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

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.S. Marshall (resumed on motion).

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (15:59): I rise today in support of the motion that this house supports the Premier's investigation into the royal commission. The importance of the River Murray to South Australia has been well documented. It is one of Australia's most valuable environmental resources and sustains our productivity and all South Australians who rely on it. In the context of South Australia, it sustains a great many wetlands and their associated biota and a significant range of horticulture and viticultural businesses, from the border to the barrages, as well as a thriving tourism industry based on ecotourism and recreation.

The River Murray, of course, is linked to the Ramsar-listed Coorong, a significant environmental asset for my electorate of MacKillop, important internationally for migratory birds and locally for tourism, fishing and its significant cultural and heritage values. The health of the river and its wetland has been a high priority for South Australia since Federation. The priority of the Marshall Liberal government is to secure the environmental sustainability of the river for today and for future generations. This priority is not one we will walk away from.

The strong action of our government will deliver for the river and the people of South Australia. Maintaining this priority for our government means making sure that we continue our role in ensuring the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is implemented to ensure the delivery of critical human water needs, the ongoing sustainability of water-dependent industries and the communities that depend on them, improved cultural and social outcomes and a sustainable ecological future for the river, its flood plains and reliant ecosystems.

Environmental water: the delivery of the 450 gigalitres is critically important to South Australia for improving the environmental health of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and River Murray flood plain. This water will help maintain water levels in the Lower Lakes at the right levels, flush salt through the Murray Mouth and increase the frequency and volume of water released from the barrages. This will in turn help keep the Murray Mouth open for longer and improve water quality in the northern lagoon for the Coorong.

In the worst drought years, we saw how water levels dropped to dangerously low levels in the Lower Lakes. This put at risk the environment and water supply for our communities. There are other significant benefits to South Australia in dry conditions, when the environment is put under greater pressure. The additional 450 gigalitres of water will help avoid low water levels, acidification and riverbank collapse along the river, Lower Lakes and Coorong. These are just a few of the reasons that making sure the environmental water requirements of South Australia are being met is so important.

Mismanagement of the plan: the members of the government who have spoken before me have spoken and well covered the context and agreed flow requirements under the basin plan, so I will not repeat this context. Under Labor, we know that the 450 gigalitres was never going to be delivered, and that is why our government has needed to show strong leadership on the management of the River Murray. Our government stands by the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and is taking steps to make sure that we move forward with the other states to ensure its delivery.

A key step to this end has been taken by our Premier, who has written to the Prime Minister to bring together the COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider the royal commission report and the Productivity Commission's 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment'. The royal commission's report provides key directions on which collaborative approach needs to be taken across the basin states, including the need for increased transparency. This is an area that needs greater attention to restore faith between basin state partners and the communities of the basin. It is an indictment of the way the basin plan has been managed that it took a Four Corners investigation to throw light on the theft of water by individuals in upstream states.

In South Australia, our record on water accounting and transparency is clear: we have a water accounting system that has operated for a long period and we ensure we hold our water users to account. South Australia was the first state to cap the volume of water on licences for irrigation in the 1960s and is well known for its leadership on improvements to irrigation efficiency.

Other areas of recommendation have included the need for a new determination of the environmentally sustainable level of take and the modification of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanisms and the need to redo the Northern Basin Review. Other key themes include the need for better recognition of Aboriginal people, the need to factor climate change and its extreme variability into the plan, the recovery of the remaining water through buybacks from the market, and using compulsory acquisition to address constraints to the delivery of environmental water.

I look forward to our government's response to the report, which I understand will be a well-considered assessment that will provide a basis for pursuing discussion with the federal government and other basin states. The remarks from the commission, relating to the role our environment minister took in the recent negotiation of additional socio-economic criteria for the assessment of efficiency measures projects, are unfounded. The minister has been in this position for only 10 months, and it is a long stretch to place on his shoulders the accusation that he has not advocated in the state's best interests.

The minister has taken a mature and responsible approach to the basin plan negotiations and acted in the best interests of our state to ensure the delivery of the 450 gigalitres. Again, this is something that the other side could not manage to deliver. The minister has moved us collectively past the statement that was holding back the full implementation of the plan. While Labor made a lot of noise about the basin plan, the minister of the time (Hon. Ian Hunter) succeeded only at times to act like a bull in a china shop. He was unable to broker an agreement to ensure the delivery of 450 gigalitres, hence why we are talking as we are today.

Rather notably and unfortunately, he delivered a rambunctious dummy spit, presumably about his frustration at his own ineffectiveness. We only saw whingeing, no real outcomes, government spin and fake fights. There were no outcomes, and there was no pathway or practical approach to implement these flows. There were no projects from upstream states on the table because of Labor's noisy, ineffective overtures. This positioned the full implementation of the basin plan at risk as its implementation slowed to a crawl.

We know that the achievement of the final 450 gigalitres of environmental flows under the basin plan requires the full participation of New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. We can also move forward now understanding that the December agreement brokered by our minister broke the deadlock, when South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales finally agreed to participate in the full range of water-saving projects, which could deliver the 450 gigalitres.

This included New South Wales and Victoria agreeing to fully participate in the commonwealth's water infrastructure program, and investment by the commonwealth in specific initiatives in each jurisdiction to help accelerate the return of the final 450 gigalitres. This will facilitate the delivery of water to South Australia.

Notably, it also enabled South Australia to secure the $70 million investment for the Coorong and the acknowledgement by all basin ministers of the importance of the Coorong to the overall health of the basin. This project will focus on restoring the Coorong's health and vitality and visitor experiences that can be had by visitors to the Coorong. The natural beauty, abundant wildlife and unspoilt coastline make it one of South Australia's greatest treasures.

Key to this project will be initiatives to preserve the ecological diversity of the Coorong. These initiatives would not have been possible without the foresight and negotiation of our minister. These are steps that provide optimism and commitment that the basin states are moving forward with the implementation of the basin plan. It is interesting that the other side is seeking to make distance on the negotiations initiated by our minister. The Collins Dictionary defines 'Negotiations' as:

…formal discussions between people who have different aims or intentions, especially in business or politics, during which they try to reach an agreement.

Agreement requires compromise. The basin plan negotiations under Labor were a political compromise. In opposition, we supported the political compromises that the Labor government made on their assurance that what was agreed to was the best political deal for South Australia.

Without negotiation, we know that we would not have had the 450 gigalitres on the table and enshrined in the basin plan. It is galling to hear the criticism of the minister from the other side for showing the leadership to negotiate and compromise to find a way forward to ensure the delivery of the 450 gigalitres and the survival of the basin plan. The timing is right, now, for us, given the break in the stalemate, to move forward as a state to ensure the delivery and accountability by all states for basin plan delivery. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:10): I rise to speak on the motion and am very pleased to support the same. First, I will address the Productivity Commission report, which was prepared in late January. It was a report considering the halfway point of a 12-year implementation program of the basin plan, which is required under the legislation. It provided 29 findings on the progress of the plan to date and 37 recommendations.

Interestingly, they did record that around 2,000 gigalitres of water had been recovered for the environment as part of their findings within the plan, that is, 20 per cent of the water available for consumptive users than a decade previously. That was heartening to read. They also made recommendations about the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which was the new entity established under this whole new model of management since the passage of the Water Act back in 2007. In doing so, they suggested that it should split up its implementing and enforcement powers and operations in relation to the authority's work. That is a matter that obviously can be considered.

