HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 October 2008. Page 394.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:01): I am pleased to continue my remarks from yesterday evening. I understand I have about five or so minutes to continue with my contribution to this very important piece of legislation.

The principal changes, as a consequence of the bill, will be: (1) to transfer the powers and the functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—the authority that was set up under the commonwealth Water Act 2007; (2) to mandate the critical human water needs that will form part of the Murray-Darling Basin plan; and, (3) the basin water charges and water market rules will be regulated under the act, with the ACCC playing a vital role in determining or approving regulated water charges and developing water charges and water market rules.

The claimed benefits for South Australia will be formalised access to upstream storages; the formalising of water-sharing rules under normal, low or extremely low flow scenarios; and the formalisation of water flows for critical human needs. While we are talking about this formalisation issue, there are no actual guarantees in relation to this particular process so that, in practice, there will be little difference. The inclusion in the act of the basin water charge and the market rules merely gives legislative power to the 1994 COAG agreement, and the amendments formalising risk assignment do the same for the National Water Initiative Agreement.

As I outlined to the house yesterday, this legislation could have been brought to the parliament a lot sooner than it was. If the Victorian Premier (Mr Brumby) had not held up the agreement to the Howard government's initiative, things would have been well and truly in place and much further down the line in addressing the extremely serious issue that is gripping the nation in relation to the Murray-Darling system. We have heard from members on this side of the house in particular, with the shadow minister highlighting a whole range of issues and concerns that he has about the government's dealings in this matter, and also the federal government's plan and the issue of the veto at the ministerial council level.

In the documentation supporting this legislation, there are some processes in place which will not allow the veto to go on indefinitely and that it has to be referred back to the authority. Once that happens, I understand it again needs to go to the ministerial council and then on to the minister. However, the problem is that the body which has the final responsibility is a political one. Under the Howard government's plan, the final decisions were to be taken away from politicians.

We understood that the Premier called for a body to manage the Murray-Darling system which would have the independence, the authority and the powers of something like the Reserve Bank board. However, what we have seen, as the result of failures of both state and federal Labor governments, is that the final decision lies with a politician—it lies with the minister. The current minister is a South Australian senator but what happens if the minister is a lower house New South Wales member of parliament? If we were running up to a federal election do you think that person would make decisions that would affect his or her state? I do not think so. Again, this highlights the flawed nature of the federal government's proposal. As a final comment, we are prepared to support the legislation but with some pretty severe concerns.

Time expired.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (17:07): The opposition supports this bill and the one that follows with considerable reservation. My colleagues have gone through methodically the few strengths and the many weaknesses of this legislation. I think it is a bill which signals failure. This is the number one issue the state is faced with; let there be no question. Our water security, the River Murray, alternative sources for water supply to Adelaide are all the number one issue we face, and it will remain so not only between now and the next state election but well beyond into the future. That is why we need an urgent, workable solution. This bill is neither urgent nor workable.

The main reason for that is that it is based on a flawed starting point—the agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin reform signed by COAG on 3 July 2008. When you read through the bill, you see that it legislates to enact the substance of that agreement and, of course, there is little substance to that agreement. That is the essential problem. In reading both bills, I find the legislation very complex and confusing and I know a number of my colleagues will be raising this. I was chatting about it earlier to my friend the member for Heysen. I defy almost anyone to read this legislation, to fully comprehend and understand it and to see through its complexities without myriad briefings, exhaustive consultation, and thorough and most complete research. It is not a bill which is expressed in simple language or which delivers a simple, understandable plan. For that reason alone, it is flawed. I think we could have come up with something far simpler.

I want to make some principal points and I will start by explaining to the house my understanding of what must be done, then I will explain why the memorandum of understanding fails to do it and, therefore, why the legislation will not achieve the outcomes it presents as achievable. First of all, we know that for 107 years the states have been arguing amongst themselves about what must be done with the river. We know that, before Federation was enacted, South Australia expressed concerns about this very issue and argued that the commonwealth should have control of the river. We also know that the other states successfully argued at the time of Federation that the river should remain the province of the states. In doing so, there was failure in 1901 and that failure is now to be reinforced in 2008.

We simply need a new approach. The approach of the past 107 years has been proven a failure and evident during a number of droughts, but never more evident than this most severe of droughts at this most severe time of climate change and other uncertainties regarding our water security and our water future. So, what we needed was complete change and a new approach. The reality and the truth of it is that this river with all its tributaries, including the Darling heading north and all those tributaries leading into the river, is a national resource. The water in it is no more owned by the irrigators of Cubbie Station or Toorale Station or those diverting water in the upper reaches of the Darling than it is to the rice irrigators of Leeton and Griffith, no more owned by the dairy farmers of New South Wales than it is by the fishermen of the Lower Coorong or the small businesses with permanent plantings—the orchards and vineyards of the Riverland and other areas along the river's length.

It is equally owned by all Australians and it must be shared by all Australians in a responsible and proper way. That is why it must be managed wholly and completely by the commonwealth on behalf of all Australians, not by state governments or any ministerial council or body set up which is there simply as a cohort of state governments. The only way we will get a river that is managed responsibly is if Canberra is fully empowered to manage it. The brutal truth is that the states must either give up completely their powers over the river or those powers must be seized by the commonwealth. Former prime minister Hawke tried to do it over the Franklin and was successful. Why can't this Prime Minister do it in regard to the Murray and show the leadership that is needed? Why can't state premiers agree to relinquish that river and their powers over it so that it can be genuinely managed by Canberra?

The fact is this must be done. Being a realist, I know that does not guarantee that South Australia will be advantaged. I fully recognise that. It may well be, even if the commonwealth does manage the river, that they will make decisions that South Australians do not like. That is true, but I think our faith is better put in Canberra than it is in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. The truth is that we are at the end of the river; 93 per cent of the water is used upstream; the upstream states control it. I think the commonwealth government would be more likely to ensure that the environment is protected, that the river flows and that all states get their fair share. There is no guarantee for South Australia; it is an act of faith, but it must be done. We know that the current arrangements have not worked.

The memorandum of understanding fails to do exactly that. The minister and the Premier are pretending that it does, but the minister knows that is not true, as does the Premier. We are involved in a massive public relations exercise. Let me quote from the memorandum of understanding, which I think will be an appendix to this bill, and essentially it is a platform for the bill. Part 3.2.7 of the memorandum of understanding is as follows:

State water shares prevail unless agreed to change by consensus of the basin states.

Isn't that lovely? I read part 3.2.9 of the memorandum of understanding and the agreement. I am talking about your agreement, the agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin reform, dated 3 July 2008, the agreement in which the minister sold not only her constituents but the people of South Australia down the river. Clause 3.2.9 states:

The parties note the considerable body of decisions and practice that determine the operation of the River Murray system. As part of the delivery of water under state water shares, the authority will continue these arrangements unless otherwise agreed by all parties through the Ministerial Council or the basin officials committee, as appropriate.

I go to part 3.2.10 of that Murray-Darling Basin Agreement:

The parties agree that South Australia will have access to storage capacity in the Hume and Dartmouth dams for the purpose of private carryover, subject to this not affecting upstream states' water availability and storage access.

Subject to the other states agreeing. This agreement is awash with qualifications. It is awash with terms like 'will use our best endeavours to' or 'if there is a disagreement it will go back to the Ministerial Council comprised of ministers from the states'—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Exactly. Essentially, it perpetuates the veto arrangements and complicated management structures of the past 107 years, even when it talks about the basin officials committee. There are so many structures set up by this agreement. Part 3.3.13(g) states:

The basin officials committee will be responsible for monitoring the asset management plan approved by the Ministerial Council and implemented by the authority.

So, there are so many fingers in this pie that there is nothing left to eat. It is completely spoilt, and that is the truth of it. The agreement of the Murray-Darling Basin reform was a complete and utter failure.

What this bill is attempting to do is to con the people of Australia into thinking that the governments (both federal and state) have genuinely set up a strong independent authority. They have set up something they are calling an independent authority; they have just forgotten to emphasise or point out to people that it will be responsible to state ministers and state governments.

They have also forgotten to mention to the people of Australia and South Australia that the powers over the river remain with the states. So, essentially, if this drought gets worse, if the situation becomes even more critical than it is today, there are dozens and dozens of ways to obfuscate or frustrate the intent of this bill and the claimed goals of the memorandum of agreement.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes; perhaps I should have, because any minister on this side would have done a better job than the minister did. If the member for Chaffey wants to interject, I was up at the field days in Chaffey a couple of weeks ago and she ought to hear what her constituents think about what she has done for the River Murray. They remember the promises about Teletrack. They remember all the things they were promised. They were told a lot of things that have not been—

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I rise on a point of order: relevance. Are we talking about Teletrack now?

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but the Leader of the Opposition should not respond to interjections.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the minister will just listen quietly I will not respond to interjections. It is a two-way street. The reality of it is that the agreement and the bill that we are now debating is a massive public relations exercise. In various states we are going to pass this bill, which will then generate all this publicity, and the idea is to con the people of South Australia and Australia into thinking that we now have strong independent governance of the river, and that the states have somehow referred their powers. Well, the states are referring their powers in this bill, as qualified by the memorandum of understanding or the agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin reform, dated 3 July 2008, which, as I have explained, has that many holes in it even Qantas could fly a 747 through it. The fact is that the referral bequeathed in this bill is so qualified as to be meaningless.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The member for West Torrens, who after 12 years in this place is still on the back bench, they call him a Labor power broker, but in 12 years he has managed to move how far? Not one seat. He is still sitting back there twiddling his thumbs hoping that one day someone will kiss him on the hand and say, 'Here, have a job.'

If the member for West Torrens has something constructive to say when he makes his contribution—has he made a contribution yet? Do the people of West Torrens care about water security? If they do, I suggest he makes a contribution, because if he does not then the opposition will ensure that every letterbox in West Torrens knows about it, now that he has interjected, and it will include my remarks today. So, if the member for West Torrens has no idea about the needs of his constituents on water security, then let it be known to them.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Here he goes. Is he a chihuahua or a carefully groomed poodle? I am not too sure. Here he goes. Is he finished? Hang on, is he finished?

Mr Koutsantonis: Good boy. Roll over, Marty.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Is that it now?

Mr Koutsantonis: Roll over.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Can we go on now?

Mr Koutsantonis: Roll over. When you finish rolling over.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens will cease interjecting.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, it is one of his more intelligent contributions to the debate. I have heard many over the past 12 years and I think that is—

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader will get on with it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Very well, Mr Speaker. I am sorry. Sometimes I am overcome by the intellectual basis of the interjections made by members opposite. Sometimes it is a case of something is better than nothing, and I think this is an example. I think that something is better than nothing. This is the Rudd government's and the Rann government's attempt to con the people of South Australia into thinking that they are doing something about the Murray. Let them be judged on it. Let us see if it delivers a result. It says that we will not get a plan until 2011, but we need a plan now. There are so many holes in it that it is not funny.

I make the particular point that not the least of the flaws, with the positions agreed to between the states and the commonwealth with the management of the Murray, has been the lack of urgency. Having wasted over 12 months between the Howard government's announcement that we needed new governance arrangements and a single government responsibility, the proposed authority, in addition not to being completely independent, has been given until 2011 to come forward with a whole of basin plan. Why have the South Australian government and the Rudd federal government failed to insist that an interim plan be promulgated forthwith and that the interim plan contain the caps agreed to in 1995, that is, diversions at 1993-94 levels, and that the interim cap recognises the impact of groundwater allocations and floodplain harvesting on surface flows? They should institute an immediate interim cap as a starting point for a basin plan to guarantee sustainability of the system.

Similarly, why do South Australian irrigators of permanent plantings currently have vastly different allocations from their counterparts in New South Wales, where high security licensees are enjoying up to 95 per cent of entitlement in the Murray Valley and the Murrumbidgee Valley? These are questions to which the minister and the government have no answer. The fact is that South Australia will continue to get a rotten deal under this bill and under this agreement: nothing is more certain.

I can tell the government what it needs to do: it is in our own policy on this. I congratulate the shadow minister for water security who has been out there with sensible policies on the River Murray well before the minister, going back 18 months if not sooner. In fact, we are setting the agenda, not the government. It is playing catch-up and doing a pretty sloppy job of it. What we need and I offer this advice—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I offer this advice to the member for chirping. We need a new agreement on the Murray-Darling Basin and if I were her, I would be urgently seeking that it go before COAG yet again. It needs to do a number of things. First—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Can anybody hear her? I do not think that anybody in the seat of Chaffey is listening to her any more, but can anybody hear her? No, they cannot. You need to ensure that the constitutional powers over the river are genuinely handed to the commonwealth. Leave the states out of it altogether. There is no need for ministerial councils that have veto powers; give the powers fully to the commonwealth. Then ensure that there is an authority that uses those powers to genuinely manage the river in the best interests of all.

Call it a Reserve Bank Board type body, call it what you will, but let it govern the river in the best interests of all, having used the powers ceded to the commonwealth or seized by the commonwealth. Then ensure that more urgent action is taken on genuinely securing alternative water sources for Adelaide. You need to move more quickly on desalination, on stormwater catchment and reuse, and you need to do more on wastewater. You have done virtually nothing and you are trying to take the credit for what councils are doing. You need to genuinely secure our water supplies. Then we need a plan by 2009, not by 2011.

This bill is a massive public relations exercise and it does very little. The minister and the government need to start again. Victoria has won—Brumby and Bracks have won—and Rann and Maywald have been defeated roundly. Members over on the back bench there know it because their constituents in marginal seats are ringing them up and telling them so. Try the member for Mawson. I know what his vignerons are saying. Try the member for Light. I know what the vegetable gardeners in his seat are saying. They are sending a message this government will not hear.

Time expired.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (17:27): I rise to speak on this bill now because I have been trying to get my head around it for a couple of days, and, quite frankly, I think that no matter how long I keep trying, I will not be able to understand this bill.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The minister says that I should have come to the briefing. I am sure that, if I had the opportunity to spend hours dealing with this bill, the minister would not have been able to answer the questions that I have. I say at the outset that I absolutely accept the need for urgent action in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly for South Australia, and the dire circumstances in which we find ourselves. I think that many of those dire circumstances relate to successive governments over many years in all states having overallocated water, and I think that there is also a significant issue with the theft of water. When combined with the significant drought that we are experiencing at the moment, yes, we are in dire circumstances and I believe that there is a need for urgent action.

I also believe that it is appropriate for the commonwealth government to be empowered to take that action because it is quite clear to me that the system that we have at the moment, which was appropriate probably when we entered into the constitution and federated Australia in 1901, is not so in this day and age. Given the amazing overallocation that has occurred over the past 107 years, we really have created a problem that we need to take urgent action to address.

