HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Adjournment Debate

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:44): I would like to make a small contribution. I am quite concerned about an article I read this morning in The Advertiser, with the Premier saying that he has told the Prime Minister that she is going to face the 'wrath of South Australians' unless she backs changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Premier has now, for some weeks, had a taxpayer funded campaign going, representing some 13,000 members of South Australia, and that is going to be the 'wrath' of what South Australia is going to send over by way of message to the Prime Minister.

There are 20,000 people in my electorate who are dependent and reliant on and need the water security here in South Australia, not 13,000. He represents 1.6 million people in South Australia; of that 1.6 million, about 1.5 million rely on the River Murray. While we have the Premier out there banging away on the Save the River Murray campaign, he is not addressing the issue. He is not over in Canberra with Tony Burke. He is not over there with Craig Knowles, the Chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority campaigning for what South Australia needs.

It is of real concern to me and my constituents that he continues to have a taxpayer funded 'save the Jay Weatherill' campaign. I am extremely disappointed that we now have six points that the Premier wants the Prime Minister to look at. It is outrageous that we have had this plan on the table for nearly two years and now he has six points of interest that he refuses to deal with. He refuses to go to Canberra and put on the table not only with the water minister, not only with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and not with the Prime Minister. First of all he is saying, 'We need to return enough water to meet key environmental outcomes.'

Today we have the river being manipulated around the Chowilla regulator that is being constructed. We are not using our environmental water for the environmental outcome we desire, that he is banging the drum about so much. He tells us, 'We need to keep the Murray Mouth open.' While we manage the river so that we can build the Chowilla regulator, it is not using that environmental water to its best advantage. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder today owns over 1,200 gigalitres. We have designated areas that are going to benefit from that 1,200 gigalitres and yet we are manipulating the river here in South Australia so that we can continue to build a regulator—outrageous.

We talk about securing salinity and water level targets to protect the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. He continues to ignore the solutions in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. We look at construction of a pipeline from Lake Albert into the Coorong. It would address the salinity in Lake Albert and it would address the flow into the Coorong. He continues to ignore the solution-based approach. We look at providing flows to restore the flood plain that I have already mentioned such as Chowilla. We are letting that water go past our gate and trickle out to sea. We are not using it to our best advantage.

Again, he is focused on a campaign, he is not focused on the outcomes for the River Murray. He is not focused on any more water security for South Australians, for the communities, for the irrigators, for the nearly 1.5 million South Australians who rely on the River Murray for their water supply in one way, shape or another. We talk about investing in strengthening regional communities. There is a $240 million Water Industry Alliance campaign that the Premier should be over in Canberra lobbying our federal water minister on. He should be lobbying the Prime Minister for a fund structure that will strengthen our regional economies and diversify the regional economies that rely on the river because in a minute, when the Premier says that we did not get what we want, he is putting South Australia at risk of not getting a plan.

Again, we need to be recognising South Australia's 40-year cap on the River Murray. We are recognising South Australia's cap on those 40 years of efficiency gains, and yet he is not over there putting an argument to the Prime Minister. I am not going to be here banging the drum for a Victorian premier, but he has solution-based approach. He has gone there and put solutions on the table to Craig Knowles, to Tony Burke, and yet we have a Premier over here telling everybody that he is going to save the river with a $2 million campaign. It is outrageous that he is not being proactive. He is not solution based, he is not looking at what we can actually do to address the infrastructure gains and how we can best manage buybacks to the commonwealth government.

There is $400 million sitting on the table to address the Menindie Lakes north of Broken Hill. He has not addressed that once. That is $400 million that would address a 174-gigalitre saving in the Menindie Lakes; five gigalitres evaporates out of that lake every day of the year and yet we are looking past that because we want him to spend $2 million on a campaign that represents 13,000 South Australians, not the 1.5 million South Australians who rely on this water reform.

We need to look at food production. We hear the Premier banging on about safe green food, produce and wine. They rely on security out of that River Murray. The majority of the communities along the river rely on it. We look at the Clare Valley and the Barossa Valley. They rely on River Murray water as well. We look at Eyre Peninsula. We have heard the member for Flinders talking about the Natural Resources Committee's finding on water shortages and water issues over there. Again, we are relying on the River Murray, and we have a Premier out there focusing on a campaign that is not addressing the solution-based approach. He is resting his laurels on untested science.

He came up to my electorate when he was first elected as Premier and he put three statements in place: 4,000 gigalitres, no water from the irrigators here in South Australia, and a High Court challenge. He has now put the science on the table. He is now looking at a 3,200 scenario, and he is now looking perhaps at a High Court challenge. I challenge the Premier to get out there and be proactive for South Australia. Be proactive for the River Murray and stop having a $2 million Jay Weatherill campaign.

Again, we look at salt loads. We hear this figure of two million tonnes of salt that has to be exited out of the mouth every year. Where does that figure come from? Again, it is a populist figure, not tested by science. We look at the salt interception schemes that are addressing salinity. Salt interception schemes take out 250,000 tonnes of salt a year, and yet we are talking about two million tonnes of salt that has no basis behind it.

Again, I am frustrated having an electorate that is totally reliant on the River Murray. I have constituents whose businesses revolve around it directly; others have businesses that revolve around it indirectly. There are many businesses that rely on water supply that will not get one drop by this campaign; not one drop. The High Court challenge will not put one drop of water back into the river. It will not give us any more certainty; it will not give us any more assurance of what we are going to prop up our businesses with.

The Premier and his minister need to be over there with a solution-based approach. It is something that they have failed to recognise, failed to acknowledge and failed to address. I have met with the chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and he continually tells me that he wants solutions put on his table. He does not want political rhetoric. He does not want fighting campaigns. That is not addressing the issue. Again, it is frustrating that this Premier continues to have his photo with the Prime Minister in the paper, he has the populist campaigns, he is painting trucks, he is launching boats. It does not put a drop of water back into the river. It does not give anyone who relies on the River Murray any more assurance that they will have any more water security for their livelihoods, for their businesses, for the future of this state.

We look at our desal plant. It has been wound back to almost a standstill because we have good flows in the river. Again we have 45,000 megalitres coming down the river. What are we doing with the 45,000 megalitres? What are we doing to address the environmental outcome we need with that water flow? In 2010, 123,000 gigalitres came into South Australia. We still have salinity issues in Lake Albert. We still have overtopping at the barrages. We still have highly saline water in the Coorong. We are not addressing any of these issues. I would like to think that I, the member for Chaffey, am a solution-based MP. Being in opposition is frustrating as hell; it is not giving me the opportunity for the Premier to listen and do something proactive about addressing reform to the river.

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