The Productivity Commission also made it clear that the basin states themselves, notwithstanding this new structure that had been established, must take responsibility for implementing the $13 billion plan rather than just the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. I think that was an important signal—it certainly was to me and I would hope other members of the house—of the significance of ensuring that all the parties to this agreement, that is, the member states and the commonwealth, stay at the table and ensure that they monitor and manage the responsibility of making sure this whole plan works.

We must remember that this plan was established under the premise that, instead of just having states make the decisions about the process, there be 13 valleys established across the whole region, that there be an authority put in place to supervise that and able to report where there were breaches of the obligations contrary to each of the plans within each valley. Largely, the Productivity Commission is encouraging in the sense of progress and has provided some useful recommendations.

A few days later, another report was published by Mr Bret Walker on 29 January 2019 pursuant to his commission of investigation into the Murray-Darling Basin and, in particular, pursuant to the commission of our Governor back in January 2018. It was instigated to essentially investigate the operation and effectiveness of the plan arrangements. It was established in the wake of there being allegations of illegal water take in the upstream, in particular in New South Wales.

The former government's decision to action this matter was to initiate a royal commission. It was not uncommon in the history of that government to have royal commissions into matters when they thought things were going wrong. Notwithstanding the instruction and the terms of reference that were presented to Mr Walker, he determined that he would not actually be investigating the alleged larceny. He made it quite clear there were other authorities to do that so, notwithstanding his instruction, he published material to confirm that he would not be doing that.

On that matter, notwithstanding that this appeared to be an impetus upon which there would be some inquiry and that he declined to exercise sections of his instruction in that regard, I did write to him on 18 January. I said as follows:

To a more important matter, you have previously indicated that although you would receive any submissions in respect of illegal take of water, the Commission would not be interfering with any police investigation or State based prosecution. Given that you have now finalised your inquiry, I would appreciate your advice as to whether or not you have referred any matters to investigative or prosecutorial agencies; and, if so, whether there is any action the Government should be taking.

His response on that matter was:

I advise that allegations were received on a few occasions during the public submissions phase of the Commission's work. All of them had also been made known to State law enforcement authorities and no further action is therefore required in relation to them.

I am pleased to report to the parliament that at least that has occurred. I am advised, and I think this is as accurate as I can record, as I have made some inquiry on it, that five irrigators have been charged with offences in relation to water larceny in New South Wales. If they have stolen water, they deserve the full force of the law, and that is to be acknowledged.

We did not need a royal commission to do that, but I make the point that there are agencies to deal with these matters. To anyone who suspects that there has been tampering with meters, bypassing of meters, sucking water out of the river without a meter—anything—let's get on with the proper authorities investigating those matters.

The other aspect of this report I bring to members' attention is that the commissioner made a number of recommendations, and we thank him for that, including that the Water Act is constitutionally valid. I am pleased about that because it is one aspect that has been under consideration. Others have supported that position and he has confirmed it, and I think that is good. He did, however, cast doubt, from his point of view, on the validity of aspects of the plan. That is the basin plan itself, including the setting of the environmentally sustainable level of take, the associated long-term average sustainable diversion limit, the amended SDLs, the SDL adjustment mechanism and the Northern Basin Review.

He has made some recommendations on the amendments to legislation. Those matters are all under consideration by the Crown Solicitor's Office, with actioned assessment of that. I think it is important that, even though there is a different legal opinion floating around in respect of these matters, Mr Walker has considered these matters and put in his recommendations. We will investigate and assess those, in particular, if sections 21 or 23 of the Water Act have not been properly implemented, what amendments may need to be progressed.

The findings are there for everyone to read. I hope that members will all take the time to do this because every one of our members here in this house has people somewhere in their electorates who drink, bathe in or rely on water from the River Murray, so I would encourage them to really take a serious interest in this, particularly the newer members.

One of the matters that came up during the course of the operation of this commission was the question of whether the issuing of subpoenas against public servants, including those in the CSIRO and other agencies of the commonwealth, was enforceable. Members might recall that the former member for Cheltenham, former premier Weatherill, tabled a royal commissions bill in 2017. I had a copy of it here in front of me, but, in any event, it was tabled, not introduced, and he did not ever progress it.

The appointment of Mr Walker and the establishment of the commission were done by presentation to His Excellency, and there was no requirement for there to be legislation. However, the former premier did table a bill purporting to ensure that the Royal Commissions Act had the full extent of extraterritorial legislative power of the parliament; that is, it was able to actually act in respect of its application outside the state of South Australia. He did not progress that, for whatever reason. I do not know what advice he received at the time, but I am assuming it is the same advice that I subsequently had, confirmed by Mr Walker, that that was completely unnecessary, that the issue in relation to the enforcement of subpoenas did not require a remedy in the Royal Commissions Act 1917, our South Australian law.

Notwithstanding that, for whatever light-bulb idea moment the member for Port Adelaide had, last year she introduced her own bill with the same provision, that is, to amend the Royal Commissions Act once there had been an issue established in the High Court relating to another matter. Notwithstanding my saying repeatedly to the member for Port Adelaide that she had obviously missed the point that this was not the issue, that the issue in the High Court really related to the whole question of who should be investigating matters such as the enforcement or proprietary of an intergovernmental agreement, not the subpoena issue. Notwithstanding that, she just pressed ahead anyway. Obviously, that fell foul by vote of this parliament.

The commissioner addresses this in his report. I urge members to read between pages 31 and 38, where there is an interesting summary of 'South Australia's interest and co-operative federalism'. It raises two issues; one is the issue about what he says:

Early queries were also raised about the capacity of a South Australian Royal Commission to compel evidence from out of the State. Some of them, echoed by bush lawyers, seemed to be based on a very bleak and savage notion of the relationship between the polities that are members of the Federation.

He then goes on to quote the law and say that these laws:

…leave no doubt that compulsory processes of this Royal Commission could be enforced in other States and Territories of the Commonwealth.

He goes on to explain what happened with respect to action taken in the High Court, the withdrawal of that matter. He then gives a very comprehensive list of why, he suggests, it is important to recognise the need to deal with intergovernmental agreements and who should be keeping an eye on them, who should be able to enforce them and who should be able to investigate them. He gives a helpful contribution on that.

I do not necessarily agree with Mr Walker that the former member for Cheltenham or the member for Port Adelaide are bush lawyers, but obviously it is his description of the view of those who perpetuated that process. Nevertheless, it is for them to answer why they would progress that. He has made absolutely clear in his report what the legal position is in relation to that. So I hope, finally, that the member for Port Adelaide will read that and desist from those sorts of stunts in the future.

The final matter relates to the Royal Commissions Act itself. Mr Walker and his senior counsel during the course of the commission did provide me with advice in respect of the royal commission's legislation generally, and I have taken that on board. I have placed on record my appreciation to have that advice. It is a matter that we are looking at. Certainly, the state of Victoria has upgraded its royal commissions law in recent years, and I understand it is now operating very effectively.

For anyone who has actually read the Royal Commissions Act 1917, it is a very short document, and the contemporary law in relation to royal commissions is one which, if one looks at the Victorian model, is a much more comprehensive model of how these should apply. I want to indicate to the house that we are looking at how we might modernise our legislation in that regard. When we do, I will make sure the member for Port Adelaide gets a special briefing.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:23): I rise to support the motion. I welcome the opportunity that the motion brings to consider in this parliament the important issue of water for the Murray-Darling Basin. As all South Australians know, the River Murray is hugely important for our community, for our economy and for the very basics of day-to-day life.

I welcome the opportunity to consider particularly today the issue of the allocation of water to be recovered, and in particular the 450 gigalitres, because it provides an opportunity—as we urge on all those present to continue what has been a bipartisan effort to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full—to reflect on some of the challenges that have faced largely previous governments and the former Labor government in this state in endeavouring to implement the changes with a view to putting in its proper context the decision that has been made at the recent ministerial council and by our state's water minister in December.

