Ministerial Statement

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:26): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement on the subject of a correction to the Murray-Darling Basin water recovery claims.

Leave granted.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On Wednesday 2 August 2017 and Thursday 3 August 2017, Mr Tim Whetstone, member for Chaffey, made several incorrect assertions in the other place. On Wednesday 2 August, Mr Whetstone claimed that Premier Jay Weatherill, member for Cheltenham, pledged a 4,000-gigalitre basin plan. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed to by basin governments in 2012-13 ensuring the delivery of the environmental equivalent of returning 3,200 gigalitres to the basin. This plan was a result of extensive negotiation, with some experts claiming the basin needed up to 4,000 gigalitres and others claiming it needed less. The final number of 3,200 gigalitres was negotiated by the Australian government and the basin states to balance the needs of irrigators, graziers, communities and the environment across the basin system. There was never a promise of a 4,000-gigalitre plan.

He goes on. Mr Whetstone continued to put his foot in his mouth with incorrect claims about South Australia's water recovery as part of the basin plan. On Wednesday he said, 'Not one drop of efficiency gains has come from the state government. Not one drop has come from SA Water.' On Thursday he brought it up again by saying, 'SA Water has made no contribution.' Mr Whetstone either does not know or is misleading in his assertions, with 9.2 gigalitres of water entitlement formerly held by SA Water having been transferred to the state and to the commonwealth for basin plan water recovery purposes.

Then there is the suggestion that the South Australian government has not found one efficiency gain to contribute one drop of water to the Murray-Darling Basin. Has Mr Whetstone not heard of the $240 million South Australian River Murray Sustainability program, also known as SARMS? This is, of course, the program the state had developed and delivered in concert with industry, which will contribute up to 40 gigalitres to the state's water recovery target. But why should Mr Whetstone stop there with incorrect statements? He went on. On Thursday 3 August 2017 he said, 'There are no efficiency gains or environmental outcomes below Lock 1,' at Blanchetown.

In reality, the South Australian government has delivered significant projects to build the resilience of our industries as well as our environmental assets below Lock 1 since the Millennium Drought. Upgrades and infrastructure investment continues at managed wetlands between Blanchetown and Wellington.

In this river reach, the Riverine Recovery Project has invested in works and measures to manage eight wetlands, contributing a total of 96 megalitres of water that has been transferred as savings to the commonwealth. The next phase of the RRP proposes to undertake work on a further six wetlands below Lock 1, with water savings from their management estimated at 593 megalitres.

There has also been water recovery for basin plan purposes from entitlement holders below Lock 1 as part of SARMS and other programs. However, the most egregious error from Mr Whetstone came on Thursday 3 August, when he said that South Australia will contribute 38 gigalitres to the 450 gigalitres of environmental water required under the plan.

Mr Whetstone clearly does not understand the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. With respect to the 450 gigalitres, it is important to correct the record and reaffirm that nothing in the Water Act or in the basin plan or in the relevant intergovernmental agreements requires or mandates a particular level of water recovery from particular states or regions. This water is not apportioned to any state or any industry. You would think that the member representing the people of the Riverland would know that.

Participation in the 450-gigalitre efficiency measures program is voluntary and represents an opportunity for individual irrigators to improve their businesses, just as South Australian irrigators have historically done and used improvements in irrigation efficiency to drive productivity growth across the sector.

While it remains open to individual irrigators in South Australia to participate, we expect the 450-gigalitre efficiency measures program to be most attractive for least efficient irrigation practices across the basin which, as we know, tend to be outside of South Australia. South Australia can be very proud of its efforts towards implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and it is important to correct the record and address the assertions made by the member for Chaffey in the other place last week, which are egregiously wrong.