HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 334.)

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (16:03): The issue of management of the rivers and tributaries within the Murray-Darling Basin and allocation of the waters therein predates Federation. Historic records indicate that this issue was the most contentious and divisive of all matters considered in the lead-up to Federation, and the one that eluded final resolution. Prior to the first sitting of the 1897-98 Constitutional Convention, which was held in Adelaide, Sir Richard Chaffey Baker, President of this parliament's Legislative Council, issued the following statement to South Australia's newspapers as to why South Australia should support Federation, and I quote:

The question concerning the water of the River Murray which arose between New South Wales and South Australia some time ago has never been settled and is bound to arise again in more aggravated form as more and more water is used for irrigation on the headwaters of the River Murray and its tributaries. In the absence of Federation, there is no authority to settle this or any similar question and both it and the ever recurring dispute between South Australia and Victoria are examples of questions which give rise to friction and dispute and sometimes ultimately end in animosity.

There are a number of interesting aspects to this statement by Sir Richard Baker. First, he acknowledges that the issue of disputation between New South Wales and South Australia, which was the sufficiency of water for navigation by South Australian vessels, would worsen as more water was extracted from the Murray River.

South Australia's concern has now shifted from water for paddle-steamers to the economic survival of the Riverland and the health of the Lower Lakes, but the cause of aggravation remains, namely, diversion of water in the headquarters for irrigation. The second interesting aspect of Sir Richard Baker's media statement is his reference to 'the ever recurring dispute between Victoria and South Australia.' The recent dust-up involving Victorian Premier John Brumby has the same root cause as the ongoing disputes referred to by Sir Richard.

The third aspect of this media statement lies not in its content but its context. It was made during the Federation Drought which extended from the mid-1880s to 1902. The same externalities were at play in the pre-Federation debate as the ones that surround this legislation, namely, drought. Finally, Federation did not achieve the objective of providing an authority to settle issues such as overallocation whereas, interestingly, this legislation will.

The final constitutional outcome for the River Murray is embodied in section 100 of the Australian Constitution. As I mentioned, the River Murray issue was raised in the lead-up to the Adelaide session of the Constitutional Convention and debated during that session. When the convention moved to Melbourne, that issue took centre stage and took more time than any other issue. It was publicly debated for a week, moved to private conference, then brought back to the public arena for another week of debate in February 1898.

According to historian John La Nauze, the fierceness of the interchanges were incomprehensible to the Tasmanians and Western Australians, the process being more an endurance test than an exercise in clarification. What was at issue was the desire of upstream colonies to preserve their independence and protect their right to use the River Murray for irrigation while South Australia wanted to prevent them from diverting so much water that it would dry up the channel and threaten navigation. Section 100 of the Commonwealth Constitution appears to meet both sets of demands. It reads:

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade and commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

South Australia's position in respect of navigation had been protected by section 98, which deals with trade, commerce, navigation and shipping—a point driven home by Edmund Barton. Section 100 gave New South Wales and Victoria the water, but only on a reasonable use, such that South Australian vessels could still navigate the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin. Interestingly, the word 'reasonable' was inserted at the suggestion of South Australian Sir John Downer during the Sydney session of the Constitutional Convention.

Without entering into a detailed history of the institutional arrangements that have governed management of the Murray-Darling Basin since Federation, I will make a brief reference to what may have sabotaged early attempts to ensure section 100 'reasonable' use of the waters and, hence, could have avoided the ultimate overallocation that bedevils us today.

In 1915, the River Murray Agreement, which sets out water-sharing arrangements between the states, was endorsed by the parliaments of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the commonwealth. A River Murray Commission, made up of a commissioner from each government, was also established for the purpose of overseeing the water-sharing arrangements and an ambitious engineering works program. The works program resulted in a lock system on the river.

The agreement and commission were intended to be part of a more comprehensive institutional structure that revolved around the interstate commission, a body designed by the framers of the constitution to be a key part of the federal system for making decisions on the more difficult issues confronting the new federation. None could be more confronting than the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

In the same year as the passage of the agreement, and the establishment of the Murray commission, the High Court stripped the interstate commission of most of its powers, which brings us to the bill before us. It refers to the commonwealth powers it does not possess under section 100 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Essentially, the referral of state powers by South Australia and the other basin states will enable the commonwealth to amend the Water Act 2007 to:

first, abolish the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and transfer its function to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority;

secondly, provide for a comprehensive basin plan, which will now have a priority focus on management of water for critical human needs, as well as integrated management of the basin water resources, including addressing water quality, salinity management and environmental watering. The reforms mean that the authority will now be able to plan strategically for periods of low water availability to ensure enough water is put aside to support the delivery of water for critical human needs throughout the system; and

thirdly, extend the application of water market rules and water charge rules, and the associated regulatory role for the Australian Consumer and Competition Council (ACCC), to all entities and transactions within the basin to facilitate more efficient water trading across the basin and provide for any state to opt in to apply rules outside the basin.

In terms of benefits for South Australia (I will spend some time on this aspect), these reforms will, for the first time, ensure that South Australia has access to the upstream storages of its choice, including the Hume and Dartmouth dams, to store water to meet its critical human needs and for private carryover. This will allow the state to carry over and store around 300 gigalitres water for critical human need (which is about 18 months supply) and deliver this water in times of low flows, reducing the risk of a major failure in the supply of potable water to South Australia.

Without these reforms, South Australia has no ongoing access to storage, bar the expensive exercise of replicating this storage within the borders of the state by building dams or enlarging existing dams. In many ways, this outcome of using Hume and Dartmouth, based on a cooperative national approach as opposed to the narrow, parochial and insular one adopted in 1960 in the attempt to build the large Chowilla dam within the borders of South Australia, has achieved the security of water supply that the narrow, parochial and insular Chowilla strategy could not.

This bill is the consequence of the agreement on Murray-Darling reform signed on 3 July at COAG by the Labor governments of the Murray-Darling Basin and the new commonwealth Labor government. The agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform commits all signatory governments, namely, those of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the commonwealth, to 'a new culture and practice of Basin wide management and planning'.

This new culture and practice in aid of basin-wide management will emanate from a new basin plan, which will be drafted by the new independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The body will replace the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The basin plan will provide sustainable diversions limits on water use in the Murray-Darling Basin system to ensure its health and to safeguard the communities that rely on the basin for their livelihood.

Specifically, the basin plan will aim to increase environmental flows and promote the health of Ramsar and other wetland sites throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. It is important to note that South Australia will benefit enormously from the national approach to management of the basin by the independent authority in the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, having allocated $610 million directly for the use of South Australia.

In order to improve the efficiency of irrigation infrastructure along our stretch of the river, $110 million is allocated to assist private irrigators in that endeavour which, it is hoped, will save around 50 gigalitres of water.

Some $80 million is to be used for the purchase of water from willing sellers for environmental flows, and $200 million is allocated to tackle the serious problems facing the Lower Lakes and Coorong. In addition to the $610 million, it is expected that South Australia's Riverland region will be a major beneficiary of the recently announced $57.1 million by the Rudd government to provide effective exit packages to small block irrigators who no longer wish to irrigate but want to stay in their home. These exit packages are worth $150,000, with an additional $10,000 for removing vines and trees from small blocks and another $10,000 being made available for retraining purposes. This is a significant boost to assist non-viable small block irrigators with a future beyond irrigation, all the while contributing to the restructure of the irrigation industry, with an emphasis on transforming it to a more water efficient one, and for irrigators who are viable the Rann government has provided an assistance package, additional to that of the Murray-Darling Basin plan.

This package has made $67 million available to underwrite water allocations to Riverland irrigators, with the aim of maintaining their perennial plantings. This measure is a much needed boost to Riverland irrigators, given the current low allocation of 11 per cent. With perennial plantings supported through drought, it will enable the multibillion dollar industries of the region to recover when water allocations are raised—hopefully, in the future. This $67 million package clearly demonstrates the South Australian government's commitment to the long-term future of the Riverland and associated industries in the region, which are an important component of South Australia's economic and cultural fabric.

Although there is no quick fix for the plight of the Murray-Darling Basin system, the agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform, which establishes an independent expert-based Murray-Darling Basin Authority and charges it with the task of formulating the Murray-Darling Basin plan, is the most effective process to ensure that the system is managed in the most efficient way possible. As I said, the agreement delivers to South Australia $610 million to encourage more efficient irrigation practices and water buybacks for environmental flows.

This bill is the enabler for the intergovernmental agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform which was signed on 3 July. The referral of the powers it brings about finally resolves those outstanding issues that struggled for resolution in the years leading up to federation and the 1915 disembowelling of the interstate commission by the High Court of Australia. I strongly support the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:18): I do not think a more important matter has come before this house for many years. It is an important issue. I am just amazed that it is now a year since we first discussed this matter. It has taken so long to introduce this bill. It is a serious matter, and I fully support what the shadow minister said this morning: too little, too late. So much has been said about this issue. We heard what Premier Rann said about the initiatives put forward by former prime minister John Howard. He said that we need a fully independent commission. We thought, 'Okay, that is a good idea. We will go along with that.' What have we got? What has happened? It is a terrible situation.

We heard words such as 'historic', 'essential', 'groundbreaking' and 'biggest advancement for South Australia in decades'. As the shadow minister said this morning, the greater the spin, the less the reality. The drought continues—which is terrible news. The past three or four weeks suggest we will have a year worse than the previous three years. A month ago we did not think that was possible. It is not good. It is very serious, indeed.

The reality is that there is water in this system. There is a lot of water upstream, enough to solve a lot of our problems—not all of them but some of them. It upsets me that some irrigators in other states still have 100 per cent of their allocation. How can that be? How can that be when we are all Australians? One could understand it if it were Israel and the River Jordan in view of what has been happening in that region. I suppose it is exactly the same. Queensland has harvested more water this year than ever before during this drought. What is going on here? What water does the environment deserve? The answer is apparently none.

The Liberals will underpin water for permanent plantings in order to keep people on their irrigation blocks. The minister is here in the house. Her own constituency is being hurt the hardest. The minister asked me by interjection this morning why we did not do something about this when we were in government. When we were in government the minister had the greatest opportunity to leverage a position. Admittedly, the problem was not as serious then, but it was discussed. When we were in government—and members opposite would now understand because they are in government—we spent millions of dollars upgrading the irrigation schemes up there.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: No, it was not. The minister never raised it in any way. It was 6½ years ago and we have had six dry years, including four years of drought. What have we achieved? The Premier trumpeted loud and clear his call for achieving an independent governing body. How independent is it? Irrespective of which political party is in government, whether Labor or Liberal, each leader has the same problem. My leader has been to meetings of Liberal leaders across Australia and he has encountered the same problem. They will not turn on their state. Politics does not allow that. My leader has come home and said, 'I'm sorry, I got the same result as other leaders when they have gone interstate. Every state bats for itself.' Politics ensures that they do that. You can imagine what would happen if they did not.

We needed to have this so-called independent body that was going to happen, but what have we got? We have a situation that is totally unworkable and in which the Victorians are certainly having far too much say. Every state bats for its own and, heavens above, we would all do the same thing. We need a totally independent board—something akin to the Reserve Bank board which is totally independent and distant from the situation—to make the tough decisions for the whole catchment, irrespective of state boundaries.

In 2007, the federal government, under the leadership of prime minister John Howard, proposed a national water initiative whereby the commonwealth would take over state powers regarding managing the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin system. This plan aimed to address issues of over allocation, old and inefficient water infrastructure, water delivery systems and vowed to assist with recognition of the environment. South Australians fair very well in relation to our efficient use of water and low waste levels, much better than other states. As the minister would know, in her own electorate we do have a most efficient water system in place. In fact, I do not think there are any open water channels left—and thanks to the previous government for that.

The national water initiative included a $10 billion package, the John Howard initiative, including $3 billion to buy back water licences in an attempt to address the problems of our over allocation, with the remaining $7 billion being used to upgrade and increase the efficiency of our water infrastructure, with the water savings made from such works to be directed into the environmental flows. The national water initiative was an Australian blueprint for water reform and we all supported it at a time when it was so desperately needed. Unfortunately, the events of November 2007 prevented its implementation. If the federal Howard government's plan had been adopted then, there is no doubt in my mind, South Australia would be in a much better state than we are currently regarding dealing with the drought and the subsequent water crisis.

