HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-02-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (11:12): I move:

That this house—

1. Notes the following reports:

(a) the Productivity Commission inquiry report dated 19 December 2018, 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment'; and

(b) the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report.

2. Supports the Premier's request to the Prime Minister for a meeting of COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider these reports and a response to their findings and recommendations.

3. Endorses the South Australian government's position that the commonwealth, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia must continue to work together in a genuinely bipartisan way to implement the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full.

Today, I am asking this parliament to demonstrate that South Australia is capable of participating, in a politically mature way, in the major affairs of our nation—that we want to contribute constructively and practically to the resolution of issues of great and wide public importance. That is the purpose of the motion I have just moved.

It calls on the commonwealth and the basin states to continue to work together to implement the basin plan the former South Australian Labor government was party to negotiating: the plan the former government hailed as a great victory for South Australia, the plan strongly criticised by the royal commission called by the former government. Despite that criticism, my government stands behind the plan negotiated by its predecessor.

Accordingly, there can be no justification for the opposition in this house to do anything but fully support this motion. To fail to do so would be an act of extreme political cynicism, wilfully blind to the state and national interest—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —for what is at stake is the health of our nation's most important river system, the Murray-Darling Basin. South Australians understand how critical the Murray-Darling Basin is to our state and to our nation. I believe they understand, as well, that it is a system that cannot be managed in five discrete parts and that it is a vital natural resource, shared between five state and territory jurisdictions and the commonwealth, that requires regulation by law enacted by the federal parliament.

These regulatory arrangements resulted in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan being finalised in 2012 with the bipartisan support of the major parties. The plan ended more than 125 years of argument, squabbling and bickering over basin water reform. The three years it took to negotiate the plan exhausted river communities because water is their life. It energised political rivalries, but ultimately agreement was forged. I put this proposition to the house today: do we want to turn back the clock to the bad old days when this great river system was managed in five parts by greedy governments, blind to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —national interests, when the basin declined through rampant expansion of irrigation water upstream, or will we accept that full and effective implementation of the existing basin plan is the very best way to secure the ultimate delivery of a healthy, thriving system—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Could the Premier be seated for one moment, please. I have allowed a fair bit of latitude for both sides for this debate. We are 15 minutes in. In order to protect the decorum of the house, I will be calling members to order if these interjections continue. Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I will go back to the critical point. Do we want to turn back the clock to the bad old days when this great river system was managed in five discrete parts by greedy governments, blind to national interests, when the basin declined through rampant expansion of irrigation water upstream, or will we accept that full and effective implementation of the existing basin plan is the very best way to secure the ultimate delivery of a healthy, thriving system for the benefit of the environment, communities and industries across the basin? The choice is a stark one. It puts great responsibility on us as legislators to make the right choice, for the decisions that we make in this parliament will affect not only those we serve but many other people, communities and businesses beyond our jurisdiction.

The Murray-Darling Basin covers more than one million square kilometres of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Within the basin are four major rivers and many other rivers and tributaries. The basin drains one-seventh of the Australian continent. It provides habitat to hundreds of species of birdlife, fish, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. It is home to 16 separate Ramsar-listed wetlands.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mawson is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It sustains agriculture, horticulture and viticulture industries of world significance for the food and wine that it produces. The basin is a major lifestyle and tourism destination. It is a huge economic artery, giving life to thousands of businesses that depend on irrigation. It supports tens of thousands of jobs in high-value industries. The basin contains 40 per cent of all Australian farms and 65 per cent of our farms that depend on irrigation. More than two million people call the basin home and rely on its valuable water supply and produce.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is also called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: These are people who thought that their communities and businesses had been delivered certainty by the Murray-Darling plan. We must not let them down, even if the challenge to balance apparently strongly competing interests remains a daunting one. This motion underlines the need to continue bipartisanship to meet the challenges ahead. My government indicated its determination to do things this way during our very first week in office.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader will cease interjecting.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: My government indicated its determination to do things this way during our first week in office. The Minister for Environment and Water is being mistakenly maligned by members opposite. I will say more about that later, but in his first week in the job the minister travelled to Canberra. There, he met federal ministers Littleproud and Ruston.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is called to order. Members on my left, you will have your go.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But he also sought out federal shadow environment minister, Tony Burke, the minister responsible for finalising the basin plan on behalf of the commonwealth back in 2012, because my minister wanted to demonstrate that South Australia was back at the table in a bipartisan way to help deliver the basin for our nation. That is how—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —my government is determined to continue. As this motion highlights, we want to work with the commonwealth and other basin jurisdictions because we believe that is the best way—the only way—to get every drop of the 3,200 gigalitres of—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —water this plan is meant to deliver for our environment.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You had a royal commission finding against him.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is warned for a second and final time. It would give me great pain to have to remove him so early in the day. The Premier has the call.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right, please!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: However, if required, we would never hesitate to fight for what is right for our state, for what South Australia deserves because of the contribution that we have made over many years already to restore our basin to health.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier will be seated for one moment. The member for Playford, you can leave for half an hour under 137A for leading that outburst.

The honourable member for Playford having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let us not forget that this year—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —marks the 50th anniversary of capping water use from the Murray in South Australia. South Australia led the way in seeking to end overallocation of water and in continuous improvement in irrigation practices. We have the most—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —efficient irrigators in the basin.

Ms Cook: Make the others get efficient.

The SPEAKER: The member for Hurtle Vale is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As the state at the end of the system, we have the most to lose from failure. Enough water will not flow through to South Australia for the environment if we make unnecessary enemies of those upriver who are able to divert it. That is why we must continue—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: He's your boat anchor; when are you cutting him loose?

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is called to order. He has been doing it all day.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is why we must continue to demonstrate leadership in how the basin is managed. My motion refers to two recent reports. Let me first discuss the Australian Productivity Commission's review of the implementation of the basin plan over the past five years. The baseline of the plan, when agreed in 2012, required the return of 2,750 gigalitres of water from consumptive use to the river system by 2019 to ensure that water in the basin is shared between all users, including the environment, in a sustainable way.

There was a further program to recover an additional 450 gigalitres by 2024 to bring the total to 3,200 gigalitres. I will come back to that additional water amount later. The Australian Productivity Commission has reported that significant progress has been made so far in implementing the basin plan. In fact, about 20 per cent of the water that was available for consumptive users a decade ago is now dedicated back to environmental flows. About $6.7 billion has been spent to recover approximately 2,000 gigalitres, delivering benefits to the environment already.

Water recovery is within 5 per cent of the July 2019 target. The Australian Productivity Commission has further advised that arrangements for managing environmental water are working well, with evidence of improved ecological outcomes at the local and system-scale level. At the same time, the commission has identified challenges going forward in continuing to deliver the plan. Accordingly, it is proposed that basin governments, rather than the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, should take responsibility for leading implementation of the remainder of the plan, and South Australia agrees.

In all, the Productivity Commission's report released late last month covers 418 pages. It makes 29 findings on progress to date and 37 recommendations on actions required to ensure effective achievement of basin plan outcomes. The findings and recommendations deserve careful and considered analysis by all parties to the basin plan. I look forward to being able to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Productivity Commission with the other basin states at the meeting of COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers that I have asked the Prime Minister to convene.

I now turn to the royal commission report. It is a report of 746 pages with 111 findings and 44 separate recommendations.

Mr Malinauskas: And one minister.

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It focuses on events, actions and decisions which, with one notable exception, occurred when the Liberal Party was not in office in South Australia. Very few of the recommendations are within South Australia's remit to pursue alone. They are targeted at basin governments, either collectively or individually, as well as at the commonwealth, the basin authority and other bodies such as the commonwealth Auditor-General. In South Australia, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet is leading development of a full government response to this and the Productivity Commission's report in conjunction with the Department for Environment and Water and the Attorney-General's Department. The response will be made public when it is completed.

