HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Ministerial Statement

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (14:04): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On Monday of this week the draft Murray-Darling Basin Plan was released. There is possibly no more important document for South Australia's future.

The draft plan proposes to restore 2,750 gigalitres of water to the river system, and proposes that South Australia reduces its take from the river by a minimum of 100 gigalitres. Our preliminary view is that the draft plan does not restore a sufficient amount of water to keep our river healthy, and does not sufficiently recognise our past exemplary use of the river.

We in South Australia understand that this is not a matter of choice between the health of our river and our economy, because a healthy river underpins all of our activities. You cannot irrigate, water stock, or supply drinking water from a salty, degraded river system.

South Australians have always treated the river with respect. We capped our take from the Murray in 1969—over 40 years ago. Now, South Australia uses 7 per cent of the water that is taken from the Murray-Darling Basin; 93 per cent of what is taken is used upstream. Victoria wastes more river water than Adelaide uses.

Because of the importance of the plan to South Australia's future, I have established a basin plan taskforce at the highest level of government. It includes me, a number of senior ministers, senior public servants, and the best scientific advice, including advice from South Australia's chief scientist. The taskforce met yesterday to consider preliminary advice and to outline the critical work streams that it will oversee.

The taskforce will seek to understand the science underpinning the draft plan. We are concerned that the plan is inadequately supported by the science. The volumes of water to be recovered do not accord with the advice we have received from the Goyder Institute as to what is required to maintain a healthy river.

Even the science review that the MDBA relies upon (the CSIRO review) is lukewarm in its assessment of the plan. It appears to conclude that a 2,800 gigalitre reduction—more than the plan, in fact, requires—would only meet 55 per cent of the MDBA's own environmental targets. The CSIRO states that such a reduction, 'is not consistent with the currently stated environmental targets.' We will be undertaking our own scientific analysis of the draft plan, assisted by an independent analysis of our experts' work by the Goyder Institute.

Another focus of the taskforce will be to understand the costs to South Australians of the degradation of the river. In the decades since water use was capped, we have invested in efficient irrigation, while the upstream states have continued to over-allocate water. Because of our respect for the river, our basin communities have accepted a lower rate of economic growth than those upstream, and those same basin communities suffered major losses during the period of the last drought.

During the drought, irrigators either purchased additional water (adding to their cost of production), or reduced watering some crops, thereby reducing profitability. Other sectors, such as fisheries and tourism, also suffered as a result of lower water levels and regular negative media reports about the declining state of the environment.

South Australians more broadly have paid a high price. To provide just one example: expenditure towards the River Murray drought response from 2006-07 to 2010-11 is conservatively estimated at over $234 million. We need to understand all of the costs we have endured by virtue of upstream over-use of the river. This exercise will be critical to our ability to make our case that the burden of adjustment should not fall unfairly upon us.

Another focus of the taskforce will be our legal position. The government has received preliminary legal advice from eminent practising barristers on the state's constitutional rights. The view I have formed is that there are sound arguments for the proposition that the Australian Constitution assumes that the states are equal, and that this means they are entitled to the mutual benefit of the waters of trans-boundary rivers like the Murray. There are also strong arguments supporting the idea that the states have obligations and potential liabilities when it comes to water and trans-boundary rivers.

The relationship between the commonwealth and the states regarding the River Murray was the single biggest issue in contest when the Australia Constitution was being drafted and debated over 110 years ago, and is one of the few substantial matters upon which the High Court has not yet pronounced an opinion. The legal concepts involved are the same issues that have presented themselves to the European nations dealing with their international rivers, and the United States Supreme Court when dealing with disputes about the Colorado River as far back as 1850.

We are continuing to seek advice from our legal team so that we can be ready, if necessary, to proceed, should the final plan prove inadequate. It is important to understand that our legal position mirrors our fundamental premise about the river. We in South Australia have a right to be treated as equals in respect of its use.

The final focus of the task force is to ensure that, as much as we can, we are establishing a South Australian united position about our response to the plan. There are different perspectives but, if we want to really grasp this historic opportunity, then we should speak with one voice on the river.

That includes those opposite. I was concerned to see that, within hours of the plan being released, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had conceded that 2,750 gigalitres could be enough. I remain concerned that, without bothering to understand the nature of the possible legal challenge, he was dismissing it as a nonsense. This is an issue of such importance that it demands the Leader of the Opposition—

Ms Chapman: Ten years.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will be heard in silence. Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is an issue of such importance that it demands that the Leader of the Opposition make clear her party's position.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will sit down.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, can you sit down for a moment? Order! I want to hear what the Premier is saying, as do a lot of other people. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: On the other hand, I am grateful for the many people in the community who have indicated a willingness to try to come together on this. Next week, I will be meeting some of the state's—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —some of the best and most—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —influential scientists, community leaders and others closely tied to the river to discuss South Australia's response to the draft plan, and I will continue to meet with people and groups who have a real stake in the future of the river. I want to make our position absolutely clear.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will get the facts and the advice needed, we will participate in the consultation process to get a better plan and we will negotiate to get the best outcome for the river and the communities that depend upon it. If necessary, we will pursue the legal options available to us, but at all times we will pursue a healthy river in the state's and the national interest.

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