HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-07-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (14:07): Considering all the interjections and noise, I am just wondering whether I can ask the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation whether he would update the house in preparation for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:08): I would be very delighted to. It is nice to get a question from the member for Ashford that is—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: —no—that is a bit more logical than the question that was asked by the opposition. On Monday 9 July the South Australian government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —submitted, as I mentioned, a formal response to the federal water minister, Tony Burke, which in turn formed part of the formal response by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's latest version of the basin plan. Consistent with our previous submissions on the draft basin plan, and consistent with the position stated publicly, including in this house by both the Premier and I on this issue on numerous occasions, the response reinforced independent scientific analysis by the Goyder Institute provided to the government on 2 April this year. That confirmed that the 2,750 gigalitres that the plan proposes to return to the river will not be enough to return the basin to an acceptable level of sustainable health.

Also consistent with the advice from the Goyder Institute, we have not nominated a specific number in terms of a water recovery target but have reiterated our request that the authority model higher water recovery scenarios of 3,200, 3,500 and 4,000 gigalitres with so-called system constraints relaxed, or indeed removed.

We cautiously welcome the fact that the ministerial council has now requested that the authority model a 3,200 gigalitre water recovery scenario with key constraints removed as a step forward. However, our response makes it perfectly clear that, before we can accept a water recovery target, it must be demonstrated, based on science, that it can deliver the environmental outcomes necessary to return the basin to health and is consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: If the member for MacKillop continues to interject, I am happy to read into Hansard some of the comments he has made on this issue. We also—

Ms Chapman: You've only got four minutes.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, well, that's right.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: We also reiterate that any final plan must recognise South Australia's past responsible behaviour in capping our take from the river some 40 years ago and the fact that our irrigators have been early adopters and investors in highly efficient irrigation practices. Unfortunately, those opposite continue to undermine South Australia's position by calling on us to accept what we already know—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order!

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, the member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister is now debating the answer and I think that is out of order.

The SPEAKER: The minister has been responding to numerous interjections, but he will return to the substance of the question.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Madam Speaker—what we already know is an inadequate water recovery target because they do not want to offend their upstream colleagues. On 12 February, The Advertiser quotes the deputy leader, when referring to the draft plan, saying:

This is obviously not a Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we're quite happy to drive in a Mazda.

Well, we are not. On 28 November on ABC radio, the deputy leader—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! We do not need three points of order. The minister is returning to the substance of the question.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, the reason we have a standing order that ministers should not debate answers is that when they make statements which are debate and are inflammatory, the people opposite do not have an opportunity to respond. If the minister wants to debate this, I will debate him because—

The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop—

Mr WILLIAMS: —he has just supposedly quoted something—

The SPEAKER: —you will sit down now.

Mr WILLIAMS: —I said which I didn't say.

The SPEAKER: This is not a point of order; you have turned that into a debate also.

Mr Williams: Just because you read it in The Advertiser it doesn't mean I said it, Paul.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport, order, or you will leave. Minister, can you wind up your answer? You haven't got much time.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I certainly can, Madam Speaker. Of course, it was subsequently said again by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order!

The SPEAKER: Point of order, the member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: The question was quite explicit to the minister. He is talking absolute nonsense and debating the matter.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, sit down. When the minister is quoting from extracts, it is not debating, it is quoting. Minister, can you wind up your answer?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Speaker, I intend to wind up but, again, what was said was that we need a government in South Australia—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —that actually fights for South Australians. Well, we are. This side of the house remains resolute in its desire and intent to use all resources available to us—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Would it be inappropriate now to quote the member for Chaffey, Madam Speaker? I assume it would be so I won't, but I'm quite happy to do that. It is our desire and our intent to use all resources available to us in achieving the goal of a healthy Murray River and I once again ask those opposite to join with us and the majority of South Australians to get behind our campaign to fight for the Murray rather than simply run up the white flag and kowtow to the rice and cotton growers upstream. What we want is a healthy River Murray system, and that is what South Australia is hell-bent on achieving.

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