MURRAY-DARLING BASIN

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (15:12): My question is to the Minister for Water and the River Murray. Will the minister inform the chamber about the outcome of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting he previously advised the chamber he was attending on 15 November 2013?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:13): I thank the honourable member for her most important question and her ongoing interest in the topic of the River Murray and its health and the health of its communities. Unlike Liberals opposite, the Hon. Ms Zollo has been a strong supporter of Riverland communities for a long time.

As the honourable member said, on 15 November this year I attended the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting in Canberra—probably, for my long sins. There I pushed the case for the continued commitment of and investment by all parties to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, particularly that of New South Wales which has reduced funding by 60 per cent in the past few years and capped funding over the coming years.

Members may also recall that during the last sitting week of parliament the Hon. Michelle Lensink asked a question of me that implied the South Australian government was attempting to pass the buck on these issues when, in fact, we are doing the exact opposite—but, again, that is not unusual for those opposite. The fact of the matter is the state of New South Wales has outlined massive cuts and, if we were to continue our funding at similar levels, we would be subsidising infrastructure and projects on their side of the border—but that seems to be the view that the Liberal Party in this state seems to want to run with: we should be supporting New South Wales and cutting their funding for the authority, and South Australian taxpayers should be stumping up a subsidy for New South Wales. That is the inference I draw from the Hon. Michelle Lensink's question of the day.

It is rather bizarre, I think, that we should be subsidising the state of New South Wales—the state that draws the most water (about 47 per cent of the take is taken by New South Wales), a state that is far more populous and, of course, a state that has done very well over the last few years, thanks to our continued funding of the authority, in spite of their limits. It is absolutely nonsensical for the Liberal Party in this state to say that we should be running along with New South Wales and continue to fund our share but not insist that New South Wales fund theirs.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Everybody should pay.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes, well, the Hon. Michelle Lensink has said that everybody should pay, but of course the answer is that we are and New South Wales isn't.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You're not. You big fibber! You're cutting it. You're halving it.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Liberal Party should be using their connections and calling on their colleagues in New South Wales to share the burden instead of cutting their contributions to the authority—but they won't do that. They never stand up to the eastern state Liberals. They never stand up to the federal Liberals. You have never ever heard the leader of the Liberal Party in this place taking on the issue for South Australia against the New South Wales Liberal Party, the Victorian Liberal Party, or the federal Liberal Party. They never have and they never will.

Cosying up to their political mates in New South Wales must be a bigger priority for the Hon. Steven Marshall in the other place than getting a fair deal for this state. Well, I can assure the chamber that this approach of theirs stands in quite stark contrast to the work of this government, and on 15 November I continued the fight in this regard.

This meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council was the first since the election of the new federal Liberal government, and the meeting included a number of items which will have a significant impact on the management of the basin and on the people of South Australia. As I have said before, I publicly put New South Wales on notice that I would be raising the issue of funding cuts to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, but I also went to tell the council that if the state of New South Wales reverses its decision to cap its funding to the authority at $8.9 million South Australia will maintain our previously agreed proportion of funding.

This could not be further from passing the buck. We, unlike those opposite, will not give up on the River Murray. New South Wales' position is quite simply a terrible outcome for every Australian who relies on the river for their way of life, no matter what side of the border they are on. This decision by New South Wales puts South Australia in a very difficult position. It would mean South Australian taxpayers subsidising the state of New South Wales. It is an outrageous proposition for anyone who purports to have South Australia's best interests at heart and a particularly outrageous proposition for a political party whose election mantra that runs on TVs across our state includes claims such as 'restoring efficiency' and 'ease the cost of living'.

I suppose they are partially correct in some respects: they will certainly ease the cost of living, but only for New South Wales' citizens. They will actually increase it because they are asking the South Australian taxpayers to subsidise New South Wales' contributions to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. So, just those people will benefit—those on the wrong side of the border. The taxpayers and state government of New South Wales will benefit from the state Liberals' propositions here.

The River Murray is perhaps Australia's most important natural resource, and it is time New South Wales and those opposite began treating it as such. The state government, under the leadership of Jay Weatherill, fought hard for a basin plan which would ensure the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, and we are committed to the work being undertaken by that authority. We have fought to get the additional 450 gigalitres of the river water so sorely, even though those opposite told us, Mr President, if you recall, 'Let's settle for less.'

They said, 'No, don't fight for the extra 450 gigalitres, don't rely on the best available science of the day.' They said, 'Take 2,200, that's all we need. We don't need 3,200, we don't need more than that. Let's take the 2,200 that New South Wales is stumping up and we won't get anything more out of it than that. Take the water and run. Settle for second best.' That is the Liberal Party way: South Australia deserves second best—that's all they stand for.

We are committed to the communities of the river and committed to the ecosystems of the river. I am disappointed to report that New South Wales did not come to the table and agree to follow our lead. New South Wales has refused to pull its weight and wants South Australian taxpayers to continue to subsidise the New South Wales government. Nevertheless, despite the outcome of the meeting, we in South Australia will not give up the fight. We will not give up the fight like those opposite have and do time and time again.

It is time for the state Liberals to realise the error of their ways and join us. There is always a spot for you on our side. When you are willing—as we are—to put aside politics and fight for the state of South Australia together, come and join us. Come and join us and fight for South Australia—not for the taxpayers of New South Wales.