I note that the royal commission found that the federal Water Act upon which the basin plan is founded is constitutionally valid. This was the legislation introduced by the Howard government back in 2007. However, the royal commission has cast doubt on the validity of aspects of the basin plan while revealing that there are conflicting legal views about this position. It should be noted that the federal Coalition and Labor governments have both stated that they have received separate legal advice that the plan is lawful and was lawfully made.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is incredible that they are laughing because it was negotiated—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: To educate those opposite, it was actually negotiated between a federal Labor government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe and the member for Hammond are called to order.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: You have short memories.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Maybe they did need to prepare for this debate, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As we all know, the decline in the condition of the basin's water-dependent ecosystems has occurred over many decades. Redressing this decline is a long-term process. While we are seeing some improvements in the basin's environment already, this will take some time to take full effect. I have referred to the Productivity Commission's advice about evidence of improvement in the health and resilience of the ecosystems and ecological functions of the basin, but remaining water recovery and environmental equivalents are required to deliver the full intended benefits envisaged in the basin plan. A full review, after 2024, is therefore the appropriate time to critically assess this while, in the meantime, work continues—

Mr Malinauskas: So why change the plan?

The SPEAKER: The leader is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to implement the current basin plan in full.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has been warned and will have his chance, and the Deputy Premier will cease interjecting and she is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Who even came up with this strategy?

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are going through the implementation process laid down in the basin plan. Any major legislative or policy changes at this stage would have a potential to impede implementation and undermine achievements of real enhanced environmental outcomes. Findings that question the policy or legal basis of the basin plan create more uncertainty and potentially open up the plan to legal challenges and major delays in implementation. This is the last thing that our river communities want, after what they have been put through in the original development of this plan. It would be counterproductive for South Australia as the downstream state that has the greatest need for increased environmental flows delivered under the basin plan.

The South Australian government's position to the royal commission reasserted that the basin plan and the sustainable diversion limits enshrined within are valid and allow a reasonable transition to full implementation of the plan which will deliver equivalent environmental outcomes to water recovery of 3,200 gigalitres per year.

In reaction to the royal commission report, I note that no other jurisdiction is proposing a major renegotiation of the current plan. That is the position of the commonwealth, while the Victorian Labor government—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: They got what they wanted.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is warned for a second and final time.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, you are on your last reminder.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That is the position of the commonwealth, while the Victorian Labor government has also said that it does not support effectively starting again and that it has no doubt that the plan is legal. Honourable members will recall that when the former South Australian government foreshadowed this inquiry, its entire focus was actually on compliance issues. We were told by the former premier:

We cannot sit back and allow the Liberal Party and National Party to turn a blind eye to the evidence of this water theft and corruption…

I am not aware of any evidence having been produced that could justify such assertions effectively of government connivance—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens can leave for half an hour under 137A.

The honourable member for West Torrens having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Perhaps the former government knew this, because subsequently the terms of reference for the inquiry were broad-ranging, rather than narrowly focused on alleged water theft. They amounted to a fundamental review of the basin plan and its legislative underpinnings. I note the royal commission's subsequent relatively brief consideration of enforcement and compliance issues concluded that existing powers under the Water Act are adequate, while there is need for more effective monitoring and metering. This is consistent with the conclusions of a number of other reviews of compliance and enforcement.

I finally turn to the 450 gigalitres of water provided for in the basin plan, in addition to the baseline of 2,750 gigalitres. This is of significance to South Australia because its benefits are needed to ensure the return of the lower river and the Coorong—a South Australian icon. In addressing this issue, let me make quite clear at the outset that South Australia is entitled to this water, even if it has not been guaranteed, but because it has never been guaranteed we have to continue to negotiate with other parties to the basin plan. To do so is not to capitulate—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Negotiate or surrender?

The SPEAKER: The member for Light is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to the other parties; it is to do what is inevitably required in the absence of any guarantee. Both the former—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. A. Piccolo: The only guarantee is that you are going to surrender and capitulate. That's not a guarantee.

The SPEAKER: Member for Light!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Both the former South Australian premier and his water minister made public statements at the time to the effect that this water had been 'locked in' by the commonwealth legislation on the insistence of the South Australian government—that is what they said. That is what they told the people of South Australia, so let's just take a look at what it actually says in the royal commission report. The royal commission had a very, very different view from what those opposite have been putting forward for a long period of time. Let me—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier, please be seated for one moment. The member for Lee can also leave for half an hour under 137A.

The honourable member for Lee having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Let me quote from exchanges between the royal commissioner and senior counsel assisting, Mr R. Beasley SC, on the opening day of the inquiry on 18 June 2018. Mr Beasley:

…450 gigalitres itself is reflected only in a note to the Basin Plan.

Mr Walker:

That note, even if it's part of the statute, it doesn't seem to impose any obligation.

Mr Beasley:

No, it's not mandatory…as you have seen through the travel through the Basin, at least as far as the information provided to you, there is no appetite for these programs at all.

Mr Walker:

It depends where you are in the river system.

Mr Beasley:

Well, there is none in Victoria. I didn't hear any in New South Wales.

Two weeks later, the commission—

Mr Odenwalder: What was the page, Jayne? 414?

The SPEAKER: The member for Elizabeth is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Two weeks later, the commission returned to this issue in public hearings on 4 September when senior counsel assisting said, in relation to securing the additional water for the environment, that a new strategy is required. This is the situation that my government inherited from those opposite: a need for action to unlock the unwillingness of the upriver states to put forward efficiency measure projects on farm and off farm that will contribute to the recovery of the additional 450 gigalitres.

These measures are intended to provide enhanced environmental outcomes in the southern basin, including watering larger areas of flood plains, higher stream flows and meeting specific objectives for the Coorong, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth. These are vital outcomes for our state, but they require the cooperation of the upstream states to provide most of the additional water, because its delivery is absolutely not mandated in the plan.

As the royal commission identified at its commencement of public hearings, New South Wales and Victoria were not putting forward projects. When the commonwealth launched the efficiency infrastructure—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader will cease interjecting.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: When the commonwealth launched the efficiency infrastructure program in the middle of 2018, New South Wales and Victoria refused to participate in the on-farm component unless socio-economic criteria were broadened to protect their regional communities. Late last year, the commonwealth consulted regional communities. This consultation confirmed serious concerns about the cumulative socio-economic impacts of individual on-farm efficiency measures. As a result, the commonwealth drafted a new set of socio-economic criteria for consideration of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council at its meeting last December.

The council reached agreement to broaden the consideration of community impacts. This led to New South Wales and Victoria accepting both on and off-farm efficiency measures. Contrary to what is being said, this is actually a big win for South Australia because without it there was no way, simply no way, that the additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water regarded as vital to restoring the health of the lower river and the Coorong would ever be delivered to South Australia. As a result of the agreement, the upriver states are bringing forward efficiency measures that will release additional water for the environment for South Australia.

As part of this agreement, my Minister for Environment and Water also secured other benefits, including funding of $70 million for initiatives to improve the health of the Coorong—congratulations—agreement by the commonwealth to invest in specific initiatives in each jurisdiction to help accelerate return of the 450 gigalitres and also an agreement to proceed with addressing constraints to greater environmental water flows, an issue the royal commission identified as being of key importance to the successful delivery of the entire basin plan.

Mr Malinauskas: Fish need water, not money.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The Minister for Environment and Water made a full public announcement about this decision at the time it was made at the ministerial council. There was no attempt to hide it whatsoever, and there was actually also no criticism at the time from those opposite.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is called to order.

Mr Malinauskas: That is completely untrue—completely untrue.

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Do you want to move a substantive motion that I have misled the house?

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier has the call. Leader of the Opposition, if this continues someone else will be lead speaker on your side the way this is going. The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There was no criticism, sir, from those opposite. There was also no attempt by the royal commission to contact the minister to seek information about the reasons for reaching this agreement with the other basin states. My government has fully cooperated with the work of the royal commission. It provided a substantial—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, this is now a farce. You are on your last warning. If this continues, you will be leaving the chamber.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you, sir. My government has fully cooperated with the work of the royal commission.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We provided substantial input to the inquiry. This included a formal submission, with a minister providing—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: You protected your federal colleagues from scrutiny. That's what you did.