I propose to go about this in somewhat of a portmanteau fashion. It is an approach that the royal commissioner has taken in his report, and in reading the report it is clear that it is divided into a number of, as it were, almost independent episodes, but first some context. I turn to the transcript of the royal commission hearings at its outset on 18 June last year where the proper characterisation of the 450 gigalitres is provided by senior counsel assisting the commission, Mr Beasley, who said at line 38 of page 31 of the transcript:

Commissioner, the plan has sometimes been called, in error, a 3200 gigalitre plan by adding 450 gigalitres to 2750 gigalitres. The 450 gigalitres for the enhanced objectives for South Australia forms a note to the legislation. There is a Commonwealth program with funds for what are called efficiency measures in the plan and for this proposed 450 gigalitres volume of water equivalency.

That is a reasonably good encapsulation of how the 450 gigalitres fit in in the context of the plan, that is, in addition to the 2,750 gigalitres that are the subject of the plan as agreed in 2012.

Taking a step back from the commission, and ultimately a reflection on some of its findings, it is important to note that, back when the previous Labor government was going about the process of negotiating the plan, back in 2011, the previous Labor government had reference to information, including the Goyder Institute recommendation, that water flows of the order of 4,000 gigalitres would be desirable or necessary in order to achieve necessary and sustainable outcomes.

It was against advice of that nature that the former Labor government went ahead and endeavoured to negotiate for flows for South Australia. The result of those negotiations was 2,750 gigalitres, and, as we know, Labor governments—state and federal—in 2012 implemented the plan with the provision included. As I have just quoted from senior counsel assisting the commission, the plan had a footnote to it that South Australia would endeavour to obtain an additional 450 gigalitres.

In the course of the debate today there has been some reflection on the way in which that 450 gigalitres was described by the former premier and others who were in the government at that time, including words to the effect that it was locked in and that it was mandatory. As the passage I have just read out, among others, illustrates, that was certainly not the case. It was a matter for negotiation. It was that from the outset, and it created a task, particularly for those who were endeavouring to achieve the best possible outcome for South Australia, to go about negotiating with the basin states and territory with a view to the delivery of the 450 gigalitres.

Over the several years that followed—and all in the context, I might emphasise, of a bipartisan approach to the implementation of that plan—we saw in South Australia very little, in fact negligible, progress towards the delivery of the 450 gigalitres. It has been said repeatedly in the course of this debate today that, of the 450 gigalitres that were the subject of that footnote to the plan, we have seen next to nothing delivered.

The amount of one gigalitre that has found its way to South Australia as part of the 450 gigalitres has been entirely delivered in South Australia. In terms of a plan to deliver an additional and necessary component of the water to be earmarked for delivery to the river system, the 450-gigalitre component has simply not progressed. That is also against what must have been an extraordinarily frustrating backdrop for the previous Labor government in this state that, as of July 2017, half a billion dollars had been set aside in relation to this allocation, yet there had been no progress—just one gigalitre, all from South Australia.

At the end of 2017, at the regular meeting of first ministers in this regard—the now infamous Rigoni's meeting that the commissioner referred to in the course of his report—one might observe that the then Labor minister for water may well have been mightily frustrated at the lack of progress—almost none. At the end of 2017, we saw an unfortunate episode, an unfortunate expression of that frustration by the then minister for water. In what was really quite silly and embarrassing behaviour, we saw the minister really give up the game, give up the argument, give up the negotiation and, rather, resort to exclamations of his frustration.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Disgraceful behaviour.

Mr TEAGUE: It was disgraceful. It was disgraceful behaviour, and it certainly was not going to achieve further progress towards delivery of the 450 gigalitres—quite to the contrary. But there is more that illustrates the combination of inaction, frustration and lack of progress on the part of the former Labor government, because subsequently we all learned about what appeared to be substantial noncompliance with the plan emanating further up the river and allegations of water theft contrary to allocation and so on. They were serious allegations that warranted investigation.

I put it to honourable members in this house that Labor's response to that on the eve of an election fast approaching, calling a royal commission to investigate in relation to these matters, might be seen as in part motivated by this evidence of noncompliance. I put it to honourable members for their consideration that this was a step by the former Labor government that expressed the height of frustration after many years of not being able to achieve anything really.

When confronted with yet another episode on top of the minister's capitulation back at the end of the MinCo meeting, giving up, spitting the dummy, we have reports of noncompliance. The former Labor government gave up and said, 'Alright, we'll call a royal commission. We won't have to talk about it anymore. We'll hand it over and see what happens from there.' I suggest to honourable members that that is the proper context in which we came to have the royal commission, which has now gone about its work.

So there has been no progress by the former government, unfortunately, on the 450 gigalitres, and that is important in the context of the recent report, which was received on 29 January from the royal commissioner and published on 31 January. There has been some passing opinion expressed about steps that have been taken by the new state Minister for Water in relation to attempting to achieve delivery of the 450 gigalitres.

It is against the background of an observation consistently throughout the course of the commission hearings that under the regime that has prevailed until the end of last year there was, in the words of a witness, Ms Beer, no possible way that the 450 gigalitres could be delivered. She said that she could not see any possible way that they were going to get to the 450, and the commissioner agreed no. That was on 28 August.

On 4 September, senior counsel assisting the commission made the observation that there was, in fact, no hope of it being achieved. He observed that scientists had given evidence and expressed the view that 'there's no hope of achieving enhanced environmental outcomes from the so-called 450 gigalitres of up-water related to the efficiency measures'. Tellingly, on 5 September—that is, a long time prior to the December MinCo that has been the subject of some recent consideration—we heard from Mr David Papps, who relevantly is also quoted in the commission's report.

That is important because Mr Papps is the former commonwealth environmental water holder. On 5 September 2018, Mr Papps told the commission that there was no chance of the 450 gigalitres being delivered. In fact, he was quite emphatic about that. I quote, and he was in turn quoted in the commissioner's report as saying, 'I would put my house on it that there won't be 450 gigalitres.' In September last year, Mr Papps said that he would put his house on there being no return on the 450 gigalitres.

This is all in the context of a plan of longstanding, a plan that has been in place for many years at this stage. The commission had multiple witnesses, including, in particular, Mr Papps, who were all indicating that there was not going to be any delivery on the 450 gigalitres. The commission had ample evidence through the course of the body of its hearings that the story of the delivery on the 450 gigalitres over the period of five years or more since the basin plan was introduced was a story of failure and a story of no progress.

Later on 5 September, the commissioner himself made the observation that so certain was the likelihood that there was not going to be any delivery that he expressed the view that you would have to be 'off with the fairies' to think that this 450 gigalitres, or any of it, was going to be delivered in the context of the way that this was being negotiated at that time.

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: The overwhelming evidence that came to the commission month after month after month was that the years—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order!

Mr TEAGUE: —that had transpired since the implementation of the plan had led to—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! Member for Light, you will have your opportunity to speak on this motion if you desire.

Mr TEAGUE: It is in that context in a new government—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Member for Light, this has been a very respectful debate this afternoon and I would like that to continue as I am in the chair.

Mr TEAGUE: Dare I say, Mr Acting Speaker—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): I call the member for Light to order.

Mr TEAGUE: —the royal commissioner had ample evidence of the complete lack of progress that had taken place over many years. What we have seen in December—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: And the conclusion was your minister sold us down the river.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): The member for Light is warned for the first time.

