HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. P. Caica.

That the Natural Resources Committee inquire into and report on the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan when it is released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

(Continued from 8 February 2011.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:08): This is a very curious motion. The motion itself is not curious but why the minister moved it is curious, because the sum of the contribution of the minister in moving the motion is as follows:

By leave, I move this motion in an amended form:

That the Natural Resources Committee inquire into and report on the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan when it is released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

The minister has given the house no indication as to why he wants the NRM Committee of the house to inquire into this matter, and he has given no indication as to what plan it should be inquiring into.

My understanding is that the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan itself will go through a number of processes. The minister has not indicated to the house at what point he would have the NRM Committee of the house start its inquiry. Does it start its inquiry when the authority releases its first draft of the plan? Does it start its inquiry when the authority releases its final draft of the plan, or does it start its inquiry when the federal minister signs off on the final draft or, if the federal minister, at the behest of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, refers the final draft of the plan back to the authority for further considerations, does the NRM Committee wait until that process occurs?

The minister has brought a motion to the house that really is so full of holes that I do not think the house can even have an understanding of what he is asking: simply that the NRM Committee inquire into and report on the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan when it is released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The proposed plan can be any of those I have just mentioned, because the proposed plan can be at a whole range of stages through the development. If the minister understood the legislation that went through this parliament, probably three years ago, he would have an understanding of the process involved in developing the whole of the basin plan, and he may well have formed his motion to more adequately convey his intent or, alternatively, he might have actually put some further information in explanation of his motion to the house so that the house had some understanding of the minister's intent, because what we have before us is a motion, we do not know what it is referring to, and we have absolutely no understanding of the minister's intent.

The body of work in developing the whole of basin plan is enormous—absolutely enormous. What is the minister proposing? Is he proposing that the NRM Committee of this parliament review all of that body of work? Is he proposing that it does an in-depth study and apprise itself of the veracity of all the background and scientific information behind the plan? Is that what he wants, or does he want them just to have a scant look at it, come out and produce a report which will back up the minister's position? I suspect that that is what the minister is asking for, but for the NRM Committee of this parliament to have a half decent look at the proposed basin plan, whatever that is, it will need, in my opinion, at least additional resourcing, even if it is going to have a cursory study of that because of the enormous body of work involved in producing that plan and the enormous body of material that will actually be contained within that plan.

The minister needs to talk to his colleague the Treasurer and assure the house that, if this motion is adopted and that the committee will indeed look at and report on the whole of the basin plan, there will be a requirement for some additional resources for that committee. The minister should have established some parameters, particularly around time frames. I suggest the committee, certainly with its existing resources, would take a number of years to do a proper review of the whole of the basin plan. Will the minister give any commitments that he will actually take some notice of this review? Will he undertake to accept the recommendations from the NRM Committee? If not, what is the purpose of the inquiry that the minister is asking the committee to undertake?

I want to take a bit of time just apprising the house of where we have come from and where we are at because I think it is important that we have an understanding of what has transpired to date and what is likely to transpire in the future, and that might give us some understanding of what the minister is trying to achieve.

It became evident quite a number of years ago that we were in the grips of a drought. A number of members of the government during that time were claiming that it was a one in 1,000 year drought; that it was much more significant than any other drought in recorded history. I have always disputed those claims, but we were certainly in the grips of a very, very significant drought, and it was having an incredible impact right across our economy, everywhere from home gardeners and domestic water use to major irrigators.

It had a huge impact certainly on the economy, particularly in the Riverland and along the river corridor, principally in the electorate of Chaffey but right down into my own electorate at the Lower Lakes and through the Murraylands. It had a huge impact on those economies, and we were scratching our heads trying, I guess, to manage our way through that drought. A lot of ideas were being thrown around and there was huge sympathy within the Australian public to do something—and do something positive—for the River Murray and the River Murray system.