I put on the record at the outset that I absolutely endorse the idea that the commonwealth should have the power. What worries me about this legislation is that I am not satisfied that the parliament understands what it is doing. The bill before this chamber is brief, indeed. It comprises only seven relatively short clauses, covering five pages and, of course, page 1 is just the title page.

The bill before the house is short, indeed. Even then, it is not all that easy to understand, but the essence of it is that, effectively, we will give certain powers to the commonwealth and, in much the same way as when the corporations power went to the commonwealth, each state is to be expected to pass similar legislation. What has happened is that we have had a tabled text of the federal government legislation placed before us via this very short bill.

As is my habit in these matters, I always like to try to understand what it is we are actually dealing with. It is the habit of a lifetime. I started work in the Crown Solicitor's office when I was still a teenager and in all that time, all those years, I have spent a fairly large proportion of my life reading legislation, bills and, indeed, even working on amendment of bills, new legislation and so on, so I have a reasonable degree of experience in dealing with the detail of legislation. The member for Morphett reminds me that, for a certain birthday some years ago, he presented me with a magnifying glass and a fine toothcomb such is my penchant for liking to examine the detail of legislation that comes before this house.

Therefore, I got hold of the actual document, which is the tabled text, the Water Amendment Bill 2008, which comprises (I think) 304 pages. To be honest, I gave up trying to get through it because it was so complex and so convoluted as to be indecipherable. There are numerous examples, but let me give members one. There is a clause on the meaning of referring state. This is basically in the definitions clause, although the definitions clause goes for many pages and has within it all sorts of subsections. A referring state is defined as:

A State is a referring State if the Parliament of the State has referred the matters covered by subsections (3) and (4) in relation to the State to the Parliament of the Commonwealth for the purposes of paragraph 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.

Section 51 of the constitution merely sets out all the detail of the various things that the commonwealth will have control over and paragraph 51(xxxvii) is the one that states:

In addition to all the itemised things it will include control over anything that is referred by the States.

When we set up our Federation in 1901, the idea was that each of the colonies agreed to give certain powers to the commonwealth. What did not go specifically to the commonwealth resided with the state and then, at some future time, if they decided they wanted to refer it, then off it went, and that was the clause that allowed them to do that. Subsection (2) then goes on to state:

A State is a referring State even if a law of the State provides that the reference to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of either or both of the matters covered by subsections (3) and (4) is to terminate in particular circumstances.

Subsection (3) states:

This subsection covers the matters to which the referred provisions for the State in question relate to the extent of making laws with respect to those matters by including the referred provision in this Act.

Now did everyone get that? Precisely. The minister asserts that she understands that. I just wish that we were going to have what we should have when we are dealing with this sort of legislation; that is, the opportunity to ask questions—three questions per clause per member—about the detail of the bill. However, not only do we have a seven-clause bill, which is quite straightforward, but also a 304-page attachment—and I cannot tell members how many clauses because most of it is schedules—about which, in my view, we should be able to ask questions.

What concerns me is that, with all the years of experience I have had in reading legislation—and I have spent some hours now trying to get my head around this—my view is that, if I cannot get my head around it, then I reckon a goodly proportion of the people in this chamber probably cannot get their head around this.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop.

Mrs REDMOND: I have, as I said, a concern about what this parliament is doing here. I am not suggesting that what we are doing is wrong. What I am suggesting is that it makes me exceedingly nervous when we are making decisions about what I think could probably be one of the most important things which we will do as a parliament and which we as individual members of parliament will do in our careers in here. This idea that we are going to give up certain powers and place them with the commonwealth government is an important step. Personally, I have some pretty significant reservations about the likelihood of a Queensland prime minister really having the best interests of South Australia, the Riverland and the Lower Lakes in his heart.

However, that said, the problem I see is that, even if I had great faith in that, we still end up with a situation where we are being asked to pass legislation with, I consider, undue haste, given all the notice that this government has had about how significant the problems were and how long we have been calling for this government to do something positive to resolve the problems. Given all that, then for us suddenly to be confronted with the bill and for the minister to be saying that not only does she want it through this house but she wants it through the other place this week as well, strikes me as being not only suspicious but a highly dangerous thing.

I cannot point to anything in this bill that makes me say, 'This is wrong.' I can point to certain things where I think that some of these things are going round and round and up and down, and they really make no sense to me. For instance, a protocol made by the authority under a schedule to the agreement is a legislative instrument, but neither section 42, Disallowance, nor part 6, Sunsetting, of the Legislative Instruments Act applies to the protocol. Here we have a situation where there is a provision that says that we are setting up this new authority, and if they make a protocol, that has an effect just like a regulation would have, except that we are deleting the power to disallow it. Is there a problem with that? Well, there could be. I do not know whether there is because I do not have my head around 304 pages of this tabled text, but I do have a concern with a whole range of these provisions.

I will give you one other quick example of what I call 'bureaucrat bingo'. I do not know whether any of you know about this game of 'bureaucrat bingo', especially any bureaucrats who are here. I make a list of the current buzzwords that bureaucrats are using, and when I go into a meeting I take that list with me. As they use the buzzwords I cross them off; so, when I jump up and say 'Bingo!' they are a bit startled as to what I could possibly be thinking and doing. Let me give you one example. This is a discussion about various provisions of the basin plan in section 86C. Subsection (1)(c) provides:

...the risk management approach for inter-annual planning relating to arrangements for critical human water needs in future years.

Well, sorry, I do not get it. There are problems like this in terms of what we are doing all through this bill. Some things look as though they might be fairly good, for example, the arrangements referred to in paragraph (1)(d), which specifies the basin plan for tier 2 water sharing arrangements. That appears to relate to carrying our water allocation, if we have not used it all, and keeping it in storage. The arrangements referred to in that paragraph must '(a) recognise South Australia's right as provided for in clauses 91 and 130 of the agreement to store its entitlement to water'. And I thought, well, that is good; at least I understand. That sounds reasonably sensible, and I think there could be some good things in this bill.

One of the other things that concerned me when I was trying to get my head around it, though, is that there is a discussion about tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 allocations, effectively. Tier 3 states 'emergency unprecedented situation'. For the life of me I cannot figure out why we would not instantly be declared to be in an emergency unprecedented situation.

But then I got to this amazing part where I literally seemed to be going round and round in circles. I just want to read the bit it was talking about. It might have been in the explanation. After a while of trying to get my head around the full 304-page text, I gave up on that and thought maybe the explanatory memorandum, which is a mere 44 pages, will make it clearer to me. That is where I became even more confused, because it states that they are going to establish the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, a single institution, but, in fact, we already have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. What they are doing is getting rid of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and putting it into the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. So, the authority will have additional functions, which are basically the functions that the council used to have. It provides:

The Authority is to consist of six members...a part-time chair, a full-time chief executive and four other part-time members.

Fair enough; I understand that. We then have a new ministerial council. It is established under the revised agreement and it has an advisory role. Its advisory role is 'to advise on the preparation of the basin plan by the authority'. Section 16 of the supposed explanation states:

The authority will provide the proposed Basin Plan to the Ministerial Council. The council can refer the proposed Basin Plan back to the authority once for reappraisal if it disagrees about certain matters. The Ministerial Council can then provide its views on the proposed Basin Plan to the commonwealth minister. When the Basin Plan is first made, the authority must also advise the council on the socio-economic implications of any reductions in the sustainable diversion limits in the proposed Basin Plan.

I am only guessing at what that might mean, but for a start, that sounds as though we are going from the authority to the council and back to the authority and back to the council, and then at some point it flings off out into the ether. We then add into that the Basin Officials Committee. Normally, when you are reading legislation, of course, if you come across a term that you have not heard before you just whip back to the definitions, and when you read the definitions they will explain to you what it is that they are talking about. But, none of that occurs in either the explanation or the tabled text itself.

I then got over the page in this explanation, and it became even more concerning when I saw that part of this plan is to refer the control of some of this to the ACCC. That organisation is so dysfunctional in the first place. I am just bewildered by the ACCC, which seems to be powerless to do anything about petrol prices for we motorists. No, it cannot do anything about that. It cannot do anything about a whole range of things. But, the states will hand over certain controls over the regulations, supposedly to provide a uniform approach to regulation. Clause 23 of the explanatory memorandum provides:

The water charge rules will be able to provide that the ACCC determines or approves all regulated water charges in the Basin, other than charges relating to urban water supply activities beyond the point at which the water has been removed from a Basin water resource.

Now, I hope you all got that as well, as to what the ACCC will cover. Furthermore, they are offering to extend this so that people who are not even in the basin states can in fact opt into this wonderful system with the ACCC managing it. We then get to a provision which talks about the allocation of risks in relation to reductions in water availability. It states:

The bill will give effect to the commonwealth's commitment in the reform IGA [Intergovernmental Agreement] to take on a greater share of the risks relating to future reductions in water allocations in the Murray-Darling Basin (arising from a reduction of the long-term sustainable diversion limit but not from a change in water reliability resulting from other aspects of the Basin Plan) and to bring forward the date on which the new knowledge component of that risk becomes a commonwealth responsibility.

Quite apart from the fact that that is just bureaucratic gobbledygook, that actually seems to suggest that the commonwealth will have some sort of responsibility. However, all it says is that it will take on a greater share of the risk. What is the greater share of the risk that the commonwealth gets out of this? I genuinely hope this works but, from the little I have been able to understand of it after hours poring over these documents, it seems to me that there is still provision for things to go back off to the ministerial council, and within the ministerial council system there is provision for any one state—maybe Victoria—to veto things.

I believe that we should have had time to assess, in great detail, the aspects of this whole tabled text, to consider the pros and cons of each section of it from the South Australian perspective and the pros and cons of it looking from the perspective of the other states, so that we can see where is our risk. It concerns me, as a member of parliament, that we are being asked to pass legislation that we do not fully understand. As I said, if I have spent the time I have on it but still do not fully understand it—and I nowhere near understand it—how many people in this place will pass it simply because that is the easy thing to do? We were promised a solution, we will be given a solution, we will pass this legislation—and we are all hoping like heck that it does actually work.

If it does not, then be aware that we should have given this far more consideration than we have. We should have had far better explanations, far more opportunities to question the whole detail of the 304-page tabled text document and its 44-page explanation so that, as members of parliament, we can feel confident, as we pass the bill from this house to the other place, that what we are doing is in the best interests of the state of South Australia.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (17:47): I was interested to hear the last two contributions because they are very different. The Leader of the Opposition started off by saying that he did not think this is a good bill, but that he would vote for it; he did not think this bill would achieve the outcomes it set out to achieve, but he would vote for it. He then went on to say that South Australia should refer all its powers, all authority over the river, to the commonwealth—yet he flies off to Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria to get agreement from his fellow leaders of the opposition and he cannot get that agreement.

I think there is something inherently wrong with the opposition's approach to this bill. The member for Heysen, who is usually very sensible, says she does not understand the bill; she has read it, but she does not get it. The minister offered a briefing, but I understand that no member of the opposition attended that briefing. I could be wrong, I stand to be corrected, but I understand that the member for Heysen did not attend—yet she says, 'I don't understand it.' She then went on to detail all the reasons she thinks the bill will fail. The member for Heysen thinks that the bill will not achieve its intended outcome, but she ends by saying that she will support it.

Mr Williams: I think you are wrong in what she said.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Well, we will wait and see. It is a very simple argument, member for MacKillop, if you think the bill is no good or if you think it is flawed. Members of parliament do have independent thought processes, and those independent thought processes are championed by the Liberal Party—because the Liberal Party is the party of individualism—'We are a group of individuals working together, not a collective like the ALP'! So I would imagine the member Heysen would move an adjournment for more time to think about the bill, so that she can ponder it Buddha-like on a mountain top, and consider whether it may or may not work. She should move amendments to make sure that she gets the outcome she wants.

The Leader of the Opposition wants a full referral of powers but cannot convince his own party of that, and then one of his shadow ministers—not 30 seconds after he finished speaking—said that she did not trust a full referral of powers to the commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition even said that he supported the commonwealth seizing our powers through the High Court, or referring them. Then a senior shadow minister, who sits only three seats down from him, says that she would be uncomfortable with that.

If you want to govern, if you want to lead the state, you have to have a clear, concise message; one leader, one view, one message. You cannot tell fruit growers in the Riverland that you support full referral of powers and then have your shadow minister say something else. You cannot be all things to all people; you have to make a decision. It comes back to temperament. The man is not fit to lead because, first, he cannot control his own shadow ministry, and, secondly, his message changes all the time.

The other thing that really got my attention was when he started accusing the minister of 'chirping'. Earlier in the day he accused the Minister for Infrastructure of being a girl—as if that were an insult—and later he accused the Minister for Water Security of 'chirping'. I think he was trying to make some sort of inference regarding the way her voice sounded. Her voice sounds perfectly normal to me, but for some reason the Leader of the Opposition thought, 'I know what I'll do. I'm losing the argument here because I'm saying that this bill is no good but I'm voting for it, that this bill won't work but I'm voting for it. It's not my fault if it doesn't work, even if I'm voting for it. I'm offering no amendments, I'm not offering a solution; I'm just saying it's not going to work but I'm voting for it anyway. But, by the way, your voice sounds funny.'

What we are getting here is, 'I can't win the debate, I can't win the argument, I can't offer an alternative; I will attack you personally, because bullies win.' Well, bullies do not win. By nature, bullies are one thing—cowards. If this bill is no good, the Liberal Party should show some courage and vote against it—or how about adjourn it, or bring in its own bill? No, members of the Liberal Party will vote for it because they are political cowards. They are afraid that someone might say to them, 'You're filibustering. You're not helping us on the River Murray.' So, they vote for it. Yet, while they are voting for it, they are throwing the cheap shots, such as 'You're a girl,' or 'You speak funny,' or 'This won't work. Refer all the powers.' For a different target audience, they say, 'No, no. They are the states' rights; we can't refer any powers.' Well, which one is it?

Liberal Party members are schizophrenic. They do not know what they stand for and, quite frankly, that applies to all the conservative parties all around the world. They cannot define who they are and what they stand for. Are they the party of states' rights, or are they the party of federalism? Do they wish to refer all their powers to the commonwealth, or do they want them to be seized? The Leader of the Opposition, in one speech, said he wanted them seized; he wanted them referred; and he wanted them by agreement. He is behaving, politically, like a schizophrenic, or he is a hypocrite. He has one message for people in the Riverland and one message for the people in the Lower Lakes; he has one message in Sydney, one message in Victoria and another message in Adelaide. This is a time for leadership; this is a time to govern. This is a time not to make petty, personal attacks on the minister.