The SPEAKER: The member for Light is warned.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Well, he did. They did. They protected their federal colleagues from scrutiny.

The SPEAKER: The member for Light can leave for half an hour under 137A immediately. The members on my left will have their chance to speak. Premier, please continue.

The honourable member for Light having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, sir. We provided substantial input into the inquiry. This included a formal submission, with the minister providing further information requested by the royal commissioner. Officers from the Department for Environment and Water gave evidence at the public hearings, and they also provided further information requested by the commission. The royal commission report refers, at page 219, to:

…detailed and engaged submissions from the South Australian…Department for Environment and Water…both in writing and in person during the public hearings…

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Elizabeth is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I also note that senior counsel assisting the commission said in open hearings:

…any person or entity that may be the subject of criticisms or adverse findings [would be provided with] procedural fairness in spades.

Even though my minister has not been subject to a specific finding by the commission, he has been subject to criticism, completely—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —unjustified criticism—

Mr Hughes interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Giles is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and has not received procedural fairness.

Ms Stinson: He's not accused of anything but you think it's unfair.

The SPEAKER: Member for Badcoe, please, I would like to hear the Premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is warned. The Minister for Primary Industries is also warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I was saying, even though my minister has not been the subject of any specific finding of the commission, he has been subject to criticism—completely unjustified criticism—and he has not received in any way, shape or form procedural fairness. Between the time the ministerial council decision was announced by the minister and the completion—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and application of the royal commission report, there was no attempt by the commission to accord the minister procedural fairness by contacting him and seeking his reasons for the decision. The commission report states that when the minister did—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left, please! You will have your go.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The commission report states that what the minister did, and I quote:

…is almost certainly a breach of at least cl 2.5 of the South Australian Ministerial Code of Conduct...

With due respect to the royal commission, that is a ludicrous and nonsensical comment. That particular clause—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That particular clause—

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —requires a minister—

Mr Hughes interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Giles is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to give:

…due consideration to the merits of the matter at hand and the impact the decision is likely to have on the rights and interests of the people involved and the citizens of South Australia.

That is what it says, and that is exactly what our minister did. The manner in which this issue has been dealt with—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left and right, the Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The manner in which this issue has been dealt with and commented on by the royal commission has given opponents of the government their seven seconds of political sunshine from seven sentences in a report of 746 pages.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Much of the report is critical commentary of how the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was developed and negotiated, leading to the conclusion that the current plan was unlawfully negotiated and that at least parts of it remain unlawful. And we all remember who negotiated it. The commission has criticised my minister personally—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Primary Industries is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The royal commission report has criticised my minister personally for a compromise arising out of the need, identified by the commission—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —as well as my minister, to develop a new strategy for securing one aspect of the plan: the additional 450 gigalitres of water for the environment. But, interestingly, it has not personally criticised any of the ministers involved in the negotiation of the entire plan despite being so critical of the outcome.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Where is the consistency? Where is the fairness in that? My minister was not at the table of the ministerial council during the 20 meetings—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that were held between 2009 and 2017 while this plan was being negotiated—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and implemented.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: He has done nothing—absolutely nothing—to undermine the basin plan that my government inherited from the previous regime. He has done everything he can to help all parties to the plan and bring all parties to the plan to the table.

Mr Picton: Everything he can to help New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is warned for a second and final time.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: There is absolutely nothing that he has done that could possibly be construed as a capitulation to other interests, yet he is the only minister singled out for personal criticism relating to the plan.

Ms Stinson: It's incredible, isn't it?

The SPEAKER: Member for Badcoe! The Premier will be seated for one moment, please. The member for Badcoe can also leave for half an hour under 137A.

The honourable member for Badcoe having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: For the reasons stated at the beginning of my speech, the need for genuine bipartisanship—

The SPEAKER: The Premier is summing up by the sounds of it, please.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —to continue the implementation of a plan to restore the Murray-Darling Basin to health is absolutely essential. To achieve this, compromise within the law is inevitable.

The federal minister responsible for negotiating the plan, Mr Burke, told the parliament in November 2012, 'We have compromised on the way of getting there.' South Australian Senator Penny Wong said soon after the plan was agreed, 'This government has to balance not only the environmental outcome but also community outcomes.' The former South Australian minister for the environment has described the plan as 'a compromised position because it was fiercely fought by New South Wales and Victoria'.

If my minister merits personal criticism by the commission, then so do many others who have had a part in the development and the implementation of this plan. The biggest compromise of all was made by the former premier of South Australia. For much of the—

Mr Picton: Oh, what rubbish. Read the report.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison: Oh, please, he stood up for South Australia.

The SPEAKER: The Member for Ramsay is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: It is a matter of public record that for much of the time the plan was being negotiated he maintained that he would not accept anything below 4,000 gigalitres per annum being returned to the environment. That was his stated position. He threatened High Court action if South Australia did not get its way. Inevitably, he—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison: He was standing up for South Australia.

The SPEAKER: The member for Ramsay is warned.

The Hon. D.J. Speirs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Environment and Water is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left and right!

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Police is called to order.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Inevitably, he compromised, accepting 20 per cent less water for the environment that he personally had long insisted was the minimum needed for South Australia. It is being blind to reality to believe that sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin can be achieved without compromise along the way. What we must do is ensure that this process is conducted—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Ramsay, please!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —transparently, fairly and responsibly. The only way of doing that is for all the basin states to agree to continue the implementation of this historic plan in a genuine bipartisan way. That is my intention and that is the intention of the motion and I commend it to the house.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (11:47): I, too, rise to speak on this incredibly important motion that the Premier has brought to the chamber today. Water or no water: those were the two options facing our River Murray. The Marshall Liberal government has forged a pathway to real water flowing down the river across the border to the Lower Lakes and to the precious Coorong. Labor had no plan, just political games, and that means not a drop of extra water—not a drop of extra water.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Since I became—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, please!

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Reynell!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Since I became South Australia's Minister for Environment and Water in March 2018, I have done everything possible to deliver real, practical action and results for our state and our state's environment. That is the mandate required—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —by our Premier and that is what this government is focused on—practical outcomes. Nowhere has this been more important than in our precious River Murray and the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. To do this, it was critical that I broke the deadlock strangling progress and preventing the delivery of further real environmental outcomes. My first step was to restore shattered relationships across the basin states. It had been blatantly apparent to me—

Mr Picton: They're friends with me now, yay!

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is on two warnings. If he continues, he will be departing the chamber as well.

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is warned. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It had been blatantly apparent to me in the years leading up to the change of government that our state's approach was not working. It was not working for our state's economy, it was isolating our state's communities and businesses, particularly regional communities, and it was failing to deliver for our precious natural environment, including the River Murray, the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. The 'us against the world' strategy, propounded by the Weatherill government on so many fronts, had us characterised as a whingeing, irrelevant distraction.

Opportunities were being lost, investment was not being made, grants were being withheld and, in the case of the River Murray, water was not flowing. One of my first acts as minister was to reach out to my colleagues across basin states. Within hours of becoming minister I had spoken to federal minister David Littleproud, Labor's Lisa Neville, in Victoria, and Niall Blair, in New South Wales. I let them know that the games were going to stop under the Marshall Liberal government. South Australia was back at the table and we were determined to deliver outcomes for the river.

My motivation for getting back to negotiations was crystallised with an early realisation that the 450 gigalitres of additional water, negotiated by Jay Weatherill in 2012, was little more than an oft-touted figure, the central protagonist in a fake fight, but a destination without a plan takes you nowhere. The previous government had no road map towards delivering that 450 gigalitres of critical environmental water.

In fact, despite a pool of funding being in place to fund projects to deliver the 450 gigalitres, barely any water had been delivered. In fact, when the government changed in March 2018, Labor had delivered how much? One gigalitre of the 450 gigalitres. That is less than one-quarter of 1 per cent of the 400 gigalitres delivered under the failed Labor government—

Mr Teague interjecting:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —an indictment of that government's complete capitulation to political games—

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is called to order.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —complete capitulation—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna is on two warnings.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —and baseless activism and gains at the expense of the precious River Murray.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The screaming and swearing had got us nowhere; we were at an absolute stalemate. Given this stalemate and lack of progress that Labor had made towards the 450 gigalitres in the months leading into the December ministerial council meeting, it became clear to me and my departmental officials that there were two options for our state: more of the same—Labor's way—or a fresh, constructive approach that would meaningfully progress the plan and develop a real pathway to the 450 gigalitres. No water, or water: the choice was stark.