I think that, for the first time in Australia's history (certainly since nationhood), we had the confluence of significant events: the first one being the drought itself; the second one being the public attitude to the way in which we had treated the river system, and, most importantly, the public attitude in those population centres that determine national policy—in the western suburbs of Sydney and in suburban Melbourne.

There was a time when there was great sympathy within those communities which gave the ability—the political will—to actually do something, and that manifest itself in the then prime minister of this nation, John Howard, putting $10 billion on the table to try to address the problems of the river—I would say 'some of the problems of the river'.

We had the confluence of these things at a particular point in time, and it gave us an absolutely wonderful opportunity to do something, to have a new approach to the management of the River Murray and the whole Murray-Darling system for the benefit principally of South Australia, because, being at the bottom end of the river, we were, I would argue, more significantly impacted by the treatment that the river had received over generations than other states.

So, it was imperative for South Australia that we get this right. The opportunity that was before us was squandered because our Premier decided that he wanted to play politics; and, when John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull (the then federal environment minister) were bending over backwards to get agreement from the principal state premiers involved in the river basin states, Victoria held out.

The Labor Party decided—because it held power in all those states—that it would be in its best interest in the run-up to the 2007 federal election that there not be an agreement, that we not be progressing. The Labor Party decided that all those voters in those western suburbs of Sydney and metropolitan Melbourne would more likely vote Labor at the November 2007 federal election if John Howard's plan to save the Murray-Darling system was still floundering, and that is what the Labor Party did. It did not care about the end result. All it was focused on was that November 2007 federal election. As a consequence, South Australia lost an opportunity that only comes around probably once every 100 years.

We went through that election period, we had a change of government in Canberra and all sorts of promises were made. In September last year, when the Murray-Darling Basin Authority handed down its first proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan—the guide to the plan—there was outcry, right across the basin. Because we had taken so much time, we lost the opportunity to do something when there was a political will amongst the voting population. We lost that ability to harness that political will and do something positive. As we saw, after the guide to the plan was handed down, there were people in the streets of irrigation towns and communities burning copies of the plan.

An honourable member: The guide.

Mr WILLIAMS: The guide. They were marching in defiance of the proposals, again politics entered, and the federal minister and the federal government collapsed. The federal government was unable to hold its nerve, and that proposal, as far as it got, was basically scrapped and sent back to the drawing board, so much so that the chairman of the authority which was undertaking the study to develop the plan was forced out of his job. We have now got a new chairman, we have now got—

The Hon. S.W. Key: Didn't he resign?

Mr WILLIAMS: He did resign. Technically, he resigned. His position was made untenable. He had no choice but to resign. He was forced out of his job. We have a new chairman—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not think we should be reflecting on the departure of that gentleman since he cannot come in here and explain himself.

Mr WILLIAMS: If the member disputes what I am alleging, the member has an opportunity to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is not disputing it. I am disputing a reflection on his character.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am not reflecting on anybody's character, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am reflecting on whether the man in question was pushed or whether he chose to go. I do not think that is something that he can defend himself about, so let us move on.

Mr WILLIAMS: I was moving on, actually, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reality is that the newly appointed chair has expressed a lack of confidence in the rest of the board members, and so it seems has the federal government. So, we are still going nowhere. In the meantime, the will to do something positive has dissipated incredibly.

I know the minister has put in a submission to the authority on behalf of South Australia. The minister's submission basically says that we want the plan as was proposed in the guide to the draft plan. We want the plan to ensure that we recover 7,500 gigalitres, returned as environmental flows in to the river.

I think there is no will and no ability to achieve anywhere near that. I am just wondering whether the minister's proposal is about having the committee cover off on the fact that we find ourselves in a position where we are seen to be squawking for something which we know full well we are never going to achieve. Notwithstanding there was an opportunity to achieve a fair bit of it at one point in time, as I have just explained, that opportunity was squandered. So we are endeavouring to move forward when everybody else in the nation has decided to walk around the issue; that is what has happened.