The decision was made with every good will and political realism in the world, and we turned it down—an opportunity lost. I wonder whether we can ever revisit it. Now, nearly a year later, the state Rann Labor government, with this minister who represents this area, has put forward this bill which seeks to accomplish what the Howard government tried so hard to achieve; that is, the Murray-Darling Basin be dealt with as a whole system by an independent authority. It is far too little and far too late, and it sets up a toothless tiger.

This bill seeks to transfer the powers and functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The authority is set up under the commonwealth Water Act 2007 to ensure that critical human needs form a part of the Murray-Darling Basin plan and to regulate water charges and water market rules under the act, with the ACCC determining and approving water charges and market rules. The problem with this bill today is not its content. We support this bill; we do: there is no equivocation about that. The problem is that it has taken far too long to implement it and it does not solve the problem of individual state parochialisms.

The existing and continuing drought conditions are having a wide ranging, negative, devastating and significant effect on lives and livelihoods across South Australia, particularly the Riverland. This is why we need an independent national water plan to be in place as quickly as possible. That is why we support this, and I understand this will pass today. I am absolutely disgusted that it has taken this long for the government to bring a bill such as this before the house. The reality is that it is not the only all powerful, historic, independent governing body trumpeted out.

The Lower Lakes are dying. The Rann state Labor government should have been jumping up and down trying to stop this ecological disaster, yet what have we heard from them until this point? Nothing but more rhetoric. The irrigators stretching along the length of the Murray in South Australia from the Lower Lakes to the Riverland are walking off their land: 10 per cent of permanent plantings were lost last year and I have heard predictions that up to another 30 per cent will be forced to push their trees into a heap, set fire to them and walk off the land because of the lack of water this year.

The number of dairies, particularly in the Lower Murray and Mallee areas which are in my electorate, have been significantly reduced. I know when I visited some farms at the end of last year, I was informed that the number of dairy farms in South Australia had reduced from around 120 farms to 40, and that figure has probably almost certainly decreased since then. Small business, tourism operators, boat repairers, houseboats and businesses have all been impacted significantly. All this when other states still have irrigators using 100 per cent of their original allocation, even flood irrigating wheat, would you believe. How insulting—flood irrigating wheat, not permanent plantings but wheat.

The ferry infrastructure has notably been affected, as I moved in the house today. The upstream ferry at Mannum is still out of service. Whilst I understand that work is being done to the Swan Reach ferry so that it may carry loads over 12 tonnes, all the other ferries still have weight restrictions imposed. There are people who currently do not have access to water: 54 homes in Mannum had their water supply taken away from them when a backwater they were drawing on dried up. I have had phone calls in my office within the last 10 minutes about this issue and we are speaking to the minister about it right now. They have no access to SA Water, and to extend their pumps to the river is estimated to cost in excess of $30,000. These people are not irrigators, they simply want water to live. I believe that some are managing to do so with rainwater, others are paying to have water trucked in and a couple have forked out the big bucks to have their pumps extended the 800 or so metres to the river.

I am not saying that the national water initiative proposed by the Howard government would have prevented all this, but at least it would have had a considerable impact and it would have been totally completed by now. Prime minister John Howard got it right and put in the $10 billion to get it to work and buy back the water, and Labor killed it because of the federal election. The Victorian Premier, Mr Brumby, deliberately delayed the processes. If it was not serious, it would be a joke. It is extremely serious—and look at the aftermath of this.

This bill goes some of the way. It is better than doing nothing, but only just. Why did the Premier not visit the Victorian Premier? Why did Rann not visit Brumby? It was held up by only one premier. Why didn't he visit him? He did not even publicly go to speak to him. Because they did not want him to, that is why. They did not want him to. It was all a bit of a game prior to the federal election and they put the price of winning the election ahead of all the people who depend on the river for their livelihood.

Yes, Labor got what it wanted. It was the federal election, but what about the South Australian people who depend on the river for their livelihood? Yes, we were conned by a political solution to solve a political problem. Yes, it was too easy. Anything to get John Brumby's signature would have sufficed. It looked as if we got close a few times, but we did not. Could it mean less water in the river and not more? Melbourne got more water out of this deal. Isn't that ridiculous? Of course, it is only there for emergency use, but (as I think the shadow minister said this morning) I bet it becomes permanent. They will get on the pipeline and it will become a lifeline to them. Even the Victorian Auditor-General questions the deal that was written. Basically, in a nutshell, the rank and file person out there cannot understand how we in this house can play politics on an issue such as this. This issue should have been resolved two or three years ago. We do have to—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Yes, this river should have been under one independent governance years ago.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Do you think what we have is going to work, minister? Do you think it is going to work?

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Yes; it will work a lot better than what we have now.

Mr VENNING: Yes, I will agree with that. I will not disagree with that. It will work better than what we have now. What we have now is hopeless, terrible. Yes, it had better work better than what we have now, otherwise we would not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.B. Such: The prime minister should have done it two years ago.

Mr VENNING: Of course he should have. Absolutely.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Here we are, all saying who should have done it.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Irrespective of that, madam, the then prime minister of this country laid aside $10 billion to help toward the problem and what did we do? We could not even work out a system so that we could put out our hand for the money. We have mucked around with this. All I can say is that it is a disgrace, and really no wonder politicians are held in such poor esteem, when we cannot manage a thing such as this. Blind Freddy and everyone knows, everybody in this house knows, that any of us who attends a national forum and is asked to vote on a water issue will vote South Australia every time, otherwise we will not stay in this place.

We need to have a totally independent, powerful body to do this for us with the powers of, say, the Reserve Bank Board—totally distant from all this. Until that is in place (and nothing else will do), it will not work. So much for Premier Rann's rhetoric when he stands up and says, 'I'm not going to support Howard deal because it is not independent.' Eventually they all came on board and said, 'We will support this deal.' Good on you, Mr Rann, 10 points to you, but what do we have? We have a very sad situation in which the Victorians can wag the bull. New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland will all receive higher priority than us and we really have not advanced the situation at all. Indeed it is a very sad day. All I can say to all those people out there (and that is a large percentage of South Australians who are affected by the water problem), is that my heart goes out to them.

To be positive—and it is hard to in a situation such as this—at least we ought to be sending a message to every household in South Australia that we cannot go on being reliant on the Murray. We have to wean ourselves off this river and there are many things that we can do about it. I can recall minister Brindal writing a paper that was called Waterproofing Adelaide back when we were in government. I think it was 1994-95, or it might have even been a little later. When you read that now you say why didn't we implement some of this? Why didn't we do some of this? It might have even been in 2000, I am not sure. It talked about aquifers, it talked about mining the water and it talked about stormwater.

We have looked at it, we know all about it, we have all written reports ad nauseam and what have we done about it? Nothing. We are now four years into a drought. I say that it is no wonder that people out there think that politicians are a lot of gooses because we really have shown that when a prime minister gets up and makes a tough decision and says, 'I've got $10 billion to say we'll fix this and we'll put in a group that is going to control all you blokes, we're going to put in an umpire,' and we cannot even agree on that. It is hopeless. To the minister—yes, this is better than what have. It is not much better. At least we are supporting this, but if you can only somehow rejig this so that we do have a fully independent body, with teeth, with power—

Mr Williams: She gave up. They gave up.

Mr VENNING: I will take it all back. No, you have not. You have given us a toothless tiger. They have the power of veto. They can back out of any of this. There should not be any power of veto. You are telling me that—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Have you read it?

Mr VENNING: I have not read it, no. I have read the bill. I have not read the other legislation. Heavens above, it is about 2½ inches thick. We support the government. I congratulated my shadow minister for making a brilliant speech this morning. I urge members to read it because it was full of very good information and I say that it is a pretty sad day that we have taken this long to do something which should have been done years ago and it should be going a lot further. I support the bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:35): The Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill is a step forward. I agree with the member for Schubert that we should be moving to something more akin to the Reserve Bank model, but, nevertheless, this is a step forward. I lobbied the Premier on this point because originally I thought that we were going towards a Reserve Bank type model, but what is reflected in this bill and elsewhere is something short of that.

The point I make is that naturally people want to blame others for what has happened. I would encourage members to support the Foresight Committee Bill that I have before the house, because if in this parliament we were looking at issues well in advance—and obviously we cannot predict drought and the climate change aspects totally (it would be foolish to claim that), and it is not just water, it is ageing, and financial issues—we would be much better prepared. We would have taken some steps to minimise the impact of what we are now confronted with in relation to the water situation.

Clearly, we have had overallocation in regard to the Murray-Darling system. What we need is a body now that can try to get a handle on the situation and deal with some of the key issues. We have not only Mr Brumby hanging onto his 4 per cent cap (with a possibility of his lifting the cap on the sale of water beyond 4 per cent to 6 per cent at the end of next year) but also other irrigation entities hanging onto restrictive practices in terms of water trading. So, that needs to be dealt with. I notice that we still have the Save the Murray levy. Obviously, we have not saved the Murray but we are still paying the levy despite the fact that the commonwealth is coming on board with a lot of money; and, given the financial crisis which confronts this and other nations, we hope that it will still be able to do that.

I am pleased that the minister has indicated that information relating to who holds water licences will be available through a Torrens title-type system in the future. I am not sure how soon that will be, but that is a big advance on where we are at the moment where a lot of the information relating to who holds water extraction entitlements is very difficult to discover. That information should be public knowledge. In dealing with the river, clearly, there are a whole lot of stakeholders—the irrigators. I have great compassion for the irrigators—particularly in the Riverland—who in many ways have led the nation in terms of efficiency in their irrigation practices using closed-irrigation systems and electronics to help in determining moisture content, and so on. They are the people who are probably suffering more than any group of irrigators along the Murray-Darling system.

They have led the nation in terms of efficiency, and now they are suffering the consequences of inadequate water availability. We see, for example, that the Victorian government will naturally act in the interests of its irrigators. Mr Brumby made that clear before COAG and he went back bragging after COAG that he had not given an inch on the issue of trading away Victoria's rights. We can see it in terms of the so-called 'food bowl' policy and practice and the related generous assistance being provided to irrigators in Victoria—even things such as the Dethbridge Wheel which is paid for by the state government and which cost, I think, about $15,000 each.

This bill will help deal with some of those issues. I would be interested in the minister's response, but my reading of it is that states can withdraw or terminate their initial reference of powers, which means that it does undermine this whole proposition. I would be interested to hear the minister's response to that.

On other issues related to this, I agree with the member for Schubert that, as much as possible, Adelaide needs to wean itself off the Murray. It is much easier to say that than to do it. People say, 'Why don't we have systems similar to the Salisbury stormwater capture and aquifer recharge elsewhere in the metropolitan area?' The answer is simple: it is partly because there has not been a will to do it but it is also because, for example, the aquifer structures are different in other parts of the metropolitan area.

It is not that simple to capture stormwater and put it into the aquifer. If you do it you must do it properly otherwise you run the risk of contaminating the water already there. Things are happening. We see, for example, the desalination plant, and I think there is a question mark over that. It is really a form of insurance. I have some concerns about the possible environmental impact of that, and I hope that can be addressed without in any way harming the gulf, the fisheries and so on that lie therein. The use of treated greywater from Glenelg coming back into the Parklands I think can be a very worthwhile project—the GAP scheme.

Members must realise that a program such as that is, in effect, turning a part of Adelaide from what you might call a natural environmental landscape into a European one, in that parts of the Parklands will be perpetually green which was not the case historically and which is not the case normally and ecologically. Close attention will need to be paid to things such as salinity, treated greywater and nutrient levels otherwise there could be ongoing problems down the track. It does offer the opportunity to create a river red gum forest in the Parklands which, given the fate of many of them along the Murray, would be a beautiful irony in terms of the reuse of water.

This bill, I think, is the only measure the government can take other than going the full hog and agreeing to a system that is like the Reserve Bank model. However, this is a welcome step forward. It is not perfect, but I do not think that the government can do anything other than pursue something like this given that the other states and the commonwealth will probably not agree to anything that goes beyond this. The reality is that this is probably as good as it gets in terms of the current political reality. On that basis, I support it, but I would hope that we can monitor this arrangement to make sure that it delivers, and in the short term encourage the state government and local government to wean us off the Murray in Adelaide as quickly as possible.