Mr TEAGUE: —is a change of approach, a change to an outcomes-driven approach, a change to a delivery of water approach and a change of which this government and the people of South Australia can be proud. I commend the motion.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (16:43): South Australia is a basin state within the meaning of the commonwealth Water Act 2007. Members will know that a basin plan was made under section 44(3)(b)(i) of the act and that South Australia is a party to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, referred to as the basin agreement, which forms schedule 1 to the act. Long before there was a plan or the act, South Australians had grappled with the task of sharing water from the basin. Since the 1860s, there have been plans in place for managing basin water. A River Murray commission was formed in 1917. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority describes early measures to manage the basin in the following terms:

The economic value of the Basin's water resources for agriculture and industry led to the development of a highly regulated river system not only on the River Murray but throughout the Basin. With increased regulation and surface water extraction, together with a severe drought in the late 1960s, environmental impacts were starting to emerge. Water quality had deteriorated to the point that the first benchmark study of salinity took place in 1970.

The authority goes on to say:

From the 1970s through to the 1990s, state governments undertook initiatives to sustainably manage land and water, however the interconnected nature of the rivers of the Basin was much better understood than 100 years ago. An intergovernmental approach was needed and in 1987 the first Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was reached, which established the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC).

Leading up to the new millennium, there was significant progress in the reform of water sharing, including the development of water markets and salinity management, however the fundamental issue of too much water being used remained.

That issue was felt painfully and consistently in South Australia. The act and the basin plan, which I outlined earlier in my remarks, are designed to deliver a system of water sharing. I now turn to the royal commission.

The commission's terms of reference required the commissioner to inquire into and report on 13 matters. I emphasise clause 3 of the terms of reference, which required the commissioner to examine whether the basin plan in its current form, its implementation and any proposed amendments to the plan were likely to achieve the objects and purposes of the act and plan as variously outlined in sections 3, 20, 23 and 28 of the act and the enhanced environmental outcomes and additional 450 gigalitres provided for in section 86AA(2) and (3) of the act respectively. My friend the member for Heysen has forensically and ably detailed the history of the 450 gigalitres and I refer to his remarks.

On 18 June 2018, the opening day of the royal commission was held. On that day, counsel assisting the commission, Mr Richard Beasley SC, made remarks. These remarks have also been recorded by the Premier, but I think it is important and necessary to emphasise them again. 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 responds:

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.

In early December 2016 in the other place, the then minister for water said:

There have been no projects from Victoria and New South Wales forthcoming whatsoever. I understand there was a vague commitment by New South Wales to participate in a pilot program that went nowhere. No pilot program eventuated, I am advised. We have seen nothing of it. Certainly, not even Victoria even pretended that they had an interest in delivering a pilot program. For them, it was a push back to the never, never.

In other words, there had been no real plan from the former government, or at least not one that they could deliver to achieve sufficient water for the environment in the basin and particularly for South Australia; however, in December 2018, an agreement was struck between the basin states and the commonwealth. Importantly, a path was opened up to deliver the 450 gigalitres. Let me briefly make some further observations. Twelve months earlier, under a different government and a different minister, no real agreement was reached. The communiqué from MinCo (Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council) in 2017 says in part:

Ministers were not able to agree on the immediate implementation of efficiency measures, but have committed to further discussions…

The previous government had failed to deliver the 450 gigalitres and that fact had been reduced to ministerial statements. As far back as 1 July 2014, section 86AG of the Water Act had provided the means for the 450-gigalitre program to commence. As of July 2017, more than half a billion dollars was set aside for this purpose under the Water Act—or rather, for the purpose of giving effect to environmental and other matters under the act.

All we had to show for it was one gigalitre. If that is not failure in this space, nothing is. That is absolute failure—total and complete failure—by the previous government. Nothing could be more shameful or disgraceful. Nothing could be more disappointing for the people of South Australia. Nothing could be more disappointing for us than to have to sit here and listen to the increasing sound bites—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order, Member for Kavel!

Mr CREGAN: —from the other side. It is completely unacceptable. The Minister for Environment made reference to games and noise, Facebook rants and bullying, tweets and slogans, logos and T-shirts and hats, simplistic sound bites, sophistry and politics and nothing else—nothing, yet the minister on this side, the new minister, has acted to open up a plan to deliver 450 gigalitres.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): The member for King.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (16:51): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: You just got warmed up. You just got warmed up; come on, more.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Member for King, resume your seat, please. Member for Light, the Speaker previously had good reason to evict you in question time and I would hate to—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Not question time; it was this morning.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): This morning. We probably should have evicted you during question time as well. You would hate to be kicked out twice on the same debate. Please listen to the member for King in silence, as per the standing orders.

Ms LUETHEN: Thank you for the opportunity to support the Premier's motion on the Murray-Darling Basin. Our minister has been focused on achieving practical outcomes for South Australia from day one. Within hours of being elected, the minister reached out to colleagues to get these important negotiations happening again, because there was a real threat that we could run out of water.

Since we have been elected, the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been secured, with state and federal governments agreeing on terms about how environmental water will be returned to river. Up to 450 gigalitres will be returned to the environment. I have learned today that 450 gigalitres is equivalent to the amount of water in the Sydney Harbour.

The strong action of the Marshall Liberal government will deliver for the river and South Australians. We are not interested in political game playing. Under Labor, we were never going to get the 450 gigalitres. While Labor were making lots of noise, not one drop of water had been delivered by upstream states for the 450 gigalitres, and they had no plan. Because of Labor's inaction and immaturity, Victoria and New South Wales had all but walked away from the basin plan.

Labor do not understand regional communities or how to get things done. We have shown national leadership taken strong, pragmatic action to get a pathway to the delivery of the 450 gigalitres. We are now calling on all sides of politics to come together and put the interests of the state and basin ahead of political games and to do what is required to see the Murray-Darling Basin Plan delivered in full. There is no justification for the opposition to do anything but fully support this motion.

Why is this outcome so important? The River Murray is our nation's most valuable environmental resource, and it sustains our productivity and all South Australians who rely on it. The river's health has rightfully been a high priority for South Australian political leaders of all persuasions since before Federation.

By securing the environmental sustainability of the river, the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan provides many benefits, including the delivery of critical human water needs, the ongoing sustainability of water-dependent industries and communities that depend on them, improved cultural outcomes and improved water quality. After all, a healthy river is in everyone's long-term best interests. We are choosing to take real action to protect our communities and our environment.

I turn to the royal commission report. The South Australian government received the royal commissioner's report on 29 January 2019 and publicly released the report on 31 January. The 746-page report contains 44 recommendations and 111 key findings. The report largely focuses on events, actions and decisions that occurred during a period when the Liberal Party did not hold office in South Australia.

Central themes of the report include the need for increased transparency, 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 the establishment of an independent audit function.

It is important to note, as the commissioner himself recognised, that very few of the recommendations made in the report can be actioned by the South Australian government in isolation from the other basin jurisdictions. As a result, the Premier has written to the Prime Minister to request a meeting of the COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider the royal commission report and also the recently released Productivity Commission 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment'. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet will coordinate the preparation of the South Australian government response to the report as a basis for pursuing discussion with the federal government and other basin states.

I note that the criticism directed towards our minister is unjustified and illogical. The Premier has already outlined to this house the government's view that the brief commentary found on pages 414 and 415 of the report is illogical, unfounded and unjustified. The minister has at all times acted in the best interests of our state, and the agreement reached in December finally provides a pathway for the practical delivery of the 450 gigalitres where, under Labor, the 450 gigalitres was not going to be delivered.