Back in 2007, Mike Rann—and we do not often quote him on this side of the house—said:

I've always said that, in order to get the best outcome for the river, it's better to talk rather than issue ultimatums.

He went on to say:

The long-term health of the River Murray must be placed before politics or elections.

The approach outlined by Mike Rann is one that can and will see South Australia benefit from building relationships and cooperating with our state and federal colleagues, and the Murray-Darling Basin deal, struck on 14 December 2018, is a powerful example of what Mike Rann was advocating.

The agreement to robust, fair, socio-economic criteria against which to assess water-saving projects across the basin removes a significant amount of fear from participation in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It reassures regional communities, not just in South Australia but in New South Wales and Victoria, that they will not be unfairly impacted by water efficiency strategies, and it secured the involvement of sceptical states in the next stage of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan's implementation, including on farm as well as off farm for the first time, Victoria and New South Wales agreeing to on farm as well as off farm water-saving strategies.

A moment ago, the member for Hurtle Vale yelled across the chamber and said, 'You need to make them more efficient.' That is exactly what we were doing. If the Labor opposition understood the plan and understood the 450 gigalitres—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —they would not be screaming and making a noise; they would be supporting New South Wales—

The SPEAKER: Minister, please do not respond to interjections.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It was about five minutes ago, so—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Let's get on with it, thank you.

Ms Cook interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hurtle Vale is called to order.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: If the opposition understood the plan and understood what the Riverland in South Australia has achieved over the last couple of decades, they would understand that, with the right culture and the right effort, that is possible to achieve in New South Wales and Victoria.

Make no mistake, New South Wales and Victoria would have walked away. With them gone, the plan would have collapsed. With no plan, South Australia, a victim of geography, has the most to lose. No plan—that is what the Labor opposition wanted. The shouting, the screaming, the noise—that is great, but it kills the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and that is the only structure, the only framework, that we have to deliver water from those other states across the border, down the river, to our irrigators, to our city, to the Lower Lakes and to the Coorong.

Of course, we got more from the ministerial council than just that critical pathway towards the 450 gigalitres of water. We secured a constraints package to provide critical funding to remove constraints to get water flowing down the river. The royal commissioner spent a lot of time concentrating on the problem of constraints. That is when you want to get water held in particular by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder down the river to areas that are in particular stress or to irrigators but you cannot increase the river flows because there are constraints in place. Those constraints could include bridges, they could include infrastructure, and it is necessary to remove those constraints.

At the ministerial council meeting, for the first time we got a constraints funding package to enable us to undertake those works so that in the future we can get water down the river. As the Premier said, there was no mention of that from the Labor opposition on 14 December when this was publicly announced. In fact, did we hear anything from the Labor opposition on 14 December?

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: They clearly didn't understand it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: They didn't understand it. They do not understand the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They do not understand the way the basin works and they do not understand regional communities, particularly in South Australia.

The commonwealth also agreed to provide funding to accelerate SDLAM projects—another clear pathway to more water. This was getting money on the table, saying to New South Wales and Victoria, 'Here is money. Undertake these efficiency projects, the projects the Labor opposition don't want to occur. Undertake these projects and we will able to get water from the farms in New South Wales and Victoria for the first time—real water into the river.'

It is fundamentally my view that if we can get New South Wales and Victoria to participate in some of these projects—the sorts of projects that have been underway in the Riverland in South Australia for many, many years—if we can get New South Wales and Victorian communities doing these projects, that will change the culture, the fear will diminish and more will come. But unless we have a starting point, unless we get there, nothing will come. Again, two pathways: a road to water or the road preferred by the member for Kaurna—no water.

Of course, we also struck an important agreement with the commonwealth and basin jurisdictions that secured the delivery of $70 million towards a range of projects.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kaurna can leave for half an hour under 137A, thank you.

The honourable member for Kaurna having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you for your much necessary protection. I am not sure I have heard someone say 'capitulation' so much. The member for Kaurna did not even know what that word meant until last week.

The SPEAKER: Minister, the member for Kaurna has left the chamber. Let's get on with it, minister. Thank you.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We struck an important agreement with the commonwealth and the basin jurisdictions that secured this additional $70 million towards a range of projects to strengthen the resilience and vitality of this internationally recognised Ramsar-listed wetland. This was a bucket of money that was available to states to essentially put forward projects. That money was not coming to South Australia. It was not flowing to South Australia under the previous Labor government. It was one of those examples of pig-headedness and political games holding us back from getting it.

The opposition rightly say that the Coorong needs water. That is why we have delivered a pathway towards 450 gigalitres of additional water—that pathway they were not able to get. They were the ones denying water from flowing across the border and down to the Coorong. They did not have the pathway. The Coorong before anything else needs water.

Under the previous government, it was demonstrated during the Millennium Drought that a range of manufactured environmental outcomes and particular focus on environmental areas could strengthen the resilience of those landscapes. That is what we want to do to the Coorong. We want to invest in science and research. We want to invest in technological outcomes. We want to create conservation programs that strengthen the resilience of the Coorong, and we want to connect with communities in Salt Creek, Meningie and Goolwa, around the Lower Lakes, to bring them on board as well.

Much work was undertaken during the Millennium Drought. Those dormant community networks are ready to come alive and work with this state government to deliver for the Coorong. The Coorong funding was—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison: And none of it will be without the water coming. That's got to be the key thing here.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: None of it will be delivered without water, and that is why we have a pathway to deliver 450 gigalitres. Previously, we had one gigalitre.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The Coorong funding was delivered following a six-month long project to establish priorities for this wetland, secure scientific consensus around what should be delivered and bring the commonwealth government on a journey towards a better understanding of this significant Ramsar-listed wetland. Of course, the best thing for the Coorong is additional water and, as I have said a number of times, that is why securing the 450 gigalitres of real water is so critical. But the Coorong is a fragile landscape and it does need that additional money to give it that much-needed resilience.

Securing this funding is a huge win for South Australia, yet it is a shame that, despite lamenting the condition of the Coorong, the royal commission's report makes no mention of this funding nor our strategy around the constraints, program of funding, nor the pathway towards the 450 gigalitres of real water when compared to the one-quarter of 1 per cent of that target that was achieved under the previous government. The games and noise, the Facebook rants and bullying tweets, the slogans and logos and T-shirts and hats, the simplistic sound bites and the glib media releases—none of these delivers a single drop of water for the River Murray, the Coorong or the Lower Lakes.

The royal commissioner may have a view, but that is one view. His title does not elevate him to an untouchable deity. His report and its recommendations should and will be taken seriously by this government. They will be analysed and a government response provided to the people of South Australia in due course. They should, however, be viewed in conjunction with the Productivity Commission's report and considered in partnership with other basin jurisdictions and the federal government. The royal commission should also be subject to critique and to challenge. Where comments are made within a vacuum, they should be given context; where ideology trumps pragmatic leadership, this should be called out; and where procedural fairness is denied, a defence should and will be provided.

I stand 100 per cent behind the decisions I took on 14 December 2018. For the first time, we have a clear pathway to the extra 450 gigalitres of water that we know are so critical to our River Murray's health. That pathway ensures the survival of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There is no plan B. It builds pragmatic working relationships across the political and geographical spectrum of Australia. It ends the games, and it will deliver real water across the border flowing through South Australian communities to the Lower Lakes and to the precious Coorong. It was a fair deal, a sensible deal and it was the right deal. I commend the motion to the house.

The SPEAKER: Are there any speakers on my left?

Mrs Power: They are too busy in the media headline. They don't really care about the river.