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (16:43): I rise to support the two bills, and my comments relate to both bills that are on the agenda this afternoon. At the start, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Minister for Water Security for her efforts in relation to handling an incredibly complex problem. Also, I would like to acknowledge the fact that we have been able to get to this position in Australia, as well as the fact that, at present, all governments around the country are endeavouring to get this legislation through their parliaments to enable things to start on 1 November this year. I have been fortunate to be part of the Natural Resources Committee of this parliament. As part of that committee, we have a special reference to look at the issues relating to the River Murray. We have had the opportunity, as part of our role, to look more closely at some of these issues than, perhaps, other members have had the opportunity to do. In particular, we have had the opportunity to visit most sections of the Murray-Darling River Basin and speak with a range of stakeholders in a range of locations across the basin.

In listening to the issues of farmers, water managers, regulators, etc., I note that we have farmers and horticulturalists across the states doing their best to make a living in the most efficient way possible. Some are doing it better than others—there are many who are using extremely up-to-date methods of agriculture and technology—but across the basin there are people who are struggling in the circumstances of the drought that we are experiencing, and people are also uncertain about climate change and what this will mean for the future.

The overarching impression, that I and, I believe, other members of the committee have left all of our discussions with, is what an incredible morass needs to be untangled in order to move forward. In the face of historic overallocation of water (allocations and overallocations of water that occurred during good years) now, of course, we are faced with a one in 100-year drought and the unknown effects of climate change which are likely to exacerbate this situation.

We have outmoded arrangements between commonwealth and state. We have the states doing their own thing, with farmers working within state boundaries, and farmers in one state working to a different set of rules than farmers from other states. We have the river struggling right down its whole path, from Queensland right through to our Lower Lakes. We have seen examples of severe degradation (environmental degradation) of the river system, right along.

Essentially, we have had years and years of inaction. People have congratulated John Howard on his initiative of a $10 billion water plan. I think we should remember that John Howard did this in the dying days of his administration. It would have been terrific if he could have started eight years or more earlier, and it would have been better if, before him, we started to realise that what was happening in the Murray-Darling Basin could not continue and that eventually we would come to the critical situation in which we now find ourselves.

The bill is before us as a result of the agreement that was made on 3 July of this year and signed by the federal government and the basin states. It brings forward a package of reforms to meet future needs of the basin and to enhance its social, environmental and economic value. Central to the reform package is the referral of powers—that is what these bills are about—by the basin states to the commonwealth to allow it to amend the Water Act 2007. There is the creation of a new authority—the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—the provision for a comprehensive basin plan with priority focus on management of water for critical human needs, which has not been done before, as well as integrated management of basin water resources, including water quality, salinity management and environmental watering.

It means that the new authority can at last plan strategically for periods of low water availability in relation to critical human water needs throughout the system. It provides mechanisms to enable more efficient water trading and water charging. As the minister said in her second reading speech, for the first time South Australia has access to upstream storages of its choice, including the Hume and Dartmouth dams, to be able to store water to meet its critical water needs and private carryovers. The reforms also establish a three-tiered system for sharing water in the River Murray system under normal to low water availability and extreme drought conditions.

It certainly is not the final answer. It is one part of many different things that need to happen in a coordinated and strategic way to reverse the critical situation that we find ourselves in. As I said before, I congratulate the minister, the governments of all states involved and the federal government in relation to this. Of course, we had hoped that we could get even further than we have, but there is a huge difference between what we have in front of us now and what we did have. We should not underestimate how difficult it is in a complex interrelated situation with many different competing needs to actually get consensus and a new platform of agreements to move forward on.

The unfortunate thing, of course, is that the passing of this legislation will not miraculously change things. In reality, many people's lives and businesses have been decimated and severely affected by the situation as it now exists. Other people have talked about the buyouts and compensation measures, and that, of course, will need to be monitored and adjusted as time goes by. I firmly believe that we definitely have to pass the legislation as quickly as possible to enable the new authority to be established and to enable at least the strategic management of the system to be improved for the future.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:53): I rise today to support my water security shadow minister, the member for MacKillop, in acknowledging that we do support this bill in so far as what is in it, but we do not support what is not in this bill. I believe we are a long way yet from proper reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. I certainly look at how the basin is managed, and it is nowhere near managed as a whole. It is managed only from Menindee Lakes south, and there are hundreds of kilometres of basin heading north into Queensland, up to Tambo and across to Toowoomba and in northern New South Wales that are not contained in the Murray-Darling Basin, as we see it now, under any sort of management.

I think in the future we will have to take into consideration management of the basin in the north. Whether it is man-made climate change, as people think it is, or whether it is just a cyclical drought system, we have had a lot of rain in the north. Queensland irrigators actually captured over 1,000 gigalitres of water in southern Queensland in their storages. They have enough storages in southern Queensland and New South Wales to capture 3,000 gigalitres of water, so why would you need 3,000 gigalitres of storage? It is ridiculous. I do acknowledge that we have had six years of drought, but we get no water from that northern system any more—and the way it is presently managed I doubt that we ever will.

Menindee Lakes are set to operate and trip over the trigger for shared basin control at 640 gigalitres. The two lakes we are using at the moment—Lake Pamamaroo and Lake Wetherell—have a maximum surcharge capacity of 615 gigalitres, so unless there is one gigantic storm we will not see any of that water shared between New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. All that water will stay under New South Wales' control, and that is where the situation is heavily flawed.

Broken Hill has to store 285 gigalitres in two years in the Menindee Lakes to secure their water for those two years to get an entitlement of 20 gigalitres. There has to be reform there; there has to be a pipeline system (I believe they could have connected into the ana branch pipeline). There are people who point the finger at us here in this southern state regarding evaporation but you would think, from some of the comments made in the eastern states papers and the like, that water does not evaporate in the east.

Floodplain graziers in New South Wales acknowledge that they get only two-fifths of the water they used to get. This is not an argument about just Cubbie Station, even though it is a major irrigator. I think it has struggled, along with a whole host of irrigators up there. I heard there were at least 22 major irrigators between Bourke and St George who have put in major storages over the years—in fact, between 1995 and 2002, storages in that region tripled. So where is the legislative control? I even had a constituent of mine in Murray Bridge acknowledge that a friend of his on a property up there (they happen to be looking after it because the bank owns it at the moment, although these people are still running it) said, 15 years ago, that the river up there was in strife, that they were handing out water like lollies and that it was doomed. Sure enough, look where we now are as far as the tributaries, the Upper Darling and other rivers that run into the northern waters of the Darling are concerned. It does not add up.

Menindee Lakes need some major re-engineering so that we do not have hundreds of gigalitres of dead water and so that it can be made more user-friendly. I think some work could also be done on Lake Victoria which has, I think, some 80 gigalitres of dead water that you cannot get out at times.

It is interesting to note that before the Natural Resources Committee went up north I also went on a tour up there, and I did see large expanses of water. I was aware that we needed water down this end to save our Lower Lakes from collapse, and I know there are conflicting points of view regarding whether any of that water could be transferred to the southern areas and the Lower Murray. However, I will just say this: if we lose 80 per cent from the northern areas of the Darling we lose 696 gigalitres to convey our 201 gigalitres of critical human needs now (if we bring it from Dartmouth—from the southern section, anyway). So we do not need to crucify northern irrigation per se, but it needs to be controlled. The water has been allocated at a ridiculous amount, and you cannot blame people for taking advantage of water that has been made available to them. If there is to be true national reform, we have to bring in the whole basin, and I think the northern basin will be pivotal in any recovery down at the bottom end.

I noted with interested the announcements made the other day. On 20 September, the federal government's exit plan was announced. If there is some money around and people want to exit the industry, well and good, but I do not believe there are any criteria available for that yet. However, I do note that, three weeks after a state announcement a few days later, some paper work and criteria are finally available for irrigators who want to stay in the industry and get water underwritten by the state government. However, it has really upset Riverland growers, who have been waiting for the criteria. Drought officers have been inundated with hundreds of calls from people trying to get in touch with people who supposedly know what is going on, and they have not had any information until this week. So, that has added to the distress of growers.

I note the unfairness of the underwriting package and that it does not suit horticulturists or vegetable growers. What is the difference, apart from the fact that they do not have permanent plantings? I acknowledge that permanent plantings do need a serious amount of water.

I want to reflect on water allocations at the moment. South Australia is currently on 11 per cent of high security water around a 600 gigalitre irrigation licence; New South Wales high security is on 80 per cent, a total of 198 gigalitres; New South Wales Murrumbidgee high security is on 95 per cent, at 283 gigalitres; and they also have 102 gigalitres of general security water, at 5 per cent; and New South Wales Lower Darling high security is on 100 per cent, which relates to 12 gigalitres of water. General security has been handed out at 20 per cent for 6 gigalitres, and the temporary trade rules have been relaxed. Victoria Murray high reliability water shares are on 13 per cent at 151.4 gigalitres; and Victorian Goulburn high reliability water shares are on 9 per cent, a 89.5 gigalitre share.

What I am saying is that, if we were heading anywhere near a national plan, we would have some alignment of allocations across the basin, but the problem is that tributaries are not taken into account. Some are taken into account in the new tier 2 process but, in the first instance, there are no end of tributary flows. The Darling, the Goulburn and the Murrumbidgee are taken out of the system, so you have to wonder what is going on. If we cannot get water, there should at least be some way of formalising allocations so that we can get Riverlanders and people further south in my electorate on at least 30 per cent water. That would mean that even our horticulture people could make some real decisions about whether they are going to make any money, and it would keep our permanent plantings alive. However, it is just not happening.

It was not until we had a poll on 20 September that we saw any action by the government on this matter. For over 20 months, this side of the house has called for urgent water measures for people living along the river, but, no, Mike Rann would not act. We have called for a desalination plant to be built in Adelaide to ease our reliance on the river but, no; again Mike Rann did not act. He was concerned that it would rain.

Another issue that really concerns me is that Mike Rann, the Premier of this state, has no interest in the seats of Chaffey or Hammond. I think he has a marginal interest in the seat of Finniss. I do not think he has any interest in the seats of MacKillop or Schubert, because there are no votes there. As I said, he might get a couple in Finniss, but I think our man is home free, especially given the way that water is being managed in this state.

We have seen $145,000 worth of TV ads trotted out on what we are doing. That is remarkable, isn't it? A centrepiece of last year's budget was the so-called enlargement of the Mount Bold reservoir, an $850 million project. It has virtually disappeared off the radar in this year's budget, and I think that is a good thing, because the Mount Bold expansion would just take most of its water from the River Murray. Why would you even go ahead with it? I believe the government is looking at over 130 sites in the hills anyway to find storage capability.

As far as desalination is concerned, we have a desal plant that I believe will take the longest time in the world to build and the government should just get on with the job. We are talking about a government which, while spinning these stories on how much it has done for this state, has failed to secure water not only for irrigators and people who need stock and domestic water but also for the gardens of Adelaide. Previous Liberal governments have worked on getting up to 20 per cent of the wastewater out to Virginia, and we as the opposition (at this stage) have put up policies for harvesting up to 89 gigalitres of stormwater to help ease Adelaide's reliance on the river.

In 2006, as the member for MacKillop mentioned earlier, when the Premier came back from his meeting in November with the Prime Minister and other premiers he said, 'We will build a weir at Wellington,' but little did he know then how much trouble that would cause him. A so-called $20 million project, I believe, has blown out to at least $200 million and beyond. I think if the government is ever crazy enough to go ahead with this, it has consigned our state to major desalination work not just for the Keith pipeline but also for water for Adelaide. That is where city people need to be concerned because, if the water for Adelaide is contaminated and needs major desalination for our main offtakes, you would have to wonder what is going on.

If we had any sense of national urgency in this plan, when at least John Howard's government brought a national plan together in 2007 and put up the Water Act, we would not have seen the state Labor government here led by Mike Rann let Bracks in the first instance and then Brumby get away with holding us to ransom, and his water minister—an alleged National Party member—is compliant. She is involved. In fact, I wonder whether the Premier is amused that his Labor minister is now sitting on the fence because she can count.