We all know the leader goes up to the Riverland and makes up things and makes promises he is never going to keep. He says he wants full referral of powers, yet he says, 'We don't go far enough, but I seek no amendment.' It seems to me that the Liberal Party has lost its way. If Liberal Party members are truly unhappy about this bill, they should show some political courage and vote with their conscience. Certainly, I have not heard anyone get up so far to say, 'This bill is fantastic.' What they do is get up and say, 'This bill is flawed', 'This bill is no good,' or 'We need more time'—and they vote for it.

They will vote for it—carping, whingeing and sniping from the cheap seats all the way through this bill's passage through both houses of the parliament. Then, after it has passed, they will say that it will not work, and they will blame us for it. Yet they will fail to mention to anyone who will listen that they all voted for it, much like when they criticised us on WorkCover and moved all these motions condemning members who voted for the same thing they had voted for.

So, it seems to me that the Liberal Party should do one thing first, and that is grow a spine and, after they grow a spine, they should use it. If they think this bill is no good, they should vote against it and bring their own bill into the house. If you want to refer powers to the commonwealth in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition wants it done, do it. Move the bill, and let's have a debate. If you need more time, move the adjournment and say, 'We don't want to vote on it now; adjourn it.'

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He is our principled member, the member for Schubert. Principle, loyalty, standing by your friends—things he is renowned for! Just ask the member for Davenport. He can tell you about your resilience under pressure. When the whistle goes, you are the first one over the top.

Mr Venning: Who, me?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Absolutely. You are not on the beach eating cucumber sandwiches and drinking cups of tea. You're in the trenches, cutting through barbed wire to get to the front. I do not want to take up all of my time. I will just say this: I heard two speeches tonight, and in both of those speeches the first thing they said was, 'I will be supporting this bill.' However, insert 'hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy' and then, at the end, 'I support the bill.' Well, grow a spine and vote against it if you think it is no good. The Liberal Party has lost its way, and that is why it will lose the next election. I support the bill.

The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Frome) (17:57): Obviously, I will make my speech in two parts, given the time. I will try to explain to the member for West Torrens why we would support the bill but be disappointed with the content. Basically, it is not so much what is in the bill that we disagree with; it is what is not in the bill. In saying that, I have to say that the minister does actually understand most of the issues, and I have no doubt that she fought hard. The disappointing part is that we did not get as far as we wanted with the other states and, in that spirit of federalism the Prime Minister was demanding, perhaps we have not been critical enough of the other states for our not achieving a greater level of agreement than we currently have.

I am aware of the old situation, and I have read the new agreement several times, and I think the big winner out of the new agreement is the Basin Officials Committee. I encourage everyone to read appendix B of the COAG agreement, which goes through all the functions to do with the river. It sets out the role of the federal minister, the ministerial council, the authority and the Basin Officials Committee when it comes to each of those decision-making matters. In my session after the dinner break, I will go through those powers. What has not been well documented or referred to by the many commentators participating in this at the moment is that, although it may be an independent authority, I will show, by going through those powers after the dinner break, that it does not have any powers whatsoever. It actually takes instruction on a whole range of things from the federal minister, or the federal minister is the final decision maker; or, in some cases, it takes its instructions from the Basin Officials Committee.

What worries me about the Basin Officials Committee, having sat through six years of those ministerial councils, is that there is no doubt that there is a power there for the ministerial council to refer the decision on many of the agenda items to that committee, which will become a very powerful committee indeed . If there has been a shift in the powers of anyone involved with control of the river, it is from what was the commission and from the ministerial council to the Basin Officials Committee, and that will become evident because, after the dinner break, I intend reading through the powers and indicating what the authority does with each of the decision making areas.

The big disappointment is that, while the advertisements, etc., that we have seen suggest that the independent authority will run the river for us, that is certainly not the case. It might be an independent authority, but all its staff has actually been transferred from the commission. As you go through the powers, which I intend doing, you will see that it is a doer. Yes, the authority is headed up by some independent people, but it is basically the commission as it is now, and what the authority does is things such as prepare the basin plan. So, yes, the authority will have its opportunity to put in there what it wants, but the final decision maker on the basin plan is the federal minister. You will see with a range of other things, as you go through all the individual powers, that there is not one power you can circle and say the authority is the decision maker. The authority is actually the work horse.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30]


The Hon. R.G. KERIN: In speaking about the role of the authority, the COAG agreement states that the authority will have two roles: one role will be to prepare, implement, monitor and enforce the basin plan, including the environmental watering plan, as provided for in the act. However, as you will notice when I get to the appendix, it is very clear that the federal minister is the decision maker. The other role, as spelt out in the COAG agreement, will be the responsibility for implementing the decisions made by the ministerial council and the Basin Officials Committee, which does not confer powers on the authority.

To get to the specific powers (and this is all about the operation of the river system), schedule B of the agreement spells out what are the programs and what are the roles of each of the groups. As far as the basin plan goes, which is probably the biggest responsibility of the authority, the authority prepares the plan, consults with the basin states, the Basin Officials Committee, basin community committees and stakeholders but, as I said, under the heading of 'Commonwealth Minister' it has the decision maker as the commonwealth minister.

The authority's role in the basin plan implementation is spelt out: it undertakes monitoring, reporting and enforcement activities related to the implementation of the plan. Again, the commonwealth minister is the responsible minister but the Basin Officials Committee is responsible for resolving the operation, management and delivery inconsistencies that arise between the application of the basin plan and states' management. The big problem there is that there will be one appointee from each of the state governments on the Basin Officials Committee, and I would think that in most cases it will be the CEO of the responsible water department. I think that was one area where the authority, in having the power to make some of those decisions, would have been incredibly useful as far as getting to the stage of actually resolving any of those particular issues.

It is up to the authority to do the basin plan review but, again, it is not the decision maker. With any amendment to the basin plan, the authority could prepare an amendment but, again, it has to be the commonwealth minister who is the decision maker and adopts any amendment to the basin plan or an amended basin plan. In regard to water resource plans, the authority makes recommendations to the minister about accreditation of water resource plans submitted by the basin states. However, again, it is the commonwealth minister who either accredits or refers back those resource plans prepared by the basin states.

Water charge and water market rules is going to be a very important area, under which the authority has no role at all listed. It is the commonwealth minister who makes the rules, having sought and taken account of advice from the ACCC. Again, the sustainable diversion limits are prepared as part of the basin plan by the authority but the agreement clearly sets out that the commonwealth minister is the decision maker.

The matter of state water shares—to determine shares available to the states—goes back to the ministerial council. Again, that is a major worry. That is one of the things we would have liked to see, if not go to an independent authority, at least go to the commonwealth minister. The ministerial council retains the decision-making on state water shares and the determination of the shares available to the states; it is either the ministerial council or it can delegate that to the Basin Officials Committee. Again, one would have hoped that an independent authority would take that role, but that has not been the case.

As to River Murray water operations, the authority implements the decisions of the Basin Officials Committee decisions. Regarding asset management, the authority prepares an asset management plan, but that is back to the ministerial council for decision; it approves that. With the Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS), the authority implements the Basin Officials Committee decision on matters relating to existing programs, and the commonwealth minister is the decision maker as part of the basin plan.

For the BSMS Salt Interception Scheme, the authority prepares the asset management plan, but it is actually the ministerial council that approves it. When it comes to water quality, the authority prepares a water quality and salinity management plan as part of the basin plan, but the decision maker is the commonwealth minister. The authority does the Sustainable Rivers Audit but, at the end of the day, the decision maker is the commonwealth minister. As to the Native Fish Strategy, the authority implements decisions of the Basin Officials Committee so, as I said before, it is more the doer than the decision maker.

The authority undertakes the Integrated Basin Report but the commonwealth minister is designated as the decision maker. The way the Living Murray program, which has several programs within it, has been set out within the COAG agreement is also a major worry. The authority's role is spelt out as implementing the decisions of the Basin Officials Committee. When you look at where the power of the decision making actually sits, it is with the ministerial council but, on that, it states 'may delegate implementation to Basin Officials Committee'. The Basin Officials Committee has its power listed as 'high level decision making as per ministerial council delegation', so the author of this has made the assumption that they have with a couple of others, such as that the ministerial council will actually be delegating a lot of these powers straight to the Basin Officials Committee. As someone who sat on ministerial council, I see that as a major concern, and I think we will see that happen many times.

The Basin Officials Committee has a major role in setting the agenda for the meetings. At a lot of these meetings, particularly in the Eastern States, ministers are in a hurry to get home. They just want to get out a communiqué and, basically, it worries me what level of decision will actually be delegated off to the Basin Officials Committee. Back to the programs and the Risks to Shared Water Resources program, the authority identifies the risks and strategies to manage them, but again the commonwealth minister is the decision maker. As to water trade, the authority has an opportunity to include trading rules within the basin plan, but that is not binding; that goes to the federal minister for decision, so the decision maker again is the commonwealth minister. With the Northern Basin program, we have the authority implementing the Basin Officials Committee decisions, and the high level decision making on that was meant for the ministerial council, but the author of this has again assumed that that will be delegated to the Basin Officials Committee.

I am concerned that the authority has no teeth at all. I think that, with all the decisions that matter, they have gone back to the federal minister, the ministerial council and, very worryingly, to the Basin Officials Committee, which is representative of the federal government and each of the basin states. That is far from what we have been told about the independent authority and the ads which would hint to us that the independent authority has a lot of powers. That is just not the case. It is very disappointing that this is where we are. I know that the other states play very hard ball—been there, done that.

I want to pick up on a couple of other issues. One is the disappointment that I feel about the way the federal government has reacted to some of the calls recently and has turned some of its focus to buying up water on the Darling River. I have spoken to people up there about the decision to buy the property up near Bourke, and it will almost destroy the viability of the Bourke area. I know that the local shire is over $1 million out of pocket because of that decision. It does not make a lot of sense to a lot of people up there: they are scratching their heads. I implore the federal government, if it is going to go out and buy water, to try to help the Murray into the future and not go up the Darling, because most times when we are in drought the water from the Darling will not flow to the Murray, anyway. So, if it wants to solve the long-term problems that we have, the federal government making a focus of buying water from the Darling is an absolute nonsense.

The other issue that is of major concern is what was picked up in the MOU, where the Victorian government—to get it to sign the MOU in the lead-up to COAG—actually had included in the MOU itself the details of one specific project, the Food Bowl project in Victoria. For some time I have followed that project. I have read what has been made available from the Victorian government about that particular project and the level of savings that will be made, and it really concerns me that somehow the Victorians have been able to obtain at least initial agreement to go ahead with that program.

Between stage 1 and stage 2 of the Food Bowl program, it talks about savings of 425 gigalitres of irrigation water. What it has done—and this is an absolute mystery—is it has allocated 75 gigalitres of that to a pipeline to Melbourne, which is wrong anyway. It has also allocated environmental water to the wetlands and the tributaries of the Goulburn River. Absolutely incredibly, it has then basically committed to the irrigation communities up there that it is going to create a whole lot of new allocations, which at a time when we are not allowing people with allocations to use their allocations, for the Victorian government to be granting new allocations up in the Goulburn River area, makes no sense.

On paper what it has then said is that the last 100 gigalitres of that 425 gigalitres can go to the Murray. The problem with the arithmetic and the problem with the science of it all is that, when you read the Food Bowl project papers made available by the Victorian government, the bulk of the savings that it identifies—which it is starting to give out like Father Christmas—relate to seepage. Anyone who understands the river system would understand that most seepage is not what you would call net savings, because the seepage actually goes back into the river.

It is very hard to come up with figures. I know there is some very poor metering up there that the Victorian government has turned a blind eye to for years, so there will be some savings with metering, but most of the savings are from seepage and, in reality, they will not be real savings, because that is water that was not saved anyway in the past. So, in respect of the 425 gigalitres that is being talked about, a lot of that was not losses in the past because a lot of that seepage was finishing up back in the river system.

My major concern is that we get the Victorian government to agree that it will not make any new allocations until we know for sure that the Murray has its 100 gigalitres. The problem that I see is with pulling the water out for Melbourne, the environmental projects up the Goulburn River and the new allocations to irrigators. I cannot see how the 425 gigalitres of savings will eventuate when so much of what they talk about in their own paperwork is savings related to seepage. So, that is a major concern.

I hope the federal government will hold them to the first priority there. The 75 gigalitres to Melbourne will be gone. I do not think we can do anything about that, but the first priority has to be that 100 gigalitres for the river. Giving away new allocations until we know for sure that we have that 100 gigalitres would be foolhardy. It could put us in a position where a lot of the federal money spent to save the river may actually result in a negative outcome for the River Murray in terms of water.

It makes no sense. I can understand how it happened. It was put on the table very late by the Victorians. I hope the bureaucrats have been able to have a damn good look at all of that and find a way of making sure that the river gets its dividend and that that happens as a priority, rather than the Victorians giving out new allocations of water at a time when we cannot deliver the allocations that irrigators already have. We have seen the devastating effect that has on areas with permanent plantings.

I support what is in the bill, but I am disappointed that we are not taking a few more steps towards independent control of the river. What we will finish up with by way of a central decision-making body I am concerned is not a step forward. A lot of it will come back to the basin officials group and they are state and federal people, and I hope if that is the case that our state and federal governments can appoint some terrific people to that body.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (19:46): How fine you look up there, Mr Acting Speaker. I rise to make some points about the bill we are debating in the house tonight. As a metropolitan member of the parliament representing Unley, when I was out doorknocking last week the issue of water in South Australia was the No.1 issue in my area. It is a huge issue for my colleagues representing people in the country, but I stand in solidarity with my country colleagues, understanding the concern for water in South Australia, as was made clear to me when I was doorknocking just a week ago.

I raise some questions on the bill. Other speakers have said that it is not so much what is in the bill but what is not in the bill: namely, the lack of truly national referral of powers; the lack of an effective early basin plan for allocation and identification of priority water efficiency sites; and, identification of communities at risk from ad hoc buy-outs and the need of support. We saw an example of that with what has happened in the Riverland in South Australia, at a time when the Victorian government is boasting about the expansion of its food bowl and when massive investment is going into infrastructure for water coming out of the River Murray, including the water pipeline. I had the privilege last week to visit the Victorian parliament and sit in on question time, and the Victorian government is boasting heavily and strongly about the great deal it has got out of this for Victoria.

What did we get in South Australia? We have an interesting comment in the Murray Pioneer, which quotes Mr Rann as follows:

I have been personally negotiating with the Prime Minister and federal agriculture minister, Tony Burke, for the exit package since June this year. It is understood the vast majority of irrigators to benefit will be from South Australia's Riverland.