Working closely with his departmental officials, the minister has played a leadership role in strongly negotiating a package to break the stalemate that occurred under the previous government and was threatening full implementation of the plan. The commission's personal criticism of the minister, while not criticising ministers involved in the past negotiations of the entire plan, is inconsistent and unfair. The minister has done everything possible to keep the plan moving forward.

The minister has worked constructively with other parties to reach outcomes that improve the overall health of the river and deliver much-needed water to South Australia. The criticisms towards our minister are unjustified and his actions do not in any way deserve to be tarnished with words like 'capitulation'. The minister has acted strongly for our state and the basin as a whole.

Furthermore, as we have heard in this house today from the Premier, the minister did not receive due process. Senior Counsel Richard Beasley proclaimed in the final public hearing:

Any person or entity that may be the subject of criticisms or adverse findings by you has had procedural fairness in spades.

Despite this statement, neither the commissioner nor his senior counsel made any attempt to contact the minister to seek further information or justification following the December ministerial council meeting.

The commissioner failed to provide adequate or appropriate opportunity for the minister to be able to explain to him how South Australia has now finally taken the lead in negotiating a holistic package that will bring the basin plan out of the wilderness and put it back on track for South Australia. Additionally, there appears to be a sudden change of logic in how the commission dealt with the 450 gigalitres. Through the public hearings it has been disappointing that both the commissioner and Mr Beasley made very clear and rather pessimistic statements about the 450 gigalitres.

Today, I wish to make clear that Labor left South Australians with no pathway to the 450 gigalitres. Although 450 gigalitres of vital environmental water had been promised by Labor, not one drop had been delivered from interstate. There was no pathway and no practical agreement on implementation, and all the while, despite the noise, petty politics and slogans, no plan for delivery.

Although the previous government claimed that the 450 gigalitres was locked in, this appears not to be the case. Indeed, the royal commission had a different view that securing the additional water for the environment was not mandatory under the plan. Negotiation is required to ensure the 450 gigalitres is delivered. Thanks to Labor's political games, fake fighting to draw media attention and a lack of maturity, South Australia's reputation has suffered and other basin jurisdictions are walking away from the table. There were no projects from upstream states on the table as a result of Labor's failures.

It is clear that under Labor the implementation of the full basin plan had slowed to a crawl, placing the long-term interests of South Australia, our environment and the entire basin in jeopardy. Upstream states had not agreed on the full suite of measures to drive efficiency projects for the 450 gigalitres. The achievement of the final 450 gigalitres of environmental water flows under the basin plan requires the full participation of New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT.

December's agreement broke the deadlock, and now there is a pathway. In December 2018, an historic agreement was struck between the basin states and the commonwealth. In a significant moment for our state, Victoria and New South Wales finally agreed to participate in the full range of water-saving projects that could deliver this water. If you ever needed a comparison of the difference between our two governments, it is this: Labor preferred to protest and whine, whereas we led, negotiated and got the basin states moving forward, agreeing to practical actions to deliver real outcomes for the Murray.

We broke the deadlock. We did it by bringing all the states to the table, and this led to the development of a package that will lead to actual water being delivered back to the river. As well as a pathway to get water flowing again, South Australia secured $70 million towards transformative work at the Coorong and broke the deadlock on a range of other environmental measures that were threatening the entire plan. This is best described by a simple comparison of before and after.

Before the ministerial council meeting, not one drop of water had been contributed by upstream jurisdictions to deliver the 450 gigalitres, and New South Wales and Victoria refused to participate in any on-farm efficiency measure projects. Afterwards, New South Wales and Victoria had agreed to fully participate in the commonwealth's water infrastructure program, one of the key mechanisms to deliver the final 450 gigalitres required under the plan. In addition, the commonwealth has agreed to invest in specific initiatives in each jurisdiction to help accelerate return of the 450 gigalitres.

Before the ministerial council meeting, there was no pathway forward to turn around the declining condition of the South Lagoon of our iconic Coorong. After the ministerial council meeting, we had secured $70 million of investment for the Coorong and acknowledgement by all basin ministers of the importance of the Coorong to the overall health of the basin.

We care about the Murray. When in opposition, we took a bipartisan approach and supported premier Weatherill's push for a better basin plan. All we had to show for Labor's plan was a return of over just one gigalitre from South Australia, which is under 1 per cent of the required water. As always with the previous government, it was overpromising to South Australians but not delivering very much at all. The plan had stagnated, nothing was happening and something needed to be done, and our minister took charge.

Where to from here? Recovery of the final 450 gigalitres remains non-negotiable. The program criteria agreed at the ministerial council in December provided a pathway by which it can actually be recovered. In the meantime, we will be watching like a hawk the progress of other states on the 450 gigalitres and other key components of the plan. If there is evidence of obstruction or bad faith, then we expect the commonwealth to withhold incentive payments to the upstream states, as spelled out in the Littleproud-Burke deal that facilitated parliamentary support for key basin plan amendments last year.

We also expect basin first ministers to take action, which is why the COAG meeting in the coming months will be so important. What we need as South Australians and as Australians is strong bipartisan support and leadership to deliver this agreed basin plan and achieve the environmental and social outcomes that are in the best interests of South Australia and the broader community.

Project Coorong is focused on restoring the health, vitality and visitor experience of this precious place through environmental projects to get the Coorong back on track as well as initiatives to boost ecotourism, focusing on Coorong National Park. The Coorong is a national treasure with natural beauty, abundant wildlife and unspoiled coastline, making it one of South Australia's most loved and visited destinations. This is why the South Australian government is taking action to restore its health and get the Coorong back on track for the future.

In opposition, we supported the establishment of a royal commission because, like the government of the day, we were concerned about water theft and the integrity of the basin plan implementation. We have and always will put the basin above politics. I commend the Premier for raising this motion and I commend the minister for gaining a genuine agreement to secure the delivery of 450 gigalitres of water for South Australia.

The River Murray is our nation's most valuable environmental resource and sustains our productivity and all South Australians who rely on it. A healthy river is in everyone's long-term best interests, and this is certainly an initiative that requires both sides of this house to work together for the benefit of all South Australians. I ask the opposition to stop building fake fights.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (17:07): I rise today to wholeheartedly support this motion from the Premier and support the Marshall Liberal government's work to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin system from both an economic and environmental standpoint. The Murray-Darling river system is one of the world's great river systems and is critical to our state and, indeed, our nation's prosperity. Australia's history has seen squabbling between states for more than a century over how water should be allocated between jurisdictions. However, as a result of geography, South Australia stands to lose the most from a lack of cooperation between basin states.

In South Australia, the river is critical for agriculture, horticulture and viticulture, but it also forms a large proportion, and in some years as much as 80 per cent, of Adelaide's drinking water, and it is also an important source of drinking water for many of our regional centres across the state. Equally, the Murray and Coorong systems also provide enormous opportunities for tourism.

Within my own electorate, there are small food producers who access River Murray water from local Adelaide Hills tributaries on the path to reservoirs. In fact, the first River Murray pipeline to serve Adelaide, the Mannum to Adelaide pipeline, ends within my electorate at the Anstey Hill water treatment plant down the hill, and it also helps to feed a number of the local reservoirs.

The health of the River Murray is critical to South Australia and, as such, securing the best possible deal in a mature manner is essential for our state. It is important that the house notes both the Productivity Commission's 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment' and the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report as well as supports the Premier's request to the Prime Minister for a meeting of the COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider these reports and respond to them.

It is important that this occurs and occurs with the support of the opposition, which I hope shares the Marshall Liberal government's steadfast commitment to ensuring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin and our commitment to work with all basin plan governments to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including for the recovery of the full 3,200 gigalitres.