One of the things that South Australia can and should be calling for is for the federal government to get on with a major part of the recovery of the basin by ensuring that the works that they claim they want to happen—particularly with regard to delivery of water from the river systems to the farmgate—are planned and completed to save huge amounts of water. Just as the work that should be done on farm needs to be done because it will save a huge amount of water.

The only thing that the federal government has spent money on at this stage is buyback of water and, in some sense, that has been successful as it has recovered a fair amount of water. In another sense, I do not know how successful it has been because there does not seem to be any strategy involved in the buyback. They put out a tender, people apply for the tender, and they accept people's offer of water; there does not seem to be a strategy to ensure that the water is bought where it will give the most benefit. There does not seem to be a strategy to ensure that water bought out of a particular irrigation district does not cripple the irrigators who are left in that district. There does not seem to be any strategy to make sure that this is done in a logical, strategic way, yet it is the only thing the federal government has done in 3½ years.

That is the dilemma we find ourselves in. I believe the opportunity we had has been missed: that the work that has been promised by the current federal government to make some real inroads into the problem to return real water without undermining production is not being done. Before us today we have a motion from the minister, and I will be amazed if anybody in the chamber can understand what he is asking for. As I pointed out, the phrase 'the proposed basin plan' can mean all sorts of things. There is no precision in that statement and there is no indication as to what the minister would have the committee inquire into. There are no terms of reference and there is no commitment to resource the committee for what I believe will be a huge task.

The idea of having the NRM committee of this parliament investigate this issue I think is a good one. I do not have a problem with that, but I do think that the parliament needs to give the committee some terms of reference. It needs to assure the committee that it will be adequately resourced. The parliament needs to give the committee an understanding that the government will take some notice of what comes out of the committee's investigation because, at the moment, we have this request for the committee to go and do something, and it is not much more than that.

With reluctance I inform the house that we will not be opposing the motion, but I am incredibly concerned about the openness of the motion, the lack of clarity, the lack of detail and the lack of understanding of what the minister is trying to achieve in this instance.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:29): I rise to speak to this motion as well. I take this motion extremely seriously for three main reasons and I will work through them. First of all, there is a significant stretch of the River Murray and communities in the electorate of Stuart, particularly in the area around Morgan, Blanchetown and Cadell. That area has been particularly hard-hit by the lack of water over the last many, many years. It is a tremendous part of the Riverland and has very proud communities.

I point out that Cadell, I think, has probably been hit hardest of just about any community that I can think of anywhere up and down the River Murray in South Australia. The reason for that is not because there is anything wrong with the community of Cadell; it is a very proud community with a lot going for itself, but it is near Morgan and Blanchetown, which have stronger tourism businesses, connections and infrastructure. They are more reliant on irrigation and primary production than many of the other towns, so they have suffered more because they have a bit less to fall back on.

The difficulties with the River Murray over the last decade, really, but certainly the last five years, have been particularly hard on that part of the Murray and on Cadell. Of course, they welcome the rains—primarily rains in Queensland, it is important to point out—that have come down our way. We have had a lot of good local rain that has helped all sorts of agriculture on either side of the river, but the extra water that is coming down the river at the moment has been welcomed by everybody, as we know.

Another area within the electorate of Stuart that has really done it tough is the area below Lock 1, downstream from Blanchetown. This is an area that not only suffered from the impacts of their ability to draw water for irrigation and the drought, but they also suffered enormously with regard to the drop in the level. Upstream of Lock 1, while there was reduced flow and reduced water running through the river, they did not lose their level, so tourism was still okay. They certainly went through hard times, probably more because of perception than anything else, and their aesthetic amenity was much better upstream where they did not lose their level but, goodness, below Lock 1, those people really, really suffered.