Here we have Premier Rann, the local member and minister Maywald's solution being to reduce our capacity to produce food and push people off the land while the Victorians are expanding their area.

Members interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The members for MacKillop and Hammond acknowledge that. They have had a strong interest in this and have been working with their constituents and they shake their heads in unison at the lack of detail and strength for the nation as a whole in this bill. As I and other speakers have said, it is what is not in the bill that is the problem and not so much what is in the bill. In particular I refer to the abolition of structural adjustment funding, the failure to begin real on-farm water efficiency projects. The member for Frome, former premier Rob Kerin, was right in talking about seepage. I do not know much about farming and irrigation, but I do have a garden and I know that, when I over-water, what the garden does not use ends up in the gutter. So, I imagine that the same situation would occur with the seepage of water in channels and so forth, and that is that it would end up back in the river.

We hear the Victorians saying, 'We're going to utilise that, we're going to stop that seepage.' In other words, 'We're going to stop that going back into the river and we're going to use it.' We heard that the Victorians have been granted new allocations, while in South Australia we have a dying lake and we have Riverland fruit farmers who are pulling up their vines, etc. They are the people who have been supplying fresh fruit and vegetables in South Australia for generations.

This is at a time when we are very conscious about food miles; that is, the distance that the food travels and the contribution that makes to greenhouse gasses and carbon footprints. The Riverland is quite close (two hours away), which means that South Australians know that if they buy Riverland oranges or Riverland apricots, this footprint is very small. Probably to generate a footprint which is slightly smaller than that would be achieved only if they themselves grew the produce in their own backyard, but now we will see that that distance will be even greater. Now the fruit could be coming from Victoria, from New South Wales, or even from California.

Of course, the recent drop in the dollar means that we are going to see, if we are relying on more fruit coming in from the United States, a higher price for fruit and vegetables which will flow through to our consumers in South Australia. But maybe the Victorians will save us. We have given up here, but the Victorians might be able to save us. They might sell us some of the fruit and vegetables from their food bowl. They might let us have it.

Ms Chapman: At a price.

Mr PISONI: At a price, of course, as the member for Bragg suggests. They are not bad business people in Victoria. They are certainly good at taking advantage, there is no doubt about that.

Something else I will talk about is the fact that there is $12.9 billion of federal money to spend on this. Although I have been in this place for only 2½ years, I have had an interest in politics for quite some time. I think one of the most fascinating interviews I ever saw was the interview that Kerry O'Brien had with Peter Costello, when he produced his first budget surplus after coming into office, having found that there was nearly $100 billion of debt that he had to pay off and having had to bring down deficit budgets.

His second or third budget was one involving a surplus of approximately $2 billion. I remember Kerry O'Brien saying, 'Mr Costello, how are you going to spend the money?' to which he had a great answer and said, 'Isn't that fantastic? What a great problem to have!' It is indeed a fantastic problem to have a surplus and to be wondering how you are going to spend it! The Howard Government spent the last 11½ years paying off the nearly $100 billion of debt that was left by the previous Labor government, but the fact that we have $12.9 billion there to spend on this project is a result of the work of Peter Costello, his Treasury team and the Howard Government—all of them very good managers.

Just remember that the Labor Party opposed every single Treasury and financial measure that Peter Costello tried to get, or got, through the Senate, and yet they tell us that they are fiscally conservative and responsible. We saw an extraordinary thing this week, of course, which was the stimulus package, with half the budget surplus having been spent, or to be spent, by the end of this calendar year.

Of course, another important thing to remember is that the money was there. It is completely different from what is happening in South Australia, of course, because we do not have that money there; we do not have state budget surpluses. We are cutting expenditure and capital projects because we are living on borrowed money. There has been an enormous increase in the budget from $8 billion to $15 billion in the budget estimates period, and the Treasurer has spent virtually every cent of it. The money has been coming in and the government has been getting fat on income and the Treasurer has just let out his belt and enjoyed the trimmings of office during the most prosperous economic times in living memory. During that time we have trailed other states in all key areas, whether it be in economic growth, employment or education, or other areas.

Of course, there was a time when we punched well above our weight here in South Australia, but the problem is that we actually ended up with Mike Rann as Premier—and that has dragged us behind. Every time I go to Sydney or Melbourne, I see more infrastructure being built and public transport operating perfectly. I see people using public transport. People in my electorate cannot catch a bus in the morning from about bus stop 4 on Duthy Street—sometimes on Unley Road or King William Road—because the buses are full and will not stop. There has been well documented evidence of that on websites and ABC Radio and in the local press. The management of this government leaves a lot to be desired.

The recycled water project into the Parklands is a great concept—and we fully support it—but I was shocked to hear in the Public Works Committee that we will still be sending more than half that almost drinkable water into the gulf, when for at least four months of the year the River Torrens is closed at regular times because of green algae which is caused by a lack of water flowing into the river. I asked why we could not pump that extra water into the Torrens in order to enjoy the lovely ambience of the Parklands of which we are so proud. Rowers on the water, people using the paddle boats and Popeye—an icon of Adelaide—cannot use the River Torrens for long parts of the summer because it does not have a flow of water.

I was told that the water is not suitable to go into the River Torrens; it is not clean enough to go into the River Torrens. However, part of the plan to bring this water into the Parklands is to connect it to air-conditioners. So we can actually breathe in this water but we cannot pump it into the River Torrens. It is too polluted to pump into the River Torrens. That is a bureaucratic mess. It would make a great skit for Yes, Minister. 'Yes, we will use it for air-conditioners. No, you can't drink it because it's not safe enough to drink. You can pump it into air-conditioners and breathe it in, but you can't put it into the River Torrens because it is not clean enough.' I am not a scientist, but it does not make sense to me. I am a fairly practical sort of person.

We are in the position where we can spend $12.9 billion on this project. We are pleased that money is being spent on preserving and protecting our Murray, but, as I said when I first stood up to speak, it simply does not go far enough.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:00): Water is important to every South Australian wherever they live, and it is no less significant in my electorate of Bragg, which covers the eastern metropolitan area from Rose Park to Mount Osmond—and I hope to represent the people in the Adelaide Hills at the 2010 election when the boundary changes are implemented. Indeed, in a survey of Bragg residents recently, the No. 1 issue for them out of 10 was the River Murray. It was the same four years ago when I did the same survey. The No. 2 issue is water generally. The No. 3 issue is health, and I can list a number of others.

Overwhelmingly, this was the most significant issue. It is not that they are reliant on it for food production, although certainly they have felt the effect of the restrictions imposed by the government as a result of a shortage of water resulting from the drought and, I would suggest, a lack of other alternate protection through the development of infrastructure to ensure that we did not have to have restrictions, but because they understand how important it is for South Australia.

Not only do they want to help and to participate in the debate as to what we do to ensure an equitable distribution of water in this state between township and urban living for food production and environmental protection but they also want to ensure that they are part of the remedy of how we deal with it. The most pressing issue that is on our plate is the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill—and I think we are dealing with it in tandem with the second bill, the Murray-Darling Basin Bill—which enables us to implement other aspects that are necessary in respect of the abolition of other structures in the legislation.

I raise the following matters. Firstly, the omission of important aspects. Some of that is due to the fact that there has been a desire on the part of the new federal Labor government and the state Labor governments to produce a remedy which keeps the New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland partners happy. So, I suggest we have ended up with a shallow and inadequate structure. I sincerely hope that it works, that it does progress some benefit for the River Murray, because my electors want it. They want that river system saved and they want us to develop options to ensure that townspeople and urban Adelaide is able to quarantine itself (I suppose) from their need to be able to suck out water as they have over the past century and a half. Given the deficiencies that have now been built into this structure, I believe that there is very limited opportunity for that to occur successfully.

Largely, other speakers have outlined the significant aspects which have been omitted in this proposed structure which will ensure that. First, obviously having a process where, if we are all in on something, the unhappy chappies from Victoria or New South Wales just cannot pull out when it does not suit them. That is not a transfer of powers; that is not introducing a new structure. That is producing a Clayton's proposal to a very serious problem from which any player can pull out at any time. I do not see that as being any better than the system that we have now. However, a level of goodwill—that I do not anticipate, because I have not seen it demonstrated in the past—from the eastern states will change that. It may happen and, if it does, I would be pleased to see it.

I will not repeat all of the aspects because our lead speaker (the member for MacKillop) has admirably outlined those. They have been reinforced by our leader, and many other speakers. What I do want to say is, notwithstanding the government's haste to rush in this bill during the closing week of the last session of parliament before we moved for a short adjournment, the next day New South Wales introduced these legislative reforms into its chamber. I have had a look at the contributions made by minister Phillip Costa and also the lead speaker for the opposition, Kevin Humphries. There were a number of other speakers, and I have not read their contributions, but it has already gone through the upper house and New South Wales already has passed this legislation. I am not familiar with the progress in the other states, but it is clear that the minister may have run in here to introduce this first—all done in the flurry of cameras—but the truth is clearly we will not be the first to get it through and, as usual, it is all spin on what is so important, this historic new structure.

Mr Williams: It shows what they see as being important.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is the important thing for them, not the substance of what we are having to debate, or the lack thereof.

I want to say two other things. What is important, after the passage of this bill and the hard work begins to ensure that we keep the relevant players at the table, is that we also progress important other projects. Of course, one is the desalination plant. We have been told by the government that it will advance that. I am not sure how they are going to do it.

Mr Williams: Fast-track it.

Ms CHAPMAN: The reality is it will not be here to save us when we are very short of water in February or March next year. Nevertheless, I hear what they say: they are going to do that. At least they picked up our good idea on that.

The second thing I want to say is this, and this is very important to my electors because they are very keen to ensure that we waterproof Adelaide and protect the River Murray—essentially, for environmental purposes, food production, and the townspeople who rely on it and live along it. To get Adelaide off the River Murray we need to seriously look at what other sources we have. The opposition has prepared, under the tutelage and stewardship of the member for MacKillop, and our leader, the important aspects of stormwater harvesting. My electorate is very keen on this, and I want the government, when it has got over all the grandstanding on this legislation, to ensure that we advance this.

As has been detailed in already published policy of the opposition, currently, in a normal year we pump 80 gigalitres of water from the Murray to Adelaide for consumption yet, according to the government's own figures, we let 160 gigalitres of stormwater flow out into Gulf St Vincent. This is a waste that must end, and we can no longer afford to let precious water go out to sea.

Yet, what government projects have we seen to harvest stormwater in this state? We have seen the establishment of a whole new structure and new authority—which I was not too happy with at the time it was started, but it has gone through the processes and is in place. We have seen the announcement of the purple pipeline that is coming back from the coast with sewerage water, which they are going to clean up and which the member for Unley has referred to, but we have not seen any major project for stormwater harvesting take place. I want to put on the table that the $105 million project for the Keswick/Brownhill Creek stormwater proposal is ready to go. It has been identified. There has been considerable research done on it. All relevant councils, except the council of Mitcham, have signed up on it. The council of Mitcham is just looking for more information and, quite clearly, its public statements on this are, 'That being dealt with, we can move ahead with this.'

It is a project that will harvest an enormous amount of water. In fact, I am told that there is enough water that runs off my electorate alone each year, if you can capture it all at once, to water the whole of Adelaide. We know that we cannot do that all out of one area and out of one rain storm; we understand that, but when we have projects which have been looked at and investigated and to which stakeholders have made a contribution, and we have players ready to go on it, but we do not have any state government money in its share in this thirds arrangement, that is very disappointing.

That project is there, and it does require a couple of things. It requires the will of the government to put some money into it. The government's share would be about $33 million, and I will tell you some places where it can get the money. First, it could cancel the SA Film Corporation redevelopment at the Glenside Hospital. That $45 million project is going ahead, according to this government, notwithstanding the fact that there is a collapse of the world's economy.

The government is proceeding with the refurbishment of a facility at the Glenside Hospital, not for mental health patients but to give a new home to the SA Film Corporation, which, frankly, has a perfectly adequate one at Hendon. If the government does not want to have that, there are other people, including the Port Adelaide Enfield Council, who are happy to give them a home. That is the priority of this government. I say to it that if it was serious about water in this state it would cancel that project and immediately divert those funds to ensure that it has money available to help fund this project.

The second thing the government needs to do is understand that to capture water you need area above the surface and underground. Whether you store it in an aquifer or tanks, you need to capture it in the first place. The most logical place to capture water from the Brownhill/Keswick Creek system is the north-west corner of the Glenside Hospital site, which already has a detention basin and a drain which is used for stormwater management to protect against flooding.

If you want to capture it you can expand that detention basin in the north-west corner without interrupting the government's proposed hospital and its proposal to it put back on the south-east corner, and you could create a major well and catchment area for water that could then be siphoned under the Fullarton Road/Greenhill Road intersection and into the South Parklands. There are aquifers there. The experts have lined up and told this to the councils, me as the state member for Bragg and other state representatives.

This is the sort of project that must be advanced. I use that as an example because it is relevant to my electorate and I have looked into it. I am sure there are many others that have already had engineers, water people, geologists, hydrologists and all those experts who can look into it. We have the water. It rains down on us every year. We have to advance the infrastructure that will capture this and protect the River Murray by quarantining and removing the life-support of water for Adelaide from that area. There are projects there.

The final thing that I would say is this: I am very concerned about the genuineness of the government in relation to water infrastructure, not just because it has not done anything for seven years other than to announce the desal plant and put the purple pipes from the sewage water from the coast to the Parklands but also because it is prepared to endorse this spending of money for SA Water which has some independence—as has been referred to in this parliament today—and which provides its profit, of course, to general revenue.

I think I heard today that the Treasurer has harvested off something like $2 billion out of this entity in his time in office, and it will expand to $2.5 or $3 billion in the forward estimates. That is a lot of money. Yet, SA Water, which has a specific charter to provide and regulate water in this state—the privilege of having a monopoly in this state—is allowed to spend $46 million to refit its new headquarters at Victoria Square; $46 million has come out of its budget to install computer cabling, carpets, new lights, furniture, desks—whatever—and transfer its headquarters from Pirie Street to Victoria Square in a building on which it has had a 15-year lease which the Treasurer told us would expire.

It could have bought that building at the expiration of that lease for something like $39 million according to the budget reports this year and yet, on the next page, you turn over and find that it is spending $46 million of taxpayers' money on a refit of a building that it does not even own. I find it utterly obscene that, at a time when the state is perishing, where crops are dying, where orchards have died, where people are selling up, where people are being offered a package to leave their industry and livelihood, where we are destroying the food bowl of this state, SA Water has the gall to spend that money to refit its new headquarters. That is utterly obscene.