Fostering a cooperative and genuinely non-partisan relationship with the commonwealth and other basin states is in the best interests of South Australia, and in fact very few of the recommendations of the royal commission report and the five-year assessment are within the sole remit of the South Australian government. This government, and minister Speirs in particular, have already demonstrated a genuine capacity to negotiate real outcomes and benefits for the river in South Australia.

Whereas the previous Labor government had been more interested in grandstanding and fake fights, the Marshall Liberal government is behaving as a grown-up government interested in delivering tangible benefits for the people of South Australia rather than testosterone-charged chest beating that delivers nothing.

While Labor were creating a lot of noise about the River Murray and claimed that the 450 gigalitres of critical environmental water to be delivered by upstream states into South Australia was 'locked in', barely one drop of water was actually delivered during their time in office from upstream states. In reality, Labor's immaturity and focus on political gains had led New South Wales and Victoria to all but walk away from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which would have been an absolute disaster for our state.

In December 2018, an historic agreement was struck between basin states and the commonwealth, with Victoria and New South Wales finally agreeing to participate in the full range of water-saving projects that could deliver the 450 gigalitres of environmental water. Unfortunately, though, the royal commission report did not consider the broadening of the socio-economic criteria within the full context of the package of the agreements that was reached by the ministerial council in December last year. The package included:

an agreement to proceed with addressing constraints—an issue the commissioner identified as being of key importance to the success of the basin plan;

an agreement to provide $70 million to improve the health of the Coorong;

an agreement by Victoria and New South Wales to participate in the commonwealth's Water Infrastructure Program, which will help deliver the 450 gigalitres required under the plan; and

an agreement by the commonwealth to invest in specific initiatives in each jurisdiction to help accelerate the recovery of the final 450 gigalitres.

The 450 gigalitres committed to under the basin plan is so important for the long-term health of our environment, particularly the Coorong, and ultimately the economic sustainability of the river system. Under the plan the efficiency measures used to recover the 450 gigalitres must not have a negative socio-economic impact on communities. The plan assumes, if a water user voluntarily participates in the efficiency measures, there must not be negative socio-economic impacts.

However, there had been concerns in regional communities that this only looks at the impacts at an individual level and does not consider the broader community. These concerns were such that New South Wales and Victoria refused to participate in the on-farm component of the commonwealth's Water Infrastructure Program when it launched in mid-2018. The on-farm component is critical for the recovery of the full 450 gigalitres, and so it was vital that these on-farm measures were renegotiated.

That minister Speirs was able to negotiate to revive on-farm measures, and by extension the full recovery of the 450 gigalitres, is a testament to his skills as the Minister for Environment and Water and his ability to work in the best interests for South Australia and is to be commended. I commend this motion to the house.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (17:13): I rise to speak in support of this motion. The River Murray is arguably the state's most important natural resource. The future of South Australia depends on a healthy river system that supports a flourishing natural environment and ecological systems, sustainable irrigation industries, vibrant river communities and critical human water needs in Adelaide and in towns from Paringa to Ceduna.

South Australia, however, cannot manage this highly complex river system by itself because most of the Murray-Darling Basin lies outside its borders. We are very much dependent on the cooperation, agreement and goodwill of state and territory governments that represent the farmers, communities and other stakeholders upstream of South Australia. This has been the reality for our state for well over a century. This reality has not changed in 130 years. This reality is not going to change in another 130 years, yet this is the reality that has essentially been ignored by the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission.

For many years now, commonwealth, state and territory governments have been developing and implementing that which has never been attempted before. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has presented an unprecedented opportunity to legislatively enshrine the cooperation, agreement and goodwill of upstream jurisdictions that South Australia desperately needs for a healthy river system and our long-term future.

This initiative breaks new ground on a national scale, affecting millions of people, to address complex issues that have plagued our federation for more than a century. It is, therefore, something that was never going to be easy and which was never going to be particularly satisfying for any stakeholder. Here we are, seven years after the basin plan was legislated and 12 years after the passage of the Water Act 2007, still arguing about it. Worse still, in South Australia we are arguing amongst ourselves.

During the plan's development, there was much compromise to achieve an outcome and an agreed plan. The state minister for the Murray River at the time, Paul Caica, did a great job in sitting down to reach an agreement; unfortunately, only two months after the plan was finalised he was forced to resign from that role for factional reasons, to be replaced by a minister threatening to pull out and scream slogans from the sidelines while other jurisdictions remained talking at the table.

Their political games risked the additional 450 gigalitres per year required for environmental purposes under the Water Act by 2024. The only development that saved the basin plan and the 450 gigalitres was the election of the Marshall government: finally there were adults in charge making decisions in the best interests of South Australia. However, because the Marshall government has done that, at a recent Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting in December, Labor was once again playing political games.

The Premier has outlined to this house the government's view that the brief commentary found on pages 414 and 415 of the report is illogical, unfounded and unjustified. The Minister for Environment and Water has, at all times, acted in the best interests of our state, and the agreement reached in December provides a pathway for the delivery of the 450 gigalitres, whereas under Labor that 450 gigalitres was not going to be delivered. Working closely with his department officials, the Minister for Environment and Water has played a leadership role in strongly negotiating a package to break the stalemate that had occurred in the previous government and that was threatening the full implementation of the plan.

The commission's personal criticism of the minister while not criticising ministers involved in the negotiation of the entire plan is inconsistent and unfair. The minister has done everything possible to keep the plan moving forward. He has worked constructively with other parties to reach outcomes that improve the overall health of the river and deliver much needed water to South Australia.

The criticisms directed towards the minister are unjustified. His actions do not in any way deserve to be tarnished with words like 'capitulation'. The minister has acted strongly for our state and for the basin as a whole. The Premier has made it clear that there are significant questions as to whether the minister received procedural fairness.

Additionally, there appears to be a sudden change of logic in how the commission dealt with the 450 gigalitres. Throughout the public hearings both the commissioner and Mr Beasley made very clear and rather pessimistic statements about the 450 gigalitres. During the course of 2018, prior to December's ministerial council meeting, the commissioner and senior counsel were openly saying that there was no hope but then apparently, months later, it became dead again. This lack of logic and due process undermines this section of the report and all those who try to use these seven sentences for their base political purpose.

Although 450 billion litres of vital environmental water had been promised by Labor, not one drop of water had been delivered from interstate. There was no pathway, no practical agreement on implementation and, despite the noise, the petty politics and slogans, no plan for the delivery of the 450 gigalitres, only a stalemate. Although the previous government claimed the 450 gigalitres was locked in, this appears not to have been the case. Indeed, the royal commission had a different view, that securing the additional 450 gigalitres for the environment was not mandatory under the plan. Negotiation was required to ensure the 450 gigalitres was delivered.

Thanks to Labor's political games, fake fighting to draw media attention and lack of maturity, South Australia's reputation had suffered and other basin jurisdictions were walking away from the table. It was clear that under Labor the implementation of the full basin plan had slowed to a crawl, placing the long-term interest of South Australia, our environment and the entire basin in jeopardy. Upstream states had not agreed on the full suite of measures to drive efficiencies projects for the 450 gigalitres. The achievement of the final 450 gigalitres of environmental water flows under the basin plan required the full participation of New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT.

December's agreement broke the deadlock and now there is a pathway to the 450 gigalitres. In December 2018, an historic agreement was struck between the basin states and the commonwealth. In a significant moment for our state, Victoria and New South Wales finally agreed to participate in the full range of water-saving projects which could deliver the 450 gigalitres.