There was very little rain falling on their country on either side of the river. There were drastic cuts to what they could draw out of the river. Also, right in front of them, they really had the heartbreaking, very obvious hit-you-in-the-face issues of the water just subsiding and subsiding and subsiding. There was a very serious impact on the environment and biodiversity around that area as well, because when the water subsided the animals disappeared, the trees died, salt came through and all of those sorts of things.

From purely a Stuart perspective, I take these issues with the river very seriously, and of course have a particular interest in the minister's motion that the Natural Resources Committee inquire into the Murray-Darling Basin plan. My second main area of interest and reason for wanting to speak at the moment is that I think every single South Australian should have a very serious and a very sincere interest in what is going on with the Murray.

We have seen enormous changes and great difficulty with regard to the drastic cuts in irrigation, lack of water and, most importantly to my mind, the enormous impact on communities and the economy. The communities and the economies of the people who live on and near the river, up and down the full length of it in South Australia, have been really dreadfully impacted. Every South Australian takes an interest in that. I do not know exactly what the number is; the member for Chaffey may well know, but I am sure that 95 per cent, or something like that, of South Australians get their water from the River Murray. So what goes on with the river is, by definition, a statewide issue.

The other thing that is very important with regard to the River Murray, the drought and the lack of flows that we have seen coming from upstream over recent years, and now the tremendous rains that we have had in South Australia and in other places in the country which have led to the river levels rising and the flow increasing, and really boom times for the river, is the whole question as to what is reversible. For over 100 years we have been taking water out of this river, and we have caused difficulty for ourselves as a state and as communities. It is not as simple as to say, 'Well, if we change what we take out of it, if we stop taking it out, if we decrease what we take out, that it is automatically reversible and the environment just goes back to where it was 100 years ago.'

That is not the case. It is certainly not the case in my mind. In fact, we are seeing at the moment in that area, below Lock 1, that I mentioned before, that they were in a diabolical situation in the last few years; now they are in a very difficult situation because of the flooding. This is a vibrant, changing, up-and-down environment, and I think for us to think that we would just put a plan in place that will ameliorate all of that, fix that, get things back to the way we want it to be, even if we knew the way we wanted it to be anyway, is probably a little bit naive.

My second point is that every single South Australian should have a very intense interest in the health of this Murray and, of course, our section of the Murray in South Australia is a key component of the broader Murray-Darling Basin area.

My third reason for wanting to speak today and just say a few words on this is that I am a member of the Natural Resources Committee. There are other members here who may well choose to speak on the minister's motion. The things that I would like to say here from my own perspective as one member—not speaking on behalf of the whole committee, because other members can do that for themselves—is that I do very genuinely appreciate and join with some of the comments of the member for MacKillop that it is very unclear exactly what the minister is looking for this committee to do.

It may well become clearer, and the minister may well tell us in more detail down the track—that would be good—but to say that he would like us to inquire into the Murray-Darling Basin plan is a very broad, wide-open statement. The three key things, I suppose—and there are many—that I would highlight are: first, which draft of the plan exactly and when it is that he wants us to undertake the inquiry; second, what exactly the terms of reference would be, and it is very important to understand what the terms of reference would be; and, thirdly, what is he likely to do with our recommendations, whatever they may be? And I am not pre-empting what they would be at all.

I would like to have some confidence and I would like to have some commitment from the minister that, if he wants this committee to go through all this work, the recommendations would be listened to, followed and implemented to the best of his ability, because otherwise we would really be wasting our time.

Make no mistake, this would be an enormous job. Hundreds of people and millions of dollars have been spent already into looking into this issue, and that will get us up to a point where whichever draft of the plan the minister would like a committee to look into will be tabled, and then there will be another look at it. It just would not be worth anybody's time to go to all that extra cost, extra trouble and extra time, and the minister would have to find some extra resources for that committee to do it. It just would not be possible to do the work otherwise; but even if the resources were available it just would not make sense to use the resources and get the committee to do it if it was not to follow whatever the recommendations might be that would come out of that committee.

I will leave it at that, but I do have three very strong reasons to have a great interest in this. A significant part of the River Murray is in the electorate of Stuart. This is a statewide issue, and as a member of the Natural Resources Committee—and I do take my participation on that committee extremely seriously, and I know that other members of the committee do too—I think it is important to have the resources, and it is particularly important, minister, to know that whatever that committee recommends—and those recommendations would be coming at the tail end of an enormous amount of work by other people—if it was worth us doing the work, I would like to know that the recommendations would be followed.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:39): I rise to support this motion. I also note that the minister is here—he is still a mate of mine, I think. I know he is on a steep learning curve in relation to issues such as this and maybe that is why—I think, wisely—he has asked the committee to look at this. I think that is something we ought to do a lot more often with things that come into this house. In fact, some of this legislation should go to committees before they are formulated, even if they are a lot less complex than this. I certainly welcome this matter coming before the house because I think it is one of the most important issues this house could discuss because we are all dependent on the river.

I note the speeches of members who have spoken before me, particularly the member for MacKillop. I listened in my office to what he had to say and that is why I was inspired to come down and join the debate.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I pause for acclamation! When the Howard government was in power in Canberra as the national government of Australia and Prime Minister Howard came out with the $10 billion plan, we all thought that was great because it was a strong attempt to fix the problem. Not only was there a commitment of the money but it was also taking away the power from the individual states and setting up an individual single body. We all know the politics of water and we know the politics of every state having its point of view. We know the politics of Melbourne getting its own pipeline, which is a disgrace. It has gone on and on and been a total disaster.

The Labor Party, through the state Labor governments (and all state governments then were Labor), I believe, as the member for MacKillop reminded us this morning, deliberately torpedoed that plan. They took it to the election, with the confusion that was going on, and it certainly did not help the then Liberal government win that election, because it didn't. The Howard plan went out with the government, but I think it was a strong move—$10 billion was a commitment. That is a lot of money. I only wish that had come in because I am sure we would have made much more progress if it had.

I believe we certainly need an independent governing body, with no consideration for state boundaries at all. The people sitting on this administrative group should be there because of their expertise only and nothing to do with state representation—nothing—or, if they are, there should be one representative per state, irrespective of population.

We need to recognise that it is an Australian river and we all rely on it. As the member for Stuart has just said, in excess of 90 per cent of us (including me) depend on it in some way. We have been through a pretty traumatic time in the last two or three years, but now we thank the Lord because we have had the rain and things are okay, but we must not let the opportunity go. The minister will tell me, 'Hang on, just because we have had the rain we mustn't forget what we have just been through. Let's learn from that. Don't sit back on our laurels.'

We have to say, 'We were in dire straits,' and that is why we have built this big white elephant desal plant (which I think we will be paying for forever). I agree we had to have a desal plant—I remind the house that it was our policy first—but it did not need to be as big. So, let us learn from the past. What done is done, so let us move on.

I think now we should be looking to save some of the water that is going to waste. This morning, millions of litres would have gone to the sea. We have to try to use that water, whether it is recharging the aquifers, or whatever. We have to spend a lot more time and effort on research and development of that technology.

In Israel, madam, if you have ever been to Israel—and I suggest people do so if it is safe—you will know that they do not waste a drop. They do marvellous things in a country with a lot less rain than we get, but we have been slack. We have had too much cheap water. We needed to get the message, and in the last three years I believe we have got the message. We have had a very strong message.

A lot of people were very concerned about what was happening, particularly when we had the sprinkler rules. Even the minister got caught for watering his lawn, and there was a real public hubbub about that. This showed how much people were concerned and watching who was and was not watering, and all the rest of it.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Even watering lemon trees, but it went on. It is a big issue and we should not treat it lightly. It is not a frivolous matter at all. I think we all would agree in this place that, after what we have been through, now is the time to say we have to set our house in order for when it happens again. It is going to happen again and we need to have things in order.

We have not built a new reservoir for how long? The journos beat us with that story. We have not built a new reservoir for years. Worse than that, we have not even dredged the ones that we have. Most of our reservoirs would be a third full of silt. They ought to be emptied and dredged.

An honourable member: No.

Mr VENNING: Of course they should. What about some new reservoirs on the back of the Mount Lofty Ranges? There are plenty of opportunities there to put them on any of several rivers, but this is all in the future. In the north of the state, where I come from: Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Whyalla, three of our major regional cities, as we would all know, rely on this river almost 100 per cent. We have the most elaborate pipeline system connecting them to that. It is probably still a world engineering feat having so much pipeline.

Looking at the pipeline, I am concerned that it is looking rather untidy. It could do with a coat of paint. I have never seen it in the condition that it is in today. It was normally kept fresh and spruced up, painted with cold galvanising silver frost. It always looked nice. At the moment, particularly through Spalding and those areas, it looks particularly rusty. That worries me. I feel like getting a paintbrush myself and writing on it, 'This needs painting.' In fact, I will do that.

Mr Goldsworthy: Graffiti.

Mr VENNING: Is that graffiti? The minister will know who did it. The message is: we love the pipeline. I know it is not that pretty, but unlike those wind turbines, which serve a dubious benefit, the pipeline is of absolute benefit and we put up with the inconvenience of having it there because it brings vibrancy to the north of our state.

At Crystal Brook, where our farm has been for six generations, we rely on that water. In fact, every paddock on our farm has a trough in it connected to the Murray River. That is a privilege which we never forget. We never take it for granted when we turn the tap on. We do not rely on windmills any more. Years ago we used to have windmills. We do not have to worry about windmills, which were always a pain and they always broke down on Christmas day. There is always water there, the way it is.

So, I am pleased that the Natural Resources Committee, which is in the very capable hands of some of our most efficient members, will investigate and inquire into the Murray-Darling Basin plan. I think it is a good idea that the minister has done this. I am confident that the committee will do a good job, but I hope that the parliament will supply extra resources because they are going to need it. With one research officer, it is a big task. It is going to be flooded with people wanting to give evidence.

We are going to be watching it very closely, and no doubt the minister will. The minister is smart enough to say that if there is an unpalatable decision to be made here, the committee is going to wear it. That is what politics is all about. I am sure that the minister will feed some information in, both publicly and privately, to the inquiry, things that need to be raised, and he will tell his troops what is to be done. I hope the exercise will be very fruitful.

I hope that recommendations will be made and, most importantly, that the government will take notice of them. I wish the committee all the best. I commend this to the house. My final word is that I would like to see this more often. I think the committees should be used more often to discuss more legislation.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:48): I support the idea that the Murray-Darling Basin plan must be investigated to ensure that the Murray River is in the best state that it can possibly be and that the state of South Australia is looked after. The one thing I do have a problem with though is that at this stage we have very little idea of what the resources are that will be supplied to the Natural Resources Committee, what the terms of reference for this inquiry are, and does the committee have the time?

I understand that the minister is in an awkward position and that until we know exactly what the consultation process will be with the Murray-Darling Basin plan and what the federal authorities decide on how that should happen, it puts us, in this state, in quite an awkward situation. I believe that, if the Natural Resources Committee is well resourced and has the time, it will be able to conduct this inquiry properly. I certainly support the idea of this inquiry and that the Natural Resources Committee does that inquiry, but we must ensure that that committee is well resourced, with very succinct terms of reference and adequate time frames to ensure that a proper inquiry takes place and it is of benefit to this state. I support the idea of this inquiry.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:50): I too rise to support the Natural Resources Committee being given some extra funds to put, I guess, a complementary submission to the minister's office in relation to the guide for the draft Murray-Darling Basin plan.