For all the members of this government to sit in cabinet and allow SA Water, which has that exclusive privilege of monopoly in this state, to do that when we are in the middle of a drought and when they know that this whole state is under pressure is absolutely disgraceful. It is an abandonment of their responsibility as members of the cabinet and members of this government. I am appalled that we are here, having to deal with some shallow structure that they are going to introduce.

What I do not want them to do is walk away from the responsibility that when this bill goes through this parliament, and similar bills have travelled through the parliaments in the other states, they do not just sit back on their hands and do nothing, that they actually do something to save the River Murray and to ensure that they do not allow this waste to be perpetuated in the state that has occurred today. It is utterly obscene. It is a disgrace. Frankly, I am appalled that the minister has not raised this issue. That is a disgrace. If you have failed to deal with that, you have failed as a minister.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (20:17): I am happy to close the debate and move the bill through the parliament as expeditiously as we possibly can, because this is very important legislation, and we have made a commitment to endeavour to get it through both houses of parliament by 1 November, as have all other jurisdictions.

I will address many of the issues that have been raised by those members opposite who actually chose to use their second reading speeches to address the bill. In the first instance, I would like to talk about the issues raised by the member for MacKillop. First and foremost, he raised issues regarding the commonwealth Water Act instrument: what one of those instruments might be, the issue of disallowance and whether instruments are subject to the disallowance provisions.

An example of such an instrument is a regulation, notice or protocol made by the minister or another authority under the Water Act. The definition is included because of clause 4(4)(b) of the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2008 which makes it clear that the referral powers do not prevent the commonwealth from making a regulation, notice or other instrument under the act which would have an effect on the act. For one of the instruments, such as a protocol under the agreement, they are legislative instruments. They are referred to in section 18D in the commonwealth legislation.

The provision there will mean that the protocols will be subject to the various requirements of the commonwealth Legislative Instruments Act. This will mean that the protocols will need to be registered under the act including an explanatory memorandum and will be published on the internet. They will need to be prepared in accordance with the minimum consultation requirements under the act, and they will also be laid before both houses of the commonwealth parliament but will not be disallowable by virtue of section 18D.

They will also not be subject to the sunset provisions, which is appropriate given their nature and status under the scheme. The protocols are things like how the authority will go about undertaking the provisions that they have available to them under the agreement. Given that the authority crosses borders and boundaries into each of the states, it is deemed inappropriate that there be a disallowable motion on those protocols. They are operational issues in relation to how the authority will undertake its activities.

There was much rhetoric and spin in relation to the independence of the authority, and I think it is important to make it very clear about what these referral powers will do and what the independent authority will have the ability to do. The authority will be an expert, independent body reporting to the commonwealth minister for its functions under the Water Act. This was also agreed to by the former government—in fact the national plan, as first suggested by the Howard-Turnbull government in January last year when it released it, was for the powers to be transferred to the commonwealth minister, who would take over responsibility for the commission and turn it into a government agency. South Australia did not support that; we believed it would be akin to handing over the powers from one set of politicians who were subject to political disputation to another set with the same communities of interest. Therefore, we gained the support of jurisdictions—in particular, Queensland and New South Wales, and finally the commonwealth—to introduce an independent authority.

Members who were around in, I think, 1998 may remember that a motion was moved by the now Minister for Health to establish a select committee into the River Murray, and a number of past and present members in this house were members of that committee. The committee also recommended that there needed to be greater independence, and when I was appointed Minister for the River Murray one of the first things I did was replace one of South Australia's commissioners with an independent commissioner. Mr John Scanlon was the first appointment to the commission before taking up his very important role with the United Nations in Nairobi and, following his appointment to the position, we appointed Ian Kowalick as an independent commissioner, such was South Australia's view that independence was key to getting better outcomes. Unfortunately, no-one else followed suit. However, we are now at a stage where we will get a truly independent authority.

The new authority is quite different from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which is comprised of state officials (as the member Frome mentioned) who have represented states' interests in the past—with the exception of South Australia's independent commissioner. The authority will have two clear roles: one will be to develop and enforce the basin plan; the second will be to take on the functions of the commission. The commonwealth minister is the final decision maker on the basin plan, and there is no veto power at all by the ministerial council or the states in the development of the basin-wide plan. It is critical to note that this was exactly how the former federal government intended this to work—that there be one minister responsible for this particular plan.

It is also very important to point out that it would be totally inappropriate to give all decision making in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin to a non-elected member of the community. We have a strong view that, at the end of the day, there must be an elected member in the federal parliament with whom the buck stops. In addition, the commonwealth minister cannot direct the authority in relation to the basin plan on matters of a factual or scientific nature, the assignment of risk to the commonwealth related to reductions in allocation, or about monitoring of compliance or enforcement of the basin plan. These restrictions on the direction power of the minister are set out in sections 44(5) and 175(2) of the commonwealth Water Act 2007. When the basin plan is tabled before a house of parliament (which is required under section 44(7) of the act) the minister must table any directions that he or she has given to the authority. This ensures that the minister is accountable for any directions given to that authority.

The ministerial council has an advisory role with respect to aspects of the plan that may affect the social, environmental and economic outcomes of the state. That is really important; when making such huge changes to the availability of what is a wealth generator in communities there will be significant social and economic impacts within those communities. It is only appropriate that there be consultation on the changes those communities will have to live with.

I think that the member for MacKillop commented that he would prefer to see all those decisions made by a Reserve Bank type model, where there was no consultation at all. I do not agree with that at all, neither does this government, and nor do all those who are moving forward on this legislation.

The ministerial council has an advisory role with respect to aspects of the plan in the area of sustainable diversion limits (clause 60 of the commonwealth bill), but it does not have veto power, and that is vitally important because currently any state can veto any change.

Under the referral of powers, the authority also takes on the role of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in managing the river operations for the shared surface waters of the River Murray and Menindee Lakes system of the Lower Darling River on behalf of the basin states and the commonwealth.

In this role, the authority is both managing the river to distribute water to the states, in accordance with the state water shares, and managing the assets owned by the states, such as the locks, weirs, storages and salt interception schemes. The decisions made by the authority can affect the timing, delivery and quality of water being sent down the river to South Australia and to the other states. It could affect our 1,850 gigalitre share and, as such, it is appropriate that the basin states continue to have appropriate involvement in the decision-making.

If we did not have that appropriate involvement, it could be an arbitrary decision of a body that sits over in Canberra to change the delivery and timing of deliveries into South Australia which did not meet the needs of our irrigation communities. So, it is entirely appropriate that the states still have a role and a function in that regard.

In regard to the state water shares, the basin plan will set the available amount of water in the longer term, and also seasonally, each year. It will determine the size of the bucket. The state water-sharing arrangements that distribute that bucket will remain the same and require agreement by all the states to change those shares. Currently, 50 per cent of the shared resource goes to New South Wales and 50 per cent goes to Victoria; collectively, they must supply South Australia with our 1,850 gigalitres. What this does is protect our 1,850 gigalitres from arbitrary change.

South Australia's minimum entitlement of 1,850 gigalitres or thereabouts is adjusted up and down with trade on an annual basis. South Australia has an entitlement to a volume of water, rather than a percentage share, as New South Wales and Victoria have. Current state water shares, as defined by the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and the subsequent Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and commission decisions, will be preserved unless otherwise agreed by all members of the ministerial council; therefore, South Australia has to agree to change our 1,850 gigalitres. So, we have protected our 1,850 gigalitres as a minimum.

Another matter raised related to the environmental water allocations. The basin plan will set sustainable limits on the quantity of water that may be taken from the basin's water resources. This will ensure that a greater quantity of water is available for environmental needs. The plan will provide for a comprehensive environmental watering plan that will coordinate management of environmental flows throughout the basin and ensure that environmental assets are protected. This includes environmental water recovered by the commonwealth and basin states under water recovery programs, such as the Living Murray Initiative and the Water for the Future program. It will seek to improve the health of all Ramsar sites including, importantly, the Lower Lakes, the Coorong, the Murray Mouth and other key environmental sites in the basin.

Another question raised related to conveyance water versus dilution flows. South Australia is guaranteed dilution flows under the current agreement, but it does not deal with drought conditions, as the member for Hammond would be well aware. In some years, it may not be even enough water to meet conveyance water; therefore, the changes make it mandatory that the basin plan sets in place arrangements for identifying the risks, setting aside a reserve and maintaining that reserve, not just on an annual basis but over several years. This does not happen under the existing arrangements, which are annually based.

Under the existing agreement, water is drawn down with no future consideration of what might happen in the next year. We have brought in subsequent drought contingency planning measures to deal with that in the interim through the federal government's initiative in November 2006 to establish the Senior Officials Group and First Ministers' contingency planning. The plan also outlines the conveyance water for the entire system, not just South Australia, and that currently does not exist in the Murray-Darling agreement.

Access to storage is also a critically important component of the new plan and the new agreement that does not exist in the current circumstances. The current circumstances require South Australia to go cap in hand every single year to negotiate arrangements to get access to dams that are largely empty, and that is not a good and effective way for us to manage our resources and our available water. The changes to the agreement give South Australia a formal right to access those storages. As I have said, the reliance on the other states has been an inhibitor in our being able to manage our water across years and particularly during this prolonged drought.

There are provisions on that storage that say that it should not impact upon the capacity of New South Wales and Victoria to store water. What that effectively means is that, when the dams are spilling, South Australia's water will be the first to spill, if it spills, or we can call that water down and store it in other areas, such as either behind the weir pools or in the Mount Lofty Ranges so that South Australia can better manage its available water. I might add that, if the dams are spilling, we do not have a problem; we are not in a drought situation.

There are a number of things the basin plan does that it did not do before. The basin plan will now have to be prepared with regard to the agreement of the basin jurisdictions that critical human needs water is the highest priority use of water; that critical human needs includes core human consumption requirements in urban and rural areas and non-human consumption requirements that, if not met, would cause a prohibitively high social, economic or national security cost. The basin plan will state the amount of water required in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria to meet the critical human water needs of communities dependent on the River Murray system and specify arrangements for carrying over water in storage.

The basin plan must be prepared to ensure that conveyance water (that is, the water required to deliver the critical human needs water to where it needs to be extracted) will receive first priority from the water available in the system—not just South Australia's dilution flow but the entire component of conveyance water across the basin—for all critical human needs.

The basin plan must develop a reserves policy for periods of low water availability. That does not exist at the moment; there is no reserves policy. In 2006-07, when the inflows into the River Murray flatlined and Victoria continued to allocate 95 per cent to its irrigators, South Australia had 60 per cent, and there were varying different allocations across New South Wales, and we saw those dams drained without any consideration of reserves to be carried forward for the next year. So, a reserves policy will now be part of the plan, and it will provide for any other matters necessary to ensure that there is sufficient conveyance water available in times of low inflows.

The basin plan must now specify arrangements for monitoring matters relevant to critical human water needs, including water quality and quantity, ecosystem health and social impacts on communities. The basin plan must also now assess and manage risks to critical human water needs, including the inflow predictions to the River Murray and the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme, which transfers significant net quantities of water into the Murray-Darling Basin.

The basin plan will now also provide for that all-important inter-annual planning to inform decisions about how water is made available for all users in order to meet critical human water needs in future years. The basin plan must now take account of the ecological character, descriptions of the declared Ramsar wetlands and other key environmental sites. That is in addition to what the basin plan must already do in relation to the mandatory requirements in the commonwealth government's Water Act 2007.

There are many mandatory provisions, and they can be found under part 2, division 1, section 22—the mandatory content of the basin plan, which includes things like a description of the basin water resources and the context in which those resources are used; and identification of particular areas that are to be water resource plan areas. There are many mandatory requirements under the bill that currently exist in the act that was introduced by Malcolm Turnbull last year and passed through the commonwealth parliament prior to the last election.

There are also significant enforcement requirements in this act. 'Enforcement' can be found on page 140. It talks about all the different enforcement provisions if there are contraventions of the act. Also, page 28 refers to the application to the Crown, including South Australia and all the states. The application to the Crown is that this act binds the Crown in each of its capacities. There are now enforcement provisions of a basin-wide plan within the act. There are mandatory requirements in the plan. Also, the commonwealth cannot direct the authority in relation to the basin plan on matters of a factual or scientific basis.

For example, if the authority determines that the sustainable yield from a particular area is X number of gigalitres, and that is based on scientific fact, it is not possible for the commonwealth minister to direct the authority to change that.

The timing of the basin-wide plan was also raised as an issue by members opposite. The basin plan was never intended to address contingency planning for the current drought. Malcolm Turnbull will tell you that and John Howard will tell you that. This was about planning for the longer term governance and for the better management in the medium to longer term of the Murray-Darling Basin system.

A process is in place currently that was established by the Howard-Turnbull team in November 2006, whereby we are dealing with the issues of this current drought. What this plan and this referral of powers will do is ensure that, when we are faced with a drought like we have now again in the future, and as climate change impacts on the available resource, we will be better prepared to deal with that.

Fundamentally, the Murray-Darling Basin reform process is about reform of governance and planning arrangements. The basin plan provides a foundation for re-establishing the sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin water resource. It will include long-term sustainable diversions—limits, caps—that are enforceable by the authority. It includes the identification of risks to the basin water resources, including climate change and land-use change. It will establish an environmental watering plan and a water quality and salinity management plan. It will establish the water trading rules. It provides for addressing critical human water needs and it also introduces substantial monitoring arrangements right across the basin. This plan, this provision and this entire new governance arrangement that all states in the commonwealth have agreed to will assist us to better manage our way through future droughts.

It is critical for the irrigators and communities that depend on the basin water resources that the authority get the plan right. This requires a detailed scientific and socioeconomic analysis, as well as extensive public consultation. In particular, consultations with affected communities will be important to the authority's considerations in setting the sustainable diversions limits.

The plan is due in 2011. To prepare a plan in less time will result in a potentially inferior outcome with far-reaching consequences for those affected communities. I represent an irrigation community. The member for Hammond represents an area of the River Murray in South Australia which includes irrigation, as do the members for Finniss, Mitchell and Stuart. I might add that the member for Stuart made what I believe to be a very exceptional contribution to this debate, unlike some others who chose to take the time to engage in political rhetoric rather than actually acknowledge the importance of this legislation.

There was also a question in relation to the reason for a text-based referral. The text-based referral is important because consistency across the states in relation to the text that is referred to the commonwealth is important. It is highly complex, as members have indicated. It is really disappointing, however, that many members of the house have not taken the time to read all of the parts of the legislation.

