HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-04-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (15:42): Madam Speaker, the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly that part of the river which flows into South Australia, is of fundamental importance to the future of this state. There is not an aspect of South Australian life that is not touched by the Murray River as it comes into South Australia and its region.

Apart from being an area of extraordinary natural beauty, it sustains our food producers (such as our citrus, wine grapes and other fruit and nut growers), the suppliers of our small shops in our river communities that benefit from a strong primary production sector and the value-adding processing businesses, holiday-makers and tourism and recreational businesses, and every South Australian who has acted with the river's preservation in mind when they turned on their tap, watered their garden, installed a rainwater tank, planted native plants, or found other ways to save river water, especially when it was in dire need during the recent millennium drought.

What comes to mind are those school students who were saving the turtles down in the Lower Lakes, as they saw they were the subject of an attack by the worms that encased the shell of those turtles. So many people have been touched by this and, of course, most profoundly, the Aboriginal people for whom the river is part of their identity and, in fact, is part of them.

Because we have all these different associations with the river, we all have different perspectives. Many of these have been discussed since the draft basin plan was released in November, but we have seen South Australians, whether they are farmers, city dwellers, environmentalists or our First Australians, increasingly share a common set of concerns about the proposed basin plan and the condition of the river in our state.

That is why the government believes it is time for members of this house, irrespective of their political persuasion, to unite behind a common set of principles that will be at the heart of the state government response to the draft basin plan. These principles are borne out of many long hours of talking with people interested in the future of the river and the rigorous scientific work that we have undertaken and made publicly available.

I have always made it clear—the government has made it clear—that the health of the river is a vital issue for the state, but it is not just an issue for South Australia; it is more than South Australia. It is our most important national river, and it is no surprise that, when the nation was formed, in the convention debates that formed this very nation, about a third of the discussion was devoted to the River Murray; such was the importance of this water course to the future of this nation. Of course, now it is recognised as containing precious environments of international significance, so not only is this an issue of fundamental importance to South Australia but it is important to the nation and it is indeed important to the world.

I outlined my views on the River Murray in the very first speech that I made as Premier of this state. Within four days of taking on the role, I visited the Riverland and held a town hall meeting in Berri and met with farmers and local community representatives who talked about the importance of the river to their lives.

I talked to communities in the Lower Lakes, and I have spoken to representatives of environmental groups. I have spoken to the Ngarrindjeri. I have always made clear our government's view: that there must be more water returned to the river—certainly more than is currently being offered; that determining what the river needs to be healthy should be based on science; that the burden of adjustment should be borne by the upstream states; and that we should not accept a poor compromise offered by a second-rate plan.

My advocating for these things begins with a couple of basic facts. First, South Australia takes something like 7 per cent on average of the water extracted from the river system; 93 per cent is taken by the upstream states. Secondly, South Australia capped its take from the river in 1969 but, since then, upstream users have pulled a lot of extra water out of the system without regard to the warning signs that the health of the system was declining.

Not only did we cap our take in 1969 but we followed on with further efficiencies in irrigation and we were the first state to achieve our targets under the Living Murray initiative, an initiative that this state fought strongly for, as indeed did the very member who walks in here, when he was minister for the environment—the member for Kaurna.

Then we fought hard for the creation of the present national authority because we wanted the basin to be managed on the basis of the best available science. The scientists had been telling us for generations that the river system was not sustainable, but the Murray-Darling Basin commission, which was a set of states that come together—the basin states and territories—was set up for paralysis. Any proposed change, any suggested reduction in the use of water from the basin could only be stopped if it was unanimous. That meant that the pace of change was glacial.

The power of veto for any one jurisdiction meant that the gains were very slow indeed, but it had a benefit as well. It meant that the gains were locked in: we could not go backwards. Now we have made a very significant decision that is a step into this federal national independent authority, and the basis of that compact—we went into that compact and cooperated with the referral of certain powers—was that we were going to get a river that would be healthy and that would be judged on the basis of the best available science.

An honourable member: A historic opportunity.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Indeed it was, and now is an opportunity to realise the full purport of that historic agreement. It was an achievement to get the Water Act 2007 and the creation of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to succeed the commission. When the new authority was set up, we brought to an end the entrenched situation of South Australia being stymied whenever the upstream states dug in their heels.

The new system—the national authority and the basin plan which was required to flow from it—has been designed to give us an independent authority doing its work on the basis of science. We owe it to ourselves and to the future of this state after we are gone to join in advocating for the best possible plan for the basin.

This is an historic opportunity and we must get it right. Every single one of us in this chamber will be judged by the decisions that we take in relation to this plan. Make no mistake about that. When people reflect back in 20 or 30 or 40 years' time and they look at the state of this river, they will be asking: who were the people who were in the positions of authority that made decisions now? Make no mistake about the gravity of the decisions that we take now.

When I mentioned that this should be based on the best available science, we must reject this idea that we accept any old plan. The science now makes that clear. Earlier this week, a report by the Goyder Institute for Water Research on the ecological consequence of the draft basin plan was publicly released. The Goyder Institute was asked to independently review the South Australian government's scientific and ecological analysis of the draft plan. That review focused on whether 2,750 gigalitres of additional water, as proposed in the draft basin plan, would secure the health of the River Murray in South Australia.

The Goyder Institute concluded that, while there was potential to deliver some improved outcomes under the proposed basin plan, the volume of water is insufficient to meet the water requirements for key assets in South Australia. The report states that the ecological character of the South Australian environmental assets is unlikely to be maintained under the basin plan scenario and, further, that few of the environmental watering requirements required to maintain the ecological character of the region are met.

The risks presented range from degradation caused by salinity to declining vegetation, habitat loss and threats to species of plants and animals. How could we in all justice accept that plan on behalf of South Australia—not just South Australians today but future generations of South Australians?

There have been some other views. It has been argued by some, as late as yesterday by the chairman of the authority, that we should accept this plan. Some of those advocating this point of view have been critical of me and the government for pressing as firmly as we have for improvements to the plan, and they include the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

A few weeks ago, at a public forum, the deputy opposition leader—and I attended that forum—said, 'I would suggest that South Australia would be well served by taking on board the offer that's on the table.' The deputy leader went on, I think, on another occasion to deride me for seeking a Rolls-Royce, urging that we settle for a Mazda.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, here are your words.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left will get a chance to respond.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The earlier quote was 'something is better than nothing'—that profound statement—then later:

'This is obviously not the Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we're quite happy to drive in the Mazda,' Mr Williams, the Opposition's water spokesman told The Advertiser yesterday. 'The reality is we're not going to get everything we want and this is a very good start.'

The Goyder Institute report demonstrates this is not a good start. Even the science makes it clear that it is not. Even the potential benefits under the 2,750 gigalitre scenario are fundamentally dependent upon the way in which the water is delivered and used. The current benefits forecast represent only one outcome of the delivery of the additional 2,750 gigalitres on average per annum.

This is what the scientists are telling us. That is one scenario that may give you these benefits. There are other scenarios that may not give you those benefits, but they have not been modelled by the authority and one cannot know that. So, it is inadequate but, even in relation to the benefits that are provided, that is only one possible scenario, and it is highly dependent on a range of factors which are not contained within the plan. The plan mandates the water to be delivered in the fashion that was modelled.

The deputy leader has also expressed his view about the Goyder Institute, and this is very illuminating. He said:

...the Goyder Institute can't be relied on as an independent scientific institute. They are the Government's scientists.

This is patently inaccurate. The panel formed by the—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, that is a quote. You can correct it if you like. The panel formed by the Goyder Institute was drawn from our state's three universities and the CSIRO. The statement made by the deputy opposition leader has also been thoroughly refuted by the Goyder Institute Director, Tony Minns, who said, 'We only provide the science essentially devoid of policy. That's our role.'

More concerning is this extraordinary attempt to discredit Goyder scientists, even before their work was released, suggesting that the position is driven more by politics than by the need to understand the real problem and the real solution. I urge the deputy leader to reconsider his position, and I ask him to follow the course that has been adopted by other members in this house on his side of the chamber, this very day, in their debate in relation to the Natural Resources Committee's consideration of the draft basin plan. That report indicates the very point that we have been making, that this is an inadequate plan, more water needs to be given to the river, regard needs to be given to the science. We are asking for a bipartisan position on this issue, and we ask for those opposite to support this motion.

Pressing our case hard now has been suggested by some as a threat to the development of a plan. This is nonsense. It will not force a stalemate. We will not see a return to the present inadequate arrangements because the authority is obliged to produce a plan. There is a water act that obliges them to produce a plan. They are required by law to do so.

Our point is that the plan should be a solution and that we should not settle for a poor compromise. We are not prepared to settle for second best. We need only remember the terrible effects of the millennium drought to appreciate what such a settlement might deliver, and we need to remember that the plan that comes out of this process that we are now involved in will last an extraordinarily long time. If it falls short of what we need for certainty, uncertainty will remain, and this is the key message we have received from those who are involved in business, those who make their investments and seek to create enterprises and businesses out of the use of the waters of the river. They need certainty for the future, and an inadequate plan does not give them that certainty.

We say that the plan should be set on a base that provides certainty, that provides a sustainable use of this river, and that the necessary adjustment should be made clear from the start. The burden of adjustment is a critical issue for many South Australians. We say that the burden of adjustment should fall fairly. South Australia showed restraint and foresight a long time ago. We capped our take and our irrigators joined in the effort to convert to efficient practices. They spent their own money. State government money was added, and we have all lived with a lower level of production in this state, a lower level of economic growth, in the interests of sustainability. Meanwhile, the upstream states continue to use more and more water and have, therefore, benefited from increased production without respecting the sustainable limits on this resource.

When I attended the authority's meeting just yesterday we had the benefit of Auntie Josie Agius opening the public meeting with a welcome to country. Auntie Josie made some remarks, and the remarks she made were simple but I think profound. She said, 'Well, look, in our culture we share.' It seems to me that is the issue here: we need to share this river. I could not think of a more fundamental description of the South Australian position.

The simple proposition at the heart of our claims is that the upstream states have not been sharing: they have been taking more than their fair share. This has caused the degradation and depletion of the waters of the river, and this is a simple matter of justice. You cannot take from a shared resource in a way that damages your neighbour. This is a principle that has underpinned so much of our common law. It has underpinned simple notions of justice that have governed the affairs of human beings for as long as they have had to combine together on this planet. That simple matter of justice is our claim.

In terms of the remedy, the cause of this damage, of course, is the overallocation, the taking of too much. It is a simple matter of justice, about what should be done to remedy that wrong; that is, those who have taken too much should put it back. What they should not be suggesting, as has been suggested in the plan, is that those who have suffered from the wrong should somehow be part of the reparation—asking those who have suffered from the injustice to make good the wrong. This offends basic notions of justice. This is at the heart of our claim in relation to this river.

My plea to members is this: we stand together for South Australia. This puts us in the best position possible to right this wrong. It gives me more authority to advocate to this authority. It allows me to present a united position—irrigators, environmentalists, Aboriginal groups, South Australian city dwellers—on behalf of this state. It gives us the best position to assert our rights. I believe there is a growing sense of self-respect and confidence in this state. We should have the confidence to assert our rights. We should stand up strongly for South Australia. This house should support this motion.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (16:00): Just as with the GMH debate last week, the Premier sent me a hand-delivered note yesterday afternoon indicating his desire to have this matter debated today and to suspend standing orders to debate it forthwith. The Premier must have known that our joint party room had already met this week and he was thus depriving us of any opportunity to have a meeting as a joint party room in order to come to a position in relation to this motion. Nevertheless, that is typical of this Premier. No wonder his own side considers him snaky and calls him 'the smiling assassin'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, will you keep to the motion, please?

