Lower Murray

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. N.J. Centofanti:

That this council—

1. Notes its concerns with the federal Labor government's plans to list the Lower Murray as a threatened ecological community as part of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

2. Acknowledges that previous South Australian Labor water ministers have rejected earlier proposals to include the Lower Murray in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

3. Recognises that inclusion in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will not provide greater environmental protection to species or habitats along the Lower Murray as species and habitats involved are already protected under that act; and

4. Notes that the inclusion of the Lower Murray in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will only add more red and green tape to river communities.

(Continued from 16 October 2024.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:01): I rise today to speak on behalf of the Greens to express our strong opposition to this motion. The federal bill seeking to list the Lower Murray as an endangered ecological community is important as it recognises the significance of the system in its entirety. That is, of course, indeed a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and, as we should all be aware, living in the driest state on the driest inhabited continent, there is much more to a river system than simply the river itself.

At a national level, the Lower Murray ecological community is a one-of-a-kind system because of its complex features and high levels of biodiversity. Wetlands, flood plains and groundwater all play increasingly important roles in the survival of the Murray River system as a whole. The health of a river is inextricably linked to the health of the ecological community in which it sits. Neither one of them can possibly function well when the health of the other is compromised, and this motion fails to recognise this.

From the confluence of the Murray with the Darling, all the way through the ecological community that exists where it finally flows out to sea here in South Australia, every single one of these areas—wetlands, flood plains, the river itself—is critically important. Forty-three per cent of the proposed listing includes one of Australia's most important wetlands: the Coorong and lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar site, designated by Australia as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 1985.

The Leader of the Opposition in this place is correct that listing the Lower Murray as an endangered ecological community under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which I will refer to as the EPBC Act from now on, will not automatically confer on the innumerable species of animals and plants that depend on the Murray any greater protections. The point she misses, though, is that projects with the potential to impact this ecological community will need to be referred to the minister for a decision.

The basin plan alone is insufficient to protect the Murray as it focuses only on returning flows to the river. The basin plan does not have the remit to address any other problem currently faced by this ecological community. It can, therefore, have no impact on clearing, on controlling invasive species or on addressing the impacts of climate change or system-changing droughts, such as the Millenium Drought which, between 1986 and 2010, saw the Lower Murray verge on environmental collapse.

The ecological community is still recovering from the impacts of this drought and we know that as a result of this the impacts of the next drought will be even more devastating. All of this, clearing the control of invasive species, and climate change continue to significantly impact the Lower Murray. Further to this, the basin plan has encountered various difficulties in its implementation, to the extent that the Productivity Commission found in 2023 that there had been 'little progress'.

The listing of the entire ecological community means that the extent of the ecological challenges in their entirety will be better protected. It is worth noting that this is not the first time that this ecological community has been listed. The last time was under the Labor government in 2013. That listing, which has been well received by many across the country, was reversed only four months later by the newly elected Coalition government. The decision to delist it was very well received by the National Farmers' Federation and the National Irrigators' Council, who had lobbied for this on the grounds that there were already other instruments in place to protect the river, such as the basin plan and various water resource plans at a state level.

Their singular focus remained on their wants. The prospect of cheap water saw them prioritise alleged reductions in so-called red tape over the long-term health of the river, and the broader ecological community that it supports. Here we are again: the Liberal Party seems to be playing to the tune of those vested interests.

While processes such as this are often challenging to work through, the threat to the status of this ecological community is grounded in evidence, and the threat to this community is no minor thing. Indeed, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee has tentatively indicated that the Lower Murray should be cited as critically endangered. Critically endangered means that the risk of it collapsing completely is extremely high. The Lower Murray river regulations, overextraction of water, flood plain clearing, and the introduction of invasive species have severely impacted the system. This means the loss of wetlands, billabongs and swamps, as well as vegetation, and communities that depend on the water that comes with a thriving and naturally flowing river system such as the Murray.

Multiple native species that play key functional roles in the health of the ecological community have been significantly impacted by the continued demands for water that we have placed on the Murray for far too many years. Important processes have been disrupted resulting in conditions that favour invasive species, break connections between parts of the community and increase salinity which results, of course, in the loss of trees. The longer we take to address the decline of this community, the greater the risk that it becomes increasingly difficult or even impossible for it to recover and survive.

This motion is based on an ill-informed view of the EPBC Act. There is, of course, more to listing an ecological community such as this under the act than referrals of developments with the potential to impact the community to the minister. Such listings bring other benefits in and of themselves. They raise awareness of the very existence of the ecological community and of the threat it faces. Listing means that natural resource management initiatives and on-ground management and recovery initiatives can be supported and prioritised by governments. Weeds, erosion, salinity and pests can all be managed through recovery initiatives. Healthy soil, clean and healthy water, natural carbon storage and, importantly for our agricultural sector, future water allocations are all supported and strengthened through recovery initiatives.

Additionally, these initiatives can all help provide local jobs, retain young people in regional communities and help to ensure the survival of these vital communities. Vegetation communities such as fringing reeds and sedges, river red gum forests, which depend on flooding, and river red gum woodland, which can tolerate flooding as well as various types of shrubland—lignum, river saltbush chenopod, low chenopod, samphire, lower and black box woodland—all these vegetation types support specific fauna and all of them depend on regular flooding.

