Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (14:32): My question is for the Minister for Water and the River Murray. Will the minister outline the progress on ensuring the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan occurs on time and in full?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:32): I thank the honourable member for his very important and indeed topical question. As you would know, the South Australian government is committed to the implementation of the basin plan in full and on time. That means a full 3,200 gigalitres of water.

Just last week, this council suspended question time and debated a motion that was brought forward by the Hon. Tammy Franks in support of the basin plan and an independent judicial inquiry into allegations of water theft and conspiracy at the highest levels of the Public Service in New South Wales, as aired last month on the Four Corners program that we talked about.

It is very disappointing, therefore, to learn that last night and indeed just this morning in the federal parliament, federal Liberal MPs have either voted to not talk about the motion, as in the case of the House of Representatives, or voted against the motion, as in the case of the Senate.

Honourable members: Shame!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is shameful, as honourable members are murmuring all around me in the chamber, that South Australian Liberal senators and members of the House of Representatives would not want to support a motion to establish an independent judicial inquiry so that we can get to the bottom—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: What've they got to hide?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As the Hon. Justin Hanson says, what have they got to hide? We have to get to the bottom of these allegations that, on the face of them, undermine the very Murray-Darling Basin Plan that Liberal MPs claim to support.

Last week, we heard Liberal state MPs crying foul that they had not been invited to stand in solidarity with MPs from across the political divide in support of an independent judicial inquiry. I explained at the time that the event the Premier called together was actually to call together our South Australian senators, knowing that this debate had a bit to play out in terms of the federal parliament.

Here we see just how much our South Australian federal Liberal MPs and senators really care about getting to the bottom of these allegations. We have that answer: they are crocodile tears that are exposed for everybody to see. The Liberals do not want to stand with MPs from across the aisles, from other parties, South Australian Liberal MHRs and senators standing as one. They do not want to stand as one with the rest of us in solidarity for our river or the system that we all depend on. They do not want to stand in solidarity with us and call for an independent judicial inquiry, which is, at the end of the day, the only way the community can have faith and confidence that the basin plan is being supported at the highest level.

Every single Liberal MP in the federal parliament turned their back on this state, on the very community that they claim to represent, by voting against the motion in the Senate that called for a full investigation into these issues or, in the case of the House of Representatives, not even allowing the debate to happen. South Australians have every right to ask questions of the member for Boothby, Nicole Flint, the member for Barker, Tony Pasin, the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, who as I said would not even allow debate on the motion today in the House of Representatives.

Of course, we know that Senators Birmingham, Ruston and Fawcett all voted against the motion, which had support right across the aisles except, I think, from One Nation. Why will these Liberal MPs not stand up for our state? Why will the South Australian Liberal MPs not stand up for South Australia? All of us know that the Murray-Darling Basin system underpins our economy and provides our drinking water and our irrigation water. It provides across the nation these services for millions of people. Why should big cotton or rice growers not have to adhere to the same rules and regulations that our irrigators in South Australia have to adhere to, that all users along the river system have to adhere to? Why will the Liberals not allow a full investigation into this big irrigators' take from our river system?

We know that the terms of reference that have been released are far too narrow. We know that the allegations aired on Four Corners are just the tip of the iceberg. We know that the reviews announced by Mr Joyce, our Deputy Prime Minister, and the minister in New South Wales, Mr Blair, will not have the power to compel witnesses. They will not have the power to call for and demand documents. The current terms of reference I mentioned in this place previously for reviews in New South Wales, and I think in terms of what the MDBA is being asked to look at, cover a very tiny period of time.

One can only ask oneself why the reviews are focusing on just a four or five-day period when we know that these abuses, from the allegations raised on the TV program, are systemic and go back for years. One can only presume that it is because someone who is constructing the terms of reference does not want the reviews to go any further. There are allegations of New South Wales retrospectively giving irrigators more water rights, possibly in return for major political donations. This has been reported in the media around the country.

There is the appropriateness of the New South Wales Minister for Regional Water gazetting a Barwon-Darling Valley flood plain management plan that gives him the power to approve noncompliant flood works; retrospectively, licences for Bowen-Darling River water extractions subsequently subdivided, cut up, which appears to be a breach of the New South Wales Water Management Act; and allegations of New South Wales Public Service officials offering debadged documents to a secret group that sought to undermine the basin plan.

These are the allegations that cannot be looked at by the investigations that have been so far put up. They do not have the power to compel witnesses to answer. They do not have the power to call for documents and have them supplied. There are many other issues that are being raised on a day-to-day level. You only have to open one of the Eastern State papers nowadays to find new allegations being raised about bad practices in terms of water in New South Wales.

These allegations, I believe, paint a picture that suggests a systematic and deliberate attempt to undermine the basin plan and to deceive the South Australian community. South Australian irrigators have been complying with the plan and its objectives in good faith, expecting other states to do the same thing. The South Australian government, therefore, will continue to advocate for a full independent judicial inquiry into these allegations.

We will support calls for an urgent meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council to agree on the terms of reference for a proper independent inquiry, not some bodgy inquiry fixed up by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce to look after his National Party mates in New South Wales. Our community, and indeed all Australians, have every right to be asking themselves, 'Why won't Liberal MPs support this call?'

We as South Australians have every right to be asking ourselves, 'Why won't our federal Liberal MPs from South Australia stand up for South Australia's River Murray?' How can our community rely on the Liberal Party to stand up for South Australia when we call on them to do so and they squib it—they squib it.

The Hon. P. Malinauskas: At least they're consistent.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, there is that, as the honourable minister says, at least they are consistent in that one regard.

The PRESIDENT: Well, the minister should not say anything while you are speaking.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: He probably shouldn't, but he couldn't control himself in the face of Liberal provocation. Only a judicial inquiry can provide the rigour and independence required to assess these allegations. Theft must be investigated. The Liberal Party might not want to properly investigate the theft of billions of litres of water, or the allegations of conspiracy at the highest levels of the New South Wales Public Service. They may not want to bring to light questions about National Party donations and subsequent changes to water rules. They may not want to bring to light allegations of lobbyists being stacked on to the independent and expert body, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce but for everyone's sake these allegations must be gone into.

We do need the basin plan to be delivered. We do not want the basin plan to be jettisoned and thrown overboard because the health of the River Murray depends on it. But for the sake of the confidence of our community and the basin plan, for the sake of our irrigators who have been doing the right thing, all along, expecting everyone else to actually comply with the rules, we have to have an independent inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and call for documents. The South Australian state Liberals have an opportunity—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: — to get on the phones to their federal mates—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Get on the phones—give me your call list, tell me who rang Chris Pyne and said, 'Mate, you have to vote for this.' Give me call list, tell me who stood up—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Tell me which of you stood up to Chris Pyne, who stopped this debate in the House of Representatives?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: You tell me which one of your mates you called and said, 'We want this debate to be called off.'

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Will the honourable minister take a seat. Two issues: first of all, I do not want any interjecting while the minister is answering a question; and, secondly, I do not want the minister to bite the bait that is thrown out to get you going, so please finish your answer.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I take slight issue with you, Mr President. I do not think it was bait being thrown out, I think it was a confession of duplicity.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Vincent.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Vincent has the call.