The SPEAKER: The member for Elder is called to order. Therefore, I call the Minister for Primary Industries.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (12:04): I rise today to support this motion, and I cannot emphasise how important this motion is not only to this state but to the machinations of the Murray-Darling Basin. Let's take a little step back in history.

From many of us, we have heard today about the state of play. We have had the royal commission and we have the basin plan, which has been delivered in part. If we look back to 2012, when the basin plan was legislated, it was legislated to achieve the sustainable diversion limits (SDL) of 2,750, with a review in 2019. We are in 2019. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will have that review on 31 June. Of course, there was then the negotiation of the 450 gigalitres of upwater that sat alongside the 2,750, bringing the total to 3,200.

In South Australia, we are in the unique situation of being at the bottom of the system, at the bottom of the Murray-Darling Basin. What that means is that we are supporting a number of environments that no other state is. We support the delta of the basin, which is the shallow flood plains of the Murray-Darling Basin. We do not have the mountain ranges or the large catchments that the other states have. What we do have is a large set of wetlands reliant on river flows and good environmental flows that come into our state for the health of our forests, wetlands, native plants and native trees that have been there since time began.

We also have to understand that we are the guardians of the Murray Mouth. The Murray Mouth is obviously something that is very important to the river. Over time, there has been a lot of conjecture about the Murray Mouth being opened, the Murray Mouth being closed, human intervention and having to dredge it.

In any given year in South Australia we have an allocation of 1,850 gigalitres of entitlement that comes across the border. We also have unregulated flows that come into the state. They are environmental flows, convenience water, there to sustain the 540 gigalitres or thereabouts of consumptive water that comes in for the communities, the irrigators, our exporters and our farmers. Just as importantly, they are part of a working river and a working river is sustained by the environment.

There is no-one in existence who works better with our river system and wants it to be healthy than the irrigators and their communities. They are the eyes and ears of the River Murray. In all the basin state jurisdictions, there are a number of organisations that are the custodians. There are the conservation groups, the local action planning groups, the friends of the river groups, who are all part of the guardianship process.

In South Australia, we have a government determined to make sure that we have a basin plan delivered in full and on time to make sure that we have a healthy, working river and to make sure that we have a river for our future that we can be proud of. Be aware, the world is watching. A royal commission has come out in the last couple of weeks and, taking a step back in time, a basin plan was also developed.

I remember, as the chairman of the South Australian Murray Irrigators, flying to Canberra, meeting with the then minister for environment, Malcolm Turnbull, and the prime minister, John Howard. I took over a set of sums that showed that there was more water for consumptive entitlement in that year than there was in storage. Alarm bells were ringing loud and clear. That is why the then prime minister used $10 billion from the proceeds of the sale of Telstra to put on the table a reform package to save the Murray-Darling Basin.

Along the way, there has been much conjecture. Many, many river communities have burned the books, burned the plan, had sleepless nights, been through drought and been through the reform package, but by and large they have been a part of that process. They have been a part of that process because they know they have to be the custodians and be a part of the solution. It is not just about governments coming in and wanting to compulsorily acquire water. That is not the answer.

In the royal commission, Mr Walker categorically said that the best way for taxpayers to support the basin is to acquire water or buy back the water. We have seen what the buybacks have done to the river communities. We have seen what they have done to many of the environmental assets that we have, particularly in South Australia: right across the basin there are dead properties everywhere. We are now seeing a form of recovery, and it is driven by efficiency gains. Those efficiency gains have, by and large, been the saviour of our basin communities. The basin communities are not only the people, the irrigators and the communities who are giving up the water: they are the advice to government.

Initially, Senator Wong came to South Australia, and it was her first regional trip dealing with her new portfolio within water and the environment. I asked her to come up to the Riverland and have a look at some of the efficiencies that our irrigators had achieved, some of the world-class showpieces where she could see firsthand what South Australia was doing, leading by example, so that she could benchmark what she should be trying to achieve for the Murray-Daring Basin.

On that trip, I saw that she had come a little unaware of just how it all worked, but she learnt very quickly. Thank goodness, she was replaced by Tony Burke, who I think is one of the great politicians who understands the basin. He came to the Riverland a number of times, and I met with him many times to discuss ways that we could bring the community with us. It was about just that: understanding that, if we were going to have a successful basin plan, it was to be something put down in the history books as reform that was history making—history making within the world's river systems—and that is exactly what he did.

I know that still today he holds that initiative very dear to his heart. Every day, every waking moment he, like many other water ministers, is very concerned about the basin plan continuing to survive and continuing to move forward, but we continue to have this political interference. We saw the royal commissioner's review: his opinion, his commentary, was more political interference. A previous state government came in and used the river as nothing more than a political tool—nothing more.

We saw logos on trucks. I know that the premier promised truck drivers that he would get the state more water if they allowed him to put his logos on their trucks. Many people were wearing T-shirts with logos saying, 'We will fight for the river.' However, what he forgot to tell people was, 'We will not be delivering any water for the river because we are out there for political gain and we are out there for political gain only.' What the previous government forgot to mention was that South Australia has a number of issues, constraints by and large, and those constraints are structures or natural landforms that get in the way of river flow. We have six locks in South Australia, which all support some of the great environmental assets that we have: the Ramsar sites on our river corridor.

Some of the projects that we have had the opportunity to look at, to understand and to bring to the table are ones that the previous government ignored. I note that the last water minister in the previous government continued to deny the scoping study and some of the initiatives that we needed for our environmental assets.

We have been so focused on numbers within the basin plan that we have actually forgotten what the bigger picture is. That bigger picture is outcomes, environmental outcomes. As communities within the Riverland, within the river and within the irrigation sector, we are giving up that water to make sure that we have a healthy environment, but we also have to understand that governments have a responsibility to make sure that those environmental assets that we have are second to none and that we put environmental outcomes into the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and all our wetlands.

If we work our way into South Australia, by and large some of the great environmental assets that we have are in South Australia. We will start at Lock 6, the Chowilla wetland. The Chowilla wetland is what I regard as the ancient forest of the Murray-Darling Basin. We have some trees, 500 or 600 years old, that are still surviving because of environmental flow.

If we go to Lock 5, we have the Pike River project and the Margaret Dowling projects. These are environmental projects that are gold plating the infrastructure that was previously there. I might add that the majority of the infrastructure that was previously there was put there by irrigators. It was put there by government departments in conjunction with those irrigators and those communities, because the irrigators know how the flows work. They know when the flows are coming and how the structures will best serve the environment.

The Katarapko project that is currently underway at Lock 4 is another great environmental work and measure to make sure that we deal with the environmental flows, as is the Banrock wetland at Lock 3. Every river system has points in it now with structures. They are the locks, but every structure has a bypass. The Chowilla wetland is the bypass to Lock 6. The Pike River and the Margaret Dowling projects are bypasses to Lock 5. At Lock 4, there is the Katarapko project. These are all bypasses that go around the locks to make sure that we sustain a healthy environment.

What we are doing now, through the basin plan, is making sure that those environmental structures are in place for another 100 years. The basin has seen, to its detriment over the last 100 years, overallocation, government mismanagement and environmental mismanagement, but we are now putting a plan in place so that we can tend to the needs of the environment.

Again, I do not want to harp on the 3,200 figure, but I do want to harp on the works and measures that this state has been denied through a previous government walking away from its responsibility because of no political gain or political capital in putting connections from the Lower Lakes into the Coorong. We want to make sure that we wet and dry some of our wetlands, that some of those environmental projects are for the benefit of the health of the river and that we have a healthy working river.

I make note of the great projects that have been achieved over the course of time. The 3IP project that came into South Australia with $265 million was a great initiative—a really great initiative. That was about efficiency gains, not about buying the water back. We saw what buyback did to the Riverland communities. It had a Swiss cheese effect right around our communities, and we saw dead blocks everywhere.

The minister was up in the Riverland recently and I showed him the comparison between on one side of the road a buyback property and on the other side of the road a green thriving state-of-the-art property that had taken up the initiative to give back some of their water allocation in return for taxpayers' money to make sure that their business was sustainable for the future. It is about making sure that they are not only water efficient but that they grow a product that the world is looking for. What we saw was the comparison of buyback versus efficiency gain.

