Motions

Murray-Darling Basin

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:30): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the South Australian government decision to endorse socio-economic criteria for efficiency measures to deliver 450 gigalitres of water for the environment at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on 14 December 2018, with particular reference to—

(a) the advice considered by the South Australian government and the Minister for Environment and Water in making the decision to endorse the socio-economic criteria and who provided that advice;

(b) the rationale for supporting the socio-economic criteria;

(c) the resources applied in the Department for Environment and Water in providing advice to the minister on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin;

(d) the current and potential options for the best available science to inform such decision-making;

(e) the advice the Minister for Environment and Water sought that suggested the South Australian government was legally able to override the existing socio-economic criteria outlined in section 7.12(2)(b) of the basin plan;

(f) the consideration given by the Minister for Environment and Water to the recommendations from the independent report provided by Ernst and Young for the basin ministerial council on delivering the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment;

(g) any recommendation, finding or observation in the report of the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission 2019, as deemed relevant by the committee; and

(h) any other related matters.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

South Australia can be a harsh and dry place, and water is amongst our most precious resources. The River Murray is the longest river in Australia and we are blessed to have it wind through our south-eastern corner and make its way to the sea on the coast of the world-famous Coorong. The Murray sustains producers and communities along its banks and Ramsar wetlands with plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. Half of Adelaide's drinking water is sourced from this mighty river, and that is in a good year with full reservoirs. We simply cannot afford to let this river die.

It is therefore incomprehensible that the water minister of this state of South Australia, backed we are told by the Premier and his entire cabinet, chose to sell out South Australia in December of last year at a meeting of water ministers where a deal was signed to place conditions on projects which are designed to return water to the Murray-Darling Basin system for environmental purposes. These conditions, agitated by the New South Wales and Victorian governments, will mean there is little chance South Australia will ever see the 450 gigalitres of water we as a state fought so hard for when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was created.

It is not just me who is saying this. It is not just the Labor Party that is saying this. Here are the words of the royal commissioner, released just two weeks ago:

The South Australian Government's agreement to changes to the socio-economic criteria for efficiency measures should not merely be described as ill-advised. It is nothing short of a capitulation to the interests of the current Commonwealth Government, and those of Victoria and New South Wales. It is so contrary to the interests of South Australians that the decision by the minister responsible is almost certainly a breach of at least cl 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct in that no minister acting reasonably could consider these changes to the criteria to be anything but totally antipathetic to the interests of South Australia, and the South Australian environment. South Australia's agreement to these changes should be immediately reversed.

They are the words of the royal commissioner. What about the experts? What do they say about this deal? Here is what Mr David Papps, the recently retired commonwealth environmental water holder from 2012 to 2018, had to say about this deal, and I quote:

It was cleverly crafted to minimise the legal water recovery requirement under the basin plan.

And:

David Littleproud has vacated the field, New South Wales and Victoria are running the show, and they have white-washed the plan.

And what did he specifically have to say on minister Speirs agreeing to the plan? I quote:

…absolute definition of a turkey voting for Christmas.

It is with these points in mind that we seek to establish this committee. We need this committee to thoroughly scrutinise what advice the minister and the Premier were relying on when they took this decision in December. We need to find out what changed between the minister's submissions to the royal commission and Productivity Commission earlier in the year, which highlighted that the then criteria were sufficient and South Australia should not agree to changes, and the subsequent capitulation in December.

We need answers to questions that the minister and the Premier have so far been unable and unwilling to give. South Australians deserve answers to these questions, and that is why this motion is before the chamber. I cannot help but to think back to those famous words from then shadow minister and member for MacKillop, Mitch Williams, who urged the Labor government to accept less water for the agreement. His now-famous quote was:

This is obviously not the Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we're quite happy to drive in the Mazda.

The underlying problem is that the South Australian Liberal Party constantly capitulate to their federal overlords and are not prepared to stand up and fight for South Australia. We saw it with the closure of Holden, we saw it with energy and we have seen it again, as was so clearly demonstrated by the findings of the royal commission on the River Murray. I once again commend this motion to the chamber and look forward to it being supported. I indicate to members that I intend to bring this matter to a vote on the next Wednesday of sitting.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.