Mrs REDMOND: They were just preliminary comments, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I suggest that you keep the preliminary comments brief?

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, I have. The letter itself suggests that the Premier wants a bipartisan approach. He says, 'A bipartisan position will send a strong message that South Australia is united on the River Murray.' Isn't that just what a new Premier would want—bipartisanship? It is very handy if you do not have any opposition. He would love life without a pesky opposition asking questions or putting an alternative view or trying to hold the government to account. But the thing is that in this state we have what is called a Westminster system of government and it is basically democratic, and it is democratic because there is an opposition. That is the whole point of having both sides of this chamber.

The government simply wants to obliterate any idea that the opposition might ever take any course other than what the government is suggesting, and it wants to say, 'We've got to have a bipartisan approach on all these things.' As I said, he said, 'A bipartisan position will send a strong message that South Australia is united on the Murray.' But just before he said that, he said, 'In the coming days, the state government will be finalising its submission on the draft plan.' So, without telling us what is in his submission, he wants us to adopt a bipartisan position. That would be typical of this government.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, exactly what I thought. He will not tell us what it is he wants us to agree to. I had a déjà vu experience when I got this letter because I thought here is the government saying once again, just as they did last week on the Holden debate, 'What we want is your agreement. What we are going to do is spend $50 million of our taxpayers' money—plus, don't forget, those taxpayers are also federal taxpayers so, probably, closer to $65 million of our taxpayers' money—to save Holden. We are not going to tell you any of the details of that, but we want you to support it. We want to have a debate and we want you to support it so that we can show that it is all bipartisan and everything is wonderful; and the opposition must not ever ask any questions about this.'

The Premier said in his letter as well that they have held community consultations by way of community leaders' forums and stakeholder meetings in river communities. The most telling thing about this is in the last bit of paragraph 4, because it says:

These meetings have provided important opportunities to hear the views and concerns of groups and individuals as well as identify areas where all stakeholders are united.

In other words, there must be areas where they are not united. So we are not going to have a bipartisan approach. We do not even know what the government's approach is going to be in relation to all of those various orders.

I have good reason to be sceptical about any consultation that this government undertakes. This government consistently, over 10 years, has held these so-called consultations, whether it be on prescription of the Mount Lofty Ranges, on marine marks or on the Minister for Education's statement yesterday about the fact that the minister was not prepared to listen to what the review process on the amalgamations identified (that is, that they did not want to go ahead with the amalgamations) and the fact that the government was going to ignore that. What that meant to her was that this showed it was an authentic process, not (as it shows to me) that, no matter what the community says in relation to these so-called consultations, the government has already made up its mind and the government is going to do exactly what it decided to do before it established this so-called consultation process.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I am not sure how that relates to the motion.

Mrs REDMOND: Well, it relates to the letter I got from the Premier yesterday afternoon advising me that this debate would be on today, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I will come back to it. It is hard to know actually what this Premier actually believes or intends. This is a Premier who frequently says one thing at one moment and another the next moment. For example, at 7.20am on 1 November 2011 the Premier was interviewed by Matt and Dave on 891, and, in response to a question from David Bevan—here is the question:

What's the minimum return to the Murray-Darling Basin you want?

And the Premier replied, and this is a quotation from the transcript:

As you've seen, the Goyder Institute report talks about numbers of 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres necessary to return the river to health. That's our starting point and I've said that publicly on a number of occasions.

Note those words, 'That's our starting point and I've said that publicly on a number of occasions.' One month later, on 1 December in this place, I asked the Premier the following question:

Has the government done any modelling on the likely impact on local food production and on the state economy of the Premier's plan to increase the environmental flows in the Murray-Darling Basin from 2,750 to 4,000 gigalitres?

To which the Premier replied:

I thank the honourable member for her question. It carries within it a number of difficulties, that is, I have not promoted a sum of that sort.

So, one month later, after saying specifically on 891 to the public at large, 'That's our starting point and I've said that publicly on a number of occasions,' when he is asked specifically about that in this chamber, he says, 'I haven't promoted a number of that sort.' I have had experience with this minister before he became the Premier, and I know how dishonest his responses can be. No wonder his own side does not trust him. No wonder he is called the 'smiling assassin'. You will be caught in your own web eventually, Premier. People who are loose with the truth always are caught, so you had better remember very closely what you have been saying. Again, the idea that we will have a High Court challenge—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I am sorry to interrupt, but you are getting very close to disorderly behaviour when you are talking about 'dishonest' and words to that effect.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, I chose them carefully, Mr Acting Speaker. I will not go any further.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Yes, well, I am going to choose carefully how I treat them, too.

Mrs REDMOND: I will not go any further. I will move on to the High Court challenge. Again, most people in the public and the media thought that the government was pretty keen on this, even though federal Labor clearly was not. But again the Premier, although gung-ho about a High Court challenge in public, said when I asked in this place, 'What I said was that I would not rule out a High Court challenge.' Very different. But there are two points to be made about a High Court challenge over this river: firstly, we still do not know, in spite of asking on numerous occasions, what the previous High Court challenge cost us; and, secondly, there is the possibility, and indeed I would say the very real probability, that, if a High Court challenge by this state were successful, the other states might simply walk away from the whole arrangements that have been made about this river.

But as for the motion itself, talk about motherhood and apple pie. I went to the bother of looking up 'motherhood and apple pie', and would you believe that in America, in the state of Virginia, on 26 January instead of celebrating Australia Day they actually celebrate Motherhood and Apple Pie Day. Basically, it is a statement of principles with which very few would disagree; and to say that this is a statement of principles with which very few would disagree is an understatement with respect to most of it.

The first point that is made in this motion is that the river is important to all South Australians. Anyone disagree with that? No. I do not think there would be many people in South Australia who would suggest that it is not important to all South Australia. The second point: the river has faced some tough times. Anyone disagree with that? No. The third point: in South Australia since 1969 we have tried to do the right thing by the river in this state. Yep, no disagreement with that.

The fifth point: South Australia needs to fight for (a) our irrigators' good practices being taken into account, and I am sure that the member for Chaffey and every other member in this place would agree with that; and (b) and that means everyone upstream should be required to match our standards. All of that is uncontested, absolutely uncontentious, a motherhood and apple pie statement; and indeed that is pretty much what we put into the submission that we put to this authority when it went away to redraft the plan.

So what is left to fight about in what is in this motion? Really, that 2,750 gigalitres and whether that is enough. Now, we do not know the answer to that. I doubt whether anyone really knows the answer to that. The new plan, as opposed to the original draft plan, at least seeks to balance the social, economic and environmental factors, rather than simply drafting a plan based entirely on environmental factors. It is at least a starting point. An agreement with a starting point is probably better than another option.

According to federal minister Tony Burke, who was in town yesterday to talk about the plan, once you get over 2,000 gigalitres the benefits of increasing flows tend to dissipate. Indeed, the federal minister suggested yesterday that a figure such as that espoused by the Premier of 4,000 gigalitres would result in flooding. In fact, Scott Ashby, the head of his own department, wrote to the CEO of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority just a few days ago warning that if too much water is sent down it is going to lead to the flooding of hundreds of shacks.

Indeed, this is nothing but something out of Hawker Britton 101 political nonsense. This whole motion is put here just as a political exercise to gain brownie points for the Premier.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:10): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. Before I start I want to make it known to the house that I would have otherwise been at the funeral service for Dale Baker in my electorate today. The Premier gave us very short notice that this was being brought on today.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I am going right there, Patrick. The minister responsible for government business in the house offered to give me half an hour tomorrow during private members' business.

Mrs Redmond: As the lead speaker.

Mr WILLIAMS: That is as the lead speaker—during private members' business. I want the house to know that I have always argued, and I will always argue, that it is not the role of the government to take over private members' business time. That is there for the private members. That is why I am here today. I am here today representing my people, and I am sure that Dale Baker would appreciate that I am here sticking up for South Australians.

To follow on from what the leader just said, this is motherhood and apple pie. This motion is construed as being incredibly important to the state. However, there is furious agreement over the importance of the river; therefore, there is furious agreement over this motion. This is simply more political spin. Please excuse my cynicism, but the journey to this point in the debate is littered with spin from this government, a constant drive to extract some political gain from this issue. This debate is simply more of that same continuum.

It is my intention over the next few minutes to expose the spin that has been making us all dizzy over the issue of the River Murray for a number of years, all emanating from this government. Let me first turn to how we got to this situation. It was back in 2008—in fact, it was in March 2008—when a little deal was done up in the car park of Magill Estate winery before the COAG ministers went to dinner. This was hailed as an historic agreement on 26 March 2008.

Mrs Redmond: That's four years ago.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right. The then premier said in a press release he put out the next day that he was delighted that an independent authority will be established to manage the Murray-Darling Basin. That is what he said—an independent authority. Well, I have to remind the Premier that this is what we have. This is his independent authority. We have had an historic agreement, we have transferred powers. This government and the then minister came in here and said we urgently had to pass legislation to transfer some powers to Canberra—

Mrs Redmond: What? To give us an independent arbiter?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes—then we would have an independent authority and we would take all the politics out of it and we would have an independent umpire make the decisions. As soon as the independent umpire sticks their head up, what does this government do? It says there is some political mileage to be made out of this. That is what has happened.

The guide to the basin plan was released back in October 2010. It was just as the drought was ending and there was a huge backlash right across Australia. We, in this state, and rightfully so, look at the River Murray from South Australia's perspective, and I totally agree that we have been dealt a bad blow. We have been dealt with pretty harshly by the upstream states. I think they have not shown the same sense of responsibility.

Notwithstanding that, we live in a democracy. The then federal government, your colleagues in Canberra, in response to the backlash to the guide, had minister Tony Burke trot off and get some legal advice. In a statement he made to the house on 25 October 2010, he said:

Broadly the advice outlines that the Water Act:

gives effect to the relevant international agreements;

provides for the establishment of the environmentally sustainable limits on the quantities of water that may be taken from basin water resources;

provides for the use of the basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes;

improves water security for all uses; and

subject to the environmentally sustainable limits, maximises the net economic returns to the Australian community.

This is where we are at. The law of the commonwealth has been put into practice but the Premier is arguing from one aspect and the legal advice to the federal minister is that there are at least three aspects that have to be taken into account in drafting the plan. Certainly the environmental outcome is one of the principles, but social and economic outcomes also have to be taken into account. I suspect that this Premier is playing a political game of totally ignoring the social and economic impacts, certainly here in South Australia.

My colleague the member for Chaffey knows only too well the social and economic impacts that have already occurred, firstly, because of the drought and, secondly, because of the mishandling by this government of matters pertaining to the river during the drought. This government may now be throwing away one of the best opportunities this state has ever had to get some significant improvements for the River Murray in this state.

After the federal minister counselled the MDBA, the authority charged with drafting the plan (in fact, there was a change of chairman), a new draft plan was released on 28 November last year. The plan was released on 28 November and this is the press release that the Premier put out on the day it was released. He announced that he was establishing a task force to coordinate South Australia's response. He named a number of ministers and departmental people that it would include and he said:

One of the other things the task force will do is coordinate the scientific and ecological analysis of the plans and consider South Australia's legal rights in relation to this matter.