Two hundred and eighty-one projects or efficiency programs have been achieved in South Australia. I am parochial: most of those projects have been achieved in the Riverland. A majority of the water given back as part of our contribution to the basin plan has come out of Riverland irrigators' allocations but, by and large, South Australia has worked collaboratively. I know that the lower end of the river has given up large amounts of water, particularly through the dairy sector. They have done that for efficiency gains.

They have done that to make sure that those irrigators and those properties are there for the future. Once you have sold the water back, there is no future unless efficiency gains give an irrigator the opportunity to come back in and rebuild that property, making sure that it is sustainable while also working with the health of the river. Those 281 projects have allowed the communities and the irrigators to adjust to growing more with less water. They have also allowed the basin plan to be successful. It has allowed the programs that have been put in place to achieve environmental water.

We know that about 2,150 gigalitres of water have been achieved for the environment. Again, all this water that communities and irrigators are giving up is specifically for the health of the river, specifically for the environment, so that we work in a healthy environment but also on a river that is a working river. That is very important to note.

I will just touch on the commissioner's report, which is very, very concerning. When the minister came up to the Riverland on the Friday after the report was released, what we saw on that Friday—and this is the comparison—was minister Speirs visiting the Riverland and visiting irrigators. He visited the Irrigation Trust, he visited the environmental groups, and he listened and learnt more.

However, further down the river, at Waikerie, we saw the Leader of the Opposition down there with Labor Party members. None of them were irrigators, not one of them gave up water—not one of them—but he was there having a photo opportunity with his Labor mates while minister Speirs was upriver speaking with the irrigators, with the Irrigation Trust leaders, with the community, better understanding why buybacks were not the answer. He was there understanding why water efficiency programs were the saviour of the Riverland communities.

They are the answer for the success of the basin plan. The 450 gigalitres that minister Speirs has sat around the table with is something those opposite could never achieve. We had a foul-mouthed minister, with expletives at other ministers, walking away from the negotiating table because he was fighting for South Australia, fighting to achieve nothing, fighting so that he could fight, for the sake of standing up for South Australia but achieving nothing, absolutely nothing.

We have seen environmental works, missed opportunities. Minister Speirs was able to get $70 million, something the previous government never achieved. All they wanted to do was fight, all they wanted to do was have a perception, all they wanted to do was have this political stoush that achieved nothing, not a thing. For the $265 million that came to South Australia, who gave up the water? The irrigators and their communities gave up the water. They gave up the water because they know they need a healthy river, they know they are the future of South Australian river communities, they know they are part of an export program and they know they are doing the right thing.

The 450 gigalitres would never have been achieved under a previous regime. We now have the basin states at the table, and they are saying, 'We are looking to South Australia as an example. How do we achieve the 450?' The four 3IP programs, or the rounds of the 3IP programs, have been a great success, and we now look to the COFFIE programs. We now look at future ways of delivering environmental water, making sure we have economic outcomes, making sure we have a healthy working river for South Australia to be proud of.

For long periods of time we have stood up and said that we are the most efficient irrigators in the world, but we cannot just sit back and rest on our laurels. We have to prove to the world that we continue to strive for those gains and we actually have to commend the people who are doing the hard work. The people who are doing the hard work are the people who are negotiating at the table, negotiating with the other basin states, the irrigators, to continue to look for more efficiencies, making sure they are part of the solution.

I remember the political interference from day one. Since 2007, when I first met a politician for the betterment of the river, there has been political interference day and night. The river communities are tired. They are tired of the political interference. They are doing the heavy lifting and the politicians are getting in the way of that process.

Minister Speirs has demonstrated his ability to negotiate, the Premier has demonstrated his ability to be a good leader, and this side of the chamber, this government, the Marshall Liberal government, will fight for South Australia. We will deliver the 3,220 gigalitres of water for a healthy working river.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:24): I am proud to acknowledge this motion that was raised by the Premier in regard to a response to the recent Productivity Commission inquiry into the River Murray and also the royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin. Obviously the history of the Murray-Darling Basin and the changes that have been implemented mainly in the last 120 years or so, with the infill of barrages, locks and weirs, have dramatically changed the river from what it was when it was a free-flowing river system. It has been dramatically changed.

That has had to happen because of the needs of communities right throughout the river. We know that the Murray-Darling Basin begins up in Queensland, flows through New South Wales and Victoria, and then here we are at the bottom end of the system in South Australia. I represent the electorate at almost the bottom of the system—I did represent right through to Goolwa until the recent election, last year—so I am very cognisant of what we need to make this river flow and keep it alive for the health of all South Australians.

Certainly I take that from being a previous shadow minister in this role and also the Millennium Drought. If that did not light your mind on what was happening in regard to the River Murray, nothing else would. I note that on the 2006 Melbourne Cup Day there was that meeting with John Howard and basin states lead ministers on where the river system was going. We had endured a dryland drought as well that season, which obviously impacted on inflows into the Darling and the River Murray systems.

During the recent debate that has captured the nation and further afield, we have seen the fish deaths up at the Menindee lakes, and we have had the dry season, with drought throughout the Eastern States of Australia. It brings back to mind what was going on during those years between 2006 and when the river finally recovered in September 2010. It just goes to show that we still have a long way to go from that inaugural meeting in 2006 to making sure that we get those plans in place, and we get those billions of dollars that John Howard pledged—that $10 billion—to go into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to make sure we get those efficiency outcomes to make the river work.

We cannot have a system that is just there for the environment. Yes, the environment is front and centre—that is absolutely right—but there are two other critical needs and critical users of this water that is coming out of the Darling and River Murray systems. Obviously, there are the irrigators right throughout the system, and I must commend the South Australian irrigators for the work they have done over 50, 60 years plus in ensuring that they have the best irrigation systems in the world. They are using the latest technology.

They have gone from some of the areas with channels to sprinkler-based technology then through to drip technology to get that ultimate amount of production out of every drip of water because we are at the bottom of the system. In fact, in terms of consumptive use of the river there are only a few hundred gigalitres at this end of the river that we actually use for irrigation. We obviously need a lot more—thousands of gigalitres—to transport that water through and to make sure the river functions.

The other vital function of the river that people need to remember is critical human needs. Critical human needs are what really lit a lot of people up. Obviously, the environment was front and centre as well during the Millennium Drought, but there was a risk that Adelaide would run out of water. There was what I think was and what I always thought was a bizarre plan by the former government, and I note that the member for West Torrens, the member for Light and the member for Mawson were all there at the time. They wanted to build a weir at Wellington, yet here we are all these years later.

The Labor opposition are bleating about all the work they have done or think they are doing for the River Murray, yet all those years ago they were going to destroy the river. They were going to destroy it by building a $200 million rock wall between Pomanda Island and Wellington Lodge at the River Murray's outlet to Lake Alexandrina where all the silt from New South Wales and Queensland builds up. The only good thing that would have come out of building that weir was that they would have cleared all the limestone out of my district.

The issue was that it would have been a sinking structure. It would have sunk forever into that silt. It would have belted the lower half of my electorate and killed off that community. Do not get me wrong: there was severe water loss in my region. Everywhere below Lock 1 the water dropped about two metres. There were a lot of interests. Goolwa came into my electorate with the redistribution of 2010, and I really wondered how I was going to get on down there. Obviously, it was belting the community of Goolwa very hard for the recreational use of the river, for water access to their properties and for flooding dry land throughout the dairies.

The houseboat industry and other users just wanted the water at the normal level these days of 0.75 of a metre above sea level, which is how the barrages have controlled the level since they went in all those years ago in the early 1900s. There were a lot of upset people. We must remember that there were well over a million people not just in Adelaide but in the regional areas of South Australia. I am on one of the pipes, the Keith pipeline, relying on River Murray water for our farm and our livestock. That pipeline services communities all the way down at Keith.