She is shoring up her spot if she has the seat sitting on the fence at the next election. The minister talks about spin. I think that she has spun around so much that she does not even know who she represents. She obviously has not represented her electorate, because the only way she got any action was when a bad poll came out for the Premier. That was the only time he took any notice. He could not care less about Chaffey; he only cares because it hit him in the polls, and finally the trouble down at the Lower Lakes hit him in the polls, because they take no notice. The minister sits over there but, as mentioned in the local papers, the National Party has put it out that it is there, not aligned with anyone. I wonder what the Premier thinks about that. His so-called Labor water security minister, which is an oxymoron anyway, has not brought any extra water to this state and neither will this bill because this minister is being compliant in letting Victoria sign up for its billion dollars—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; that is fine. We have a minister over there who wants to can the coalition government. She is riding the greasy fence so hard that she cannot even defend her so-called National colleagues because she does not know where she is. She was in Western Australia pleading with the Nationals—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK: —to go with Labor but she could not get them over the line because she knew she would be absolutely crucified at the polls. At the end of the day, I stand here to represent the people of Hammond and the people up and down the river, and we want to talk about politics. This minister is being compliant by putting out two papers. She is part of the federal announcement for the exit package and the state package and, between her and the agriculture minister, no criteria were available for people until this week.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: Why didn't you come and ask?

Mr PEDERICK: We did ask. I have asked your office and I can track down the emails. People want to talk about politics—that was all about politics and nothing about getting water for this state. Private irrigators at Langhorne Creek have gone ahead and put their own pipeline in so that they can survive. Under pressure, a pipeline is going into Meningie and the surrounding area.

I must admit that Chris Marles from SA Water is doing a pretty reasonable job down there working with people to get them hooked up. It disappoints me that these people have gone since November 2006 and they have no surety. One of the issues now is that, when the pipelines go down to Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek, there could be thousands of people who do not even have stock and domestic water. The minister admitted this in answer to a question the other day. She puts her hands on her hips because that is how much she cares. I commend the bill but, as I have said, there is so much spin—

Mr Williams: Too little too late.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, too little too late. The so-called Minister for Water Security is part of a government that spends $19 million a year to employ 157 spin doctors. She was elected in 1997 on straight-line racing, but she never got that through. She has not got a drop of water for this state and it is an absolute disgrace.

Time expired.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (17:14): I rise to support the bill. When I came into this parliament in 1970, a controversy and great debate was taking place on water in the state: whether we should have a dam at Chowilla or Dartmouth. Fortunately, the right decision was made. To his long-term credit, Steele Hall, even though it may have cost him government, put the interests of the people of this state first and we can probably thank Henry Bolte who vetoed Chowilla and told then premier Dunstan what the facts of life were politically, and the right decisions were made. This parliament has the opportunity to make the right decision to protect the future of the people of this state and probably south-east Australia.

I am one of those who has been fortunate enough in recent times to go to Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales to look at some of the water issues. I do not profess to be an expert, but it was enlightening and educational, and many things need to be taken into consideration. As someone with a large electorate that is reliant on the River Murray for a lot of its water, my understanding is that Murray water can now be piped nearly as far as Penong, which is a long way from the River Murray.

The challenge facing this parliament is to get it right and make sure that both the short and long-term interests of the people of this state are protected. John Howard had wise counsel when he put this on as an issue to ensure that it attracted the attention of state and federal governments. It was unfortunate that he was stymied in his effort to achieve a result.

We are now in a situation where it is clear that there needs to be one authority to run the river. We all know that that will be difficult, and one of the reasons it will be difficult is base politics, particularly in New South Wales. If we are really straight up and down, only a federal Labor government can fix this because it does not have the seats at stake in New South Wales and other areas that will be affected by the tough decisions.

I realise that the commonwealth government's attention has been diverted in recent days, but poor hardworking people are suffering (and some are in my electorate), and my heart goes out to them about what is happening to their plantings. I spoke to one of them on the phone the other day; he was cutting down some of his trees, and that is heart-rending. In my constituency, the packing shed has been closed, and that has had an effect because there are not a lot of jobs in Cadell.

What this parliament has to do is make sure that we put in place long-term strategies that will ensure that we get a fair share of the allocation—not more than our share, but a fair share—because our people in the Riverland have had an expectation that they will always have enough water to sustain themselves, their crops and their families. It would be an absolute disaster for this state and this nation if the majority of those plantings were allowed to die and not continue.

We have a very strong responsibility to do the right thing. I am not one who really likes handing powers to the commonwealth, I can tell you. I believe in the Federation, I believe in the commonwealth system and I believe in state rights. In most cases, the best people to make decisions are those closest to where the decision will take effect and, for little day-to-day things, that is local government. State governments are best placed to provide services.

However, where you have a situation like the one we have created with the River Murray, it is clear that state issues have overridden the common good of the system. In my view, allocations have been made unwisely and, of course, the challenge is to get them back. The buyback scheme and other supports that have been put in place are certainly steps in the right direction.

Those who want to leave the industry should be allowed to do so with dignity, and those who want to live on in their homes and on their blocks should be able to do so if they meet certain criteria. I hope that the councils relax their current stringent arrangements, although I know the difficulties surrounding Cadell and other places. There appears to me to be no point in shifting these people out of these areas as that will cause social dislocation. If they are given a package and they can live in their homes, that appears to me to be a good thing. Common sense should apply because many of them want to live there as they have lived there for generations.

Even though this bill is in no way perfect, I hope that it is at the first step along a road that will ensure that the people in the Riverland and the lakes have a future and that they get a fair cut of the cake. I am a great supporter of desalination. I was involved at Coober Pedy when desalination was put in there. That town lives on desalinated water—and lives very well and probably has the purest water in South Australia. The council has done an outstanding job in running it and, therefore, the construction of a desalination plant to supply Adelaide and one for the Spencer Gulf and Eyre Peninsula should have started yesterday. We must proceed with all haste because we have to reduce our dependence on the Murray. Every litre we can save is in our interests and, if it is going to help the hard-pressed communities in the Riverland, there will be a cost as there always is, but it is a cost we have to bear; and if it means that some other facilities have to be slowed down or gone without, so be it. At the end of the day I support these two bills and sincerely hope that the spirit of cooperation is improved.

The Victorian government has been less than honourable in the way it has carried on. It has been very belligerent, self-centred and appears so far to have got the best cut of the cake. If you believe in fairness and in being reasonable, they have adopted a narrow, selfish viewpoint. Notwithstanding that, this is a first step in what will be in my view a long and difficult road, but that should not prevent us from doing what is right, because in my view we have no alternative but to fix the problem. If we do not address it, the next generation will hold us in complete contempt because of our incompetence. It will be an act of gross incompetence not to resolve this problem and ensure that our Riverland, the food bowl of Australia, is protected and that we have adequate supplies; otherwise we will not see green lawns in Adelaide again, or only in winter. I support the bill and hope that it achieves the objective indicated by the minister.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (17:18): I speak in support of the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008. The Minister for Water Security has introduced this bill into parliament, along with the Murray-Darling Basin Bill 2008, to which I will refer briefly in passing. However, my remarks essentially are centred on the referral of the powers to the commonwealth. Then there is the question of what the commonwealth will do with those powers. I mention a technical point, first, that this transfer of powers occurs under sections 51 and 37 of our federal constitution, and it cannot happen without a voluntary transfer of powers from a state, and in this case several states are getting together to give the commonwealth power in general terms over the River Murray.

The meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on 3 July 2008 was historic in reaching the agreement among the relevant states to refer these powers to the commonwealth. I was very critical of something that I believe was overlooked at that meeting, namely, to limit or abolish the cap on trade of water out of jurisdictions within the Murray-Darling Basin. That is something I will come back to later as it will be what the commonwealth needs to do, among other things. It is better late than never to have this referral of powers to the commonwealth. It is a fair question to ask why it has not been done before.

When we go back historically to the legacy of having six colonies that formed the Commonwealth of Australia, each colony acted entirely as a different country before Federation; but, apart from that history of entirely separate jurisdictions legislatively and constitutionally, we also had the plentiful rain in past years, throughout most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is hard for us to imagine today that paddle-steamers were one of the most important forms of transport for the carriage of goods in the south eastern part of Australia, going back to the 19th century. These days it is extremely limited where you can get houseboats to run, let alone big paddle-steamers.

The result of the separate jurisdictions arising from the different colonies, plus the relatively plentiful water in the system and the formerly relatively low extractions from the river, meant that the decision makers at the time in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide believed that there was more than enough water and probably always would be, so we have the vexed issue of over allocation of the water in the river. I believe that if every irrigator and every user of the river took their full allocation of the river we would probably empty the river several times over. The point we have reached has been brought on by six years of drought. One could say that the dry years have extended even longer than that—back to the mid-1990s—but the past six years at least have led to the crisis we now have.

I refer to a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. In the past few weeks it has a published a report on water management in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. The Senate committee report provides a useful history of our current problems. It refers to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission when discussing the factors which have contributed to the severity of the current drought. It recognises that there has been an overallocation of the water resources. It refers to the high temperatures we have been experiencing recently. In three of the past five years, the basin has had the hottest temperatures on record of approximately 100 years of records. I attribute this to climate change, and I suggest that it is more likely than not that these sorts of conditions will be with us into the future.

Thirdly, it refers to changed rainfall patterns. The rain which the basin used to get no longer falls where it used to fall. We seem to have a persisting alteration of our climate in eastern Australia. Again, I make the point that this will not revert back to some longed-for 20th century normality. Fourthly, we have just had the lowest inflow year on record; that is, the water running into the River Murray system has been about 60 per cent below the previous record minimum. The River Murray is not getting in, by rainfall or run-off or inflow from other river systems, what it used to get.

Finally, we have had two consecutive very dry years. That might not seem extreme in itself, but the past two years are extraordinary because never before in the historical record have there been such two dry years consecutively. Previously when we have had extremely dry years (and the Senate report refers to three occasions during the 20th century), they have not been followed by another extremely dry year. On the contrary, in accordance with what had been the natural pattern for the river, those dry years in the 20th century were followed by very wet years. Those days, I am afraid, are gone.

These dry years, then, have brought us to a crisis—a crisis for irrigators and a potential threat for human communities along the river and those relying on it, like Adelaide itself. To explain it another way, one of the reasons we have not had such an arrangement before is the self-interest of people in the various jurisdictions. I refer to decision makers in Sydney and Melbourne looking after their respective constituents, particularly irrigators and dairy farmers adjacent to the River Murray. In recent times we have seen prime examples of this, with Premier Brumby of Victoria being able to twist the arm of the commonwealth to extract an extra $1 billion, it would appear, in return for concessions in relation to the very agreement to which this bill relates.

We also see, at the moment, proposals in Victoria for a pipeline to Melbourne from the Goulburn Valley extracting 75 gigalitres and, again, it seems that Victoria is blithely carrying on as it wishes without regard for people across the border. This is just part of the folly of our Australian system, that in a sense that is all Premier Brumby should be doing: looking after Victorians, but if we are going to live together as Australians we need to have a greater sense of community across the border. One of the members of this parliament told me that a member of the New South Wales parliament had told them that, if it was not for Adelaide, they would have the river stop at the border and they could use all of that water for irrigators and farmers in New South Wales and Victoria. That may be apocryphal, and certainly is only hearsay, but it is an indication of an attitude that I believe does exist.

At least we have come to the point where these various states have agreed to refer these powers to the commonwealth. There is a real question about whether the factors I have mentioned will be altered substantially by referral of these powers. I think one of the reasons it has not been done before is that there is at least an argument that referral of the powers to the commonwealth will not make a difference. The reason is that the very same political forces at work in each of the respective states are also at work in the federal parliament. For example, we have 11 House of Representatives members in South Australia. New South Wales has about 50 members and Victoria has somewhere in between.

The point is that, in Canberra, South Australia is treated as a relatively insignificant entity and concern compared to the eastern seaboard concerns. It would be nice to think that the Senate operates as a states' rights house and that all of our senators are pulling 100 per cent for a better deal for South Australia, but we know that in the Labor and Liberal parties that is always coloured by their allegiance to their political party, if not a particular faction within a party. I am very glad that we have Senator Nick Xenophon and Sarah Hanson-Young, who appear to be well and truly batting for South Australia when it comes to these water issues.

When this legislation goes through, as it will, the critical question will then become: what will the commonwealth do with the powers it receives under this legislation? Once again, the recent Senate standing committee report is highly instructive in this regard. The Senate committee report discussed what happens next. What happens next is a so-called interim plan, and it is suggested that the interim plan for solving the River Murray issues, or at least taking steps towards that, will take two years to put together.