We specifically introduced it and were required to introduce it as the first state to table the amendments to the federal government's Water Act 2007, simply because the other states would then refer to our tabling of that document. The tabling of that document was done in a timely manner in order to enable members opposite and, indeed, members on the cross-benches to actually—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Yes, we agreed to go first, and we wanted to go first. It was important that South Australia showed leadership, and we did show leadership in this regard. That legislation was laid on the table over three weeks ago. What really disappoints me is the number of members who said they had spent less than a couple of hours reviewing what is a highly complex piece—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: It is a highly complex piece of legislation. Unfortunately, members opposite continue to spin the rhetoric. It was important for us to see that this text-based referral reflected other referrals of power to the commonwealth, such as the Corporations Law. There have been text-based referrals in the past, and they have worked extremely well.

There was reference to a Reserve Bank type model. I think it is important to point out that in the Reserve Bank Act 1959 there is a determination provision—where there are differences of opinion with the government on questions of policy—and it is remarkably similar to what we have in relation to this particular bill. The government is to be informed of the bank's policies and, in fact, the government actually establishes the criteria upon which that policy must be established. The Reserve Bank Board informs the government about the policy. In the event of a difference of opinion between the government and one of the boards, about whether a policy determined by the relevant board is directed to the greatest advantage for the people of Australia, the Treasurer and the relevant board shall endeavour to reach an agreement.

If they cannot reach an agreement, the federal minister can direct the board, but he must lay that direction before both houses of Parliament. That is section 11 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959. I invite members opposite to have a look at it. It is very important to have that provision and make it available. If one does get a rogue board or a situation where it is totally at odds, the rogue board, because it is the board that—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: In the opt-out provision—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: No; it is a very good point that the member raises in regard to the opt-out provision, and I will refer to it. The opt-out provision, in all of the legislation that is referred to the federal government, such as the Corporations Law, is a standard procedure in such legislation because constitutionally this parliament cannot bind future parliaments. If you look at the Corporations Law, the opt-out provision is very similar to what is put forward in this legislation.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: And so does the Corporations Law.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Victoria can jump out of the Corporations Law whenever it wants to, too. I think you should read the Corporations Act and familiarise yourself with the other referrals. Obviously, the member for Bragg has not availed herself of that information. The other interesting thing is the issues that have been—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that the minister's second reading reply holds considerable status before the courts, and it is very important that she be able to address these matters without interruption.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Some members have referenced a number of things such as the Howard-Turnbull plan which, apparently, had $3 billion simply for the purchase of water. That was not the case; it is a rewriting of history and I think it is important that we deal with that. The national plan that was launched by Howard and Turnbull on 25 January 2007 does deal with addressing overallocation. I would like to make reference to that particular document in addressing overallocation. It states:

Under the plan the commonwealth government will invest up to $3 billion over 10 years to address overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Not to spend this year, but over 10 years. It continues:

Planned in conjunction with a modernisation program this will be achieved by providing assistance to irrigation districts to reconfigure irrigation systems and retire non-viable areas, such as those at the end of isolated channels or in salt-affected areas. Assistance will be provided to help relocate non-viable or inefficient irrigators or help them with exiting the industry where necessary entitlements will also be purchased on the market.

That was what the federal government back in January 2007 put forward as its criteria for the $3 billion of water that is now allocated specifically to water purchase. The Murray Futures program has $610 million which has been allocated to South Australia out of the commonwealth's $12.9 billion Water for the Future program and that includes industry renewal and water purchase. In keeping with the intent of the original plan, it is still occurring but it is occurring at an accelerated rate. It is over 10 years; it has been brought forward substantially.

It is interesting that the governance arrangements, as put forward by the Howard-Turnbull team in January 2007, state:

Under the proposal the commonwealth government will reconstitute the Murray-Darling Basin Commission as a commonwealth government agency reporting to a single minister.

That is reading from their document. I think we need to get that straight because there has been an awful rewriting of history in the contributions opposite tonight. It is also interesting to note that a significant amount of differing views exist within the Liberal Party about whether or not this referral should occur. Steele Hall recently said that he does not support the referral of powers because he thinks that that will undermine South Australia's gains. We have great—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: National Party policy in South Australia is to refer powers. The National Party policy in Victoria and that in New South Wales is to refer the powers, and I can assure you that is the case. I will be over at our federal council meeting on Saturday week and I can assure you that is the case.

It is a really interesting thing because members opposite may laugh but I recall that a certain Leader of the Opposition headed off over interstate and he was going to put his counterparts in the Eastern States in a headlock and get agreement from his interstate counterparts.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Yes. I have been watching the Leader of the Opposition. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said, 'We are going to get them in a headlock. That is what we should do.' He headed over there to get support. Do you know what he came back with? His tail between his legs. He could not even get his colleagues interstate to agree with any part of his particular plan. The other thing that is really important to note is that when—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: When the decision was made by the federal government, I understand, to provide $1 billion conditionally to the Victorian government, it was made conditionally on the basis of the due diligence on the project, and the due diligence on the project requires the Victorian government to demonstrate that the water is real in the project, and I think that is vitally important.

It is also vitally important that even though the spin in the opposition benches continues to talk about the federal government's plan funding the pipeline to Melbourne, that is totally incorrect and a misrepresentation. The federal government is not funding the pipeline to Melbourne. Also, it is interesting to note that, even when we were talking about the $10 billion put forward by the Howard-Turnbull plan, it was widely accepted that most of that money was going to have to be spent in New South Wales and Victoria. Why should we be surprised that the billion dollars is going—

Ms Chapman: Why give them more?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: It is part of the same funding. I do not think the member actually understands this and I think she should do a bit of research because most of the members over there showed that very little research has been undertaken into this bill or understanding of the current arrangements let alone the changes that are proposed. The project in Victoria is twofold. One is being funded by Victoria through a range of means—their irrigators are contributing and the state government is contributing—to do infrastructure improvements, to save water and to build a pipeline to Melbourne. That is not being funded by this plan. There is a second stage to the irrigation improvement that is notionally applied to that project, provisionally that they supply the information that supports the 100 gigalitres that they have identified will be saved. I think it is important to note that whilst there seems to be a lot of talk on the other side about spin, the spin is coming from the other side.

The member for Hammond's remarks are not really worth commenting on because he spent most of his time on party politics and personal attacks, so he lost his opportunity to have a real role and responsibility and to put his views onto the record in this very important debate, which is a real shame considering that he is the shadow minister for the River Murray. It does not surprise me: as shadow minister for the River Murray, he should be the one carrying this bill through the house but, from his contribution, he obviously has not done the necessary work on this bill.

Mr Williams: That is a low blow, Karlene.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Well, understandably so, because when people have nothing of substance they resort to personal attacks. Anyone who reads Hansard will see that the number of members who actually resorted to personal attacks rather than substance in their contribution was quite extraordinary.

There is another issue regarding the role of the commonwealth minister as decision maker, which was raised by the member for Frome. The commonwealth minister will be the decision maker for the basin-wide plan, implementation, review and amendment, including sustainable diversion limits, trading rules, water charge and market rules.

Much of this is already provided for in the Water Act 2007, which must be read in conjunction with the amending bill that was tabled in this house to get the full picture about what is happening. As many members opposite identified, they have not read it, which is a shame. The provisions in the Water Act are not new to legislative reform. I am pleased to bring this legislation to the house. I think it is extremely important—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: You made the comment in the first instance. I think it is extremely important that this piece of legislation be taken far more seriously than those opposite have shown in the second reading debate over the past couple of days. It is an extremely important piece of legislation that takes us through to a new age in relation to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

This is the first government in 100 years that has been able to achieve a referral of powers to the commonwealth for water in the Murray-Darling Basin. It has not been achieved before. It is historic, and it is the first time it has occurred. Yes, it has happened too late. Shame on the governments over the past 100 years for not having done it. The fact of the matter is that we cannot change that. I cannot change the history, but what I can do, and what this government has done, is change the now for the betterment of the future of this nation, for the betterment of the security supply to all our communities and for the betterment of the environment of the Murray-Darling Basin in the longer term. This is extremely important. It is legislation to which I am very pleased the opposition has given its full support, whilst it has spent its entire time qualifying that support—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Deputy leader, please refrain from interjecting.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: —saying, on the one hand, that they do not support it and then, on the other hand, voting for it, which is typical of the way that this opposition operates. I am extremely honoured to be in this position of being able to bring this piece of legislation to the house. I thank my parliamentary colleagues. I thank the Premier for his extraordinarily strong leadership in this regard for South Australia. This is the first government that has been able to deliver this extraordinary step forward in the future management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Mr WILLIAMS: I seek your guidance, chair, because this is, in my experience, the first time we have had a piece of legislation anything like this. I know that the standing orders give members the opportunity to ask up to three questions on each clause, but most of the detail of this matter that is before the house is not, in fact, in the bill; it is in the tabled text. What is your advice to the committee on how we might go about it because the bill itself has little contention, but there are some matters that I wish to raise and I suspect some of my colleagues may wish to raise to further our understanding of the tabled text. Can you give us some guidance on how we can proceed?

The CHAIR: I would not wish to go through the text clause by clause. However, when we get to clause 4, I will be reasonably generous in allowing members to pursue matters of interest.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: Member for MacKillop, can you give me an indication of how many areas of interest you have?

Mr WILLIAMS: Maybe 10 or a dozen. Depending on the minister's response to some of the earlier questions, it may become obvious as to the intent of the later ones and it may be quicker than that.

The CHAIR: I will try to be generous without indulging the committee to keep us here beyond midnight.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is not my intention to filibuster on this, but one of the things we learnt in the second reading debate is that members on this side of the house (and we heard little from government members) had concerns about the process in that the opportunity to get a full understanding of this tabled text is quite difficult. I found myself having to go back to the principal act—which is not an act of this parliament—and do quite a bit of homework on that. It is necessary to have an understanding of the principal act of another parliament in some areas before we can understand the tabled text, and that has made it quite difficult.

The CHAIR: I will be generous, but not tolerant of filibustering.

Mr WILLIAMS: In the minister's summing up it interested me the number of times she referred to this being agreed to by the former government, that it was John Howard's plan or Malcolm Turnbull's plan. Was the minister telling the house that, with the powers that have been referred, the government of South Australia has accepted that everything John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull put forward in January or February 2007, in that period, is what we want to achieve, or has the government, through the effluxion of time, decided that there are probably in some areas better ways to do it and make improvements to it?

I seem to get the impression that we have been lectured that it must be right because that is what John Howard said, yet we just heard the minister say that the South Australian state Labor government is the first government in the history of this nation to get to the point where we will have such a plan. There is some contradiction between those two viewpoints. Have we accepted everything that John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull proposed or have there been some improvements or changes since then?

There seems to be some confusion between the two positions that the minister has put. The minister, I think, has made the argument in her summation that the opposition is being disingenuous in arguing a position which may not have been the position of John Howard or Malcolm Turnbull 18 months ago.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The answer to that is yes in some regards and no in others. If you go back to the original proposal that was put forward, it did not include an independent authority, it did not have the same focus on the purchase of water from willing sellers, and it had no focus on critical human needs, or South Australia's storage in upstream states, or the conveyance water necessary to bring that through to each of the jurisdictions for the critical human needs required, nor was there any provision for the carryover of water for South Australian irrigators.

What did happen, following the government's announcement on 25 January last year to introduce the national plan and the $10 billion plan, was that substantial negotiations occurred between Malcolm Turnbull and other jurisdictions. There was no legislation presented with that plan and there was no detail on the referral. Following that first announcement, considerable negotiations were undertaken, and Malcolm Turnbull accepted many changes to the way in which he was going to deliver the plan. Then, when negotiations broke down with Victoria, he went ahead with what he had at that stage; and that is the Water Act 2007. The Water Act 2007 went through.

What we are presenting today further enhances that Water Act 2007. It has many of the provisions put forward by the Turnbull plan, but certainly it also has some enhanced provisions, and it does include the introduction of a ministerial council and a basin officials committee, which was part of the negotiations with Malcolm Turnbull, and I understand that he made a commitment that he would agree to that also.

Mr WILLIAMS: I take it from that it is okay for the government, on one hand, to say that it can move on, but the opposition should be prepared to accept everything that was put down 18 months ago. I inform the committee that is not the way that the opposition has operated here, and we have reserved our right to have some independent thought on this matter.

I turn to the first part of the tabled text, which has the proposed amendments to the Water Act. Section 86D talks about critical human needs. This has been a contentious area, and it has been contentious because of statements that have been made by the government. I would like to think that they were not deliberately designed to mislead the public of South Australia, but I feel that they have because, certainly when I first heard them, they misled me. It is about critical human needs water. When I first heard these statements—

The CHAIR: Order! Member for MacKillop, can you give us a page? I have not been able to find it. There must be more than one.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is page 15 in the tabled text.

The CHAIR: That is clearly not the 86D on page 100.

Mr WILLIAMS: There are several documents with several sets of numbers, yes.

The CHAIR: Perhaps we need to refer to both pages.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes; I am more than happy to do that. When I first heard the statements emanating from the government, from both the minister and the Premier, about critical human needs, I thought, 'You beauty: the basin plan is going to ensure critical human needs water, so that the water that comes out of the tap in times of extreme low flows will be guaranteed as a whole by the whole of the basin.'

I ask the minister to confirm my understanding of the tabled text because, on page 15, section 86D(3) provides:

(3) The arrangements referred to in paragraph (1)(d) must:

...(b) recognise that each of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia is responsible for meeting the critical human water needs of that state and will decide how water from each share is used...

Will the minister explicitly explain what the critical human needs water—about which her press releases have been talking and which will be guaranteed by the plan—does? Is it not a fact that South Australia will need to find the critical human needs water—to be pumped by SA Water (in most instances) in order to deliver water for domestic purposes—from its notional 1,850 gigalitres—or whatever it is—under special accounting arrangements, whether it be under tier 2 or 3 arrangements under the amended Murray-Darling Basin Agreement?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: In relation to the area where South Australia will be required to make provision for its critical human needs, yes. We will need to make that through our available water under our licences. The carryover provisions which we have available to us will enable us to do that in times of drought. We will not be managing it on an annual basis but, rather, through across-seasons. The current licence for metropolitan Adelaide, for example, is a 650 gigalitres rolling licence. If we do not use it, we lose it. We can now store that licence in the Hume and Dartmouth and it will be earmarked as South Australian water.

Mr WILLIAMS: The government has announced that it intends to spend $1 billion, or whatever it will take, to double the capacity of the Adelaide Hills storages. If this legislation passes and we get the ability to store water in the Hume and Dartmouth—water which will be earmarked for Adelaide and which will be securely stored in those upstream storages—will it obviate the need for South Australian taxpayers to fund $1 million worth of extra storage in the Adelaide Hills?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: That is a very good question, and it is one which the state government is considering at present. We have charged the Water Security Council through the Adelaide Desalination Steering Committee to look at those issues and provide advice to the government—so it is a work in progress. It could be but I do not yet have that advice.