Through my insistence on our side of the house in opposition at that stage, we managed to fight the weir. I commend all the community groups and community people who fought that Wellington weir proposal. I had what I think was the first and last bipartisan meeting with the water minister at the time, former member for Chaffey Karlene Maywald, and the head of SA Water at the time. She said, 'What's your option, Adrian? You don't want the weir. What will we have for water for Adelaide?' It was an absolutely serious question. I said, 'Just lower the pumps.' The minister looked at me and said, 'How do we do that?' I said, 'It's an engineering solution. I'm not an engineer, but surely you can lower the pumps a few metres, and we can make sure that those vital supplies get through.'

Well, that is exactly what happened at the end of the day, after all that carry-on over building a rock wall at Wellington that would have just sunk out of sight over time. They tried driving piles down there years ago. They were going to build a lock there nearly 100 years ago, but multiple piles just disappeared into the silt. One good outcome was that they lowered the pumps so we could get that vital water. We also saw the carnage caused by the previous Labor government by putting bunds at Narrung, Clayton and Currency Creek. Hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of dirt were carted into those areas and have still not been dredged out from the bottom of the river and lakes system.

That is a bit of history. I am a little bit bemused, more than anything, to see this feigned outrage from the other side of the house on the health of the river. Similar to the current member for Chaffey and minister for agriculture, I have a bit of respect for Tony Burke, the federal shadow environment spokesman. It was interesting listening to him briefly on the radio this morning. He was focused only on water buyback to pull back the 450 gigalitres. I know that Tony Burke knows better than that. I know that he knows that infrastructure upgrades will put much-needed water back into the system.

Here we see both the state and federal Labor opposition playing games. We hear the federal opposition talking about lifting the 1,500-gigalitre cap on buybacks. I do not dispute that buybacks have not been part of the necessary things that needed to happen, one of the necessary programs to get water back into the system.

What the Labor Party have so conveniently forgotten, and I almost cannot believe it—in fact, I do not think Tony Burke has forgotten; he knows that it just does not suit his speaking notes about their policy announcement today—is that infrastructure upgrades are vital to the system and they always have been. The plan was developed in 2012 and we have been working through that plan ever since.

It was obvious that given what South Australia has done over the decades, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland would have to do the heavy lifting. I have been on trips through the southern basin and the northern basin. I was in the Coleambally district in New South Wales and they were showing me what they thought was very flash infrastructure, and all it was was an electronically opening channel gate. That was their infrastructure upgrade; I mean, seriously. We want to have some water-saving programs. There is much work that can be done in all these areas.

The Mulwala Canal at Deniliquin goes for almost 160 kilometres. It is a pretty big channel, and that channel could be lined. At the end of the channel, to deliver approximately two to three gigalitres of stock water, they have to send nine gigalitres of water. That is the amount of loss just to get that vital stock water at the end. That just shows what needs to be done to get that delivery through those inefficient channel systems.

Regarding infrastructure, I want to talk about a project that Murrumbidgee Irrigation announced on 7 December 2018. Their media release, entitled 'Gunbar Water Pipeline locks in future for next generation of farmers', talked about what infrastructure upgrades can do in the system. To quote from the media release:

[The] Pipeline was officially launched near Hay this week, locking in a bright future for the next generation of farmers in the Wah Wah district.

This was the final step before Murrumbidgee Irrigation…hands over ownership of the pipeline to Gunbar Private Water Supply District on 31 December.

The new 270km pipeline will supply filtered pressurised water to 62 properties in the Wah Wah district, which covers 310,000 hectares from Carrathool to Hay in the south, and from Gunbar to Booligal in the north.

[Murrumbidgee Irrigation] Chief Executive Officer, Brett Jones, said that there was no future in the previous gravity fed system.

Listen to that: 'No future in the previous gravity fed system.' He continues:

'The key driver for this project was to lock in the future of the stock and domestic area with a sustainable, modern and reliable water supply capability,' he said.

And this is the telling point:

'The gravity fed system required 12,000 megalitres of water to deliver around 2,000 megalitres of allocation and you cannot justify the waste of such a precious resource. In the current climate of water efficiency and productivity the change to the pump and pipeline solution was an absolute must do.'

With the new pipeline Wah Wah farmers will benefit through improved levels of service, with year-round access to the river and bores, pressurised water supply and measured water use, which can be remotely monitored.

This is exactly what we want right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. We want monitoring, we want piping and we want pressurised systems to save these massive amounts—over 80 per cent efficiency just in this pipeline as well. The media release goes on:

Chairman of the Gunbar Water Steering Committee…was excited about what the new pipeline meant for the district.

'The Gunbar Water pipeline was never about individuals it was always about what was best for the whole area,' he said.

That just shows what can be done if you are serious about putting water back into the system. The 450 gigalitres gets talked about a lot. We saw none of that put back in by the former Labor government. All we saw was the outrage, the hate and the angst. In fact, the former member for Cheltenham of precious memory, the former premier Jay Weatherill, what could he care about the regions? He quoted that there were no votes in the regions. Sorry about that for the few hundred Labor voters in Hammond or anywhere else in the state: you do not count for the other side.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: It's good for you, though. You work for them.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, it's great, absolutely. I work for every constituent in my electorate. Really, for all the feigned outrage, the Labor Party just do not care. They do not care if they suck water out of regional communities. It would not just be New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria that would be hit if we did not have a reasonable program, which minister Speirs has negotiated to put that water back into the system.

If we have to give up more water in South Australia, that will absolutely destroy our irrigation right throughout the state. We already have some of the most efficient systems in the world. How much water can you squeeze out of South Australia? Sure, we can always improve and incremental improvements can be made. I have just indicated from one program in the Murrumbidgee how you can save 10,000 megalitres out of a 12,000-megalitre program, and that is just amazing. It is not so much amazing but just shows the practicality of what can be done to get things right.

We talk about the Coorong and $70 million going there, which minister Speirs negotiated. This will be a fantastic win for South Australia because we do need to have a look to see if the interconnector between Lake Albert and the Coorong stacks up environmentally. I think it will be great. I am not a scientist, as I said before, and I am not an engineer, but I think that is a far better solution than the one the previous Labor government peddled for years, pulsing hundreds of gigalitres of water—and I say hundreds—through the neck at Narrung to try to lower the salinity in Lake Albert. It just does not work. To me, it is a complete waste of hundreds of gigalitres of water for so little result and such a small reduction in salinity in Lake Albert. It took years for Lake Albert to recover after the Millennium Drought, and it is still recovering. This project needs a really good, hard look so that we get the right outcome.

South Australia has been on the right track for a long time, but we have a lot to do. We have other issues in the lakes. We obviously have the long-nosed fur seals or, as some would call them, the New Zealand fur seals that have invaded the lakes and the Coorong. They are decimating the fishing populations and upsetting that industry, and people need to have a good look at the decimation they are causing of the native animals, the fairy terns and the pelicans, where they just rip them to bits to get a feed, but most of the time they do it just for fun. I know that we have a committee inquiring into them, and we need to take a good hard look at this. It has always been my firm belief—and this is no surprise to this house or the state—that, as part of an overabundant native species management plan for seals in the Coorong and lakes, there needs to be a cull, just as for the corellas.

What we must do as far as water is concerned is make sure that we work towards projects, like the Gunbar irrigation district did in the Murrumbidgee, and get them online so that we can put water back in the river. It assists not only our irrigators but also our critical human need supplies, which we vitally need for all our community needs down here. But the most treasured piece of all is to make sure that we get those environmental outcomes right through South Australia, right down through lakes Albert and Alexandrina and into the Coorong.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (12:44): The Murray-Darling Basin is one of the most important natural assets that we have in our nation, on our continent. One-seventh of our continent is covered by the Murray-Darling Basin. It is not something we can take chances with, it is not something we can play games with, it is not something that should be taken lightly and it is certainly something that governments, state and federal of all political persuasions, should be working very hard on.

Back in 2007, the Howard government put the legislation in place. There was an expectation that, following that, all the states would come together in around 2012 to work cooperatively, collaboratively, in the best interests of south eastern Australia with regard to this Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The agreement that was reached at the time (the plan) is the agreement that was reached at the time. It was never expected to be something that would just die in exactly the same way that it was born.

The states did the best they could at the time. We saw from the South Australian Labor government their normal trick of jumping up and down, saying that they were going to fight against the rest of the universe, trying to make it sound as if the whole world was against them, when actually the other states were sitting there ready to come to an agreement. Of course, they had their must-haves and they had their wants and their desires clearly on the table, but they were ready to do a deal.

The former South Australian Labor state government made it look as if they were going to fight the universe, and then they came back to South Australia trying to pretend they had saved the universe. That was not very helpful or productive, and the proof is in the pudding because the 450 gigalitres of environmental flows, which we were told we would receive on top of the 2,750 gigalitres of flow down into South Australia, have not materialised. By definition, the trumpeting of a success, which former premier Weatherill and former water minister Hunter talked about, just did not materialise.

When there were allegations of water theft in the upstream states a couple of years ago, that needed to be taken very seriously—absolutely. No-one in South Australia should put up with that possibility. It needed to be considered and it needed to be looked into, so on that basis the former state Labor government appointed a royal commissioner—a very carefully hand-picked royal commissioner, I have to say—to undertake this work, apparently because we needed to investigate the allegations of water theft from the upstream states.

That commissioner has handed down his report, and that report includes 44 recommendations and 111 key findings. Fair enough, we have the report. We are all reading it, we are all learning from it, we are all analysing it and we are all entitled to share our opinion of the royal commissioner's findings. He is entitled to make his findings and his recommendations. We are entitled to assess them and share our views on the findings and recommendations. The central themes of the report are:

the need for increased transparency;

a new determination of the environmental sustainable level of take;

modification of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism;

the need to redo the Northern Basin Review;

better recognition of Aboriginal people;

the need to factor climate change into the plan;

recovering the remaining water through buybacks from the market;

using compulsory acquisition to deal with constraints to environmental water delivery;

the role and performance of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority; and

establishment of an independent audit function.

That is a pretty good summary of what this report has delivered to us in its key themes.

Does the Labor opposition want to talk about those things? No, they do not. The Labor opposition want to talk about something entirely different. They are not interested in the river. They are not interested in the report. They are not interested in the findings and the recommendations or the key themes delivered to the state by their very carefully hand-picked commissioner. They do not want to talk about those things. They want to talk about something that was not a finding and not a recommendation.

There are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the actual findings reflect very poorly on the state Labor government, which entered into the plan with the former federal Labor government. The report does anything but flatter the former state Labor government on the way that they have gone about their business, so of course they do not want to focus on the recommendations or the findings or the themes. They want to focus on other things that they have been running around hunting up and looking for in the deep dark depths of the report. They want to pretend that the main criticisms of them do not exist and they are looking for other things to talk about instead. That is just disgraceful.

This is the Murray-Darling River that we are talking about. This is one of the most valuable and priceless—and it should be one of the most protected—natural assets in our entire nation. While it does not directly benefit people in the Northern Territory or Tasmania or Western Australia, I am confident that people in those states and that territory would agree that it is an extraordinarily important asset in our state and that it deserves protection.

I would like to turn to a report that was done on behalf of this parliament by the Natural Resources Committee. Mr Speaker, you would probably remember that this report was delivered to this parliament on 28 March 2011 and you will remember that because you were a member of that committee and did very good work. This was a Labor-controlled committee. The members of that committee were four Labor MPs, including the Presiding Member, two Liberal MPs and two Independents. This report was done in a bipartisan way, I would have say as a participant, on behalf of the parliament, but by a committee that was controlled by Labor MPs at the time.

In the Presiding Member's foreword, the former member of this place, the former member for Ashford, the Hon. Steph Key, who was herself an education minister and a very genuine contributor to this place for a long time, wrote:

The Committee believes that in its current form, the Basin Plan does not meet the objectives of the Water Act 2007 and does not meet the social, economic, cultural and environmental needs of South Australia and South Australians. Significant amendments are needed and key pieces of additional work are still required.

For example the Committee is recommending that the Basin Plan should include:

salinity targets for Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert…

water height targets for below Lock 1…

targets that never allow water height downstream of Lock 1 to fall below mean sea level…

Those three things that I have just read out of the report are all about the Lower Lakes and Coorong, and I will come back to that in a minute. The executive summary states:

Recent impacts of over allocation compounded by drought have been extreme for many regions, especially for South Australia in which sit the lower and most vulnerable reaches of the River. The consequences of continuing with a 'business as usual' model are unacceptable.

Another excerpt is as follows:

In undertaking this Inquiry the Committee has held to the following principles:

1. The Basin Plan is not about the environment versus sustainable communities: it is about both.

Also, listed as principles are:

3. Equity considerations must play a role in developing the Basin Plan.

4. River systems die from the mouth up. The Committee is firmly of the view that restoring the Basin requires a Plan that considers the system from the mouth up.

Again, quoting from this report, from 'Recommendations':

The committee has concluded that in its current draft form, the Basin Plan meets neither the objectives of the Water Act 2007 nor the social, economic, cultural and environmental needs of the state of South Australia.

The committee recommends that the South Australian Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation should lobby the MDBA to ensure that the Basin Plan includes…

There is then a list. This page of the report includes some of the things that I have already read, plus a chapter describing the adaptive management framework that will be adopted and how this provides flexibility to adjust the basin plan through time as more is learnt about social, economic, cultural and environmental needs. Another one of the points on this list is:

7. preliminary terms for the 2015 review, including how social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts and benefits will be measured. This should also outline what actions will be taken if the targets and environmental outcomes are not being met or will not be met with the proposed environmentally sustainable level of take.

Why do I share that information? Firstly, it was provided to this parliament. It was a huge body of work that was done by the members of the committee in a very genuine, serious and bipartisan way. Secondly, it makes very clear a difference between what that committee recommended and what the Labor government shortly after that actually delivered. Thirdly, there has been criticism—unfair criticism—of the Minister for Environment and Water, although the majority of that criticism was focused on the fact that he took other considerations into his view, his mind and his process when coming to an agreement with the upstream states.

Why did he do this? Firstly, as the report forecast might well happen, the water was not flowing downstream. The environmental water was not being delivered. We know that, of the 450 gigalitres of water that was meant to come down, only two has actually been delivered so far, so not only has the plan failed but a new government needs to do something. We cannot just leave it the way the old mob left it to us. We need to do something. We need to make sure that the other states stay at the table. If the other states walk away from this deal, there is no deal. It was imperative that the Minister for Environment and Water came to an agreement that not only suited South Australia but was genuinely an agreement.

What did he deliver? Through his negotiations with the other states, he delivered that the full 450 gigalitres would come down the river. Secondly, he negotiated—and this is a very important issue that is not often talked about—the removal of constraints in the Murray-Darling Basin, being typically infrastructure or sometimes other things, that, even if there was a will to deliver water in certain ways, would not be possible without the removal of those constraints.

Thirdly, he got $70 million for South Australia towards improvement in the Coorong, and I said I would come back to this. The same things that this parliament said were most important about protecting South Australia and protecting the river from the mouth up, starting with maximum salinity targets, minimum lake level targets and flows through the Murray Mouth, etc., are exactly the things that the Minister for Environment and Water is delivering for this state.

Removing the constraints is important. Getting the upstream states to agree and to have a mechanism for delivering the 450 gigalitres of water is absolutely critical—absolutely critical. By any fair account, the Minister for Environment and Water has done exactly what he was expected to do. The fact that the very carefully hand-picked commissioner chose to write a couple of lines criticising the minister I think is very unfortunate, but the commissioner is entitled to write the report as he sees fit and we are entitled to consider it and comment on it as we see fit.

To me, it is absolutely disgraceful that the current Labor opposition would ignore all the findings and recommendations in an effort to smear a minister—absolutely disgraceful. The Labor opposition were wreckers in government when they got this all so wrong. They are wreckers in opposition. We are trying to get it right and they are trying to stop us. Minister Speirs and the Marshall government are doing an outstanding job in this area.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.A.W. Gardner.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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