I am quite shocked at that figure. I understand that to map out every water resource, indeed to measure every water resource throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, is a highly complex task. It is a matter of setting the right policy. It is a matter of getting people out on the ground to ensure that water meters are put in place where they should be. It is a matter of gathering the best science about hydrology, rainfall and climate. I understand it is a very complex task, but my point is that there are people in the Riverland and the Lower Lakes, and the environment itself of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, who cannot afford to wait two years. So, if there is to be an interim plan to work towards solving the River Murray issues, then we need an interim, interim plan (a short, short-term plan) to solve these issues which are critical now.

I am concerned that the federal government has actually given up on the Lower Lakes, and not that I want to be cynical, but if that is the case, it may be that, instead of Premier Rann wearing the opprobrium for building a weir on the river at the top of the Lower Lakes, it will be a federal government which will do that, irrespective of the state election coming up in 17 months' time. Nonetheless, if the weir proceeds, it will certainly stir up much sentiment against the government of Premier Rann.

The solution to the basin's problems, insofar as they are humanly possible to fix, start from the legal arrangements for extraction of water from the river. It seems to me fairly obvious that, first, you would want to know how much water is in the river before you decide to allocate it. If you are running a restaurant or any kind of catering business, you need to know how much you have before you can share it out among people. It is just that obvious, yet for a while there seemed to be resistance to having a proper audit of waters stored in the various lakes and so on in the river upstream from South Australia.

The first thing to do is to work out how much water we have in the river and how much is available in the various water storages. I would have thought the second thing that we need to do is then to work out a baseline for environmental purposes so that, whatever anyone else receives, environmental purposes and human drinking purposes and the other human requirements of water that we have would be looked at first, and that really has to be the baseline for extraction. Once that is drawn, then you look at what is available for sharing out to those who produce our food crops, cattle and so on. It seems to me that the free market should have much more play when it comes to allocation of water in the River Murray.

It seems a long way to get to from here, but it seems sensible to me to have a series of shares or water contracts that people could buy as they need it across the whole river from that water which is available after human and environmental needs are taken care of. It would be important in a relatively free water market for the Murray-Darling Basin to have rules stopping speculation. For example, it would be necessary to have a requirement to use such water purchased within a period so that people could not just hold on to water allocations and sell them when the going gets tough for farmers, etc. So that, I think, is a starting point.

In the short term it is absolutely essential to move forward on the buy-back of water. The South Australian government has money to do it and the federal government has money for us to do it. I think it is reprehensible that the 4 per cent cap on water trading out of any particular jurisdiction remains in place. I realise that the COAG meeting in July said that the cap would be increased a few per cent but I cannot see the justification for having any such cap at all. I sincerely believe that it is in contravention of the federal constitution. Section 92 of the constitution says that there should be no restraint on interstate trade. I am surprised that somebody who wants water from an upstream willing seller of water has not taken a case to the High Court to insist that the trade be able to go through, if it is blocked purely because of that 4 per cent cap.

In terms of the Senate committee report, to which I have referred, I particularly commend members to the minority report of Senator Xenophon and Senator Hanson-Young. They have suggested a number of things which need to be done virtually immediately. For example, they say that the commonwealth government should acquire 60 gigalitres of fresh water by next spring to maintain the water level of the Lower Lakes above the critical acidification point. They say there should be a commonwealth-funded task force to oversee and coordinate the continuing acquisition of water and the coordination of environmental management for the Coorong.

They believe that flooding the Lower Lakes with saltwater should be ruled out. They say that pumping 50 gigalitres of hypersaline water from the southern lagoon in the Coorong, to improve environmental conditions, should be undertaken immediately. They say that the commonwealth should investigate the conditions around the non-return of some 113 gigalitres of environmental water loaned from the Murrumbidgee, and to expedite its return. I do not have time remaining to explain that point.

These senators also say that, in the medium term, 350 gigalitres needs to be found through management of the Murray-Darling Basin to provide for the health of the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. Above all, we need to remove impediments to water trading, as I have suggested.

Time expired.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. K.A. Maywald]


Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:42): In the year 2008 it is pretty hard to come to grips with the extent of the debacle surrounding the Murray River and the Murray-Darling Basin. One of my first memories (apart from making sandcastles and a few other things) is the flooding of the Murray River around 50 years ago. It is hard to look now at the debacle we have around us.

I also recall (I think around the early sixties) the Chowilla Dam proposal which was the subject of great political intrigue at the time and which, as a teenager, I followed with interest. It was probably a bit of a political awakening for me. Here we are now in 2008, with me sitting in this place, and it's water, water, water. In fact, in Australia the subject of water is never going to go away and we need to realise that.

I indicate my support for this bill, quite clearly. As has been said by a number of speakers, it is, quite clearly, too little too late. We only have to go back to former prime minister Howard's $10 billion water plan last year, which was scuttled by Mr Brumby, with a good deal of political opportunism at the time, to wonder when people are really going to get serious about the dramatic impact that this river's lack of water is having on the Australian community—and I will come to my sector of the community in a minute.

We have good seasons, we have ordinary seasons, we have average seasons and we have dry seasons. It should come as no surprise to anyone in this place, because we have been stricken with drought in this country for six years, and even Blind Freddy could see what was going to happen. A whole economy has been built down the length of the river around irrigation and the use of water and we have been steadily running that supply down. We now have communities in dire straits, we have huge amounts of irrigation business in terrible trouble, we have families going to the wall and there is no end to it in sight.

I have heard the minister and the Premier quite regularly saying, 'Well, we need rain.' Yes, of course we need rain, but the other side of the situation is that we need to do something a whole lot smarter than we are doing at the moment. If you have a Commodore car and you put 73 litres of fuel in it you can drive for approximately 700 kilometres. We have a river with a certain amount of water running into it, with a certain amount held in it and we have run the tank on it well and truly dry. No-one more than I would like to see some direct and strong action taken by the federal government. Unfortunately, with Rudd the dud, I do not think we are ever going to see anything happen. The man is an absolute twit who is more interested in process than making anything happen. This is what is wrong with the nation. We are not going forward in any way, shape or form.

In regard to this debacle, we have had senate inquiries and I tell you that, in that small portion of the Lower Lakes that is in my electorate, my constituents have had a gutful of senate inquiries, they have had a gutful of visiting politicians (of all persuasions), and they have had a gutful of Mayo by-election people running around who are all going to save the world from all different parties, coming on, making at lot of noise and then disappearing down the drain when the by-election is over. But those of us who are stuck along the river—and the minister is one of those in her electorate (not stuck, but placed I should say)—know that this is not going away and know how people are suffering. They know that people are suffering in a chronic way and yet we had the debacle on the weekend where the Governor-General came to South Australia and went to Goolwa.

I happened to be in Goolwa on Saturday afternoon. I do not know what the arrangements were. I was not asked to attend and nor was the federal member for Mayo. That is fine, it was an unofficial visit and I am quite comfortable with that, but then a number of businessmen from Goolwa approached me saying that they had not been given the opportunity to speak to the Governor-General. They were not invited. I do not know who arranged it, but people were selectively invited to go and meet the Governor-General. People such as Randall Cooper, Keith Parkes and the Chapman family from the Hindmarsh Island marina, who employ many people and are the biggest ratepayers down there, were not asked to attend. I do not know who invited them, but t is something that has only created more angst down there.

That is one of the big issues for me, that these communities are starting to tear each other's throats out—not starting, they are well on the way, I would suggest—and I think that that is a very sad indictment on where we find ourselves regarding the whole state of the river and the Lower Lakes. People in my area, who have been friends for 30 and 40 years, all now hardly speak to one another. I know that the local authority, the council down there, is on the nose for a great number of members of the community, and I find that unfortunate. I think that the council has struggled to come to grips with the situation. Probably through no fault of its own, it has been floundering. The community has been floundering, the business people are floundering, the farmers and irrigators are floundering and the dairy farmers are floundering. It just goes on and on.

Purely and simply, we have an overallocation from the river. The river cannot continue to sustain what has been happening, whether it is for human use or anything else. I am hopeful that in due course Adelaide is totally weaned off the River Murray. I do not believe that in 20 years' time—or whatever the given period is—any water whatsoever should be needed from the River Murray to supply Adelaide. We should get right out of it. Reservoir storage can be increased and we have desalination, which was proposed last year our side of the house and which has been picked up by the Rann government. That is still a fair way off, but now we have this bill brought before the house in an effort to try to establish some sort of centralised control and firm direction for the River Murray. Is it going to work?

I fear that anything put together by man can only be destroyed by man. So, whether this comes to fruition and whether it is the answer to our question, I do not know. It is also a fair way off until centralised control takes over. It is almost as if we need to bring in a heap of New Zealanders to run the Murray so that Australians do not have any part in any way, shape or form, so there is no conflict of interest. If we are going to put bureaucrats or politicians in charge, they will get leaned on.

A few minutes ago, the member for Mitchell talked about the number of members of the House of Representatives coming out of New South Wales and Victoria. We are pathetically inadequate with our 11. We will get rolled every time. As Premier Rann sits around the COAG table and as he heads up the Australian Labor Party federally for a few more months, it is about time he got off his derrière and did something, because everyone is sick of it. Everybody has had an absolute gutful. I despair about where we will end up.

There is some talk that this drought will not break for another four or five years. That may well be the case. This spring has undoubtedly proven what a diabolical mess we are in. Even the higher rainfall areas of the state are struggling; they are falling over. It is the middle of October and my own area of the Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island is going off so rapidly it beggars belief. We have total crop failures on the West Coast; the bottom of the Yorke Peninsula has had it—it has gone, crops have died down there—and the Mallee is a disaster.

Mr Venning: The Mid North is not much better.

Mr PENGILLY: I do not know what the Mid North is like; I have not been up there for a while, but I will take your word for it. We are not going to get away from this drought. We only have to go back over the millennia in Australia to see that we have always had drought, and we always will, but we have not sucked so much water out of the system that there is nothing left to use now; we have not had this enormous agricultural and irrigation business built the length and breadth of the Murray; and we have not had selfish greed by other states. If Mr Brumby thought a bit further ahead than last year's Victorian election and the election that faced the former federal government, we might be a bit further down the track from where we are now.

The amount of water that we waste in this country, in South Australia and in the metropolitan area is of great concern. All people seem to think they have to do is turn on the tap and water will come out ad infinitum. It is like getting milk out of cartons. For the life of me, I do not know why we do not propose that every new house is constructed with 10,000 litres of water storage. We live in the driest state in the driest country in the world, and we are not even forcing people to put in rainwater tanks of any substance.

I have 250,000 litres of rainwater on my property. That gets us through. That is what we use. We water the garden with the water that comes out of the washing machine. We save the water and reuse it. In South Australia, we have this winner-takes-all attitude; we just keep on using water, we do not need to save it. The government brings in water restrictions, which obviously it has to do, but there is no long-term planning for making people save and use water that falls out of the sky.

As I have said before in this place, when we had three young children, we got through the whole summer on 10,000 gallons. We watered the garden, we did the washing, we bathed the kids and ourselves, and we got through on 10,000 gallons. That has all disappeared. The minister may care to think about it when she is in cabinet.

We need to bring back these conservation measures. Out in the bush they are still used, but in the largest population centre in the state, the City of Adelaide, the metropolitan area, where we have well over one million people with a few thousand outside the metropolitan area, we do not save the water. It is a 20-inch rainfall in Adelaide. Most houses, sheds and buildings can catch enormous amounts of water, but we do not save it. It should be compulsory, mandatory, to have rainwater tanks to take the pressure off the Murray. It is something I feel strongly about. I support the bill, but I return to those people who live in my electorate, those communities of the Lower Lakes and the people of Goolwa, and I say that they are in absolute despair.

They are seeing their livelihoods and their whole environment change because of what is going on and man's inaction. They want to put up suggestions. A suggestion has been put up for a barrier at Laffin's Point which, I understand, the government has been looking at. I am not sure of the status of that at the moment; I have spoken about it in the last couple of weeks. That proposal has been put up by some local people, but whether or not that gets off the ground, I do not know. Members on this side of the house are adamantly opposed to both flooding the lakes with sea water and the weir. We want those lakes kept fresh. We want that environmental flow sent down the river so that we can get some water into the lakes to maintain the environmental potential of the lakes and the industries around it.