The reason I have taken a very keen interest in this is that obviously a significant part of the River Murray in South Australia is within the electorate of Chaffey. Obviously, in Chaffey, Renmark is the oldest irrigation settlement in Australia, and it has a huge amount of history not only in South Australia but it was leading the way over 100 years ago with new technology and also becoming one of the major food bowl areas of Australia.

Looking at the indicative draft plan, there have been a lot of problems with the government's initiation of that plan. What has been highlighted is that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's guide to the draft was based around the Water Act. Today it is shown that that Water Act had no regard for the social and economic impact not only to the river but to the communities, food production and the people who have been there for over 100 years.

What really alarms me is that the plan was based around science and the science, as well as the government's submission, said that this river, the wetlands, the environment, could take between 10 and 20 years to right itself with the sustained drought. One thing I might add is that 112 years of records show that the last 16 years had above average rainfall. So, we are talking about this sustained drought and record low inflows. Why were their record low inflows? Why was there no water coming over the border to South Australia?

The Murray-Darling Basin draft guide showed that the last 16 years had above average rainfall, and that is a very clear indicator that it is not just the drought that deprived South Australia of water. It is not just the drought that caused South Australia, which is at the end of the river, to receive what it got. What it is showing is that there was an imbalance as to where entitlements were given and where the governments had negotiated South Australia's water away from predominantly the irrigation sector, the food production sector.

The environment has taken a heavy hit with the record low inflows and I think that the minister, his department and his advisers have based their submission on that science. That science said that, number one, the environment must be looked after. I agree that a sustainable river is what is needed, but there is also a balance within the guide plan and that revolves around the communities, the irrigation sector, the Ramsar-listed sites, a sustainable backwater system and a healthy natural fish breeding program. It revolves around many, many issues and it is not straight out about the environment, the river communities and having food production at the top of the agenda.

What we need to look at first is satisfying the environmental needs. I think that that is a given; I do not think anyone will dispute that, but next, it is about the communities that have been there for over a hundred years. It is about the food. Every time any of us sit down at a table, whether it is for breakfast, lunch or dinner, where does that food come from? Most people take for granted that that food just comes from the supermarket. It is put on their tables, and we rely on having healthy, reliable, pest-free, regulated food. The majority of that food comes from the Murray-Darling Basin.

Again, nearly 90 per cent of Australia's food production comes from the basin, and we have a submission put by this state government that relied on an environmental outcome first with very little regard to food production. I guess it highlights the government's lack of will to support anything more than 67 per cent of irrigators' allocations. I think that is just something that the government continues to ignore. If the government had the will to step up to the plate and support food production and support the communities in South Australia that rely on the river, we would not be in the predicament that we are in today.

Just looking at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's independent plan, it is a very long way from the truth. The independent plan turned very political the day that it was released. It was put out into the public domain and it was met with fury, anger and disbelief that this basin plan could actually be based around the Water Act with no regard for the people, food or the history that revolved around the river.

They talked about there not being enough social and economic impact assessment done on the draft plan. I find that very hard to believe. I dealt with not only the Murray-Darling Basin Authority people but also with federal government people coming around and doing surveys on the impact and what would be left if the plan was to take back the water that it needed for a sustainable environment.

I just reflect back to the science, which said that it might take between 10 and 20 years for the river to rebuild itself and for the environment to be put back into a sustainable mode. It took four months and we have record inflows into the Lower Lakes that we have not seen since 1994. All of a sudden, we are relying on the science that says that it might take 10 to 20 years for the river and its environment to be put back into a sustainable mode. It just goes to show that a lot of the science that this plan has been based on and the submissions that our state government has put to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority really are flawed.

I think that if the Natural Resources Committee is going to put a recommendation to the state government, it needs to look at the bigger picture. It does not need to be stymied by the scare campaign that, unless we act now and decimate the food production sector and the communities that rely on the river, we will see an unsustainable river for the rest of the days. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


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