So it did not take five minutes for the Premier to suggest that they were not going to accept the plan. Indeed, in the same press release his Minister for Water (minister Caica) says, 'We have concerns that 2,750 gigalitres will not be enough to restore the system to health.' Within five minutes of the plan hitting the table that was the default position; that was the first reaction of this government.

I will talk about this High Court nonsense because this government has form. There was a COAG meeting in Sydney on 3 July 2008 and an agreement was made at that meeting. A press release put out by the then premier about that agreement says:

In addition, a significant agreement was reached today for the states to work towards lifting the trading cap on water between regions along the Murray-Darling Basin from—

and it says from 4 per cent to 6 per cent but that is wrong, it should be from 6 per cent to 4 per cent—

by the end of 2009 with a view to complete removal of the trading cap by 2014.

That was the agreement on 3 July 2008. In another press release from the then premier, on 1 December 2009, 18 months later:

The South Australian government today issued proceedings in the High Court to force the Victorian government to lift its restrictive 4% capped water trading barrier along the Murray River system.

Eighteen months later the government has issued a High Court challenge to get Victoria to do what they agreed to do 18 months before. In another 18 months, on 14 June 2011, a joint press release from the Victorian and South Australian governments amongst other things says, 'reaffirms the agreement to lift the 4% annual cap by 30 June 2014'. That is when they announced that the High Court challenge was all over.

Mrs Redmond: How much did we spend on that?

Mr WILLIAMS: I don't know; nobody has ever told us. The minister said he would bring back the information to the people of South Australia but he never has. However, the agreement was struck in July 2008, the High Court challenge was instituted 18 months later, and lo and behold it was all dispensed with another 18 months later, reaffirming the original agreement. We look forward to the Victorians lifting their 4 per cent cap.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: On a point of order, if the Leader of the Opposition was to stop interjecting, the deputy leader might stop yelling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): I am sure the leader will stop interjecting so that the deputy can be heard in silence.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. This government has form—talking about High Court challenges—and it is playing a political game. I reiterate that, as far as the opposition is concerned, this is an important issue for South Australia, this is an important issue for the river communities, this is and should be above politics, and this should be above playing political games—but that is not what this government does. Let me just remind the house about what I said a few minutes ago.

Back in 2008, we had an historic agreement. We were going to appoint an independent umpire. We were going to stop 100 years of bickering. What did the Premier say yesterday? He was quoted in The Australian as follows:

We are sick of seeing upstream states, places like Victoria with its open channels, which leak more water than we use in Adelaide. We have put up with this for a considerable period of time and we believe enough is enough.

That is the sort of cooperation that we have seen for the last 120 years. That is where the problems have come from because we cannot sit down and put in place a proper managed system with a proper independent authority and let it do its work. This Premier does not want that to happen. This Premier does not want this to be sorted out because he sees a potential political opportunity. It is shameful, I would suggest, the way in which this government is treating this really important issue. Let me turn to the Goyder Institute, and the Premier in his contribution quoted something that I said about the Goyder Institute. I will fill in the house as to exactly what I did say:

I have a problem with the Goyder Institute because it seems to me that it is the government's scientists, not an independent scientist.

I made that comment because I rang the Goyder Institute as I was invited to by one of their reports—this one, in fact—which states, 'If you have a problem, inquiries should be addressed to,' and it gives a telephone number. I rang the number, and I got a call back 10 minutes later. My request was to talk to the authors of this report because I wanted to clarify some of the matters in it. I got a call back about 10 minutes later telling me that if I wanted to talk to them I had to go through the minister's office. That is why I suggested that the Goyder Institute may well have been the government's scientists.

I am pleased to inform the house that, not long after making that statement on public radio, I got a call from Tony Minns informing me that he would be delighted to buy me a cup of coffee, which he did, and we had a wonderful conversation. He then further invited me to attend the Goyder Institute to be fully briefed by him and some of his people. I can inform the house that I have changed my opinion, and I accept—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: You were wrong.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have changed my opinion, Patrick. Based on the earlier evidence, I was suspicious that it was just the government's scientists, but I now accept that they are independent, and I am delighted with the information that they have been able to give to me. The Premier has made much of the Goyder Institute and what it has done in the report that he handed to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority yesterday, and he put out a press release, in which, amongst other things he said:

The review focused on whether 2,750 GL of additional water, as proposed in the draft basin plan, would secure the health of the River Murray in South Australia.

That is not what the Goyder Institute review did. It did not do a review to see if the plan would secure the health of the River Murray in South Australia. The executive summary in the report titled, 'The expert panel assessment of the likely ecological consequences in South Australia for the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan: A report to the South Australian government—Final report: 2 April 2012', states:

The South Australian Government sought advice from the Goyder Institute for Water Research on the likely ecological consequences for South Australia of the proposed Basin Plan.

A very different question. Let me remind of the house of the legal advice I talked about that minister Tony Burke got, that it is not just about the environmental outcomes. The Water Act has to satisfy some other outcomes as well—social, environmental and economic.

This is a pretty sound document—there is no doubt about that—but it only asks part of the question, and it does not answer the question, as the Premier suggested in yesterday's press release. Let me read the conclusion of the report:

Overall, there are important benefits identified under the BP2750 scenario—

That is the basin plan 2,750 gigalitre scenario—

that has been analysed. However, for much of the area of the floodplain environmental assets that require medium to high flows, the environmental water requirements are not met. Thus, the ecological character of the South Australian environmental assets, as defined in current water management plans, is unlikely to be maintained under the BP2750 scenario. Between now and 2015, a range of options should be explored that support management of the environmental assets such that their ecological function in the longer term is protected.

So, it does acknowledge that one part of the environmental outcome will possibly not be met—one part, and there is a significant number of environmental outcomes that we are aiming at—but it says that further work should be done. Let me turn back a page and read another quote:

It was not the mandate of the Expert Panel to evaluate alternative ecosystem states for which the assets could be managed for or whether ecological change is unavoidable.

They weren't asked whether it was unavoidable; they weren't asked that question because—and I will give some evidence in a moment that suggests that some of these things probably are unavoidable. If I go back to page 26 of the report, amongst other things, it says:

...while there may be some scope to further improve on the environmental benefits of the proposed Basin Plan using local infrastructure, the Panel believes that the greatest benefits of investing into infrastructure would be to alleviate the current channel capacity constraints upstream. This would enable a more flexible use of the recovered environmental water in South Australia.

That's interesting:

...to alleviate the current channel capacity constraints upstream. This would enable a more flexible use of the recovered environmental water in South Australia.

I particularly read that out, because the debate, to some extent, has been around the fact that you can only deliver so much water into South Australia. The leader talked about this: you can only deliver some much water into South Australia without causing unintended consequences. You can only deliver so much water in South Australia without causing flooding.

If we look at what happened in Queensland a bit over the last 12 months, there is furious debate now as to whether the flooding caused by the overflow of the Wivenhoe dam was a natural event or a man-made event. Now, I wonder why that is? I suggest it is because the cost implications are significant, because if it is a man-made event, I think somebody is going to be paying. If it is a natural event, we accept it.

It is one thing to get a natural flood into South Australia, but it is another thing to ask the government to create a flood which is going to cause damage, and that is the problem that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has in delivering larger quantities of water into South Australia. We do not hear the Premier talking about that, but I am absolutely amazed if he has not been advised of it—if he has not been briefed on it—because everybody I have spoken to about this knows about it. Let us not play politics with this. Let us work on the facts.

I want to turn to an earlier paper produced by the Goyder Institute. This is the one that I sought some further clarification on. It was put out in response to the original guide, and it was released publicly on 7 June 2011, so it is getting towards 12 months old. We have heard the Premier suggesting—in some places, anyway—that it was 4,000 gigalitres or nothing. This particular report by the Goyder Institute looked at three scenarios: 3,000 gigalitres, 3,500 gigalitres and 4,000 gigalitres. It talks about meeting the environmental water requirements under those three scenarios, and on page vi of the Executive Summary, it states:

However, these environmental water requirements specify timing, magnitude and duration of flows—

he is talking about the South Australian government's environmental water requirements—

and these are unlikely to be delivered under any of the Guide scenarios. Even if the timing of flow deliveries were optimised—

The Goyder Institute concluded that even the 4,000 gigalitres scenario would be unlikely to meet the South Australian environmental water requirements. I put it to the house that the South Australian government is in the business of putting up a bit of an ambit claim, and we might question why the government would do that. Why would it put up an ambit claim?

I put to the house another point that is raised on the same page. One of the things that we are going to see as a result of a changed management structure, particularly of our storages, under the new plan regime, is that we will see these man-made high flow events. They will be created by managed releases from storages in places like the Hume reservoir and again I quote from page vi of the Executive Summary of the Goyder Institute Technical Report Series 11/1:

Under the Guide scenarios, it is anticipated that there will be more frequent environmental releases and that this will result in less water being retained in storage.

We will have planned releases simply for the environment. To date, we have only had releases simply to provide water for irrigators.

Consequently, high flows will be less common than now, as these flows rely on spills from storages (when storages are at 100% capacity).

The Goyder Institute is saying that the storages, such as the Hume reservoir and others, will less often be sitting at capacity, and when we get an untimely or heavy rain event with a full storage we get a flood event. It will be less likely that that will happen. A perverse outcome—that is the way I describe it—of managing these high flow events is that we will have less of these very high flow events.

It is these very high flow events that the South Australian environmental water requirements aim at achieving, these natural flood events that get the water right to the back particularly of the Chowilla flood plain, right to the back of those flood plains into the black box communities, an event which lasts long enough to give various fauna time to go through their breeding cycle. That is a perverse outcome and it is something that I think we should consider fairly closely as we go forward.

The same document talks about optimising the flows and is suggesting that, with optimisation, we can achieve most of the environmental outcomes that South Australia has been aiming to achieve. With a full and honest appraisal of the Goyder Institute's work, particularly considering that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is charged with not just the ecological outcomes, not just the environment, but those other outcomes as well, we might come to a conclusion that is a little bit different from the Premier's that the 2,750 is just not good enough.

Can I say that I was also told by the Goyder Institute when I was being briefed by them that, indeed, the 2,750 flow regime as per the draft plan is probably equivalent to a flow regime of 3,500 gigalitres in the earlier guide to the draft, and that is because the modelling picked up the fact that, when you water an environmental asset at one point in the river some of that water flows back into the river and can be utilised for further environmental watering downstream, such as keeping the mouth open and removing salts from the main channel. So, the modelling done for the draft plan takes into account the double use of that water, and I have been informed that the 2,750 probably equates to something more like 3,500, which I find really interesting.

I need to talk to the member for Ashford on this matter because I was reading through the report of the NRM Committee of the parliament, and I noted that in its conclusions it states that the proposed recovery of 2,750 gigalitres under the draft basin plan does not provide sufficient water to meet many of the basin's environmental objectives, including the environmental water requirements of South Australia, but a water recovery scenario of 3,200 gigalitres will achieve many of the key targets of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. Targets for Chowilla that rely on medium-sized floods in particular, are more likely to be achieved if operational constraints can be addressed. I have already talked about those constraints.

I need to talk to some members of that committee just to see whether they understand that the 2,750 is probably equivalent to 3,500 and whether they have been apprised of that matter. It may well be that the NRM Committee of this parliament is also in furious agreement with my comment that, on balance, this 2,750 may well be a pretty good offer.

I note that the Premier is out there claiming that this talk about constraints in the river is just something that has been thrown up by the upstream states as an excuse not to deliver more water into South Australia. That is what he has been saying, and this is what he said on public radio yesterday morning, I think it was:

Now it's constraints. There is always a reason why, that South Australia can't get the water that it needs to have a healthy river. We don't accept that...