I issue a plea to the other side of the house and to the Rann government: for heaven's sake, get something happening; for heaven's sake, get onto Rudd the dud, give him a kick up the backside and get him moving on this. We are absolutely right behind that. I conclude my remarks and leave this bill to go through the house as it should in quick succession to get on with the job.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:57): We are supporting this bill on this side for a number of reasons. Let us look at the long history of the mismanagement of water and water resources in South Australia, which, unfortunately, has been due to no particular political ideology on both sides of politics. Opportunities have been lost, but now there is this huge opportunity to move forward and finally get a real solution for the River Murray, the Murray-Darling Basin and, hopefully, for South Australia—and not just the irrigators but also the people in Adelaide and industry; those who rely on the River Murray, as well as those who are able to use water from other sources but who in hard times rely on the River Murray.

A gigalitre of water is a figure that is thrown out there a fair bit, but the best way for people to envisage a gigalitre of water is to go across to Adelaide Oval and imagine it filled 50 metres deep. That is the height of a 12-storey building. If you filled that with water it would be a gigalitre of water, and that is a lot of water. South Australia's whole entitlement is 1,850 gigalitres. Adelaide's consumption is 200 gigalitres. So, 200 Adelaide ovals, 12 storeys high: that is what Adelaide uses each year. About 80 gigalitres of that comes from the river. In normal years that is about 80 gigalitres but in drought years it is up to 160 gigalitres. We are in a fairly fragile position here in Adelaide.

Our water reliance on the River Murray does fluctuate, and in years like the one we are having now we could be in real strife if something is not done to permanently solve the issues around water and particularly the River Murray. The history of the management of the River Murray does go back a long way. My first real awareness of what was going on in the River Murray was when we bought a farm at Wellington. We bought 650 acres south of the town. It was a dry block. It had two licences on it before we bought it. Both those licences were sold off up the river.

I am not sure how big those licences were, but they were quite significant licences. There was 160-odd acres of flood licence (which I did not think you could move, but obviously you could), and there was about 400 acres of highland licence, which was sold off up the river. We managed this as a dry block. I believe that is something that has been wrong with the management of the river. You should not be taking more and more water out of the river higher and higher up, and leaving the lakes and the Coorong, particularly, to suffer. I went down to the lakes last Wednesday. I went to Murray Bridge, crossed the punt at Jervois where there is the 12-tonne load limit, and came back across at Wellington, and the level certainly has dropped significantly there.

I spoke to a truckie at a meeting on Thursday night. He comes from Langhorne Creek. He does not use either of those ferries now for livestock transport around to the other side; he goes via the Swanport Bridge at Murray Bridge. There is a real issue with the river. When you go down to Milang, Clayton and then Goolwa you can really see that the Lower Lakes are suffering. So, if for no other reason than that once pristine area down at the Lower Lakes, we do need to get this right and get it right as soon as we possibly can.

The current government has had a series of Thinkers in Residence in this state. In 2004 we had Professor Peter Cullen, and in his report to the government he pointed out in the preface:

Many South Australians often feel hostage to the upstream states who take so much of the water of the Murray to support irrigation. Since Federation, South Australia has sought to influence how other states use the waters of the Murray, and it is critical to the future of the state that these efforts continue.

That is what this bill is all about. It is about getting the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin managed in one combined effort. The recommendations that Professor Cullen made in his report were that the government should be establishing a high level review team to determine how to align South Australia's water entitlements with those being developed in other states. There are about 10 or 11 recommendations, and each time it is all about getting an integrated response to coping with our water difficulties, and particularly with the River Murray.

In the foreword to Professor Peter Cullen's report in September 2004, Mike Rann, Premier of South Australia, stated:

The water situation in South Australia has become critical.

This is in September 2004, four years ago—it has become critical, but now we get the legislation. So, what was he doing in 2007 with the premiers interstate? He was not doing what he should have been doing then. He should have made them realise that the water situation in South Australia was critical. He continued:

I do believe, however, that South Australians are coming to realise that we now need to act with some urgency.

That was four years ago: it is critical and it is urgent, but we still had to wait four years.

The efforts by various governments over the years are probably epitomised by the Mr Drip campaign, and there was some publicity about that in the weekend press. In 1967 we had the driest year on record until then—I would be interested to see how we compare now—and the then Labor government (the Dunstan government) decided against restrictions and opted instead for a mass media campaign urging voluntary restraint, and it had a fantastic result. Now we have people dobbing in their neighbours—people are too scared to water.

I was speaking on the weekend to a fellow who was weeding his almost (already) dead lawn. He had missed the Saturday option to water (his house is number 44). He could not water on the Sunday, so he had to wait until the following week. Had he tried to water on Sunday, and to do so wisely, he could have been dobbed in. Way back in 1967 there was trust, but not now. It is now dob in your neighbours, which is not the way to go.

We should go back to trusting South Australians to do the right thing. As was shown back in 1967 with the Mr Drip campaign, they did save many thousands of litres of water. They also put in place a number of water saving measures, such as changing tap washers and fixing showers. All the sorts of things that we talk about now were done back then. Unfortunately, once it rained it was all forgotten and things continued as before.

The next publicity campaign by a Labor government was in the 1970s—I have the 45 record, and I have the cover of it here. It was a similar situation: voluntarily encouraging people to take it easy. The 45 record was titled Water. Take it easy this summer, and the jingle was all about saving water, as follows:

There'd be no gold fish or splash or splish, we couldn't have a bath, no bath not half, there'd be nothing to pour, it would simply be a bore. We'll take it easy this summer.

It was pretty corny by today's terms but it worked. People were then switching on to the message and turning off their taps and reducing their water usage. It was a great thing to see that we could trust South Australians then. We can trust them today, but unfortunately this government does not accept the fact that we can trust them. When it comes to saving water, whether it is from the Murray or from our reservoirs, we can trust South Australians, as we should.

The next effort to try to fix water problems in South Australia was again made by a Labor government. In 1989 we had a report by Susan Lenehan entitled '21 options for the 21st century'. In her foreword, Susan Lenehan, the then minister for water resources, stated:

A responsible government must prepare for unforeseen circumstances. What if the River Murray, the backbone of our water supply, was no longer available? What if there was an inordinate increase in demand? What about the greenhouse effect?

This is 1989. We still did not take any notice then, and the issues have continued to roll on. This legislation is very important. We hear all the time, 'You can't make it rain.' Even in the Susan Lenehan report, on page 11, there is a piece on cloud-seeding. The then government was looking at an estimated cost of $300,000 per annum to go along the path of cloud-seeding. The expected rainfall was about 8 gigalitres, depending on seasonal conditions. I do not know what is happening with cloud-seeding or rain-making technology, but it was interesting to see that it was raised then. However, all we hear now is, 'You can't make it rain', and that is the excuse for the woes that confront us.

Back in 1989 the desal plant was mentioned, but it was not a desal plant on the coast: it was a desal plant on the River Murray. In fact, there were two desal plants being put up for auction then. One was at Mannum and one was Murray Bridge. The estimated cost then was $400 million, and they were going to get 190 gigalitres of water a year from the River Murray that would have to be desalinated. Why was it being desalinated? Because there was a massive inflow of salt into the River Murray from the Murray-Darling Basin.

The salt interception schemes that the Liberal government (I think it may have been either the Kerin or Olsen Liberal government) put in place have reduced that dramatically. The River Murray is certainly nowhere near as salty as it might have been had those schemes not been put in place. We were also looking at a desal plant on the coast. It does not remove the fact, though, that the whole issue with the River Murray is the water and water quality and what we are doing with that water.

The Waterproofing Adelaide paper that the Rann Labor government put out in January 2004 was yet another attempt, but it was just a lot of talk and not a lot of action, unfortunately. Page 17 of the report states:

The South Australian water users have had reliable access to the River Murray since the adoption of the 1914 River Murray Waters Agreement...

But that was certainly not always the case, and to say that was not quite right, because we have certainly had droughts. We had times when the River Murray really was overused and certainly was not as reliable a source for people, particularly in Adelaide, that it might have been.

In 2002 the Liberal government's water resources policy offered an integrated water strategy. This brought together the CSIRO, the government and other agencies to advise on strategies and long-term plans for integrated water resource management in Adelaide and the regions. There are a number of recommendations but, once again, unfortunately the Rann Labor government was put in power. We have seen, unfortunately, lots of talk but not a lot of action since then.

Liberal policies in 2002 laid the foundation for what we saw earlier this year from the Liberal opposition, and that was 'Waterproofing South Australia: a framework for action'. There are a number of recommendations. Recommendation 12.1 about the River Murray states:

We will support the federal government's $10 billion rescue package and new governance arrangements for the River Murray whilst ensuring environmental flows and adequate representation for South Australia.

This has been going on for years and years. Certainly, we on this side are looking forward to something constructive, getting together with the federal government and the other states, and making sure that the River Murray will be able to be a lifeline as a water supply for Adelaide, for the irrigators, for the many communities along the length of the river and down at the lakes, and for the big industries that use it for not only just irrigation and agriculture but also for recreation and sport. The 'experience industries', as I call them, really do rely on the river. Unfortunately, the houseboat industry is really suffering because of the false perception that there is no water in the Murray. In fact, there are reasonable levels of water in the Murray, but it is just not flowing at the moment.

So there are a number of issues that we need to get on top of with regard to the river. It is not just about supplying water to drink: it is also about making sure industries are taken care of and, more importantly for us and for our grandchildren and for our children's children's children, that environmental concerns are taken care of. When you look at the Coorong, at the Lower Lakes, when you travel up the river itself, you can see that there is a huge opportunity there for us to at last get this right. We need to make sure that the powers that are to be transferred to a central authority are such that they can actually do what we want them to do—what all Australians and all South Australians want them to do.

We need to make sure that the many years of the Mr Drip campaign, of Waterproofing South Australia, of the 1989 campaign, the 2004 Peter Cullen report, are not just more reports that will sit on the shelf; we need to make sure those reports are noted, are acted upon, and that the future of the Murray and of all those who have anything to do with it—who use it, who drink it, who boat on it, who look at it—is looked after. As I said, and just as importantly, we also need to make sure that the environment itself is looked after. The environment is far too precious to waste, and this opportunity is also far too precious to waste.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (18:12): I am happy to contribute to the debate on the bills before the house in relation to the River Murray. I will not delay the house for long but I want to express a view about where we are with the Murray, how we got there, and where we might need to go.

I come to this debate as one of possibly only three people in this chamber who have actually sat on the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (there may be four of us, as I look around the chamber). I have seen how that particular mechanism did or did not work (depending on your view), and I am not one who accepts the view put out by the federal government that this is a problem of the states.

I well remember attending a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting where we had to stop the meeting so that the three federal representatives—Warren Truss, Wilson Tuckey and Robert Hill—could leave the room and get their story right, because we had three federal ministers arguing three different positions at that ministerial council. So I do not for one minute accept the view put forward by federal colleagues that the administrative arrangements that have delivered some of the issues in relation to the Murray are a problem of the states alone. I think the federal administrations of both colours can wear their fair share of the criticism as well—and I take great joy in reminding them of that.

Ultimately, the issue regarding administration of the Murray is this: it is administered by politicians who, over 100 years, like all other groups of politicians, tend to administer things on the basis of votes and not on the basis of needs. The new structure that has to be put in place needs to be one where decisions are made on the basis of the needs of the river and not on the basis of the needs of the vote. So I support the concept of a Reserve Bank-style administration where the decisions on caps and water allocations are not made by elected politicians, otherwise it will ultimately come down to an electoral cycle somewhere where the cap will be decided on the basis of votes.

If you want a good example of that, read former National Party leader John Anderson's autobiography, in which he says that his greatest achievement was getting greater water allocations for the National Party seats throughout New South Wales. That is not necessarily a criticism of that party: it is an example of how the system is designed around votes and not around the needs of the river. I am of the view that, whatever system is put in place, it needs to be about the needs of the river and not the need for votes.