Mr WILLIAMS: I now refer to page 24. New section 94 provides that the ACCC is to monitor water charges and compliance. I will ask a generic question because it will probably cover a number of new sections where the ACCC will have obligations. New section 94(2) provides that the ACCC must give the minister a report on the results of such monitoring—the monitoring being the regulated water charges and compliance with water charge rules as provided in new section 94(1). No time frame is specified in that new section in relation to when or how. Will there be some sort of annual reporting? New subsection (3) provides:

The reports under subsection (2) must be given to the minister in accordance with an agreement between the minister and the ACCC.

That makes it very open-ended. It is odd. Certainly, in state legislation where mandatory reporting is required a time frame is usually stipulated by the legislation. It is generally on an annual basis and it also obliges the minister to table such reports in both houses of our parliament within a certain number of days after a report is given to the minister.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: That is an amendment to the Water Act, of course, and we are going back to the Water Act just to find the particular section which refers to the ACCC function in the act. So, if the honourable member will bear with me a moment, we will find the sections that may be relevant.

Mr WILLIAMS: With due deference, minister, to the best of my knowledge this whole thing is called a division—part 4, 'Basin water charge and water market rules' on page 19. This whole clause is new, so I do not think it is an amendment which will be amending existing relevant sections because the involvement of the ACCC is a whole new section in the principal act.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The member is quite right, it does not specify a time frame. It is an amendment to the existing act to replace the clause number only. The text within that clause is exactly the same in the existing act (page 114). It is actually section 95 in the existing act. The amendment is changing the clause number in the existing act. There is no time frame within the existing act either.

Mr WILLIAMS: This is where it raises a problem for this parliament, because I would have thought that, if we are going to give powers to the ACCC to carry out certain functions and we are going to ask the ACCC to report on the compliance under those functions, we should have some sort of time frame when those reports should be made. I would have also thought that the minister of the day, on receiving that report, should be obliged to table it in the houses of parliament. I have no understanding under this process how we might be able to convey that message to that other parliament in Canberra which will be moving these amendments.

I would have thought that this parliament at least should be sending a message to Canberra to say, 'Hey, we think this is not quite complete. We think that there should be a time frame.' I would suggest that we should be conveying a message to the federal parliament that that reporting should be occurring at least on an annual basis and that full accountability is achieved by such reports being tabled by the relevant minister within maybe 12 sitting days of the parliament after the minister has received the report.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: This particular amendment is actually not amending the text of the existing act: it is only amending the clause number. It is an existing law in the commonwealth act already. It may be inadequate, according to the opposition, and I suggest the honourable member takes it up with his federal colleagues.

Mr WILLIAMS: I must say that this highlights to me that the—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Is the honourable member saying they should not change the clause number? Is that the problem?

Mr WILLIAMS: No, it highlights the problem with the process, minister. It highlights the problem with the process that you have come in here and asked this parliament to refer powers to another jurisdiction, the commonwealth parliament, and given us no alternative but to accept what you have given us. We have no ability to move amendments. I just think it is inadequate. I really think it is inadequate that the executive arm of the government of South Australia, the executive members who sit in this parliament, have come in here and asked the rest of us who represent our individual electorates across the state and who work for the benefit of South Australia to pass legislation under these circumstances.

There is not a damn thing, to be quite honest, Madam Chair, that I can do about it. I just want to express my frustration and I am sure the frustration certainly of the members on this side of the house, and I probably expect frustration of a number of people on the government side of the house, if they cared to have an understanding of what they are doing. Unfortunately, we will, indeed, have to move on.

I move to page 70, which is about the ministerial council. First, on page 69, part 3, 'The Ministerial Council'; clause 7, 'Establishment of Ministerial Council'; and clause 8, 'Membership of the Ministerial Council'. Clause 9 talks about functions of the ministerial council. This is where we have had a great deal of interest because of this tension between the various bodies that will be created by and empowered under this federal legislation and the appended Murray-Darling Basin agreement.

I believe there is, certainly, confusion and tension between the functions of the senior officers group, the committee, the ministerial council and the authority; and there seems to be, and my reading leads me to believe, that an incredible amount of confusion is being created between at least those three bodies. From what I heard in the second reading contributions of my colleagues, they seem to agree with the position that I have come to over that confusion. The first function under paragraph (a) is:

to consider and determine outcomes and objectives on major policy issues of common interest to the contracting governments in relation to the management of the water and other natural resources of the Murray-Darling Basin, including in relation to its role in the provision of critical human water needs, but otherwise only—

and this is where we get into trouble—

in so far as those issues are not provided for in the Basin Plan.

I will come to that in a subsequent question. I guess the question is: unless it is specified in the basin plan and there is something that is not absolutely nailed down—if there is any ambiguity in the basin plan or any open-endedness or loopholes—does the decision-making authority come back to the ministerial council? Unfortunately, that is the way I read it, and I need some sort of assurance.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Certainly, if there are indeed gaps, if you refer to the existing Water Act 2007, there are quite extensive mandatory obligations for inclusion within the plan. But, in the event that there are gaps, the ministerial council has the responsibility to deal with those issues. But, also, the commonwealth minister has the capacity to request the authority to amend the plan to account for any loopholes that may exist or occur, should they wish to do so.

Mr WILLIAMS: And that raises another interesting question. I note from the principal act, and I confess that I have not read the whole of the principal act to a point where I fully understand—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: It is another 250 pages. I do recall reading that the basin plan needs to be reviewed every 10 years. Is there a facility whereby the federal minister can review the basin plan at any time within that 10-year period, or will we be waiting for the 10-year review before loopholes can be plugged? Presumably, in that hiatus which would be created if there is not a mechanism, the ministerial council will become that supreme policy-making body.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The minister can request a review under section 50(2), as follows:

The Authority must review the Basin Plan if:

(a) the Minister requests the Authority to do so; or

(b) all of the Basin States request the Authority to do so.

Also, the authority may prepare an amendment of the basin plan and give it to the minister for adoption. That is in section 45 of the existing act.

Mr WILLIAMS: Because of the sheer volume of the documents involved, one of the other things I have been unable to do is ascertain which of these are new powers or functions, or, indeed, which are new clauses or subclauses in the Murray-Darling Basin agreement, and which ones have just been carried directly forward from the existing one. Under the functions of the ministerial council, paragraph (d) of the same clause, provides:

...to agree upon amendments to this agreement including amendments to or addition of schedules to this agreement as the Ministerial Council considers desirable from time to time;

I have made the assumption that that has been directly brought forward from the current Murray-Darling Basin agreement and put straight into the new agreement which will be adopted as part of this process. Is it, then, that the ministerial council will be the only body that can amend this agreement, or does the authority have any power to amend the Murray-Darling Basin agreement?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Yes, the ministerial council is the only body that actually change the Murray-Darling Basin agreement, but the authority does have the capacity to review the Murray-Darling Basin agreement and make recommendations for change.

Mr WILLIAMS: So the authority has the ability to make recommendations to the ministerial council and there is no obligation, though, on the council to take on board those recommendations?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: No.

Mr WILLIAMS: I refer to page 72. Again, I presume that this has been rolled over from the old agreement. I just want the minister's confirmation that that is the case and also to confirm that the veto power of the individual states within the powers that they would hold under this agreement remains. I refer to page 72, clause 13, subclause (6) which provides:

A resolution before the Ministerial Council will be carried only by a unanimous vote of all ministers present who constitute a quorum.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: That is entirely consistent. What does change, however, is that they will not be able to veto the basin plan. It is only for the functions that are conveyed to the council for decision that they will require a unanimous vote of all ministers present who constitute a quorum, and it does not include the development or adoption of the basin-wide plan.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to the tabled text, page 125, clause 95—New South Wales' Entitlement to Water from Menindee Lakes. The structure is obviously similar to what we have now, where New South Wales does not share storage water from Menindee Lakes until it reaches 640 gigalitres. Currently, the way those lakes are operated, that is not possible. What plans are you aware of or what works have you pushed for so that the Menindee Lakes system can be operable to benefit South Australia? As it is currently set up with the lakes there operating and with the ones left empty, we will never reach the 640 gigalitres to share that water.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The New South Wales' entitlement to water from Menindee Lakes has been carried forward from the previous Murray-Darling agreement, I understand. From the South Australian government's perspective, we have been strongly supportive of the New South Wales position to reconfigure and re-address the Menindee Lakes issue. We also look forward to the basin-wide plan looking at the sustainable yields from above and below Menindee Lakes. But the existing provisions for the management of that infrastructure are carried forward from the previous act.

Mr WILLIAMS: We are up to page 120, and in the previous and next few pages, we are talking about the various shares. Subdivision B—State Entitlements to Water runs from page 117 to 120-something, so the question refers generally to those pages and the clauses therein.

In her summation of the second reading debate, the minister said that the plan will determine the size of the bucket with particular respect to New South Wales and Victoria. Concerning the shares among South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, I understand that basically New South Wales and Victoria have the rights to the water of the tributaries within their own jurisdictions and share virtually equally the common water (as it gets further down the river, it becomes common water after it has flowed out of the tributaries in most cases) but they both have an obligation to provide South Australia's nominal 1,850 gigalitres.

That is my somewhat simplified understanding of it. The way the government has been describing the basin plan, my understanding is that the basin plan will set a cap, and I know the minister has said that for the first time the cap will be on the groundwater extractions as well as the surface water extractions. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, that was a recommendation made to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the ministerial council under those particular projections of groundwater extraction rates and implications for future demand and competition for surface water way back in 2003.

My concern is that South Australia's entitlement is expressed as 1,850 gigalitres, while New South Wales' and Victoria's entitlement is expressed as a share of the resource. The minister in her second reading summation said:

The size of the bucket will be reduced or will be determined by the plan. It is our expectation, I certainly hope, that the size of the bucket will be reduced—

which creates the dilemma that, with Victoria and New South Wales sharing that, say, half and half (and that is pretty well in most instances the way it is), I would expect that those states will get less water, and because South Australia's share is expressed as a nominal 1,850 gigalitres, it seems to me that some tension will be created between those two states and South Australia.

I believe that because it seems, under the agreement, that even if the size or part of the bucket that Victoria and New South Wales will share is reduced, their obligation to South Australia stays the same. Is that the expectation: to gain and then maintain sustainability of the system, if the size of the bucket is reduced, will that impact only on New South Wales and Victoria and not impact on South Australia? How can we actually make that argument that, notwithstanding the share that they will get which, in a smaller bucket, will manifest itself in a smaller volume of water, there will nevertheless be an expectation that they will provide the same volume of water to South Australia?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Thank you for the question, and it is a very good question actually. The 1,850 entitlement to South Australia is a minimum entitlement flow under normal conditions (whatever they may be, going forward), and the issue of diversions is a different issue. South Australia actually has a cap on diversions which is different from the 1,850 as expressed in the Murray-Darling agreement. Our cap on diversions limits the number of megalitres that can be extracted on irrigation licences and limits the amount of water that can be extracted for metropolitan Adelaide and for our country towns' licences.

As the commonwealth rolls out this plan they will purchase water from irrigators and will introduce investment in irrigation infrastructure, which will result in the issue of entitlements to the environmental water holder and to irrigators where that is a shared provision. In South Australia, where irrigators' licences are purchased, it will reduce our cap. It will not reduce our 1,850 gigalitre entitlements under the agreement, but it will reduce the cap that we can divert—and that is adjusted annually according to trade. So, when it is traded off to the commonwealth into the environmental bucket it will reduce the cap on how much we can take for irrigation purposes.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, you just created another problem, in my mind. From what you have just said, do I understand that the basin plan will not in itself 'undo' some of the licences that have been issued that have created the overallocation? Are you now saying that the basin plan and this independent authority will not have the power to speak, for instance, to New South Wales, who signed an agreement with Victoria and South Australia way back in 1995 to limit extractions of surface water at the 1993-94 season levels, when all the evidence suggests that New South Wales (and, indeed, Queensland) has dramatically increased diversions since then? Am I hearing that the plan will not be empowered to 'undo' those increases above that cap (notwithstanding that we are now also to incorporate groundwater)? Am I to understand that the only way we will now get back within sustainable extractions or diversions is through the buy back or by water savings through infrastructure upgrades?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The overallocation is the issue of the cap being set too high. The member is quite correct in that the cap was set too high, and it did not include groundwater extractions in the previous cap. The cap is a difference between the states' bulk entitlement and their full-time equivalent cap diversions out of the system.

The basin-wide plan will set new caps, so it will reduce the amount that can be diverted from each of the catchments to ensure that the yield is sustainable, and each of the states will be required to comply with the new basin-wide caps in the amount of licences issued or the amount of water issued on licence. How that will be adjusted will be determined in different jurisdictions by the works undertaken and by agreement with the commonwealth through the basin-wide plan. It may very well be purchase of water. There will be compensation in certain areas, and it will be determined on the basis of whether enough can be purchased out of the marketplace and how much can be saved in relation to the irrigation infrastructure that has been put in place, and there will be a range of measures that will be put in place in each of the state jurisdictions to deal with the new caps.

One thing that is really important to note (and I think this is where the confusion comes in) is that South Australia's 1,850 gigalitres is a flow to the state: it is not our extractions. That is not overallocated—in fact, it is grossly underallocated. The environmental water that will be accrued as a consequence of resetting the cap will benefit South Australia and will involve an improvement in flows to South Australia for environmental purposes over and above that 1,850 gigalitres.

That 1,850 gigalitres cannot be changed unless South Australia agrees, because it forms part of the Murray-Darling agreement and can only be changed by unanimous decision of all ministers present forming a quorum.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am still a little confused, but I have the ministers words on the Hansard and I will read them again tomorrow. So I will move on. One of the other things that concerns me is that it seems as though there are a number of ways that water will be brought back away from diversions, whether it be through purchase or infrastructure upgrades. You might comment, minister, on the current federal government's thoughts on that. I know that one of the things Malcolm Turnbull was keen on was public money being spent on upgrading delivery systems on farm. I know that the federal opposition is now concerned that it seems as though the federal Labor government has moved away from that, and there are some concerns about the impact that will have.

All the water that is recovered, through whatever mechanism, and the water you referred to that flows into South Australia (the 1,850 gigalitres) is not all water that can be diverted. Will all that water (which I would certainly think was nominally environmental flow) be converted to a licence such that, in times of low flows (and this is the problem we have had in places like the Lower Lakes), licences will have a much higher priority than the flows that have just been considered as waste water that is running down the system? I know that you do not see it that way, minister, that I do not see it that way and that a lot of my colleagues do not see it that way, but it seems to be the way the river is being managed.

My questions are: will all the water that is brought back away from diversions be converted into a licence; if so, will that licence have the same security as high security water in upstream states in times of low flows, when irrigators have, say, a 60 per cent allocation? Will the environment also enjoy a 60 per cent allocation?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder will hold the water that is recovered for environmental purposes, and the water licences held in that account will be subject to the same restriction as irrigator allocations.

Mr Williams: Is that high security, general security or—

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: It depends which water they have the licence on. So, if they have purchased general security licences, they will be tagged to where they have been purchased, and they will have the same characteristics as that licence.

In relation to a question you asked before, I have a little more information that I think the member might find useful. In the existing act, division 4 relates to the allocation of risks in relation to reductions in water availability and sets out very clearly commonwealth responsibility in relation to those risks. There are also some amendments in the commonwealth's subsequent amendments (not the ones to which we are referring) to those provisions. That might help follow those issues through for you.

Mr WILLIAMS: On that, am I correct in saying that that is a reflection of the National Water Initiative from 2004? It is reflected in that section of the act and the subsequent amendments in the tabled text.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I am advised that it is consistent with the NWI, but the commonwealth has actually increased its offer over and above the NWI provisions.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have one last question, although it may even be regarded as a statement; however, the minister may wish to respond.

The CHAIR: Does it have a page number?

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: You could do it at the third reading.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will do that: I will defer to my colleague, who has some questions, and make a statement at the third reading.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for MacKillop. General statements are more appropriate at the third reading.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to page 137, division 3, the tier 3 distribution of waters in extreme or unprecedented circumstances. Will the minister explain to the committee in exactly which situations these are brought in? Obviously, it talks about unprecedented conditions and the high risk of not having water for critical human needs. What power will the authority have? How will it pan out? If we go into tier 3 management, will irrigation cease to exist for the period we are under tier 3 management?

Will the authority have the power to acquire private storages, or will there be commonwealth environmental water that can be accessed?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I thank the member for his very good question. What tier 3 refers to is an unprecedented situation that we have not seen. It refers to a situation where we do not have enough water to meet the conveyance and human critical needs. So, if we cannot have water for conveyance, for human critical needs, there obviously will not be water for irrigation. It is about the requirement for there to be political decisions in that circumstance.

Mr PEDERICK: If we are in that circumstances, minister, obviously the authority should have the power if it is that critical and absolutely dire. It seems bad enough now, but I guess we are essentially in tier 2 equivalent status at the minute. Does that mean that private storages could be compulsorily acquired?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: It would depend on the circumstances. If we get to that stage, I would suggest that there would be very little water left in private storages. The tier 3 is unprecedented—even worse than we have experienced over the course of this drought. I believe that it will be important, for social and economic reasons, to have a political solution to that.

However, the basin-wide plan and the authority will determine the triggers for what will throw us into those different tiers. So, those trigger points will be identified very clearly in the basin-wide plan. So, no state will be able to just invoke a trigger that may give them some sort of advantage. It will be a requirement for the authority, in the development of the basin-wide plan, to clearly identify those triggers.

Mr PEDERICK: I have one more general question. Currently, allocations throughout the basin are at different levels, ranging from, say, 9 per cent through to 95 per cent, and obviously different levels of water. I note that South Australia's high security water went up to 15 per cent today and it is 95 per cent on the Murrumbidgee. I would have thought that, under a grand agreement, where everyone is in cohesion, the lakes are in dire straits and our permanent plantings need probably 30 per cent to keep going, it would be good idea if there was more equity in allocations across the basin, and I am hopeful that perhaps that will happen under the new agreement, although I have my doubts. Can the minister give us any information about whether there will be more equity in allocations across the basin?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Again, the basin plan will drive a uniform approach to allocation and water management across the basin. State water resource plans will need to be consistent with the basin plan, which will set out the requirements with which a state plan must comply. The basin plan not only will determine sustainable limits but will also set water trading rules, environmental water requirements and identify the need for the management of interception activities, such as farmlands and plantation forestry. So, there will be much more consistency across state allocations as a consequence.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On the same provision, minister, when the minister uses the term 'critical human needs', what does that include? In particular, my constituents want to know whether it includes external watering of residential properties, as is currently allowed under the water restrictions.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I will provide for you the exact words that constitute the definition of 'critical human needs'. However, while I am waiting for that advice to be handed to me, I will say that the issue of critical human needs, as far as Adelaide's supply and the like, has to be taken in the context that we also have a secondary resource that we do call upon for Adelaide, and that includes the Mount Lofty Ranges. We factor into those two resources our critical human needs requirement as provided by the Murray-Darling Basin and also the water that we have in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The definition of 'critical human water needs' in the bill is:

the needs for a minimum amount of water, that can only reasonably be provided from basin water resources, required to meet—

(a) core human consumption requirements in urban and rural areas; and

(b) those non-human consumption requirements that a failure to meet would cause prohibitively high social, economic or national security costs;

When you talk about the current restrictions that we have in place at the moment, moving to a higher level of restriction also has significant economic impacts in relation to things like the nursery industry, the car washing industry, the turf industry, the lawn mowing industry, and a whole range of flow-on economic issues that the South Australian government has determined we will manage through the extra resource that we have available through the Mount Lofty catchment.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, do you wish to explore that aspect further, because you cannot. That was covered in clause 3, and we have moved well past that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On what basis then could I ask the previous question?

The CHAIR: It was out of order, but I was generous.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In the minister's answer to the member for Hammond, she used the term 'critical human needs', so I was seeking clarification as to what she meant by that.

The CHAIR: However, the definition that the minister read out is in clause 3 of the bill, and clause 3 has already been passed.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I cannot prevent the minister from referring to a previous clause, Madam Chair. I can only ask a supplementary question based on the member for Hammond's—

The CHAIR: Order! Do not get into debate. I indicate to you that it is not appropriate to explore that definition further. You can make a comment about it during the third reading, but questions are not now appropriate.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 7) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (21:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (21:48): At some stage I would like the minister to clarify for the house her pretty consistent public comments over the past six to nine months that South Australia has enough water in storage for critical human needs. The reason I asked the question earlier—following the member for Hammond's question where the minister raised the issue of critical human needs—is because I am trying to clarify the matter for my constituents. When the minister says publicly that we have enough water in storages for critical human needs, does that include maintaining the current external watering regime for gardens, because it is unclear to my constituents whether that is included in critical human needs. I suspect that most of the public would think it would be consumption water, water for health purposes and then critical industry water, and everything after that becomes questionable as to whether it is critical.

At some stage I would like the minister to clarify whether her public comments mean that there is enough water to maintain the current garden-watering regime, or whether that is likely to change. That was the purpose of my questions. The minister may not be able to answer that now—it is a difficult one, I know. However, at some stage the minister might want to update the chamber or put out a media release so that my constituents can rest in peace about their gardens.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (21:50): It is my understanding that it is the practice of the house that members speak at the third reading generally when the bill before the house is substantially changed from the one that was spoken to at the second reading. The member for Davenport, who has been here much longer than I have, is shaking his head.

The Hon. R.G. Kerin interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Apparently, but that was my understanding. Yet again, I am confused; it is not an unusual thing.

The Hon. R.G. Kerin interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Okay, like watering gardens. The member for Davenport has reminded me of something else which pricked my curiosity. Notwithstanding my understanding of the conventions of the house, I did want to put something on the record yet again. I suspect that I may never see this type of legislation again during the remainder of my career in this parliament. I have a fundamental feeling about ceding powers to Canberra. The states are losing more than enough powers at the behest of the High Court, and have done so since 1 January 1901. The rate has accelerated in recent years and—dare I say it—the Howard federal government was grabbing powers from the states at a rate greater than even the Whitlam government. I think we need to be very careful.

In saying that, I am a great believer in competition. As a nation, we would be doing ourselves a disservice by dumbing-down the competition between our various jurisdictions and dumbing-down the competition between our legislatures so that we have template legislation right across the nation. What we have now is a tension whereby one state looks at what is happening in another state and says, 'Gee, I think they're doing it a bit better than we are and, indeed, we can go half a step further or a step further or several steps further.' That is why I think it is important for us to maintain our independence from the idea that we have to have a common curriculum, common template legislation, common road rules, etc. I know there are benefits to having commonality in some of these areas but I also believe that there are disbenefits.

I think this process has proved that this parliament needs to be more careful in the future. It needs to be more careful if we are going to attempt to refer other powers to Canberra. I think we need to be cognisant of the fact that we have just done something which has given powers to Canberra in a very open-ended way. I really do believe that very few of us could go back to our constituents and answer the questions that they would put to us and say that we actually went through these measures with a fine toothcomb, that we have a full understanding of the matter and that we have satisfied ourselves, as members of this parliament, that we have done the right thing. That is the first comment I want to put on the record.

The other comment that I want to put on the record (and I want the minister to have a think about this) is that the minister, in her summation of the second reading debate, made the point—which I do not think was ever made by any of the Premier's statements or the minister's previous statements—that this is not about the current drought or about a solution for the present situation. I take a pretty keen interest in what goes on in the political life of this state, and if I have been under the impression I am sure the general public out there in South Australia has been under the impression that this is necessary to improve the current situation. That is what I believe.

I want the minister to take on board something else she said, because she then emphasised that one of the changes being made between the Howard-Turnbull plan and what is now happening under the Rudd plan is acceleration of the buyback. If the measures that are afoot at the moment are not about the current situation, what is the point in accelerating the buyback? I will guarantee that the price of water today is higher than what it will be when this drought breaks. I will guarantee that the price of water comes back somewhat.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: Certainly not the permanent.

Mr WILLIAMS: I think even the permanent water price will come back when there is plenty of water in our rivers. That is the reality. Minister, in my opinion, you need to be careful that you send one message only, not mixed messages: that you do not say one thing and conveniently allow people to believe generally that you meant something when you did not actually mean it at all. Let us be truthful within the parliament and with the people of South Australia: if this is not about the current situation, for goodness sake go out there and say so. If it is about the current situation, for goodness sake, when we are debating it in here, admit it. That is the dilemma.

Our leader referred in his second reading speech this afternoon to some of the comments that have been made to him when he was up at the field days in the minister's own electorate, and I heard the same sort of comments when I was up there. Many people in South Australia, including very many in the minister's electorate, are confused about what this government is about. Take a word of advice, minister: your constituents, in particular, will be helped greatly if they have a full understanding and enjoy your full confidence.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (21:58): Firstly, I thank the opposition for its support of this legislation in the voting sense but not necessarily in the debating sense because it is crucial that we move quickly to implement changes that are necessary under this basin-wide plan. I will address quickly the issue raised by the member for Davenport in relation to water restrictions. I advise him that it is our intention that we can maintain restrictions at enhanced level 3 over summer, depending on the monthly monitoring of the water resource outlook.

At the moment, we anticipate that we will have enough should we receive minimum flows during the course of the summer months and if the water use is contained within manageable limits. I put those two riders on it, but we do believe that we will be able to maintain water restrictions on enhanced level 3 through the summer months subject to those two provisos, and I cannot predict that. I can only hope that we receive at least minimum inflows into the system between now and then.

The issue in relation to whether this is a plan for now or the future is one that I find an extraordinary comment from the member for MacKillop. I refer him to the National Plan for Water Security as released by the former prime minister, John Howard, and the minister for water security at the time, Malcolm Turnbull. It refers to the commonwealth government and indicates why the plan is needed, but it also says that the commonwealth government will invest $10 billion over 10 years to significantly improve water management across the nation. It states that under the proposal the commonwealth government will reconstitute the Murray-Darling Basin Commission as a commonwealth agency reporting to a single minister. It then states that these new arrangements are expected to cost an additional $600 million over 10 years. This was intended to be a plan for the longer term when John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull introduced it.


[Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. K.A. Maywald]


The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I have made many public statements, and I have had extensive experience in public meetings up and down the length of the River Murray over the past couple of years—and I know the member has been present at some of them, but obviously he does not retain a lot of the information that is given in those public forums. In all of those presentations I have always made it very clear that this is a plan for the longer term governance arrangements for the Murray-Darling Basin and that the parallel process that is being undertaken as the first minister's contingency planning process that was established by John Howard back in November 2006 is dealing with the very pressing issues of drought.

We should be enjoying a bipartisan approach to the management of the issues of drought, and we should also be enjoying a consistent message to our communities. It would be useful if the opposition would heed its own words.

To conclude my remarks on the third reading, I thank the many people who have been involved in getting us to this stage in the negotiations with the commonwealth and the work that has been undertaken within the South Australian government. First, I thank my staff, in particular my chief of staff, Malcolm Fearn, and my River Murray adviser, Mandy Rossetto. I would also make special mention of Kimberly Davis, my parliamentary and cabinet officer, who leaves us this week. She is tending to more important issues, such as motherhood for the first time. Kimberly has been a fabulous worker within my community. Another staff member who has helped Malcolm enormously is Brooke Sinkunas, who left us last week to have her first baby. I thank all of them for their contribution to team Maywald and for the effort that they have put in.

I would also thank the Premier and his incredibly strong leadership in relation to getting this particular major reform on the Murray-Darling Basin. He is the first Premier, and it is the first government, to actually achieve a referral of powers to the commonwealth, with one authority to manage the Murray-Darling Basin, and it is a major step forward, not only for South Australia but for the nation. I would also thank his chief of staff, Nick Alexandrides, for the numerous phone calls we had backwards and forwards between our offices and the patience with which he worked with us.

I thank DWLBC and DPC staff. Department of the Premier and Cabinet staff, Scott Ashby, who is the new chief executive for DWLBC, and Don Frater have been fantastic in their work, and also Alison Lloyd-Wright has been a major contributor. Di Favier and Andrew Johnson's contribution to this process cannot be understated, and I thank them greatly for their efforts. I also thank Rob Freeman, the former chief executive, of course, who was moved on to be the interim chair and chief executive of the new authority. It is absolutely fantastic, from a South Australian perspective, to have someone with so much knowledge of South Australia, and also Queensland, in that position.

I would also thank Richard Dennis, parliamentary counsel, for the effort that he has put in to getting this legislation up in what has been a very short time frame. It has been an extraordinary effort by an extraordinary team, and I thank each and every one of them. Mandy Rossetto, who has been my River Murray adviser for a very short time, is moving on to a new job and we wish her well in the future.

I thank everyone who has done such a sterling job to get the legislation to this stage. The negotiations have been long. They have gone on for nearly two years and they have certainly resulted in major reform that will see us in good stead in the future, and I look forward to much greater and better outcomes for the health of the River Murray and the underpinning of the security of supply to all users in the system; for irrigators, human consumption and also for the environment. We must get it right at the mouth and back up the river so that we have a healthy river, and that is our intention.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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