Each of them plays an important role in the vitality of the entire ecological community. For millennia, Aboriginal Australians have cared for the Murray—Murrundi—and the ecological communities that depend upon it. For those people, when their totem is sick they, too, are sick. They support it being listed. I reflect upon that as we consider as well that there will be, I believe, government amendments to this motion.

The Greens could have made further amendments but our original position to oppose this motion outright is certainly not one that will prohibit us from supporting the Labor government amendments. We find that they vastly improve this very flawed motion. So the Greens will be supporting the Labor amendments to this motion and look forward to a time when we all come here with the health of our Murray in mind rather than the politics of water continuing to be played.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:10): I rise to support the honourable member's motion regarding the federal government's errant proposal to classify the Lower Murray as a threatened ecological community under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. As mentioned, this proposal might be well intentioned, although the more cynical amongst us might wonder whether it is another feel-good uninformed measure aimed squarely at getting a cheap headline and ticking the green-friendly box.

As outlined, this measure is unnecessary and could ultimately lead to several negative outcomes. It is unnecessary because Lower Murray species and habitats are already protected under existing legislation, including the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which Labor has historically held aloft as some kind of holy green document. Adding a further layer of protection could complicate existing protection frameworks while adding a very real risk, that of creating yet another hurdle for developers looking to grow and enhance the Lower Murray region.

Approvals can already be too difficult, expensive and time consuming, so I feel strongly that adding extra unnecessary layers of red tape must be avoided wherever possible given our state's current growth mantra. I, too, call on state Labor to reject this federal Labor proposal and instead have faith in the localised environmental protections and solutions, which are more fit for purpose and effective.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (17:11): I move the amendment standing in my name:

Paragraph 1:

Leave out 'its concerns with'

Leave out 'plans' insert 'consideration'

Paragraph 2:

Leave out paragraph 2 and insert new paragraph as follows:

2. Acknowledges that the South Australian Department for Environment and Water (DEW) has written to the federal government outlining a substantial number of technical issues with the proposed listing;

Paragraph 3:

Leave out paragraph 3 and insert new paragraph as follows:

3. Recognises that inclusion in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has the potential to affect river communities and should only be considered once all relevant information is available;

Paragraph 4:

Leave out paragraph 4.

The state government is aware that the Australian government released the draft conservation advice for the River Murray downstream of the Darling River and associated aquatic and flood plain systems ecological community on 2 September. The Department for Environment and Water is concerned about several technical inaccuracies in the draft conservation advice for the proposed listing and has advised the commonwealth accordingly.

It is considered that, until these technical inaccuracies are resolved and all the necessary information is made available, it is not possible to have a position on the proposed listing. The South Australian government will consider its position once these issues are resolved, although it is worth noting that we have no formal appeal rights in this.

Given what I have just outlined, the amendment would reflect that situation to simply note the federal Labor government's consideration to list the Lower Murray then acknowledge that the South Australian Department for Environment and Water has written to the federal government outlining a substantial number of technical points with the proposed listing.

Further, it replaces paragraph 3 to read that it recognises that inclusion in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has the potential to affect river communities and should only be considered once technical points are addressed and all relevant information is available. We consider that this is an appropriate reflection of the current situation and notes important aspects that are to do with this particular matter.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:13): Firstly, I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Sarah Game and the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, the Hon. Clare Scriven. I do note the Hon. Tammy Franks' assertions and make comment that the opposition makes no apologies for listening to regional and river communities and ensuring that our farmers, who produce our state's and indeed our nation's food and fibre, are not bogged down with excessive red and green tape.

I also note amendments to my motion, which have been recently circulated by the minister. I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting these amendments as I believe they substantially water down the firm intent of my motion, which is to protect our river communities to ensure that localised environmental protections are at the forefront when dealing with the Lower Murray.

I do hope that since the amendments brought by the minister are sort of loosely in line with the original motion, though not nearly as stringent, that we here in South Australia and those in our river communities will have the support of the state Labor government on this important matter, which will absolutely affect our river communities right along the River Murray from the border to the coast. With that, I commend the original motion to the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: I am going to work my way through the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment. The first question I am going to put is that the amendment to paragraph 1 moved by the Hon. C.M. Scriven be agreed to. If you are supporting the Hon. Ms Scriven you will be an aye and if you are with the honourable Leader of the Opposition you will be a no.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 10

Noes 8

Majority 2

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The next question I am going to put is that paragraph 2, as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. C.M. Scriven, stand as part of the motion.

Question resolved in the negative.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The next question I am going to put is that new paragraph 2, as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. C.M. Scriven, be so inserted.

Question agreed to.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The next question I am going to put is that paragraph 3, as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. C.M. Scriven, stand as part of the motion.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The next question I am going to put is that new paragraph 3, as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. C.M. Scriven, be so inserted.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The next question is that paragraph 4, as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. C.M. Scriven, stand as part of the motion.

Question resolved in the negative; motion as amended carried.