Maybe the Premier does not accept it, but I happen to have a copy of a letter.

Mrs Redmond: You've got the original.

Mr WILLIAMS: Indeed, I do have the original. I have a copy of a letter here from Scott Ashby addressed to Dr Rhondda Dickson, Chief Executive, Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Dear Ms Dickson

South Australia requests that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority actively manages the current peak flow expected around mid-April 2012 in order to minimise the impacts on shack areas downstream of Cadell.

Mrs Redmond: So, they don't want all that water?

Mr WILLIAMS: No. It continues:

As the flows increase above 60,000 ML/day at the border, the risk of inundation to potentially hundreds of shacks significantly increases. It is therefore prudent to implement operational actions to minimise the risk of flooding, including no enhancement of peak flows.

The date on the letter is 30 March—only a couple of days ago. The letter is signed by Scott Ashby, who is the Chief Executive of the South Australian Department for Water. He happens to be on the task force the Premier set up back in last November. Maybe the Premier is not talking to his task force. Scott Ashby is suggesting that there are constraints and that, if we are not mindful of them, we are going to cause damage. He goes on in the letter to say:

Recent discussions have occurred with your staff about enhancing flows across the South Australian border. While I recognise this is a necessary step towards maintaining the health of the floodplain, a number of major policy issues need to be discussed and agreed in South Australia before enhanced flows events above 60,000 ML/day can occur due to the risk of flooding properties.

Can I tell the house that to meet the South Australian environmental water requirements we are talking about flow events of 80,000 megalitres a day, not 60—80, a third more than what Mr Ashby is asking the MDBA not to send over the border.

I could go on for a fair bit longer. The opposition accepts the motion because we are very serious about the issue here. This government, if it wanted to show its bona fides, would have done something already about Lake Albert, in my electorate, it would have done something about the Narrows. This government is long on rhetoric, is long on playing politics, but is very short on actually doing something to bring a real benefit. It would have also accepted the offer to put some officers into the state MDBA.

Time expired.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:40): I did not hear the entire contribution of the member for MacKillop, and for that I am thankful. I have been very privileged to be a minister for six years. My first interaction with people along the Murray River corridor in South Australia was as the minister for training and employment, and that was in relation to jobs and the likes within that particular region from a vocational perspective.

I was also down in the Lower Lakes where I was able to rekindle the relationship with the local Ngarrindjeri people. Then, beyond that I was there as minister for agriculture, when I was able not only to witness first-hand the devastation of the most unprecedented drought in anyone's living memory but also to work closely with those communities along the length of the river corridor on a variety of matters that helped mitigate the effects of that drought, effects that we saw really devastate those particular communities.

The government can be proud about what it did to assist those communities, whether it be from the point of view of purchasing a significant amount of water to keep permanent plantings alive, of which I presume even the current member for Chaffey might have been a recipient, a beneficiary, given that was water provided to irrigators to keep permanent plantings alive, to a whole variety of initiatives that the government undertook to—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: That's not quite true, but most of the things you say—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Point of order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —aren't quite true

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Despite sore temptation, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard without interruption. He should allow the minister the same courtesy.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Well, it's funny you say that because I was thinking exactly the same thing. I will ask deputy leader to come to order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: We can be proud about what we did with our communities, whether it be on the Riverland, the mid-Murray, or the great wetlands of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, to build resilience into those communities but also to ensure that those wonderful environment assets live to fight another day; and that is what we did.

I know how much South Australians care about this jewel in our crown, but it is not just the jewel in our crown. As the Premier said, it is of vital importance to all people in Australia. It is our most important river system and it is the lifeblood of a large region of Australia. I also know, almost to a person, that South Australians are united in wanting to achieve a plan, a plan that actually delivers on returning this river to a sustainable level of health—despite the contribution that was just recently made by the deputy leader.

I did notice, whilst having a meeting, the leader speaking about the fact that the River Murray is important to all South Australians. Of course, I found it interesting that if it is important for all South Australians why a motion was moved by the opposition with respect to the River Murray levy. If it was that important, all people in South Australia should be paying that particular levy, but, clearly, they are not at one with respect to that particular matter.

We have certainly worked very hard with our communities here, whether they be irrigators, whether they be environmentalists, or whether they be our very good friends, the Ngarrindjeri from the Lower Lakes region, to get to a spot where South Australia would have not just a common voice but a united voice with respect to what we want, what this state not only wants but will demand from a Murray-Darling Basin plan.

Most South Australians—all South Australians, almost to a person—care about this river and want it to be returned to a sustainable level of health. We recognise that, of all the basin states, South Australia has done more than any other state with respect to respecting and responsibly using its waters here, and the Premier highlighted that particular point. The health and wellbeing of all South Australians is inextricably linked to the health of the river, whether it be as consumers of its waters for domestic and productive purposes, from a cultural and spiritual perspective, or simply enjoying the many recreational opportunities the river has to offer.

Despite what the deputy leader says, we cannot—South Australia cannot, this government will not, and the people of South Australia will not—simply accept any plan. It must be a plan that delivers for South Australia and, as the Premier said, for the basin as a whole, and it must be a plan that is consistent with the objects of the Water Act. The deputy leader talked about the objects of the act and, of course, we know that the primacy of that act is to return the river to a level of sustainable health while taking into account the social and economic impacts of that plan, which is vastly different from what the deputy leader said.

It is not time for yet another unsatisfactory compromise. This is a time to get it right, based on the best available science, and I refute the comments that were made—quite derogatory and impertinent comments—by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with respect to the Goyder Institute and the fine work they have undertaken. We cannot be distracted from our goal by the use of such terms as 'this is a good start' or 'adaptive management' or, indeed, 'we will review it in 2015'. We cannot afford to accept something that the science tells us will not deliver in hope of getting something better later on.

It is just a nonsense argument and I cannot believe it is being promulgated by some representatives of the opposition. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to right the wrongs and address the overallocation that has been undertaken by upstream states and make sure of what the member for Chaffey and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition want—security for their constituents but also security for the environment, because we know that it is not about environment versus irrigators; it is about having a healthy system from which sustainable consumptive use can occur.

If we do not get this right, we will not be thanked by future generations. We will be condemned by future generations who will have to live with the consequences of the decisions that we make today, and South Australia is not going to allow a second-rate plan or accept a second-rate plan, nor should we be forced to accept more than our fair share of the burden of adjustment (a point that the Premier made very well).

We should not be forced to accept more than our fair share of the burden of adjustment in the setting of the SDLs or accept our irrigation communities being actively disadvantaged by the spending of billions of dollars on infrastructure improvements for the upstream states whilst we receive virtually nothing, thus further eroding the competitive position of our producers here in South Australia. We are not going to tolerate that as well. Our past good behaviour and our past practices must be recognised and not punished. In closing, I urge this parliament to unanimously support this motion to send—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, the point I would make, is this: they are going to unanimously support this motion but the attitudes and comments expressed by the deputy leader are, at best, nonsense and, at worst, duplicitous with respect to his true feeling about the River Murray. This motion needs to send a clear message to the South Australian public, to the upstream states and to the federal government that we are united in our desire, and that ought to be matched by a proper, coherent level of messaging, not that which we saw from the deputy leader. We need to be united in our desire for a fair deal for the river and a fair deal for South Australia, and we will not accept second best.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:49): I rise to speak on this matter not because the River Murray is now in my electorate but because it was when I had Goolwa in my area. In fact, all I have now is part of the catchment at Currency Creek, which of course drains into the river. I think it is beholden on every member in this place, and might I suggest every member of the parliaments of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the federal parliament, to stop squabbling and to get on and fix this problem.

No-one knows better than the member for Chaffey about losing touch with people because he absolutely wiped out a cabinet minister in the last state election, the Hon. Karlene Maywald. She lost her seat because she lost touch with the people, and this is what this is about today. Let me go back and talk briefly about Goolwa. I came into this place in March 2006 and immediately had Goolwa as part my constituency. I took it over from the former premier, the Hon. Dean Brown.

I went into a situation of drought that was affecting Goolwa and winding it down. I do not think that I have ever seen a greater display of human spirit than I saw in Goolwa and the surrounding areas during the time of that debacle, and this is what people are forgetting about. We can sit here and we can spat and argue and they can do it across parliaments across Australia, but start thinking about people.

One person who will remain forever ingrained in my mind is a good friend, Henry Jones, and his wife, Gloria. Henry knows the river inside out. Henry was nearly crippled by it. I had businesses in Goolwa crippled by it. I had tourism businesses and all sorts of businesses crippled by it. I had farmers crippled by it. The member for Hammond is now there. I went through as the member at the time, and it was a life experience to go through what happened down in that area—to see the river dry up to become a trickle and to see the human spirit hang in there, but also to see what happened between the people and the groups and the organisations down there who had immense pressure on them. The community organisations and the council had spats; let me tell you they had spats.

However, they resolved to keep Goolwa going. Now, it is not in my electorate so it is not doing anything for the next election for me, I can tell you. I very much doubt whether it will come back in the redistribution; and, for the record, I intend to be here after the election in 2014. However, I digress. I mention people like John and Lyn Clark of the Southern Alexandrina Business Association. I will not be able to get in all names in this short time, but I mention Keith Parkes, councillor Jim Davis and Randall Cooper.

Randall Cooper had a passion for the river as deep as the river is at its deepest spot. These people were at their wit's end. They tried everything to keep their businesses going, their families going. They went out and worked. There is some passion that needs to be injected into this debate instead of political rhetoric, and these things need putting on the record. I can remember the day we had the rally down at the Goolwa Aquatic Club with thousands of people. I got up to speak, and I think that the member for Hammond spoke as well that day.

There was an absolute passion and commitment of the people of the area and the wider area of the river who came to that rally on that day to keep their town and areas alive while the river was dying. They hung in there. The Goolwa Regatta Yacht Club kept sailing on not much more water than would be in a bathtub. They kept it going, and these are the people who want this parliament and the other parliaments I mention to get it right, to stop fooling around, to stop arguing and squabbling and doing media spins—the whole lot.

I think it is most important that this message gets across loud and clear. They want it to work. I am sure that the member for Chaffey will have a few words to say in a moment. He is there where it comes over the border, and he knows as well. I had the privilege of serving the bottom end where it was crucified. I mention Neil Shillabeer from Meningie. Neil used to come over regularly. Then we had the Tourism and Boating Authority meetings—which I think are still going, I am not sure—chaired by Dean Brown out on Hindmarsh Island.

The Chapman family watched their livelihood die. They watched hundreds of boats leave the marina. They kept people working and paid people to keep them going after the nonsense they put up with over the Hindmarsh Island Bridge. They have spent a huge amount of money down there, and they employed people and they kept it going. These meetings were great. The government officers who came to those meetings—from the Department of Transport and Department for Water—worked their backsides off to try to keep Goolwa and the area going. They did everything possible to keep the waters navigable.

It goes on. The South Lakes Golf Club gave up their water because they could not use it and they sold their entitlement to water to keep their golf course going through other means. I remember meeting with them at the golf club and they were just about in tears over where it was going, this famous golf club. They are a terrific group of people and they all deserve to get far better than what they are getting at the moment.

Droughts come and droughts go, and this drought was a shaker that changed the face of the nation for many years, and it will happen again. I do not know—and I have heard what the Premier has to say. I do not share his political colours but I think his heart is in the right place on this matter. Whether they are Labor premiers, Greens premiers, Liberal premiers, prime ministers or whatever—for heaven's sake, get it right this time, because no community should have to suffer like they have suffered through that drought.

