South-East Drainage System

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:13): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Water and a host of other portfolio responsibilities a question—

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Say it Brokey—read out the portfolios.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It just goes forever—a question about the South-East drainage scheme.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Further to my question to the minister a couple of days ago, we now have a report in the Stock Journal today which says, 'Panel says no to levy'. This was a panel chosen by the minister and the government to so-called independently assess—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: No it wasn't.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It wasn't chosen? Oh, I see. So the government didn't—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, just wait one second. Minister, you will have plenty of time to answer his question. Don't answer it while he is actually asking the question. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. This was a 26-member panel that I understand the government supported and endorsed (I will put it that way) and, if that is not the case, then I seek explanation from the minister on that. What we have is a situation where there is a gridlock that needs to be fixed that has gone on for too long through successive ministers of this government. My questions to the minister are:

1. Does the minister agree that the government—that is, the South Australian Labor government—has used 52 gigalitres of water to offset its obligation under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement from water that actually flows into the Coorong from the South-East drainage scheme? Does the minister agree that that is true?

2. If that is true, does the minister agree that that is actually, according to Waterfind (Mr Rooney's business that the Premier, the regional minister the Hon. Mr Brock and young Mr Rooney were happy to be involved with in the opening of their Adelaide office in the last few days), $6.5 to 7 million value and savings to the government? Does the minister agree that that is true?

3. If the minister does agree, therefore, that those two questions are true, then why is the minister trying to hit the farmers and property owners in the South-East for several million dollars—up to $4 or 5 million—when this is for the public good and the government is getting a direct benefit through the water coming from that drainage scheme into the Coorong and offsetting its requirements regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:16): I thank the honourable member for his question, and I will leave aside all of the hypocrisy in his statements, which I have covered well and truly this week. This is a man, as I said before, who can hold two contradictory positions at the same time, depending on which constituency he is talking to. But as I said earlier in this place, I will give my response first to the community panel on the 28^th of this month before I share those words of wisdom with this house. I think that is appropriate. That is what I promised them I would do and that is my commitment.