted with great joy. I have observed this myself during trips to the region.

Fish are starting to spawn. The Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth are being restored to health. We had record low water levels in the lakes and Goolwa Channel and with that came acid sulfate soils causing concern that the acid in the soil could leach into the river and the waters, acidifying the water body.

The Liberal Party has left our state and its people, its businesses and its industry at the mercy of the climate, which is changing in a way that is likely to lead to more frequent and intensive dry periods into the future. They scoff regularly at what the South Australian government has done to secure our water supply and deliver a healthy river for South Australians.

South Australians deserve better; they deserve a state government that will constantly work with the federal government for what is our right. Liberal Party members in this state do not do it. It only takes a Labor Premier, Jay Weatherill, to stand up to the Eastern States and now we will provide—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Premier Jay Weatherill will lead this state government in the interests of this state and will work with the federal government to make sure, if the Liberals opposite will not work with us, we will work with the federal government to make sure that we get what is our right as a state and the Riverland communities get a healthy river and what was promised to them.