It is important to note that 12 months earlier under a different government and minister, no agreement was reached, setting the 450 gigalitres back 12 months. In fact, the communiqué from the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in 2017 states:

Ministers were not able to agree on the immediate implementation of efficiency measures but have committed to further discussions…

If you ever need a comparison of the two governments, it is this: Labor preferred to promise and whine, whereas we led and got the basin states moving forward to deliver real action for the Murray. We did it by bringing all states to the table and leading the development of the package that will lead to actual water being delivered back to the river while ensuring regional communities are not ripped apart, just as the original plan from 2012 demands.

As well as a pathway to getting the water flowing again, South Australia secured $70 million for transformative work at the Coorong and broke the deadlock on a range of other environmental measures that were threatening the entire plan. The Finniss electorate, which includes the Murray Mouth—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr BASHAM: —well, that is in dispute with the member for MacKillop—Hindmarsh Island and Goolwa, is the gateway to the Coorong. We have a vested environmental, social and economic interest in the health of this national icon. Numerous businesses are operating in the area, such as tours from the Spirit of the Coorong cruises and Big Duck Boat Tours showing visitors this incredible natural feature of the basin and our coast. There is even Goolwa PipiCo, working in partnership with the Indigenous community to sustainably harvest a unique local delicacy of cockles or pipis from Goolwa beach.

There are Finniss constituents who have worked on the environment projects in the region for decades. There are irrigators, too, extracting water from the Murray itself or from its last tributaries, Currency Creek, Finniss River and the Tookayerta, which is the only creek in South Australia which flows all year round.

They all have a stake in the health of the river and they all have fair and equal consideration. The basin plan is the best possible chance they have. Too much focus has been on a couple of pages in the commissioner's report and not on others. I would like to address a section in the old guide to the proposed basin plan released by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in 2010. It goes to the heart of necessary adjustments needed to gain the support of jurisdictions and stakeholders required to deliver the basin plan. I am sure you remember several copies of this document burning in the streets of Griffith in New South Wales. It was because it proposed cutting local water entitlements of the Murrumbidgee by two thirds.

Overall, it suggested the recovery of up to 7,600 gigalitres per year to achieve the Water Act's environmental aims with a 'high degree of certainty'. Imagine that. It would have been a cut of 55 to 64 per cent if you only took into account surface water. Does anyone seriously believe all jurisdictions and stakeholders would have agreed to support a plan removing more than half and perhaps two-thirds of the water available to irrigators and river communities? That is why there was a rapid retreat from such ridiculous numbers. You would never have got the plan up in the first place.

This is the challenge that South Australia faces every single day—ensuring that we maintain the support of the other basin states. It means that we must always be at the table, talking and negotiating and keeping them on side. Make no mistake, there are powerful interests in those states always looking for a way to short-change South Australia. We must never give them an opportunity like Labor did.

In both my current and former roles, I have been all over the basin talking to communities and stakeholders about the basin plan. Many will say it is not good enough, but for very different reasons. Dairy farmers in Echuca will say it is not good enough because it hurts their businesses and their local economy, and we have seen it directly impact on water recovery in towns along the river system: shops shutting, jobs lost, families leaving and schools closing. At the same time, some people on the Lower Lakes say it is not good enough because it is not providing sufficient water to reduce salinity and keep the Murray Mouth open.

We have seen the enormous environmental damage when there is not enough water in the Lakes. It is a shame the royal commission only focused on the environment. This is something I have seen on my farm. You need to focus on all parts—the environment, the economy and the social impacts. Without focusing on those, you cannot afford to invest in the environment. This is not a luxury policymakers can afford. It is not a luxury South Australia can afford. I have always supported a balanced approach to water reform in the basin. I am confident that a balanced approach will deliver positive outcomes for all water users: the environment, irrigators and communities.

I am proud to be part of the Marshall government that recognises the critical need for this approach to ensure all jurisdictions continue to support the basin plan. I support a basin plan that delivers 3,200 gigalitres a year, as agreed by the former Labor government of South Australia after it made compromise after compromise for the benefit of upstream states. We are extraordinarily fortunate those states remain in support. The alternative, no basin plan, is simply not an option for our state. I commend the motion to the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): The member for Narungga.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (17:28): Thank you, Acting Speaker. Can I say what a sterling job you have done so far this afternoon.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Trained monkeys could only do half the job.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! I warn the member for Schubert.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: I haven't been called to order yet.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): I call the member for Schubert to order and warn him. The member for Narungga.

Mr ELLIS: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I rise today to support the motion before us and particularly the suspension of standing orders to provide over-arching priority of business today for such an important motion. The importance of the river and its health is a top priority for this state for the simple reason that, without a healthy river, our state and our nation cannot exist in the way that it does right now.

I fully support the Premier's request to the Prime Minister for a meeting of the COAG Murray-Darling Basin first ministers to consider all associated reports before us that are to guide all future decision-making on this critical issue. I also endorse the South Australian government's position that the commonwealth, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and our state must continue to work together in a genuinely bipartisan way for there to be any hope of implementing the decisions required to ensure sustainable long-term health of our nation's biggest river system that does not belong to any one particular state. It serves all of us and must be maintained for it to continue to be the lifeblood it is for future generations across the country.

As a person who has lived in a regional area all my life, as have four generations of my family before me, I and my fellow regional South Australians can well attest to what it feels like to be treated in a second-class way by city-centric governments, particularly in the last 16 years, before the Marshall Liberal government came to power, to have to continually fight to be heard for policymakers to understand that the needs of people outside the metropolitan area are just as important as the needs of people living in the more densely populated suburbs of Adelaide.

It appears that this was the issue that the previous Labor government got a taste of previously. They got to experience how it feels to be a secondary consideration, to be penalised for being small. The reaction of previous minister Hunter was well publicised. He made headlines in 2016 over what was described as an expletive-riddled tirade aimed at other water ministers. So with this issue, the metropolitan-centric Labor government learned a little bit about what it has been like for regional South Australians for so many years.

Comparatively small SA is on the end of a big river line, and the previous Labor ministry got a taste of what it can be like to be treated in such a secondary manner by the bigger states around the table arguing that their needs are greater than ours. It is well publicised how the Labor Party handled this situation with cursing, name-calling, storming out and walking away from the table. There is no doubt that this issue is challenging for all and that frustrations are understandable, but the Marshall Liberal government, including my respected colleague the Hon. David Speirs, the Minister for Environment and Water, well understands that such anger is useless to the cause.

Walking away from the table offers nothing. It has been made clear under these actions by Labor that we were never going to get the 450 gigalitres. In fact, as has been clearly stated throughout today's proceedings, South Australia received only one measly gigalitre of water. That one measly gigalitre did not even come from New South Wales or Victoria. While those opposite were replete with slogans, fake fights and other bravado, they delivered very little for South Australia. I would argue that is consistent with their entire term in government—overpromising and severely underdelivering for South Australians.

Only a year ago (last February), the whole process was unravelling, with South Australian Labor minister Hunter publicly stating he was prepared to launch High Court action over the issue, and New South Wales and Victoria were both threatening to walk away from the basin plan altogether. Imagine if all parties had walked away from the negotiating table due to the notoriously short fuse that the previous minister possessed combined with his absolute unwillingness to pragmatically negotiate a better deal for South Australia. All bets would have been off. The states upriver would have been taking all the water they desired, and we would have been even further away from the 450 gigalitres we are now that much closer to getting, thanks to minister Speirs.