I can recall quite clearly the depth of animosity that the Goolwa community at one stage felt for their council. The council thought they were doing the right thing. They were trying their hearts out. The community thought they were doing the right thing, and it created enemies out of generations of friends. That is a sad thing that happened. That is why it is so important that this time we get this thing right and whatever comes out of it in the end remains to be seen.

It was mentioned earlier on about the turtles. I saw them scrubbing these turtles and getting the worm off them so that they could live and get their legs out again, and then the community effort in what happened with the clean up on the river. Jan (my wife) and I went down there one day when they had a massive community clean up and cleaned all the rubbish out of the river that had not been seen for 150 years probably. It was an amazing event. The spirit of that community in Goolwa shone through. The spirit of the community got them to where they are now where they have water back again; it is marvellous.

Bob Brown said it would take eight years to fill the river and it filled in six months; that was another furphy. We have all these so-called experts who would not have a clue about nature. Those of us who actually live with nature know how it works. Of course it was going to rain again and, of course, they are taking water out up at the top end. They do not think they are doing anything wrong, and maybe they are not. Who am I to judge? But maybe they are, too. So this is where it has to be put right.

I have watched with interest Mr Craig Knowles, who was on the television last night. It was good to watch him instead of a few others. I noted with interest what he had to say. I noted that federal minister Tony Burke said that if we do not get it right, he will go back and try to get it right again. I suggest that Jay Weatherill, Isobel Redmond, Mitch Williams, Michael Pengilly, Tim Whetstone, Michael Wright—none of us know how to get it right, but we might have a chance if we get our heads around it and do it properly and start thinking about the people and livelihoods on that river.

My daughter lives at Loxton now and they visit and use the river regularly, so I have learnt a fair bit about it. She is a constituent of Mr Whetstone, and she did vote for him; she freely admits that. There is much to be said. I just wanted a few minutes, but I really wanted to emphasise the fact that the people of Goolwa and those areas that I used to represent suffered enormously and tragically, and I have no doubt that one day there will be a book or something written about what happened there. It needs putting on the record. I say to the Premier and everybody involved in those leadership positions: for heaven's sake, do all you can to get it right. No-one ever should have to go through again what they went through in those 10 years of drought.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:59): I rise today proudly wearing an 'I Love Murray' shirt because I think it is relevant in today's climate. I have a message first to the Premier. When you are going to present South Australia's case to the Eastern States, you have to be factually correct. To say that South Australia extracts only 7 per cent from the River Murray is incorrect. The Eastern States do not extract 93 per cent, so in presenting your case you must be factually correct.

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: I am not wrong, I can assure you. We extract 7 per cent but the Eastern States do not extract 93 per cent. Do your homework, Premier, because if you go over there and make incorrect statements they will blow you away. Premier, I do support a plan. I support a plan for the health of the river. I support a plan for sustainable food producers and communities but in supporting a plan there has to be a balance; there has to be a balance at whose expense?

Day after day we hear this number of 4,000 gigalitres; 4,000 gigalitres is a political spin number. The 4,000 is based around science; science is a model that is put there because the science is modelled on the science. Let's face it, when we went through the last drought the scientists said that it was going to take 20 years for the Lower Lakes to recover and it took four months. We still have a few water quality issues in the Lower Lakes but it took four months, it did not take 20 years, so it goes to show that modelling is not always the answer.

The South Australian government has refused to sit inside the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's tent to give advice and to present South Australia's argument. Why did we refuse that? Because it is political, that is why we refused it. We should be in there representing our case. The Goyder report was released only last week. Funny how it was released just in time to present to the MDBA's Adelaide community meeting—the timing! That should have been presented to the authority weeks ago so that we as South Australians had our best case put forward, representing all of South Australia not just representing a political slant or spin. It is absolutely outrageous.

Today we hear the government saying, 'It's not fair, it's upstream's fault.' It is not upstream's fault. Upstream irrigators have some of the best practices in Australia, just like we do, but we have set a benchmark and that is what we need to be arguing, not saying that we are the best and they are the worst. That is totally wrong. Premier, you are shaking your head. You have not been out and had a good look; let me assure you that you have not. I live there, I practise it, I preach it, I love the river, I love producing food and I know what is going on.

Premier, the High Court challenge seems to be a secondary focus that the government is presenting to the electors out there. Elector-land is saying, 'The Premier is fighting for South Australia.' A High Court challenge is not going to solve the problem. If there is a High Court challenge it is not going to put water back in the river; it is not going to solve the environmental catastrophe that we have been through; it is not going to help food producers get more security for their irrigators or more certainty for communities. Premier, you have to have a real look at what is going on out there; again, it just seems to be so political. We are focusing on all the political issues, we are not focusing on a healthy, working river.

Ten years ago South Australia was regarded as the envy of the basin. We had water security, we had continuity of supply, we had good government practice, we had negotiators going to the table and getting us a good outcome from negotiations. In 10 years we have become the laughing stock of the Murray-Darling Basin. We go to the Eastern States to negotiate a deal and we come back with our tail between our legs. I will highlight a couple of examples.

Today, as we speak, irrigators' carryover water has been spilt from the Menindee Lakes as a flood mitigation release. Those irrigators invested heavily in their carryover water. Some of those irrigators had to sell their allocations and live on carryover water so that they could continue practising irrigation, yet the government went over to the Eastern States and negotiated our carryover water to be first to spill. Why did we do that? Why did the government accept a first to spill negotiation? After all, it sits on top of the commonwealth environmental water holder—why? The first water to spill should be from a commonwealth environmental water holder for the benefit of the environment and yet the water minister is saying, 'We will not compromise.' That is the first compromise.

Last year irrigators were stuck on 67 per cent—absolutely outrageous—and one of the worst decisions that any government could have ever imposed on any community or industry. The government did that because they were carrying over 160 gigalitres of water, government water that was purchased at inflated prices for nearly $60 million. They went into the water market and they paid almost 21 per cent above the market price.

Mr Pederick: Why would you do that?

Mr WHETSTONE: Why would you do that? The outcome was that irrigators had to go into the market and compete with the government at inflated water prices—up to 21 per cent above market price. Premier, I was in the water market; I know what was going on—do not shake your head because you obviously do not.

Again, we look at the number. I do not want to talk about the number but I do want to talk about constraints. The minister said on radio two mornings ago that we needed to address the constraints. The constraints are towns, they are levee banks, roads, bridges, causeways, shacks—how are we going to address those issues? Are we going to move them? Are we going to pay them out and send them away? How are we going to address those constraints?

Premier, you have obviously been in touch with some of the irrigators in South Australia of late, and you have offered them a deal. You said you are going to put critical human needs into the equation of the SDLs. You told them that, perhaps, SA Water might contribute 20 gigalitres of water into the plan, you told them that you might contribute 20 gigalitres of water from environmental works and measures, and perhaps you will give up 20 gigalitres from the Water Industry Alliance. Really? Does anyone else in South Australia know that? Have you been transparent about how you are going to do that? This was really all about a photo opportunity. It was nothing else. It was political spin at its best.

When this plan is eventually implemented and the commonwealth gives each state its bucket of water, the South Australian government needs to be clear when they say, 'We want your support for this plan, South Australians.' Who will get the share of the water in the competing interests? Will irrigators get their fair share? Will SA Water get its fair share? Will the environment get its fair share? To date, there is no transparency in any of that and what we are seeing seems to be a political exercise, and does not seem to be about the outcomes.

The outcomes are about sustainable rivers and sustainable communities producing food. Everyone in this chamber sits down to a breakfast, a lunch and a dinner, and they expect clean, safe food, and most of that food comes out of the Murray-Darling Basin. There has to be a balance in this plan, and you say that 4,000 is the number without actually knowing exactly what the impact will be—it is yet to be determined. Premier, what will 4,000 gigalitres mean to the South Australian food producers and their communities? Has the Goyder Institute done a social and economic report on that?

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:08): I, too, rise to talk about the Murray-Darling Basin plan and what could be the outcome for South Australia. There is one thing we need to worry about, and it is not just numbers; it is salinity levels. At the moment, salinity in Lake Albert averages 4,800 EC, which is far too high to use for stock and domestic, and far too high to use for irrigation systems, and these systems have been out of place in some cases for six years—unusable. These people have been forced to cart water in and, then, yes, through commonwealth and some state money, but mainly commonwealth funding, some emergency pipelines were put in. Now with the extreme SA Water price rises, it is becoming unviable for people to water their stock or grow their crops, and people are now seeking to put extended pipelines through to Lake Alexandrina.

We on this side of the house certainly know how important the River Murray is to the state because pretty well all of us connect to it in some way. My properties connect to it with a just-in-time pipeline from Tailem Bend—the Keith pipeline. But we saw how committed the government was not during the process when the Murray-Darling Basin Authority requested staff to get on board to prosecute this state's case. What was the answer from here? 'No, we're not going to send anyone. We don't think it's that important that we need to send anyone to prosecute the case.'

It was the same effect when water was being negotiated under former premier Mike Rann and the former member for Chaffey: they could not negotiate enough water just to keep the Lower Lakes through. There was a time when I was almost begging former minister Karlene Maywald because we needed 30 gigalitres for Lake Albert—30 gigalitres.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I know it was low; I know water was low, but during this time there were people on high-security water allocations getting 95 per cent of the water out of the Murrumbidgee, so there would have been water available. Victoria and New South Wales just laugh at us and at the ineptitude of this government in securing water flows for the state. We have seen the flawed effect of the proposed Wellington weir that was going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. From memory, I think there was a forecast of about $125 million, but then it just would have gone on and on and on.

The only thing that would have saved the Wellington weir if it had been built and needed topping up every year—and it could have sunk about a metre a year—was the fact that there is plenty of limestone around; that is the only thing that would have saved it if they were going to build it, but what a flawed concept. What a flawed concept—that a government could have thought of just cutting off a huge community south of Wellington.

Mr Venning: How much did they spend?

Mr PEDERICK: Well, they spent about $14 million on the access roads, and they are roads to nowhere.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: That's right—the roads to nowhere. Obviously, there were some heavy negotiations with the Withers and MacFarlane families on what they needed to accept to get those deals through and get those roads in place. Thankfully, someone saw sense and suddenly realised that the Wellington weir was not a viable alternative.

I had a meeting with former minister Maywald because salinity was getting so bad that they were concerned about the Tailem Bend offtake, and in front of a representative from SA Water I asked the minister, 'So, what's this going to cost?' They said, 'Early costings are about $75 million,' and then they asked me, 'What do we do with the salt?' and I replied, 'Well, you're going to have to work that out.'

I now refer to the bunds that were put up over time down through the Lower Murray and Lakes, the first of which was the Narrung bund at the Narrows that went in between Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert; 20 per cent of that bund is still in the water. It is silted up, it is disgusting—it is absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge, all these bunds were put in with the money to pull them out given to the South Australian government. But they haven't used that money to pull these bunds out.

Mr Williams: But they've used it for something else.

Mr PEDERICK: They have used it for something else—paying public servants or whatever. They have just put it into general revenue to eat up cash that was given to them by the federal government and the MDBA. Part of the reason that Lake Albert and the region have almost become a wasteland is that no-one on the other side cares—no-one on Labor's side cares. That bund should have come out.

We have the same issue with the bund at Clayton. The Clayton bund removal is like the ad, 'The beer when you're not having a beer.' This is the bund when you are not having a bund. Yes, the majority of the bund has come out, but there is all the wash and silt at Clayton that is still in there and causing grief to the community; it can be removed.

Then we have Currency Creek. Currency Creek is the sleeper; this is the bund that is underwater, so nothing is seen, it is hiding and we do not have to worry about it—and that is how the government looks at it. We hear all this clap-trap, as we did when we asked for the pumps to be lowered for Adelaide and were told that it could not be done—well, hang on, have you heard of engineers? It can be done.

There are at least two companies, such as Dynamic Dredging at Mannum and Frank Henderson, and there are probably more (but I will get into trouble if I name too many companies because I may miss someone out), that can mount a long-arm excavator on a big barge out of Mannum. They can go down and dig out all this underwater soil and silt. It can be done: it is just about commitment to the job.

In fact, I have dealt with and I have sent the inquiry through to Andy Dennard at minister Caica's office about a government bund at Jervois where the contractor got the approval from the government to fix up an issue and suddenly someone looked at the costing and within three-quarters of an hour, the approval was pulled.

Mrs Redmond: Spend the money on something else.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes—spend the money on something else, and this is how this government operates. Some of us, like myself, took the time to travel up through the northern basin to see how it operates. I flew up over Cubbie Station and there are about 22 other big properties up there that, at that time several years ago, harvested a lot of water. I talked to graziers on the flood plain who only got about 20 per cent of the water that they used to get because of the harvesting up in the north.

Then we went through the southern basin. I remember an interesting trip with the members for MacKillop and Chaffey, just to see how things operate. It was a very good trip, just to get a good idea of how things work. We saw the Snowy River scheme. I do not think the environmentalists would let us build a scheme like that in this day and age.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. It just gives you an overview of what has happened with the overallocation of the river and the pillaging that has caused the problems in the southern system. We have had communities absolutely slaughtered, whether you are in the tourism sector especially below Lock 1 or whether you are trying to get water on the River Murray swamps where $30 million has been invested and we are going to have to spend at least that and maybe double that to get them back into a real, productive capacity.

We have had massive chunks of river slumping happen. We have had complete pump stations fall into the river. We have had people—as the member for Finniss rightly said—absolutely dismayed at what was happening down at Goolwa, and there are many competing interests. Obviously, some people wanted bunds; some people wanted to float boats. They would have floated them on raspberry cordial, but we on this side said, 'No, we have to move on. We have to have a freshwater recovery for the river.'

I mentioned briefly before the inequity in allocations. We were on 18 per cent allocation here one year and yet on the Murrumbidgee—95 per cent, no worries. How does that help and how does that work out? One thing I do want to extend on is the constraints, and Tony Burke actually summed it up pretty well yesterday. Federal water minister, Tony Burke—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, the Labor federal minister—he said that you exponentially lose positive outcomes above 2,000 gigalitres of environmental water returned to the river because of the constraints. What happens is you get overbank flooding and losses. You get losses that do not get the environmental outcomes where you want them.

What I say is that we need to make a start. We need to make a start for all the communities along the river, all the communities that derive water from the river, because I know, from someone who lives in the area and relies on a just-in-time pump, that things need to happen. A High Court challenge will kill this deal because we have a Premier and a government who do not understand that calling for 4,000 gigalitres is just what the Eastern States want, because they just want a trigger to kill the deal and that is exactly what will happen.

We on this side do want the best outcome from the river but sometimes you have to get going while you have the opportunity. If you kill the opportunity and then you do not have any outcome, that is the worst outcome that we in this state could have, because the Eastern States will do anything to switch us off.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:18): I am pleased to rise to talk about this issue. This is without doubt the most important issue facing regional South Australia and has been for many years now. We must get this right. This is a key issue for the electorate of Stuart, for the very important towns of Cadell, Blanchetown, Morgan, Murbko and that district right on the river are in the electorate of Stuart but, of course, we can never forget that 95 per cent of the people of South Australia draw water from the Murray. Of course, in Stuart that includes the Mid North areas and the city of Port Augusta, and that same logic applies to most of the electorates, most of the people we all represent in this house. If there is any one person here who does not take this issue very seriously, you are not doing the best you can by your electorate. It is a critical issue for our whole state and, of course, for our nation.

Given the short amount of time that we have available, I would like to draw people's attention to the Natural Resources Committee report because I have been very actively involved, as have the other members of that committee, in putting that report together. I am pleased with the work that we have done, I am pleased with the outcomes and pleased with the recommendations, so I draw people's attention to that specific report.

Looking at the broader issues, we all know that there have been 100 years of overallocation of water; that is no-one's fault. We just started off running things the way they were done at the time but, like so many things, as we get smarter, as time goes on, we realise what is going on and you change, you adapt, you improve. It is true of every single one of us in every aspect of our lives; it has got to be true of our state and our nation when it comes to how we manage this river system.

One of my biggest concerns about this issue is the whole 'us and them' aspect that is coming out of this Murray-Darling Basin plan and out of the Murray-Darling Basin arguments—the whole us and them, environment versus economy, short term versus long term, upstream versus downstream and on and on and the focus on this number, this 2,750 gigalitres, should it be more or should it be less? I support the member for Chaffey in his very strong and loud call to say the very first thing we need to do is find out where water savings can be made.

Do not just say of the environment or the economy that one is going to have to miss out more, one is going to have to miss out less, upstream versus downstream. Let us find out where we can find extra water by being more efficient, by being smarter, by getting on with the job and then perhaps everybody can absorb slightly less of a hit. Ideally the environment and the economy can get on quite well and communities and society can get on quite well. That is what we are all here for. That is what we all want in the longer run, regardless of the issue at hand.

The first place I would start to look at is evaporation losses, storage and delivery improvements, and metering at points of extraction. We are all aware of what goes on upstream. We should be proud of the way we have dealt with this issue in South Australia. We are not perfect. It is not to say that there cannot be more done in South Australia but, goodness gracious, there should not be much of a burden that we have to pay until those sorts of losses, those sorts of inefficiencies are dealt with and improved, wherever they happen to be. If we have any room to improve them in our state, we should and, where other states have room to improve them, they should as well.

Rather than make it upstream versus downstream or one state versus another—I could not care where the opportunities for improvement exist. Wherever they are, that is where they should be dealt with. We should make our whole Murray-Darling system as efficient and useful as possible with water and then, once we have done that, figure out, if we still need to make cuts, what they are and how they need to be shared.

We have a very proud history in South Australia of dealing with water. I think irrigators often unfairly bear the brunt of public opinion. Certainly, they are the people who take water out of the river but they use it for food production which is very important. They do not just use it to go swimming in or just waste it. They use it for a very good, very important purpose that supports the Riverland region, that supports our state, that supports all of Australia. Let us not just assume that if you are an irrigator you must be a bad person who takes too much water. Our irrigators do it for the right reasons and they do it very well and very efficiently.

The other thing that is important to recognise here is this is not just about theories and philosophies: this is about real life. This is about people's real-world experiences. I can tell you I have a very good friend who has a farm. This friend is fourth generation. His son and daughter are fifth generation in the Lower Lakes. He has been brought to tears by seeing hundreds of dead calves over recent years. The older cattle are smart enough to go away. They know not to drink the salty water, they figure all that out, but calves cannot figure this out. The water was, at the time, too salty adjoining their property. Not only is there an economic loss, not only is there a market loss, not only is there a social loss—this is about real people's lives.

Exactly the same is true well upstream in the Riverland area. I would be terribly disappointed if there is a person in this house who is not familiar with the really catastrophic impact that the drought has had on many people's lives. The pulling out of generations of permanent plantings is a devastating issue, well beyond the economic impact and theoretic issues that are debated here. This is about people's real lives.

I believe that the section of the river in between, that mid-Murray area from Blanchetown down to Wellington, in my opinion, is where people have really been hit hardest, and they are the people who have probably got the least amount of publicity. They are the people who have had the least recognition, but to me they are the people who have had the least opportunity to find other incomes. That is not to say that there is no opportunity, but these people have been hit harder than any others in our state.

I was devastated to hear stories about the stress of those people, including, unfortunately, suicides, and including, unfortunately, people who do not leave their homes. Even now, a couple of years after the river has come back, a couple of years after, on the surface, everything is all okay—as far as most people in Adelaide would suggest—the impact on real people and real communities will not go away overnight.

I am pleased that things have improved, and I am pleased to know that there is more water in the river, but we cannot just say it is all over. As many speakers here have already said, we cannot just assume that we have good salinity levels in most places at the moment (certainly not Lake Albert) and problems still exist. In most cases we have got good river levels, so it is all okay, we will not worry about it.

There will be good and bad times with regard to river flows in the future. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix this. It is not an opportunity to help just the environment and it is not an opportunity to help just the irrigators. Again, it cannot be an issue about one versus the other: we are either going to care for water and the environment or we are going to give the water to the irrigators. That is such a naive, shallow view of this whole issue.

Firstly, there are many, many more people involved in this issue than just irrigators. There are graziers, tourism operators, the building and construction and maintenance industry, retail and hospitality, dairy, fishing, boating, property values, and many others and—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —as our leader says, people from Adelaide, who are not directly impacted but whose lives benefit from the fact that we have a healthy River Murray with businesses and communities that they can visit for their own recreation. None of these things need to be at the expense of the environment.

I think of the environment versus economy in terms of an honesty issue. You do not go about your business achieving as much as you possibly can and if you have time left over you decide if you can be honest. You go about your business honestly and then achieve as much as you can. We all have environmental responsibility. We all must be responsible in regard to whatever we do well beyond the River Murray with regard to the environment and then achieve as much as we can as well. I cannot accept that there is going to be a 'one or the other' argument.

This broader Murray-Darling Basin debate is getting far too complicated as far as I am concerned. There is state versus state and threats of High Court challenges. Some people are coming to the table with 20 targets and others coming to the table with another 20 targets, so you can have a really good argy-bargy. Well, do you know what I believe? I think there is a very simple philosophy, which I know many of my colleagues here agree with, and the member for Mount Gambier touched on earlier today; that is, you start with a very simple principle: the river is healthy from the mouth up.

If we have salinity targets for the two Lower Lakes (and of course consider the Coorong as well) that would be a tremendous starting point. We then add on metering. Every single extractor anywhere in the Murray-Darling Basin must have off takes metered at the point of extraction. I reckon three-quarters of the targets that everybody is arguing about (this versus that) would be taken care of by addressing those two targets.

So, I say, Premier, on behalf of our state: please get on with the job. I urge you to concentrate on those two targets, and I urge you to get recognition for our state for the water efficiency achievements that we have made over the last 40 years.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:29): I rise very briefly to speak on behalf of my constituents, particularly the constituency of Mannum, which I think is one of the most lovely parts of my electorate. Mannum has been through pretty tough times, as we would all know. The exodus of so many dairy farmers along the River Murray swamps was really felt by the community, very much so. When you go there today and see that beautiful land now, in many cases wasteland and samphire flats, it is a disgrace. All the hyperbole and hype at the time were wasted because we need to protect this area, and it was so productive. The jobs that have gone, the productivity that has gone, have really affected that community.

Of course, with the drought, people found their pumps out of the water, high and dry, and I have some constituents whose pumps were a kilometre from the water. They were, for a while, digging extra trenches but eventually they gave in. After much discussion, the minister eventually put in a separate system from SA Water to connect these people, particularly along the Purnong road. There were probably 30 to 40 houses there that were totally stranded without water for months. We take this for granted, but these people did not have water in their homes and what they did have was dirty and filthy and you certainly could not drink it. It makes you wonder how reliant these people are in this area on the river.

We continually talk about the Narrows. I have been there with the member for Hammond and had a good look at this. I cannot understand it. It is not an engineering miracle to get down there and remove those bunds. I have a very good friend—in fact, she was in the house a week ago—who owns a brand-new barge built for this purpose, and it is sitting idle. You can put a large excavator on it and float it anywhere you like, and a couple of swipes with a 20-tonne excavator would get rid of most of the bunds. But: no, with the cost of hiring it, and everything else, they are just not interested. It has all been too quiet, and I cannot understand it.

A lot of this bund is below the water line and you could have a big excavator sitting on the barge, with another barge to cart it off. I am sure if you just freed it up the extra flow of water would carry it away, anyway, but nothing is being done. I cannot understand why the equipment stands idle and we have the bunds remaining in Lake Albert. How crazy is it: we have the river in flood and Lake Albert is a salty cesspit. I cannot understand this. Surely, there has to be a way to cause a flow through Lake Albert to return it to its natural estuarine environment.

We have heard mentioned today the Narrows in Lake Albert and also the Clayton bund. It is all still there and, really, I cannot see that it is a big deal. We are not talking millions here: we are talking thousands to remove this.

Mrs Redmond: They've got the money.

Mr VENNING: They have the money, so I don't know why they haven't done it. Also, we heard about Currency Creek, and I have heard that mentioned before as well. That is a bit of a sleeper, as the member for Hammond said. Because it is out of sight, people do not talk about it. As I said, this constituent has a new barge which is ready to start tomorrow if someone wished to speak to her. The person who owns the excavator would be happy to get it on board in a matter of an hour or so. It has its own power and it could go anywhere you like to do the work on the river.

Also, tourism in Mannum took a big hit during this period, particularly the houseboats. We saw the tourism industry all but dry up. Even though the houseboats still could operate, in a limited way, tourists just kept away in droves. We tried like mad to keep the publicity going and say to people they could still get on a houseboat and have access to the Murray, but they just assumed that the whole Murray, particularly below Blanchetown, Lock 1, had no water at all. It was not the case. They really did take a hit.

People who own the slipways certainly took a hit because the slipways, too, were high and dry and it became very difficult for them to be able to reach the boats to get them up onto the slipways, particularly for one good friend of mine, and that is Ron Greening who owns Greening Landing. He is a marvellous fellow. What a wonderful family they are. No-one knows the River Murray more than Ron Greening. In fact, he does the navigation and all the plotting for the Boating Industry Association of South Australia and the latest River Murray navigator, that beautiful book, is all Ron's work. He regularly surveys the river.

Ron found his marina almost inoperable, as did the Chapman family on Hindmarsh Island. I went down there one day and, with the member for Finniss's approval, we had a good look. I could not believe how it was affecting these people financially. It really put a glitch in the planning they had made over many years and they took a real backward slide. So, South Australia needs to make a stand, I believe, because so many good South Australians rely on the river for their livelihood and good quality of life.

What is the answer? We have heard so many people talk about this, but it comes back to the same basic line. South Australia needs to stand united for a better deal for our state. We should all be able to agree on that. We need to remind the other states of the efforts we made back in the late 1980s and 1990s—and I was here during that time—to get rid of the wasteful leaky drains and open channels. We spent millions, particularly on those schemes. There were two or three schemes and they soaked up millions of dollars under the Liberal government. We stopped the leakage and we now have all our irrigation systems in pipes—no evaporation. What thanks do we get for that?

I was here when we did that. We did it because it was the responsible thing to do, and what do we find now? We are going to be penalised because we are not wasting that water so we are going to lose that water anyway. What was the incentive in that? What is the reward in that? Absolutely crazy. This is a hopeless situation. It has become state versus state, and we knew this right back when prime minister John Howard made his first comments about this. He was dead right when he said, 'The only answer is to set up a fully independent River Murray authority. Forget where the state boundaries are, and here is $10 billion to start you away.'

That was the answer, there is no doubt about that, because we are never going to agree. You speak to the rice growers. I have a cousin who is a rice grower in Griffith who gives me chapter and verse about us down here. We have heard all the rhetoric about leaving it to the market, because we know that the grape growers could afford to pay more for the water, and so we were going to give it to the grape growers and take it away from the rice growers; yet look at what has happened now. We find that the grape growers cannot afford the water.

Schemes that rely on the river, particularly the BIL scheme, are all up for some review. We are certainly living in difficult times, and it is time that we all spoke with one voice and realised that the only solution to this is to have one common voice and to forget the state boundaries. I want to commend very much the deputy leader, Mitch Williams, who has had a difficult road with this, and also the member for Chaffey.

It has not been easy because, when you have a large length of river—and I am in the middle of this—we cannot all quite agree because our constituents have different demands. Can I say that, to the credit of my colleagues, we have come up with a consensus. It has not been easy, but the Liberal Party works best when its individual members are plugging for their constituency and coming up with a common resolution. I look forward to the next few days when we get this together because, again, I think the Liberal Party will deliver the goods.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:37): I rise to make a few points in relation to the motion. I really want to support everything that the leader said in her contribution, particularly initially focusing on really the strategy that I think is behind this motion. This is, as the leader said, Hawker Britton 101. I sat in this house in the period between 2002 and 2006 and listened to then premier Rann call on the opposition to join with the government in a bipartisan manner to support a whole range of things.

What do we see here? We see not a new Labor government, we see just the same old Labor government—mark 2, rebadged—rolling out the same old strategies that we have seen for the last 10 years. There is nothing new in this new premier; nothing new in this supposedly revitalised government. They are tired, they are lazy, they are out of ideas and the South Australian public are certainly starting to realise that in a big way.

I have some understanding of these issues relating to the Murray. I lived and worked in the Riverland for three or so years, and I lived and worked at Murray Bridge for about 18 months. Over a period of five or so years I lived and worked in those Riverland and Murrayland communities. I met and married a girl from the Riverland, and that marriage has endured 26 years tomorrow week.

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I knew that would bring some interesting comments. My wife still has family in the Riverland. Her father worked a fruit block, as did her uncles, and her brother is still involved in an industry related to primary production. So, my connection through that allows an understanding of how vitally important the Murray River is to that region, right through the Riverland, from the border, through the Murraylands and into the Lower Lakes.

We have heard speakers on this side of the house, particularly the deputy leader, the shadow minister for water, give a thorough outline of a fair percentage of the issues that are important to South Australia relating to the Murray River.

I want to focus on a couple of parts of the motion that the Premier has moved. It mentions the central role of that the River Murray plays in the lives of all South Australians, including primary producers, local businesses, holiday-makers and Aboriginal people. I worked in the Riverland for a major banking corporation here in Australia, and we made lending decisions on the ability of primary producers and associated industries to access water from the river. We had many primary producers, fruit blockers, businesses and you name it banking with us, and the manager of the bank leant money on the basis of those people's access to water out of the river. I am stating the obvious here, but access to satisfactory levels of water is absolutely vital to the wellbeing of those Riverland communities, as well as those of the Murraylands and Lower Lakes.

The Premier talks about holiday-makers. As I said, I worked and lived in the Riverland and married a girl from the Riverland. Some of her family is still living in the Riverland. We enjoy going back to the Riverland for our holidays. It was only in the latter half of last year that we hired a house in Renmark for a few days and enjoyed the attractions of the Riverland. I am not sure whether my wife necessarily is encouraging us to go back because while I was there I called in to the local motorbike dealership and bought a brand-new motorbike when I was up there.

Mr Pederick: You enhanced the economy.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I have put a fair dent in the cheque book, I can tell you, and helped the local economy. But that takes me to quite a serious point. In talking to the member for Chaffey, the region has not recovered from the effects of the drought. I got talking to the people who own and operate this motorcycle dealership—and they are into other areas like boating and so on—and the conversation went along the lines of the impacts of the drought and how the region is recovering. In talking to the member for Chaffey, the region still has a long way to go to get back to where it was prior to the drought.

In this place we need to be fully aware of the ongoing issues of that region as a consequence of the drought. I visited the region during that devastating period where I saw once magnificent, flourishing orange orchards that had been starved of water through decisions to cut back water allocations. They had died off and they were pushed up in massive heaps to burn off. It is going to take those producers a long time to recover and get back to where they were previously. It is important, I think, for the house to be aware of the ongoing issues as a consequence of the drought in the region.

The member for Hammond also spoke about the effects of the low river levels in the Murraylands around Murray Bridge and so on with the slumping of the banks and that vehicles disappeared into the river. I believe one of the worst decisions taken was promoted by the previous member for Hammond, who obviously bore the brunt of his decisions, in withdrawing the irrigation of those flats between Murray Bridge and Jervois, all that good dairying country.

I have family friends who live at Woods Point, which is a small community between Murray Bridge and Jervois. They were involved with the dairying industry and, from talking to them, the idea promoted by the previous member for Hammond in terms of withdrawing irrigation licences along those flats has had a serious impact on the dairying industry through there.

When I lived and worked at Murray Bridge there was a big milk factory in that region, and obviously the prosperity of the milk factory relied on the prosperity of the dairying industry. I understand that that is in serious decline as a consequence of the actions of the previous member for Hammond, and we certainly know what happened to him.

We want a state that promotes and enhances a food industry that flourishes, so we need this Murray-Darling plan to be worked through in a consistent, structured manner so that it delivers the water required for our food industry to prosper. I believe South Australia has had and continues to have outstanding opportunities to be the premier state in Australia in relation to food production, but people need security of water and a satisfactory level of water to achieve that.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17:47): I do not want to repeat arguments already put to the house by previous speakers, but I do want to make a few simple points on the Murray. My first point is that, as we know, this issue has been with us since Federation, and there has been no real resolution to the problem of how we share (to use the words of the Premier earlier) this resource.

The second point I want to make is that it was a great shame that in January 2007, when the Howard Liberal government announced a national plan for water security to save the Darling, that it did not receive the unanimous support of the state Labor governments. The Bracks government in particular played wrecker with that proposal, with, I must say, some support from the former premier (the former member for Ramsay), which did not help the cause of the Murray. We had an opportunity to get a real result, and we let it slip through our fingers and that was a great opportunity lost.

My third point has to do with the absolute sham of the July 2008 memorandum of understanding through COAG, announced here in Adelaide by the former premier (the former member for Ramsay), where we were told the problem had been solved because all our powers had been handed over to the commonwealth and they would now broker a solution. I happened to be leader of the opposition at that time, and I produced a paper on that very proposal that slammed the living daylights out of it. I said then that it was complete and utter nonsense and that we would still be here arguing it in 2011—and where are we? Here, arguing the point. I think that what we heard at that time from the Labor government, of which the current Premier was a part, was nothing more than spin.

Now, of course, we have the Murray-Darling Basin plan before us. I must say I look at the motion and I find myself agreeing with most of it, and I think the Premier has taken a very clever political stand. It is basically a stand which is all things to all people. We want 4,000 gigalitres for the environment; we want all of the environmental lobby to be happy and we will not accept a gigalitre less; and, by the way, we want all of our food producers and irrigators not to have to give up a single gigalitre. I think the Premier wants to keep all of the irrigators and food producers happy and, of course, he then wants to keep all of the environmentalists happy. It is an all things to all people position.

I find myself agreeing with him in many ways. We would all love that. I am sure there wouldn't be anyone on this side who wouldn't rather have the optimum of water for the environment and not have to give up a single thing. We would all love that but, ultimately, I think the question that the Premier will have to answer is—and I respect his goals here, and I think his goals are admirable—is South Australia prepared to torpedo any agreement at all and deliver nothing if it does not get those two things I mentioned a moment ago? Are we prepared to scuttle the entire agreement, because I know Premier Baillieu and other states upstream—and there are more of them than there are of us—are taking totally different standpoints.

I would urge the Premier to start looking at how we could reach a compromise here. The Premier has made much of the deal that was done between his government, the union and Business SA over shop trading hours. He has made much of the deal that has been done to save Holden's. I think what we need here now is a deal. We need an agreement. It may be that the goals the Premier has set can ultimately one day be achieved, but not today. It may have to be a staged process. We may have to accept something short of what we really want for the moment with a view to achieving our full goals and objectives at another point down the track.

That would mean, rather than holding this up in the courts and having the states fighting each other, and the states fighting the commonwealth, and everyone arguing as we have since 1901, an approach where some premiers got together and said, 'Look, let's agree to this part of what we want now, and let's put back on the table the rest of what we want for a further decision, three, four or five years from now, and allow time for irrigators and environmentalists, all along the river, to get their head around what we are achieving today so that we can achieve even more for both the river and for irrigators tomorrow.'

I think we need some pragmatic thinking about how we stage this, because while I think the Premier's goals are worthwhile, I do not think he is going to get everything he wants. The nature of these things, and he knows this being an industrial lawyer, is that at the end there needs to be give and take on all sides, and I think that is where we are going to need to finish up.

There are few more important decisions before this parliament, and we must get it right, but I also agree that the worst possible outcome would be no outcome at all, so I urge the Premier to adopt a very pragmatic approach in how we get to the objectives that he has set. I think we all agree with those objectives but we might not agree with the journey on how to get there. We might need to be more clever about how we set out upon it.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (17:54): I rise briefly to support this motion and to commend and congratulate the Premier and the water minister for the stance they have taken on this issue. The people of Mawson and the people of wider South Australia expect us to stand up and fight for South Australia's rights on this argument. We heard from people on the other side who mentioned that this is not about 'us versus them'—but it is 'us versus them' because it is our people, people like the McLaren Vale grape growers and winemakers who, for 40 years, have controlled how much water they use on their grapes, and have really restricted usage, and they have done that because it is the right thing to do by the environment, and they have done that for 40 years. It really hurts them to look at people in New South Wales and Victoria who are using a lot of water to grow grapes that are then causing a glut in the wine industry, when they are actually producing good quality wine in McLaren Vale.

The member for Schubert mentioned the restraint that the growers have shown in the Barossa as well. People have done the hard yards in South Australia under this cap for 40 years, and they have done it to do the right thing by the river and the local environment. It is time for us to say to the other states that we want our fair share.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill]


Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:55): I rise today to make a contribution to this debate, viewing it from afar as the member for Flinders, and, living as I do on the bottom end of Eyre Peninsula, I am probably as far removed geographically from the river as anyone in this state. As an electorate and as a peninsula, we have not been connected to the River Murray for a long, long time—most of the history of this state—apart from, of course, Madam Speaker, your own home town of Whyalla, where the Morgan to Whyalla pipeline was installed to service the growing town of Whyalla and the steelworks that were established there.

Apart from that, we have not had any connection to the River Murray until quite recently, in the last half a dozen years or so, when the Morgan to Whyalla pipeline was extended out to Iron Knob, where iron ore mining was taking place. In the last half a dozen years or so, that pipeline has been extended to Kimba, joining the reticulated scheme on Eyre Peninsula into the River Murray. All of a sudden, the Murray became of vital interest to those of us who lived on the Eyre Peninsula.

That pipeline was extended at a time of drought, and many people, including the former member for Flinders (Mrs Liz Penfold) queried that decision and whether it was a reasonable solution to Eyre Peninsula's water problems to join us to the River Murray which was, as I said, at that time undergoing quite severe drought, which became known as the millennium drought, a period of some 10 years or so of below-average rainfall. We have now become to committed to the River Murray, and the Murray supplies around 15 per cent of Eyre Peninsula's water. All of a sudden, the health of the river is of great interest to us.

Living a long way from the river as we did, it was with some surprise that I first visited the town of Renmark in the seat of Chaffey, way back in the 1970s as a schoolboy. Coming from dryland wheat country, I was absolutely overwhelmed by the orange orchards, particularly, and the other permanent plantings that the blockies had established there. The quality of the fruit that was produced in that little orchard I visited was quite extraordinary. Picking oranges off the tree and just peeling off that thick, beautiful skin and biting into a magnificent Riverland orange was a joy, a treat and a surprise to me.

I did not get the chance to visit the river again until I joined some friends and travelled on a houseboat.

Mr Whetstone: Hear, hear!

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, on the River Murray—once again, from Renmark.

Mr Whetstone: Good tourist.

Mr TRELOAR: Good tourist, yes, and I enjoyed my time in the seat of Chaffey. It was before I met the current member for Chaffey. We did enjoy our time, and once again I was fascinated by this magnificent stretch of water that winds its way and drains a significant percentage of south-eastern Australia, covering four states (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia).

One could not help but be impressed by the majesty of the river in those days and also the mighty river red gums, of course. I also spent a little bit of time at Murray Bridge and learned to waterski with some relatives there. Of course, the river is a bit different down at that bottom end and it is not so much the stately red gums but more the willows, which, as an introduced species, have taken hold, and I think they add something to the river in itself.

There have been some interesting points raised. The most important thing to come out of this is the need to find a plan that works for all states, but particularly for South Australia. It is not, as the member for Stuart highlighted, an environment versus industry debate. Both environment and industry can complement each other. Both have requirements from this river, and there are social requirements as well. The plan needs to achieve all those things. It is not an easy thing to do, but in fact all three can be complementary. They do not need to be at odds with each other.

We do support the motion that is before the house today. I am pleased to be speaker No. 10 for the opposition. I think it is significant that relatively few members on the government benches have spoken on this, despite the fact that each and every one of them is so reliant upon a healthy river system, and no doubt their constituents are also very reliant upon the River Murray and the health of that system for their wellbeing.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, that's right. As the member for MacKillop points out, as long as it comes out of a tap, everybody is happy, but as we all know it is not that simple. It has to come from a healthy, sustainable river system. Often irrigation practices are questioned, and I have seen in Victoria and New South Wales open channels and flood irrigation that we are all well aware of and familiar with.

A significant portion of the water extracted for irrigation, particularly in the southern part of the basin in the Eastern States, actually goes to irrigating pastures, and it surprised me that there are many pastures in northern Victoria in particular that are simply flood irrigated. I find it quite extraordinary that there are open channels and flood irrigation still occurring in the second decade now of the 21st century. The challenge I think will be for those Eastern States irrigators to modernise their practices and ensure that their practices are world's best, because Australia prides itself on being at the forefront of agricultural development and world's best practice. There are opportunities, no doubt, for irrigators to make improvements.

I understand from what my colleagues tell me that, here in South Australia, we have practices that really are at the forefront. We have made great leaps in the last four decades in the technology and the systems that we use to maintain our irrigation here in South Australia. We are more reliant, I think, on permanent plantings here than probably the other states are. They tend towards annual crops, such as rice and cotton and irrigated pasture.

There has been much criticism of rice and cotton as irrigation crops. I guess they could argue that it is an opportunity crop, whereas here in South Australia we really do need to secure that water for permanent plantings because the orchards and the vineyards are essentially what South Australian irrigation and Riverland irrigation are all about.

I urge the government to consider all that has been said in the house today and all the submissions that have been made and to take them seriously and come up with a plan that effectively manages the river to a point that has not been done in the past. We have an opportunity now to get it right for the coming decades. I think the challenges will be greater in the future than they have been in the past. It is not about managing the river so much as coping with the river.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (18:04): Can I thank all honourable members for their contributions and for the acknowledgement of those opposite that they support the motion, although I must say it was a novel way in which they chose to support the motion, committing their party to supporting the resolution which says that 2,750 gigalitres is not enough and then spending most of their contributions saying that 2,750 gigalitres is good enough. So, that is perplexing but, nevertheless, we will take the support where we can get it.

Can I say there are some things that probably need to be corrected about the record. The honourable member just made, I think, a reflection that not many of those on this side of the house spoke. We have one voice on this matter and it is reflected by the position that I have consistently given. I think it is appropriate that those opposite be given time to explain their position which has been one where they have publicly questioned and prevaricated in relation to their attitude to the Murray-Darling Basin plan.

Indeed, a number of our members have made contributions through the Natural Resources Committee of parliament, through the very able report prepared by the member for Ashford, the member for Torrens and Mr Gerry Kandelaars, the member in the other place. Of course, a number of members have made contributions in that debate and even on other occasions in support of the River Murray and in support of the plan, so I do not think that is a fair summary of the extent of the support, in relation to which we are truly united on this side of the house.

I do need to correct a very egregious error though. It was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Goyder Institute and, in particular, Dr Minns, told him that 2,750 gigalitres equals 3,500 gigalitres in terms of the translation. We have actually been advised by the Goyder Institute and Dr Minns that the communication was that 2,750 would equate to about 3,250 in relation to the present plan. So, the reflection on the members of the Natural Resources Committee, who made some positive remarks about the importance of that number, of course, do not then flow.

Can I also respond to the remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition about my position—and it was repeated by the member for Waite—about the allegation that I had promoted a number of 4,000 gigalitres and that was 'not a drop less'. It has never been what I have said and I have consistently said the same thing. It has always been made clear that we will be guided by the science.

I made it clear that the best available science was the Goyder report which had indicated 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres was required, but we also made it clear that we would undertake further analysis of the science underpinning the draft plan and we would be guided by that science. That is why we released the latest Goyder report as soon as it has been available to us. In relation to the answer to the question that the Leader of the Opposition referred to, which is contained in Hansard on 1 December, my answer to her question about 4,000 gigalitres was:

What I have suggested is that our response to the basin-wide plan will be predicated on the best science that we have available, and the best science we have available at the moment is the Goyder Institute report which says that between 3,500 and 4,000 gigalitres of water will be necessary to return the river to life.

So, we are now going back to the Goyder Institute and relying upon their further, more refined science.

One thing I do agree with the member for Waite about—and at least his contribution had some semblance of a chain of reasoning to it—is that this is an incredibly important issue and it should be approached with some gravity, rather than as an opportunity to create a travelogue about the River Murray or, indeed, misrepresent the government's position or make some spurious points which do not bear on the central questions at stake here, which are contained in the resolution.

Remember what we have done here. As soon as we had the report, we commissioned the Goyder Institute to carry out some analysis of it. We established the Premier's Basin Plan, we established a legal task force, we published the Goyder Institute's work as soon as we had it. It was released on the very day that parliament considered it and it was made a final report. We got the provisional report on the Friday, the final report on the Monday and we released it to the public on the Monday.

We are debating now the principles which will guide the government's response. This is a completely open and accountable process designed to inform public debate on an issue of extraordinary public importance, yet our approach is being demeaned and somehow minimised as not being genuine.

I am grateful that the house has chosen to support these principles. Can I reflect back to a time when the house, under the leadership of the Hon. Rob Kerrin, back on 25 February 2003, came together in relation to the Adelaide Declaration. All members of parliament—a number of them here who are present members of parliament—came together and made a declaration in not dissimilar terms to the one that we are making today.

On that occasion there was a sense of unity of purpose, which would serve us well in the current debate. I certainly will be taking forward the interests of this state in the submissions we make to the authority and in the representations that we make to the federal government about the future of this mighty river.

Motion carried.

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