That is the problem we have, because a veto applies with the current arrangement and, indeed, the future arrangement, as I understand it. If you want to see a blatant example of the veto in use, you need to look no further than John Brumby. If ever there was an act of political bastardry on the Australian river system, it was by John Brumby when he was undermining the Howard deal. Regardless of what you think of the Howard deal, there was a great opportunity for the Murray-Darling Basin states to give up their veto, take the deal that was offered and, once and for all, put the decision-making capacity into that independent-style authority that everyone is talking about.

In my view, for crass political purposes, Brumby held out to undermine the Howard proposal, because of the then forthcoming federal election. He then essentially held the Rudd government to ransom in relation to funding of projects and money, using the power of veto, and that is the problem we are going to have with the future arrangements. My understanding of it is that, essentially, we are referring the administrative powers but not the powers necessarily in relation to allocation or caps. At the end of the day, all the arguments are going to be about allocation and caps.

I have been to rallies at Goolwa and the Lower Lakes, and, as the minister knows, I have recently spent time at Renmark, in her electorate, talking to some locals there. Ultimately, it comes down to, 'Well, how come so and so in New South Wales has 80 per cent allocation and we've got only 6 per cent?' or whatever the figure happens to be, and it changes from time to time. So, it is the issue of caps and allocations that, ultimately, will be the key issues, rather than necessarily the administrative issues, and the caps and allocations are going to be subject to veto.

I think the shadow minister mentioned in his speech that it was too little, too late. I wrote to Brendan Nelson when he was the federal leader of the Liberal Party, expressing my view that the federal government should call the state's bluff and, indeed, the federal opposition should call the states' bluff and it should introduce legislation (or, if Xenophon's legislation is suitable, support that) so that all the powers are transferred through to the federal government, as long as the protection of South Australia's critical water needs is there, and let the states take them to the High Court.

This state has a great track record of going to the High Court. I remember going to the High Court over radioactive waste dumps and a number of other things. The federal government could move to take over all those powers through legislation, and there are plenty of constitutional lawyers around who say that the federal government has the power. I note that Mr Xenophon has introduced legislation that has not been ruled unconstitutional by the Clerk of the Senate.

So, I say to the federal opposition and the federal government: get your heads together, introduce legislation and call the states' bluff, because would the Rann government be prepared to go to the High Court contesting whether the federal government had the power to take over all of its powers, including the veto? My guess is that it would be untenable for the Rann government to go to the High Court because South Australians want the federal government to take it over holus-bolus. I accept the fact that that does not mean that Victoria, New South Wales and other states would not go to the High Court and test it.

We are going to have exactly the same problem with the Murray, under this new proposal, because the veto remains on the two key questions. So unless the federal government is prepared to get hairy-chested about it and take some tough decisions, then all we are really doing is referring up some administrative niceties, which may make the administration simpler and that might be a good thing. Unless someone can convince me that we are referring caps and allocations with protections for South Australia's critical water needs—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, the minister says they might be. That is not necessarily my understanding—then I think there will be some issues ultimately with the Murray. The issue is not new to me in relation to water. As the minister knows, we went out when I was leader and announced a desal plant after John Hill and a number of others are on the public record saying that South Australia did not need a desal plant. I then gave a speech about the need to increase the storages in the Mount Lofty Ranges. I notice the government has picked up on that idea. In the same speech I mentioned that we should be connecting the various reservoirs through pipes, an idea which was put to me by an engineer, and I notice the government has picked up that particular exercise.

There is one area where I think the government is sadly lacking on water reform, and I am glad the minister is in the house, because it saves me writing a letter. I declare an interest, Mr Speaker; as you well know, my brother is a plumber. I can tell the minister to get her officers to give her the approval process for the use of recycled water in South Australia and compare it with the approval process in every other state. We are miles behind in the amount of time it takes to get approval to use recycled water on our domestic gardens or in our homes.

I know that, Mr Speaker, and I put it right up front to the house. My brother installs that sort of thing as part of his business. He does not have a lot of hair, but what is left has been torn out in frustration, and he knows that when he goes interstate the approval process is vastly quicker. For whatever reason SA Water is intransigent in its view of the approval process. I hope the minister might make a note of that, get herself fully briefed and bring South Australia into line with the other states.

My argument is very simple in relation to this matter. I agree with the shadow minister's excellent contribution in relation to the principle that it really is too little, too late, and I really would hope that the federal government would get a lot tougher on the recalcitrant states, because ultimately there will be another generation of politicians standing here in 10 or 20 years' time having exactly the same argument. I can remember when John Olsen as premier went out and said, 'The Murray is going to be the issue.' We put up a stand-alone minister for water. It was Mark Brindal.

I remember the front page: there were Rob Kerin, Mark Brindal and I as three ministers in Crows outfits muscled up going out to take on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The reality is (and it has been shown to all political parties of all colours of all levels) that getting the states to agree—whether it is all the state opposition leaders or all the state premiers—is not happening. If the federal government is not prepared to move, then we will have exactly the same problem in the long term.

I would urge my federal colleagues through Malcolm Turnbull or the local state Liberals and Rudd to get together just as they have done on the world financial crisis and come up with one joint plan. Let us face it: all Canberra has done under Rudd, Howard, Hawke and Keating, for the past 20 years is take powers away from the states. There has been an absolute stampede of powers that have gone from the states to the commonwealth. Why the federal government is so reluctant to take on this particular issue is beyond me, particularly when all the Murray-Darling Basin states are of the one political colour. I cannot work out why that has not been enough of an opportunity for them to step in and act. I have said enough, but I understand that the Liberal Party is supporting the bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (18:25): I apologise for my absence from the chamber for part of today. The review of the Auditor-General's Report has been consuming my thoughts and, therefore, I have a lot of numbers running through my mind but I will try to focus my comments now on water and the important bill which we are now considering. I commend the member for MacKillop for his contribution to the debate this morning. I tried sitting here for the one hour and 55 minutes that he spoke. It appears that after about an hour he was only just warming up and getting to the nitty-gritty of the bill, the seven clauses, the 304 pages of briefings he had been provided with and the additional texts of which the important federal consideration of this matter is part and parcel.

It is obvious to me that water is the key issue. So many times in the communities which I represent, when I have talked to people, no matter where they reside and no matter what their circumstances, they want to talk to me about water. People are responsible; they try to do the right thing. They understand that, for the economic future of our nation, we need to ensure that we have a water supply that can guarantee critical human needs. That is a phrase that is used very often but, importantly, it will provide for our lifestyle choices and the industrial needs of our state and all of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission areas of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria.

We want to make sure that we have a great future. I have been provided with information and, in our party room, we have had some great discussions about this. It is obvious that the members for Hammond and MacKillop have very detailed knowledge about water issues in the state, and I rely on them heavily when it comes to information about what the issues really are.

I might be naive—and I admit that, especially when it comes to political matters—but I thought that people who have the great honour of being elected to parliament do so on the basis that, when they discuss an issue, they do so with the thought that they want to make sure that the absolute best decision is made, not the politically expedient decision which allows the party or the group that they represent to have an opportunity, but the best decision that will ensure that the state will actually improve as a result.

Making the best decision is not always the easiest one to make. It was proven to me in my past life that the right decision is often the hardest, but the right decision is the one that needs to be made. This nation really does face a crisis. For us to have the future that is our right, it is important that we get this legislation and the control and provision of water across the eastern and southern states right. At the moment, it is not.

I think history has shown that allocations have been far in excess of what the capacity of the system is to provide, so we need to make sure that we undertake very thorough audits that identify where water is being appropriately used, where it is being wasted and where the return on that water usage is not what it should be. As this terrible drought continues, I am sure that it will seriously affect agricultural production across the whole nation but, coupled with a lack of water, it will make us undertake the enormous review that is necessary to ensure that we get to make the right decisions now so that industries have a future. At the moment, they do not.

I have a limited perspective of how it is for people in the Riverland and the Lower Lakes. I rely heavily on what other people tell me. I made a trip to the Riverland for a weekend to visit some friends not that long ago and, even in my quick look around, it was obvious. You can see it on people's faces and what it does to them. For those who are struggling financially because of lack of water and the pressures upon them, it affects their whole psyche. I know that members on both sides of the chamber want to be sympathetic to that. We do not live in an exclusive world where we think we are above everybody. We have to represent the people who elect us and, to be able to do that, you have to understand the emotions that the people who elected us are going through, so we have to try to do the best we can.

As I mentioned at the start, water really is the most important issue. As I am going around and whenever I hear anybody who holds some form of responsible leadership role in the community, they talk to me about what the water situation will be. It is not just the most important issue; for ever more, it will be the most important issue.

Our nation really now faces a crisis. Over the past two weeks, the weather has reinforced the fact that, while there was a glimmer of hope that agricultural production in South Australia this year would be at a respectable level and give people a chance to pay off their debts, put some money in the bank and invest in their businesses and farms, we have seen some terrible media reports of hope being taken away from them by the very cruel northerly winds and the higher than normal temperatures we have suffered. Unfortunately, the same thing happened last year, and it has just ripped the heart out of people.

This further reinforces that this is where we need to make sure we get this right. I know that, in his contribution, the member for MacKillop talked constantly about the fact that this bill does not go far enough, and I am sure others on this side did, too. It will provide an opportunity for legislation to be enacted, but it seems to me that, with the power of veto remaining for each of the individual states, it takes away the chance for the really important decisions to be made.

Important decisions need to be made for a lot of reasons, such as the environment, and the member for MacKillop highlighted that. I know that some people in the chamber were rather surprised when he talked about the environment, but he does believe in it, he truly does. We want to make sure that we make the best decisions to provide some surety for the irrigators. We want to make sure that we make the best decisions to provide surety for communities.

I think the member for MacKillop commented on the fact that something like 90 per cent of people in South Australia rely upon the River Murray for their reticulated water supply. We want to make sure that we take the right decisions for the future of industry. South Australia really needs a lot of water, and I know that it is supposed to be 1,850 gigalitres, which is equivalent to 7 per cent of the water within the system that flows across South Australia's border and into our state. However, we need to make sure that we get it right.

In my first contribution to this house some 2½ years ago, water was one of my focus points. The communities I serve do not have a direct frontage onto the river system, if I can put it that way. They rely upon the pipe network to provide them with water from the River Murray. These communities would like to see their water provision expanded to ensure that additional people move there and that industries in that area can grow. I know that I am compromised whenever I talk about this but, while I would like to see more water available, I know that it comes from a resource that is already overtaxed, and something needs to be done about that.

I am pleased that, as part of her role, the Minister for Water Security supported the establishment of a high-level group of people from Yorke Peninsula to work on solutions for an augmentation of the water supply on Yorke Peninsula. However, my frustration is and my initial feedback from early meetings of that group shows that the solutions they are looking at come from the traditional method of taking more water out of the Murray.

I know that this is a side issue in relation to the bill, but it supports some comments made by the member for Davenport about the fact that there are other options for us to provide water to the population of South Australia, but we do not encourage them. The member for Davenport referred to recycling water within a domestic situation, with water being captured and reused in gardens. I have had some personal experience, with people in the communities I serve who are equally frustrated by the difficulty of getting that approved. This reinforces the fact that we have to capture and treat in whatever way we can—aquifer storage and recovery, desalinisation or effluent treatment schemes—to ensure that we have as much water available as possible.

While my focus in this house relates more to the dollars of the state, I understand completely that the dollars depend upon how the community feel and how many transactions they generate and the economic situation, through business development and jobs being created. When you look at it, everything boils down to water. Water is the basis of our life. The human species is predominantly made up of water. The lifestyle we enjoy is based upon having a plentiful water supply. We have to make sure that we get it right but, with this legislation, in all the discussions we have had in our party room, it appears as though that is not being achieved.

While a transfer of responsibility is being given to some degree, I reinforce the fact (and this has probably been spoken about by everybody in the chamber) that veto rights will exist for individual states and that the nation-building decisions cannot be made, and that really frustrates me. From what I read of history, it appears that, 50 years ago, after the Second World War, this nation recognised that opportunities existed. It encouraged immigration, and it brought people here by the thousands. It looked at projects that would employ them and undertook the Snowy hydro-electric scheme, and it ensured that, through the vision of Sir Thomas Playford (a man who looks upon us every day), from 1938 to 1965, industries were created in this state. Sir Thomas Playford believed that water would always be available. The 1968 election in South Australia was fought on water and its storage, but it has come back to haunt us, reinforcing that what we have taken to be a right will not always definitely be there, so we have to make sure that we do the right thing.