It is imperative that we not only stay at the negotiating table but that we lead discussions on finding a solution. This is a critical topic, perhaps the most important topic that may come before parliament this term, and sitting on the sidelines doing nothing is simply not an option. The only option is forging a path of open, transparent, mature dialogue of negotiation based on mutual respect and knowledge that all jurisdiction ministers want the same thing: a healthy river that delivers critical human water needs and also protects our unique environments, birds and fish, vegetation—the lot.

I remind members again that the Murray-Darling system takes in 23 rivers, supports more than four million people and stretches across South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. We can have no more unnecessary delays. Useless squabbling is damaging the river and actual action is now required and cooperation by everyone. We all saw the dead fish. We in this house must be as one on this issue. Genuine partnerships are vital.

It is just as when in opposition the Liberals in 2017 supported the Weatherill government's decision for a royal commission to get to the bottom of the allegations of water theft in New South Wales and the reports of serious compliance issues. Also, when in opposition we supported all efforts from premier Weatherill for a better basin plan, even though many may have judged him to have capitulated back in 2017 when he first fought for the return of 3,500 to 4,000 gigalitres, but eventually agreed to settle for a mere 2,750. Mr Acting Speaker, I put to you that that is a real capitulation, leaving thousands of gigalitres on the table that could have been flowing to South Australia.

This motion makes a clear statement that this parliament stands behind the plan that was negotiated by previous federal and state Labor governments. The South Australian government received the state Labor-instigated royal commissioner's report on 29 January 2019 and publicly released the report two days later. It is a pity that public commentary centred around the commissioner's views of negotiation efforts from minister Speirs in the last couple of months and not on the key findings and recommendations of the 746-page report about actions and decisions taken years before minister Speirs was in office. It genuinely makes one wonder whether they have even taken the time to read the other pages of the report or only taken the opportunity to read seven sentences from one page.

The people of South Australia would also surely be interested in the commissioner's views about the need to factor in ever-changing climate, recovering the remaining water we need through buybacks, using compulsory acquisition to deal with constraints to environmental water delivery, the recommendations to redo the Northern Basin Review to provide better recognition of Aboriginal people, to relook at the role and performance of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and, finally, to establish an independent audit function.

As stated by the commissioner, very few of the recommendations in his report can be actioned by the South Australian government in isolation, and I strongly support Premier Marshall's swift action in communicating with Prime Minister Morrison to request a meeting of the COAG Murray Darling Basin first ministers to consider not only the findings of the royal commission but also important review of the recently released Productivity Commission 'Murray-Darling Basin Plan: five-year assessment', the requirement under the Water Act 2007.

I commend the actions of my colleague minister Speirs because his efforts have broken a deadlock and started a process of our actually receiving the 450 gigalitres of water that the water experts say our end of the river vitally needs. The December 2018 agreement is an historic one, struck between the basin states and the commonwealth, and it is significant that, after such a long, costly, potentially environmentally and economically dangerous stalemate, Victoria and New South Wales have finally agreed to participate in the full range of water-saving projects that can deliver the 450 gigalitres.

This means that SA is back at the table, but it is stressed that recovery of the final 450 gigalitres remains non-negotiable. This is due to the responsible actions of this government and the leadership of minister Speirs on this issue. Looking ahead, the program criteria agreed at the ministerial council in December provide a pathway by which 450 gigalitres can actually be recovered—not just talked about being recovered but actually delivered to our state.

We will now be watching the other states' progress on getting us this water, and the COAG meeting in the coming months will be exceedingly important. I would like to commend this motion to the house, congratulate minister Speirs on the terrific work he has done getting all states back to the negotiating table, thank all members on this side of the house for their potent submissions on this motion and bemoan the fact that those opposite have not seen fit to contribute to this motion and support the wonderful work minister Speirs is doing.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Member for Narrunga, I remind you always to refer to members by their electorate or their title in the house and not by their surnames.

Mrs POWER (Elder) (17:38): I rise today to support the Premier's motion and the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As the member for Elder, my electorate is certainly farther away than others from the actual river, but the reality is that all South Australians are impacted by the health of the Murray River and the way in which the Murray River basin is managed.

As South Australians, we live in one of the driest states in the driest inhabited continent in the world. The River Murray is the lifeblood of our state, providing essential water for irrigation, industry, domestic and recreational use, cultural connection and our precious wetlands and flood plains.

The Murray-Darling Basin is the largest and most complex river system in our country. It covers one million square kilometres of south-eastern Australia, spanning across New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory and our own South Australia. It is also an ancient river system. Its 100-million-year development is evidenced today by the multilayers of sediments from limestone, brown coal and silts. We are privileged to see elements of this today in the rock and cliff formations that contribute to the spectacular beauty of our river. We, as humans, regardless of political association, have a heavy responsibility to ensure its sustainability is maintained now and long into the future.

We all know that over the decades the combination of natural droughts and increasing human use of the waterways for agriculture, manufacturing and communities has led to a decline in the health of the basin, as in April 2009, when drought and overuse of resources saw freshwater levels drop to more than one metre below sea level. This increased salinity levels, which damaged the ecosystem and threatened water supplies for people and livestock. As the lakes dried out, erosion caused the loss of soil with some sections of the riverbank below Lock 1 drying out, cracking and collapsing. It also put ecosystems under heavy strain, with plants and animals competing for food and space from a depleted environment.

When water finally flowed again, acid drainage water, which includes sulphuric acid created by certain soils being exposed to the air, washed into the river. This made parts of the river toxic to marine and freshwater plants and animals, contaminating water supplies and corroding concrete and steel. It was clear back then, as it is now, that combined action must be taken.

By 2012, there was widespread agreement across government that a plan was needed to manage our water carefully and protect the basin for future generations. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was developed to manage the basin as a whole connected system. At its heart, the basin plan set the amount of water that can be taken from the basin each year, while leaving enough for our rivers, lakes and wetlands and the plants and animals that depend on them.

We know that the basin encompasses a complex network of people, industries and organisations with competing interests. On this note, so that we can all appreciate the true complexity of managing water and all the competing interests, I want to highlight whom and what the basin serves and whom it impacts, namely:

more than 2.6 million Australians, spread across four different states and one territory;

more than 40 Aboriginal nations;

a fishing industry that employs approximately 10,000 people;

120 waterbird species and 46 native fish species;

an $8 billion tourism industry;

more than 9,000 irrigated agricultural businesses;

more than three million people who have access to precious clean drinking water from the basin;

16 internationally recognised and protected wetlands; and

countless Australians who visit the rivers and lakes for recreational and social activities.

It is absolutely crucial that the water is managed carefully for Australians today and for future generations. Such management requires true leadership and, without a doubt, bipartisan support.

There are many threats to our precious river, but, as we know from the past 130 years, there is no greater threat to the entire Murray-Darling Basin system than that of cheap political game playing and scaremongering, as we have seen from the opposition. We know that we must all put the interests of our state and environment ahead of political games. The Marshall Liberal government recognises this. We know that as the downstream state we have been most effective when we are united to pursue genuine partnerships across the basin, as the Minister for Environment and Water has stated many times today in this house and before today.

Even in opposition, we supported the establishment of a royal commission because, like the government of the day, we were concerned about water theft and the basin plan implementation. What we need as South Australians and Australians is strong bipartisan support and leadership to deliver the agreed basin plan and achieve the environmental and social outcomes that are in the best interests of South Australia and the broader community. A healthy river is in everyone's long-term best interests and we must work together to make that happen. I commend this motion to the house.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (17:45): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 22

Noes 15

Majority 7

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K.
Luethen, P. McBride, N. Murray, S.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G.
Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J.
Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I.
Brown, M.E. (teller) Cook, N.F. Hildyard, K.A.
Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Wortley, D.

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.

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