House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-30 Daily Xml

Contents

Question Time

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): My question is to the Premier. Is the reason the government failed to receive modelling undertaken by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority because the government never asked for it? In relation to the amount of water returned to the river for environmental use, the Premier told the media yesterday:

We need access to the authority's own modelling to determine what the precise number is. Politely making representations doesn't seem to be making any difference to the authority.

However, the Premier's office said that no request had been made for the modelling.

The SPEAKER: Do you choose to answer that question, Premier?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (14:04): Yes, with gratitude, actually, Madam Speaker. This is the difficulty you get into when your research strategy involves reading the paper and then coming up here and telling people what it means.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, you are about—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —to be embarrassed.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Madam Speaker, on 16 April we in fact lodged on the public record a 163-page submission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. One of the central recommendations that we made to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was, in fact, to undertake that very modelling that has not been undertaken—that very modelling.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Recommendation 5 calls for the urgent modelling of extra water returns, including 3,200 gigalitres—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition asked the question; she will listen in quiet.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: To assist those opposite to understand the way in which this works, the actual process which is undertaken and which assisted us to undertake the modelling at 2,750 gigalitres requires the cooperation of the authority. What we could not persuade it to do was to model the higher numbers, so we requested explicitly in a document that was posted on the website—hidden in full view on the website of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on 16 April. The request for the modelling was repeated in a letter to Tony Burke on 16 May.

Under the Water Act—and this has been our consistent point—the authority is obliged to undertake its deliberations based on the best scientific knowledge. What we have consistently had was a number plucked out of the air. There is absolutely no person who can tell you—or prepared to tell you with their hand on their heart, at least—where that number of 2,750 gigalitres has come from. It has not emerged out of—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This is precisely what we have done. We have sought to find what the basis is for that number of 2,750 gigalitres. It is not a scientific basis. It sounds like the sort of number that someone has plucked out of the air because it is the sort of number—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —that the irrigators upstream are prepared to cop, and it is not what we are prepared to cop here in South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Now, look, this is a pretty simple matter, Madam Speaker. It is a question of whether you are prepared to stand up and fight for South Australia or whether you are prepared to capitulate to the interests of the upstream states. That is the choice that is faced by those opposite—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —and they are going to fail that test.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chaffey will be quiet or he will leave the chamber. Order! The member for Little Para.