In the communities I serve, it is fair enough to say that people are scared. In the past nine months those who have had funds invested on the stock market or within superannuation schemes have seen significant drops. While they are scared of the lack of direct financial benefit, they are also scared about what the lack of water in South Australia will do to them. It is often assumed that people who live in the city do not truly understand it. Those who live in regional South Australia and see what a lack of water does to those around them have a great appreciation all the time.

People in the city are considered to be immune from that, but the past few years has demonstrated with the water restrictions in place that that is not the case. People are frustrated and want to ensure that they have a water supply that enables them to have live a lifestyle they can enjoy. They probably have not considered the liability on the damage that has occurred to homes as a result of cracking, with foundations drying out through the lack of water. Where water comes from is the big issue that faces our state and nation.

The transfer of powers with this veto right to remain is crazy. It is not the important nation-building resolution that we need or that will allow the hard decisions to be made. I have referred to it before, but we have to continue to talk about it because it is the hard decisions, which take away the political influence and concentrate on what the nation needs, that need to be made. It concerns me that, while we have politicians who look at electoral cycles as being the focus of their attention, we will not get that. We need to ensure that independence is involved and that the best opinions are obtained, to ensure that the right decisions are made. The right decisions are always difficult. It is hard to convince people who do not want to be overly informed about it as to the reasons for those decisions, but let us go for it and make it happen and get the best possible legislation to ensure that the nation has a future.

I have been told in the party room, by the people who have studied the bill in depth and the people whose lives have been consumed by this matter (because they are constantly talking to people affected by the lack of water in the system), that it is not good enough, and I have great faith in those people. We do not have time to waste on a poor decision being made. The droughts over the past six years—while support has been given in exceptional circumstances for people on the land and in business—have made the majority of Australians who take an interest in this great nation aware of the fact that the state and nation is in crisis. Their expectation in electing us to parliament is not that we have an easy life but that we make hard decisions.

The people I talk to who are not directly affected by it because they do not have river frontage are the ones who say to me all the time, 'Steven, when you have a chance to talk about this in the parliament, make sure you put the opinion that we want to ensure that the right decisions are made all the time. We know there will be some short-term pain from this, but we seriously believe that governments and parliaments, be they state, territory or federal, are there to make the really hard decisions.' They are fearful that in this case the right decision is not being made.

It is interesting that political games are being played. John Howard as Prime Minister announced in early 2007 the decision to put $10 billion on the table. It is an amazing amount. When I became aware of that I thought that that is the sort of amount that will do something and that if we put any less towards it we would not achieve much, but it frustrated the life out of me that political games appeared to be played. Victoria constantly held out, and I know the member for MacKillop focused in his contribution on the fact that the Premier, as leading the cause for South Australia, negotiated with New South Wales and Queensland and got out of them an agreement that the Prime Minister of the time could support.

In the case of Victoria, we constantly had an impasse that could not be breached. We had an impasse that meant that access to those dollars was denied. People sat back and waited and thought, 'What's happening now?' Some 18 months have passed by and the situation is no better. In fact, there was a COAG meeting in March this year and follow-up meetings in July this year, where, supposedly, the Premier was waving the piece of paper with the agreement—which means that all our solutions are here. It seems to me that it is a bit like Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Germany waving a piece of paper and saying, 'Peace in our time.' That is certainly not the case here. An agreement might be in place but, unless we make sure the agreement is right, how will we benefit from it?

It was an enormous surprise to me to hear that Victoria was continually holding out for 12 months on these very important negotiations—and premier Bracks and Premier Brumby have to take prime responsibility for that—but when COAG met in March this year to talk about trying to get an agreement to pacify South Australians, and Australians in general, Victoria again held the hard line and, as a result, got an extra $1 billion for investment into its area.

I know that South Australia also has benefited through the recent announcement of $620 million in infrastructure that will provide an important water lifeline for the Lower Lakes communities. I recognise and respect that decision, and support the minister and the Premier in what they have managed to achieve there. Is that part of the eventual solution or is it contributing to the problem? People in the Lower Lakes are concerned about what the future will hold for them. People in the Riverland are very concerned about what the future will hold for them.

Members here talk about water that is extracted from the river system further upstream—where illegal diversions of water occur, where storage dams are used for high level water needs, where the crops grown as a result are not worth it but are still occurring. Irrigators from Queensland and New South Wales have come to South Australia to look at what we do here. I know that South Australia is an efficient water user when it comes to the irrigation industry. An enormous amount of money has been invested by the industry to ensure that it is an efficient industry, but these people are trying to live on irrigation allocations that do not allow them to ensure that their trees will stay alive. How is industry placed? An important part of it is trying to get the legislation right. I know that the Liberal Party has indicated its support for this legislation, but we still have very grave concerns which are not based on political needs but, rather, on the fact that it will not deliver what South Australia needs in the longer term.

In closing, I want to focus on the fact that members come in here with the best of intentions but they are compromised for some reason. They are frustrated because they cannot make the right decision. We on this side of the chamber might be accused of playing political games all the time. We think that the spin comes predominantly from the other side. It is an incessant version of it which tries to twist our story in order to ensure that people believe what they are hearing—but it is not the case. There are some 1.6 million South Australians in this state. All those adults who want to listen to the media, read the newspaper, listen to the radio and watch television are frustrated by what they have seen. They know the state is in crisis. They also know that the agreement which has been put in place will not deliver what is proposed. They want to ensure that members here try to improve it.

I know that the opposition would love to see vastly improved legislation, but we also know that if we were to object to this legislation we cannot win, either. How is the game played? How do we ensure that the right decisions are made. It is an enormous challenge for this state. The member for MacKillop—when he stood up for one hour 55 minutes to put his story passionately about his understanding of the bill and its importance to the state—did very well. I wish that I possessed one-tenth of the knowledge he has on this subject. I know that the minister when she tells us about all the actions that she, the department and the government have taken does so with the intention of trying to improve things, but it appears that somewhere in between the right decision does lay sometimes.

While I acknowledge the support of the Liberal Party for the bill, we would love to see a vastly improved version which would ensure that the full transfer of powers occurs to a group of people who would make the right nation-building decision to ensure the future of our state. We do not think that is necessarily the case here, but let us hope for the future of our nation that we get it right very soon because crisis time is here now.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (18:45): What we have before the house is a piece of legislation that has quite significant ramifications for the future of this state. As other members, on this side of the house particularly, have pointed out, if this legislation does not get it right and is not the correct way forward, what will result is a compounding of the crisis that we are facing currently. We are facing a number of crises in this state at the moment. We are certainly facing a crisis in relation to our water resources and a whole range of issues around that, and we are also facing an extremely serious crisis in relation to our economic situation. We heard the Treasurer this afternoon in question time wax on about what the government is doing and not doing in terms of looking to put in place measures to create a buffer against the economic situation that the western world, Australia and this state are facing.

I turn my attention and remarks to the legislation that we are debating currently and, in providing some background information, I would like to offer the following comments to the house. It was the Howard government that moved to take an active role in the management of the River Murray as a result of the continuing drought in the last part of 2006. In early 2007 that federal government proposed that the commonwealth take over the state powers to manage the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly to address the overallocation of water and outdated and inefficient infrastructure and delivery systems, both on-farm and off-farm, and recognise the needs of the environment.

I have just heard the member for Goyder speak about how efficient South Australian irrigators are in the way they manage water on their respective properties. I think it was a highlight of the previous Liberal state government that it gave support in terms of monetary contributions. I understand that some federal government money was also made available, but the state government provided some funds to upgrade the irrigation system in the Riverland region, which is one of the major irrigating regions of this state.

We all know that what was known as the open irrigation system was in existence, using open channels. I worked in the Riverland for almost three years and I was fully aware of some of the irrigation practices whereby the local farmers and viticulturalists would get a single blade plough behind their tractor and run a furrow down each row of vines and turn on the water. They called the chap who worked for the E&WS, as it was at the time—the water jockey—and he would come out and turn on the tap to the block and the water would run down each row of the vines and water the vines.

Mr Williams: Flood them.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Flood them, that is right. The member for MacKillop (the shadow minister) is quite right. They used a flooding technique to water their vines. They also had an overhead irrigation system for their citrus plantations. It was a legacy—one of the highlights, I think—of the previous Liberal government that it provided the incentive to convert that open system (a really inefficient system with leaky channels and the like) to a closed system. They also upgraded the pump station at Loxton North, if I am correct.

We have seen previous Liberal governments, both state and commonwealth, provide the incentive and the capital to ensure that our irrigation systems in this state are efficient compared with other states which still have the old, inefficient systems. I understand that this $10 billion package, which the federal government has provided, will assist in making the eastern states irrigation techniques more efficient.

In seeking the support for the position of a $10 billion package that was announced by the previous Howard government, some $3 billion was to be made available to compensate licence holders in an effort to address over allocation and the balance being used to upgrade the infrastructure, with a percentage of the water savings from such works to be directed towards environmental flows. Obviously, from the Howard plan, there was a win-win. I know that I am using old language, but there would have been a positive outcome in a number of areas from the package which the previous Howard government was planning to put in place. Obviously by improving the infrastructure, you make the irrigators more efficient, and therefore you would be saving water because it would not be leaking out of channels and draining away needlessly as it did through the old flood irrigation technique, and the savings created from that would be held in the river and be used for environmental flows.

We are all aware of the parlous state of the river system in relation to the environmental issues with the lack of flows and the like coming down that system. The Howard government passed and enacted the Water Act 2007, an act to make provision for the management of the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin and to make provision for other matters of national interest in relation to water and water information and for related purposes. Notwithstanding the passage of this act and the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to be responsible to the commonwealth minister, the act had little real power as this power remained with the relevant states.

The political disruption of this plan in the lead-up to the federal election on 24 November 2007 has been well documented. I know the member for Davenport spoke in his contribution about how Premier Brumby really held the whole nation to ransom in not agreeing to being part of that agreement and, in doing so, really made it a political issue at the last federal election. That has all been well talked about, debated and so on since the election of the federal Labor Party to government. Initially, the new Labor government showed little desire to tackle the issue until it was basically embarrassed to place the matter on the COAG agenda of 26 March. That COAG meeting was held in Adelaide.

A hastily cobbled together memorandum of understanding was agreed to at that meeting, with an intergovernmental agreement being signed off at the subsequent 3 July COAG meeting. We remember the Premier standing up on the mountain top and heralding that this was a world first, an historic agreement. That was world-shattering news back in March, when that agreement was hastily cobbled together, but when the intergovernmental agreement was signed off in July that was another historic agreement. How many historic agreements do we have? It seems that the Premier is pretty keen on promoting these historic agreements.

We are also aware of the level and the amount of spin that comes from this government, particularly with the current series of advertisements in the newspapers and on television, with the Premier promoting the government in relation to what it is supposedly doing to secure the water needs of the state.

However, that agreement obliged the basin states to refer some powers to the commonwealth, to broaden the effect of the commonwealth Water Act 2007—some powers. It has not gone anywhere near as far as we, on this side of the house, believe it should. Specifically referring to the legislation that we are here debating, the bill refers certain powers of the commonwealth via a mechanism known as tabled text, whereby the text of proposed amendments to the commonwealth Water Act, and amended Murray-Darling Basin agreement, which will be appended to the commonwealth act, and three schedules to that act are tabled in the state parliament.

It is my understanding that this tabled text is a new invention of the government, if I am correct. It is not a part of the bill so we cannot question and probe the government on different issues arising out of this tabled text. I know it has been discussed that we may well be able to do that but it is not a formal part of this legislation. I know there are members who will speak after me who will raise significant concerns about the manner in which the government is dealing with this bill and the particular matter of tabled text.

The bill explicitly refers those matters contained within the tabled text to the commonwealth jurisdiction. I understand that we are dealing with a very serious issue. It is one of the most important pieces of legislation that the parliament has dealt with concerning the future of our state. As said earlier, if we get it wrong, we are going to suffer the consequences—some pretty significant consequences—if it is not right. I think the government should take note of that and should have perhaps looked at a different mechanism to have the legislation and this tabled text business dealt with. We will see how that transpires over the next couple of sitting days when we complete the debate on this matter. We are running to 7pm so, in view of that, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 19:00 the house adjourned until Tuesday 15 October 2008 at 11:00.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT