HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2008. Page 428).

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:42): This bill and the accompanying Murray-Darling Basin Bill are two of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with in this place. These bills have been a very long time coming. But the timing is also quite ironic in many ways because, at precisely the time that we are debating these bills to hand power over the Murray-Darling to the commonwealth, in South Korea they are meeting for the 10th Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and that convention will run from 28 October to 4 November. I say it is ironic because there is probably no greater example of the past and current mismanagement of the Murray-Darling Basin than the state of the Coorong and Lower Lakes. Governments of all persuasions over the last few decades should be condemned for the situation that they have allowed those iconic Australian water bodies to come to.

In speaking to these bills today, I want to focus on a couple of general principles that I believe should underpin our actions in the future. The first is that the sustainability of the Murray River is crucial for the sustainability of the communities that rely on it; and, secondly, time is running out.

In relation to the link between the sustainability of the river and the communities that rely on it, the first point to note is that we need a healthy river for any chance of a healthy community and healthy industries and economies. We are all legitimate water users, and it is time we started sharing what water we do have more fairly, and that includes giving the river its fair share. The health of the struggling communities along the Murray River depends upon the health of the river, which needs its own allocation for environmental flows. We know that the communities along the river are struggling, and they must be supported.

If we do not look after the river these communities simply will not survive. The only hope for struggling communities along the river is to know that the long-term sustainability of the river and the lakes upon which they rely is for this to be a priority for our governments. We must strike a balance to ensure that the health of the river and the health of our communities are both sustainable. Quite simply, an urgent allocation needs to be set aside for environmental flows. We know that we need more fresh water returned to the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, and even those who are talking about a salt-water solution for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong know that the fresh-water solution is by far the preferable solution.

The second principle to which I referred is that time is running out, and that means that we must prioritise the sustainability of the river. While the basin plan to provide for a sustainable environmental flow could be a great thing in the long term, it does nothing until it is implemented. And we are fast running out of time, because the Bureau of Meteorology is indicating a 60 to 80 per cent chance of above average temperatures for the lower Murray-Darling Basin for the rest of this year. So now more than ever we need leadership at all levels of government to step in and deliver that water. The environment simply does not wait for politics.

A swiftly implemented, nationally-managed system is imperative for South Australia's water security. The basin plan must be fast-tracked now to bring all states into line—10 years' time or even five years' time is simply too slow. A nationally-managed system must be implemented in the next 12 to 24 months. The decision to recognise and protect existing state level catchment plans or water allocation plans effectively means that little change may be seen in the basin until after 2014. For many of our threatened ecosystems and for rural communities in which farmers are struggling with uncertain seasonal water allocations, this delay could mean that the action is too late to preserve our environmental assets and to protect irrigation industries.

The situation in the Murray-Darling is critical. That came through clearly in evidence during the recent Senate inquiry (which was initiated by the Greens), which revealed that the prospects for the system are much worse in fact than had previously been thought. The evidence from the Wentworth group of scientists shows that the horror situation in the Murray-Darling Basin is worse than anyone expected. We are being told that the system faces an economic, social and environmental crisis. The necessary readjustment has already been happening, but so slowly that it is a death of a thousand cuts for river communities.

There is no doubt that a mammoth challenge is ahead, but if we can turn this around Australia will have achieved a major international breakthrough and our expertise will be invaluable internationally. We need a healthy river system to sustain communities and industries across the basin. Then we need to reduce our level of extraction from the system across the board by about half, because the ground rules for our use of the Murray-Darling have changed. Before his untimely death, Professor Peter Cullen last year said:

I fear that the inflows into the Murray-Darling have dropped by about 40 per cent over what has been the reasonably long-term average. When you look at the climatic record, the period 1950 to 1990 has been an unusually wet period and we are now back somewhat drier than the period 1900 to 1950. A lot of our understandings of the Murray-Darling, the agriculture and the environment it can support, had been made during a reasonably unusual wet period. I believe we need to adjust to this water scarcity and learn to live without a number of wet years.

It is probably more serious in that we have now run all the storages to empty and it is quite possible that some of those storages will not refill without a run of quite unusually wet years. They will not fill in average years. We are not dealing with a stable system. We are dealing with one that has quite a lot less water and which might be continuing to decline.

A point that will not be lost on members is that there has been a great deal of frustration at the lack of action over the fate of the Murray-Darling. Groups in the Lower Murray are now considering legal action against the state and federal governments because of the desperate environmental, social and economic situation in which those communities find themselves. The people of the Lower Murray are frustrated and their goodwill is running out. It is understandable that people are prepared to look at options, such as taking the federal government to court, because the government is not doing enough to help them and the environment in which they live. The Coorong simply cannot be written off as collateral damage caused by decades of mismanagement.

The Greens are not prepared to give up on the Lower Lakes and Coorong communities. The Greens called for the recent Senate inquiry and, despite the majority report from that inquiry saying that there is not enough water in the system to help the situation, the Greens will continue to stand up for those communities of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong and to call for fresh water flows.

We believe that the Coorong and the Lower Lakes can be saved from collapse. I refer members to the minority Senate report, which was put together by Greens Senators Rachel Siewert and Sarah Hanson-Young and South Australian Independent Senator Nick Xenophon. That report found that, contrary to the federal government's pessimistic view, a total of 60 gigalitres of fresh water by September next year is all that is required to provide enough environmental flow to stop lakes Alexandrina and Albert from drying up and acidifying in the short term. It is a realistic hope. It is possible and it can be done, provided the commonwealth government has the political will. The government should establish a task force immediately in order to make this happen.

The ecological problems in the Murray-Darling system are the result of years of neglect, over allocation and mismanagement, together with the compounding effects of climate change. Greens Senator Siewert said:

Australia has built its fortune not only by riding on the sheep's back but by overusing the Murray-Darling system. Unless we build a new rural economy based on sustainable use of water and protecting the environment we will lose significant stretches of the Murray-Darling. We can no longer simply pray for rain. We must plan for drought.

I want to take members through some of the findings in the minority report of the Senate committee. The first set of findings relates to the need for emergency action. The report recommends that the commonwealth government acquire 60 gigalitres of fresh water by next spring within the southern-connected system to maintain the water level of the Lower Lakes above the critical acidification point. We have been fortunate that recent local rains have helped us to buy a window of opportunity. However, we still need that extra 60 gigalitres of water.

The report proposes the setting up of a commonwealth-funded task force to oversee and coordinate the continuing acquisition of water and the coordination of environmental management for the Coorong, including devising future management options. Flooding the Lower Lakes with salt water needs to be ruled out immediately as a management option. It is, quite literally, running up the white flag and giving up on those communities and that environment.

The report supports the pumping of 50 gigalitres of hypersaline water from the Southern Lagoon to improve environmental conditions and that that process be undertaken immediately. When I spoke to the scientists who devised that scheme, my first reaction was one of scepticism—here was yet another technical fix to an environmental problem—yet the situation in the Southern Lagoon is so dire that there is no alternative but to pump out that hypersaline water and to freshen it with sea water.

The report recommends that an adaptive management approach be undertaken to immediately monitor the water and acid levels in the lake, while minimising evaporative losses. It also recommends that the commonwealth investigate the conditions around the non-return of some 113 gigalitres of environmental water loaned from the Murrumbidgee and to ensure that the return of that water is expedited.

We recommend that in the medium term 350 gigalitres be found through careful management of the Murray-Darling Basin to provide for the health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes and, further, that the commonwealth and ministerial council investigate the legislative and regulative impediments that might prevent significant summer rainfall in the northern basin from reaching lower parts of the Murray. I, as were other members, was horrified to find that extractions from Queensland reached record levels at precisely the time that our communities in the lower parts of the basin were virtually without water.

It is clear that governments have the power; they simply need to have the will to use it. For example, the Greens welcomed the federal and New South Wales governments' purchase of the Toorale Station as a necessary step in saving the Murray-Darling Basin. We know that the commonwealth already has corporations power under the constitution, which it could use to act now to ensure that an allocation of water is quarantined for the river and for vital environmental flows.

I will speak briefly about the wetlands of the Murray-Darling Basin and their importance to the overall health of the Murray. We know that some 80 per cent of the Murray Darling Basin's wetlands have already faded into history. The Greens welcomed the recent release of the report prepared by the ACF and the inland rivers network entitled 'Wetlands for our Future' and we suggest that it should form the basis of a national wetlands rescue plan. We believe management and recovery plans for Ramsar wetlands should become statutory plans under the commonwealth Water Act to stop them being ignored and overridden, and this needs to be backed up by provisions of the commonwealth Water Act to ensure that enough water is set aside to protect and maintain these sites in the face of climate change, because the predictions for climate change are for warmer temperature, lower rainfall and higher evaporation. We should also establish a wetlands management fund so that private water managers can help the commonwealth meet its international commitments to manage wetlands on private lands.

The recent decision on the Sugarloaf pipeline in Victoria has highlighted that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act also needs to be amended to ensure that any actions that will have a significant impact on important freshwater areas or national water resources is fully subject to the assessment and approval regime in that act. Many of Australia's unique and internationally recognised wetlands are also highly threatened. We urgently need to review threats to key wetlands within the Murray-Darling Basin, including the Coorong (which I have mentioned), the Chowilla flood plain, the Gwydir wetlands and the Macquarie Marshes, and we need to list them on the Montreux register.

The Greens agree that one national authority for the whole of the Murray-Darling Basin is desperately needed, and we have been long-term advocates for this. The need for a national authority is clear and needs to be given the ultimate power to take action on the Murray-Darling. Water governance within the Murray-Darling Basin has always been a different and complex issue with the river system involving four states and one territory, all of which have overlapping and competing interests, together with different priorities and institutional arrangements.

While there has been recognition of the problems facing the Murray-Darling system for decades, governance arrangements under the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council have been characterised by inertia and a lowest common denominator approach to resolving conflict. It is now time for the states to refer their powers and let a national authority be established with the expertise and teeth to actually make the decisions needed in a timely fashion. So, the question before us really is whether this referral of powers that we are considering in this bill will achieve what is required.

The Greens are concerned that this legislation will not deliver the reform that is needed to solve the Murray-Darling crisis. We have identified a number of shortcomings, which include: the level of independence of the authority—we do not believe that it is truly independent; we are concerned about the slow timetable for the development and implementation of the basin-wide plan; we are concerned about the lack of a baseline environmental water allocation and the mechanism for monitoring and managing river health; and we are particularly concerned that there are legal impediments, such as the 4 per cent cap on trade in water that is still in place, and that it is standing in the way of more water being traded and purchased for the environment.

Poor governance and inadequate legislation is what has created the problem in the basin in the first place. This is our chance to get it right, so we need to do it properly. It is essential to ensure that we are creating a Murray-Darling Basin authority that has the powers it needs to deliver effective whole of basin governance and the independence that it needs to do so wisely. In relation to this present bill, the Greens have decided not to move amendments in South Australia, but we do acknowledge that the plan needs urgent reform, particularly around the time frames, because, if we are still waiting for outcomes in, say, the year 2019, that is clearly far too late. So, the Greens will be putting most of our legislative effort into the commonwealth parliament, in the Senate, to ensure that the arrangements properly recognise the need for the long-term health of the river.

In conclusion, we agree that one national authority is required; it needs to be truly independent; and it needs to have the freedom and the ability to make decisions in the long-term interest of the river system, based on the best science. To conclude where I started: our experience in South Australia is that we have seen first-hand the worst of the mismanagement of the Murray-Darling system. We have seen it in the slow death of the Coorong; we have seen that parts of that water body are now too salty to sustain life; and we have seen it in the devastation of farming communities on the Lower Lakes and the fall in the water level of those lakes to well below sea level. So we are probably best placed, of all the communities in this country in the Murray-Darling Basin, to see first-hand the consequences of when things go wrong. The future of the Coorong and of the Lower Lakes depends upon our getting this right, so the Greens support these two pieces of legislation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:03): I support the second reading of the legislation. I had not intended speaking at the second reading stage (my colleagues having persuasively put the Liberal Party position), but I was provoked into providing a brief contribution by the Hon. Mr Wortley's particular contribution to the legislation yesterday. What we saw yesterday was a premeditated, vicious and unprovoked attack on a respected group of people working very hard in the Riverland for irrigators—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: As volunteers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —as volunteers—known as the Murray Irrigators Group. I will outline what the Hon. Mr Wortley said about that particular group in a moment, but I think that it is important for the people in the Riverland (who may well get the opportunity to read the Hon. Mr Wortley's contribution and mine on this particular issue) to put the context first; and that is that the Hon. Mr Wortley is the personal representative of the Premier, Mr Rann, in Chaffey, in looking after the interests of the Labor Party.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, but the Premier, Mr Rann, has personal representatives representing him and the Labor Party in seats not held by the Labor Party and—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Ian Hunter does Mount Gambier. I don't know why that is, do you? Do you know why?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure why that would be when the Hon. Mr Finnigan is down there, but perhaps it might have something to do with factional influences, I don't know, but I will not be diverted by interjections from my colleagues during this important water debate. As I said, the Hon. Mr Wortley is the representative of the Premier in Chaffey. Clearly, the Hon. Mr Wortley would not be doing anything without the approval and guidance of the Premier in relation to this important electorate.

I am sure all members of the Labor Party would acknowledge that the Hon. Mr Wortley is representing the Premier. And so, when we see this premeditated, vicious and unprovoked attack by the Hon. Mr Wortley on this respected group, the Murray Irrigators Group, we do need to remember that he is representing the Premier in the electorate of Chaffey. I think the people of Chaffey need to remember that as well, if they are lucky enough to see the contribution from the Hon. Mr Wortley and my contribution this evening. What did the Hon. Mr Wortley say about these hardworking volunteers and individuals known as the Murray Irrigators Group? Amongst other things, he said:

Members will find a number of issues here that I will go through and it seems that the Murray Irrigators Group are no more than puppets for the Liberal Party—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It is actually the South Australian Murray Irrigators (SAMI).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Dawkins tells me the correct title is the South Australian Murray Irrigators, but in his contribution yesterday the Hon Mr Wortley refers to them as the Murray Irrigators Group.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Dawkins is out of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: He then goes on to talk about the silence (as he describes it) of the South Australian Murray Irrigators group over 10 or 11 years, which, he says, is probably one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the Riverland. He is saying that the approach of the South Australian Murray Irrigators group, a most respected group in the Riverland, over 10 or 11 years was probably one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the Riverland. I think that is an appalling attack by someone representing the Premier on this respected group. My colleague the Hon. Mr Dawkins knows the members of this particular group in a much better and closer fashion than I. He knows people such as Ian Zadow, Tom Martin and a number of others, all very respected people in the Riverland area who have worked as volunteers for a number of years on behalf of irrigators in the Riverland.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: And throughout the Murray.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: And throughout the Murray, as well. They have spent countless hours putting the interests of the Murray Irrigators group forward to the state government, federal government or whomever. For the Hon. Mr Wortley—as I said, representing the Premier in this chamber and in that electorate—to mount this vicious attack on people such as Ian Zadow, Tom Martin and others within the South Australian Murray Irrigators group is reprehensible, in my view. I know a number of other members in this chamber were appalled at the attack on this respected group and the individuals who have worked very hard over the years.

To have the representative of the Premier in this chamber mounting this sort of vicious attack at a time when we and the people in the Riverland, in particular, are facing a crisis is reprehensible and certainly unfair. I would hope that, on some future occasion, the Hon. Mr Wortley might have the courage and perhaps the integrity to stand up in this chamber and to apologise to the South Australian Murray Irrigators group and all the members of that group for what he has said. He made many other attacks in his speech yesterday, but I will not go through all the attacks he made on that particular group and the individuals within that group on that occasion.

One of the individuals he attacked was the current president, Mr Tim Whetstone. I think it probably indicates the sensitivity the Premier and the Hon. Mr Wortley have that it is possible Mr Whetstone may well become the Liberal candidate to contest the next election against the Hon. Ms Maywald, who the Hon. Mr Wortley is obviously supporting. I hasten to say that Mr Whetstone is but one of a small number of quality candidates contesting preselection for the Liberal Party, but it is quite clear that there is considerable concern from the Premier and the Hon. Mr Wortley about Mr Whetstone's potential preselection.

I do not intend to speak at length about Mr Whetstone in my contribution. If he is a preselected candidate, I am sure he is big enough, strong enough and certainly articulate enough (we have seen him representing the interests of the Murray Irrigators group fearlessly in recent times) to defend himself against the Hon. Mr Wortley or, indeed, the Premier, or whomever else might choose to attack him.

My contribution this evening is not specifically to defend Mr Whetstone; it is to defend the vicious, premeditated and unprovoked attack by the Hon. Mr Wortley, on behalf of the Premier, on the South Australian Murray Irrigators group as a group and all the individuals who have worked very hard over many years for that group.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (21:12): I rise to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. As other members have indicated, this is very important legislation. In simple terms, its effect is to refer matters relating to water management (in particular, the management of the Murray-Darling Basin) to the commonwealth parliament.

As members would know, under the Australian Constitution, the federal parliament has legislative power only over a certain number of topics or subject matters. It does not have complete and unfettered power in relation to rivers, water usage and the like. However, section 51(37) of the constitution provides that the commonwealth will have power over any matter referred to it by a state. In this particular scheme, it is envisaged, pursuant to an agreement signed very recently by the commonwealth, the states of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, that the commonwealth parliament will have power to legislate in respect of certain matters.

The matters in respect of which the commonwealth parliament will have power are not set out cleanly in the bill presently before us. However, they are set out in certain amendments to the Water Act 2007. The Water Act was passed only last year, under the Howard government. Its effect was to make provision for the management of water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin, including the establishment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which authority was to have powers previously exercised by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The powers of the new authority are expanded. The autonomy of the authority is enhanced by the fact that its membership is limited to persons who have a high level of expertise in fields relevant to the authority's functions, namely, matters such as water resource management, hydrology, freshwater ecology, resource economics, irrigated agriculture, public sector governance, and financial management.

This authority, which is said to be a technical body and not a political body, is one in which great faith is placed by all states that are referring their power to the commonwealth, in particular to the downstream state of South Australia. The authority will continue to have powers in relation to what are described as 'basin plans'. The basin plan has legislative force and governs the use and allocation of water across the whole basin. That Water Act, which is a substantial piece of legislation of over 200 pages and over 200 sections, was passed, as I said, as recently as late last year, and it is now being extensively amended.

The amendments to the Water Act are included and have been tabled in this parliament but are not technically before the parliament; a copy has been tabled. Those amendments, called the 'tabled copy', provide the key to the powers which are being referred to the commonwealth parliament. I do not think it is necessary at this second reading stage to go into too much of the detail; we are, after all, arguing about the underlying principles. As I indicated at the very outset, the Liberal party is and has been for some time committed to a reference of power to the commonwealth parliament, so that there can be a national solution to a problem which has bedevilled this state for the past 50 years, and increasingly so in the face of declining flows in the river system.

When one reads the Water Act, as passed in September last year, one sees noble objectives. This is a piece of commonwealth legislation, and I think it is worth putting on record the objectives which the Howard government sought to achieve, as follows:

1. To enable the commonwealth in conjunction with the basin states to manage the basin water resources in the national interest; not only in South Australia's interest but in the national interest.

2. To give effect to relevant international agreements, and, in particular, to provide for special measures in accordance with those international agreements relating to the use of basin water resources and to address threats to water basin resources.

3. To promote the use and management of basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes.

4. Without limiting the previous object, to ensure the return to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction for water resources that are over allocated or overused, and to protect, restore and provide for the ecological values and ecosystem services of the Murray-Darling Basin, taking into account, in particular, the impact that the taking of water has on the water courses, lakes, wetlands, ground water, and water-dependent eco systems that are part of the basin water resources and on the associated biodiversity. Finally to maximise the net economic returns to the Australian community from the use and management of the basin water resources.

5. The objects include the improvement of water security for all uses of basin water resources.

6. To ensure the management of the basin takes account of the broader management of natural resources in the Murray-Darling Basin and to achieve efficient and cost-effective water management and administrative practices and to provide for the collection and collation analysis of information about Australia's water resources.

So, the Water Act has very wide objectives and, when one reads the objectives, they will strike a chord with many of us. They do strike a chord with many of us about the problems that have arisen. Clearly, the problems have been identified, and here we seek to achieve, by legislative means, some solutions. I, myself, although a lawyer, do not have ultimate faith in the use of legal instruments to solve problems of this kind. Indeed, far more than legal machinery and legal frameworks are required. Matters such as wisdom, fair administrative practices and the like, and good management practices on the ground, will ultimately be of more significance than the legislative framework. However, without the legislative framework, it is very difficult to implement many of the measures which are necessary and, in particular, are vitally necessary for the state of South Australia.

Generally speaking, I have not been in favour of the willy-nilly reference of powers to the commonwealth parliament which were originally granted and allocated under the constitution to the states. I believes states have a responsibility to govern in the interests of their particular states and electorates. I am a federalist; I believe strongly in the distribution of power to the states, and to the lowest level of government which is practicable. However, as has been shown in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, absent regulatory frameworks of this kind, we—at the end of the river—tend to lose out time and time again. I am not convinced that, once again, we have not been sold down the river.

When the most recent agreement was signed between Prime Minister Rudd, the Labor premiers and the Chief Minister (this is the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement) it was greeted with a great deal of media hype about an historic breakthrough, a solution of historic proportions, and all of the hyperbole we have come to expect from media-driven politicians. The fact is that it was not an historic agreement. It was not actually an agreement at all; it was really an agreement to agree in the future. You cannot have an agreement which gives to any one party to the agreement the power not to approve plans or to veto proposals. That is exactly what we have in the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. That agreement is now to be included in the new federal Water Act as a schedule. It is a critical part of the arrangement.

As I say, whilst I do not have unbridled faith in the capacity of a federal or central government to find solutions to all our problems, I think our situation in South Australia is so dire and so desperate, and our power is so weak, that we can hardly be worse off by pursuing the agreement that has been entered into. That is why the Liberal Party took the view that the only solution in the circumstances was to request the commonwealth parliament to exercise the powers.

The commonwealth could have done that: it could have exercised the powers it already has in the Constitution. Professor John Williams of the Law School in Adelaide has argued cogently that, especially under the commerce power the federal parliament has, it could have introduced and passed legislation itself. In Professor Williams' view, it would have survived challenges in the High Court, as undoubtedly it would have been challenged, especially if it took away Mr Brumby's power of veto.

The federal government and the states have chosen not to go down that route. Rather than the commonwealth seeking to exercise the powers we believe it has, it has asked the states to refer the necessary power to the commonwealth, and that is what we are doing. It is not the best solution, but it is better than sitting on one's hands and doing nothing.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Wednesday night seems to bring out the best in the Labor backbench. Here they are—opening the mouth before engaging the brain!

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Lawson will refrain from responding to interjections that are out of order.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I thank the honourable member for reminding me of the great initiative taken by the Howard government with a $10 billion plan which, if implemented, would have solved many of the problems. The former prime minister produced a plan that would have succeeded. It was scuttled by Labor premiers on the basis that they thought it would be to their political advantage in the federal election.

It was not until after the election that they implemented the plan, having said beforehand that they would not but then not fully implementing it—once again, as I say, under the new rubric of cooperative federalism, bowing down and allowing the lowest common denominator to prevail, namely, the proposals of the Victorian premier. However, I will not be diverted unnecessarily by the honourable member.

It is unnecessary for present purposes to embark upon a detailed examination of the provisions, although we look forward to the committee stage when we assume that the minister will be able to answer the technical questions that will undoubtedly be raised. I think it is important, especially in the context of amendments that have been tabled, that the parliament understands the concept of critical human water needs.

This concept is not new to this legislation. However, the provisions relating to critical human water needs are now set out in amendments to the Water Act and will be part of the legislative framework. New part 2A of the commonwealth Water Act will provide, in section 86A, that critical human water needs are to be taken into account in developing the basin plan.

In particular, the section provides that that basin plan must be prepared having regard to the fact that the commonwealth and the basin states have agreed that critical human water needs are the highest priority water use for communities dependent on basin water resources and, in particular, that to give effect to this priority in the River Murray system, the conveyance of water will receive first priority from the water available in the system.

'Critical human water needs' are defined as the needs for a minimum amount of water that can only reasonably be provided from basin water resources required to meet (a) core human consumption requirements in urban and rural areas; and (b) those non-human consumption requirements that a failure to meet would cause prohibitively high social, economic or national security costs.

Section 86B will provide that the basin plan must include a statement of the amount of water required in each basin state—that is, a referring state (the states other than Queensland)—to meet critical human water needs. The basin plan must also include a statement of the amount of conveyance water required to deliver the critical human needs water. It is important to realise that the basin plan must include the statement of the amount of water required in each basin state to meet critical human water needs.

Importantly, the section provides that the plan must specify the water quality trigger points and salinity trigger points at which water in the River Murray system becomes unsuitable for meeting critical human water needs. So, regard must be had not only to the amount of water required but also to the salinity trigger points, and the like, to meet those critical human needs.

New section 86D deals with the water-sharing arrangements which are to prevail in circumstances where there is insufficient water to meet all needs, and these relate to tier 2—water-sharing arrangements. There are, in fact, three tiers: tier 1—water-sharing arrangements; tier 2; and, finally, tier 3, which is dealt with in section 86E and which requires that the basin plan must specify the conditions under which, due to these circumstances, special arrangements have to be made.

Those special circumstances are: (a) extreme and unprecedented low levels of water availability in the River Murray system; (b) extreme and unprecedented poor water quality in the water available in the system to meet critical human water needs; or (c) there is an extremely high risk that water will not be available to meet critical human water needs during the next 12 months. In those circumstances, the extreme situation of tier 3 water-sharing arrangements must arise.

Returning briefly to proposed section 86D, the basin plan is required—in relation to tier 2 water-sharing arrangements and in subsection (3)—to recognise South Australia's right, as provided for in clauses 91 and 130 of the agreement, to store its entitlement to water and to recognise that New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are responsible for meeting the critical human water needs of their state and will decide how water from its share is used. Under this arrangement, we in South Australia will retain a responsibility to meet the critical water needs of our state.

Just briefly, clauses 91 and 130 of the agreement deal with South Australia's entitlements. Clause 88 of the agreement provides that South Australia has a monthly entitlement, specified month by month, of a certain number of megalitres, together with allowances for dilution and other quantities. There are mechanisms for variation of our entitlements.

There is recognition of our right to store water under our entitlement and to use, for example, Lake Victoria. There are also provisions relating to the entitlements of New South Wales and Victoria. There are also restrictions on those entitlements in the event of situations such as those which have arisen in the current circumstances. There are also specific provisions in the agreement relating to the distribution of waters to ensure critical human water needs.

I have dilated a little upon the importance of critical human water needs because of the amendment that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has placed on file. I believe that the committee will need to have a full understanding and appreciation of the concept of critical human needs when addressing the matters that the honourable member has raised.

Although I am speaking now on the Water Bill, I will make some comments about the related legislation, namely, the Murray-Darling Basin Bill. This is a cognate or related bill, an essential part of the same package as the Water Bill. It will replace our existing Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993, which is legislation of the South Australian parliament. It will remove provisions from our law that will become obsolete under the new arrangements.

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission which, as I mentioned, was the previous body, will be replaced by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and I should add, in that connection, that the ministerial council will continue to have the capacity to make high-level financial and other decisions. Regrettably, that ministerial council will be the place in which the states' veto remains.

I do not think it is necessary to dilate upon the provisions of the Murray-Darling Basin Bill other than to say that it amends a number of South Australian pieces of legislation, such as the Development Act, the Ground Water (Qualco-Sunlands) Control Act 2000, the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, the River Murray Act 2003 and the Waterworks Act. As I said, the Liberal Party is committed to the implementation of the underlying principles, and we look forward to the committee debate.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (21:40): My colleague in another place, Mr Mitch Williams, described this legislation as too little too late, and I think most of us would agree with that. These two pieces of legislation are the result of the near, if not total, collapse of the Murray-Darling system and all that it stands for. The Murray-Darling Basin is the food bowl of Australia; it is one of our major producers of primary produce—and indeed of export primary produce. As Mr Brokenshire said yesterday, if we lose much more of our irrigated product we will see ourselves importing such things as citrus, and anyone who has travelled even very briefly overseas would agree that most of us would not wish to eat oranges from China. However, that is what we are looking at.

This legislation is necessary because historically the states have refused to cooperate with one another and have behaved in a selfish and self-interested fashion to the detriment of the River Murray—and, indeed, the Murray-Darling Basin. However, I think we in South Australia would be quite wrong if we believed that we were somehow the innocent victims of that selfishness and lack of forward planning. As a member of the Natural Resources Standing Committee I, along with others in this place, have, in the past year, had the experience of travelling extensively through Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland to look at the irrigation methods and storages in those states. The descriptions we hear down here of vast areas of stored water for the selfish use of those upstream were, as far as I could see, quite false in almost all cases.

As an example, we visited a farm out of Goondiwindi in Queensland where seven years ago a farmer spent $1 million building a dam so that he could have flood storage when it flooded or rained. That dam has never had a drop of water in it; that man has not grown cotton for seven years. In Deniliquin there has been no rice in the silos for the past three years. If we are to expect the other states to understand our dire plight, I think we have to try to begin to understand theirs.

The truth is that Australia is experiencing unprecedented drought. It can certainly be argued that the allocations given for irrigation up and down the river system were too generous, and were put in place at a time that scientists such as Professor Mike Young now believe was possibly the wettest 60 years in Australia's history. The allocations originally granted were probably granted with the best of intentions and with the best knowledge as it stood at the time, but I think we probably have to erase all those and start again. Certainly, that is what Professor Young, in his paper 'A Future-proofed Basin', advocates. It is, I think, probably too drastic a solution for anyone in Australia to be brave enough to do, but I believe that we may well have to look at such dire remediation as that.

This bill does not go far enough. As the Hon. Robert Lawson has said: I am a federalist. I do not believe in giving any more powers to the federal government than we absolutely have to. I think smaller and less populous states, such as South Australia, will always be the loser when we do. As a nation dependent on this river system, we have brought this solution upon ourselves by our short-sightedness, our selfishness and our reluctance to cooperate with our neighbours up and down the river.

I see us as having no choice but to hand over the powers that we are attempting to hand over to one single body, and that, in this case, must be the federal government. However, this piece of legislation fails to do that. The MOU that was signed by the various state ministers and Prime Minister Rudd was nothing short of a con, a very clever con by Mr Brumby from Victoria, which gave us not one drop of extra water and not one skerrick of extra power but which gave Victoria—which is probably the best off; I am not saying it is not doing it hard as well, but it probably has more access to water than any of the other states—an extra $1 billion.

The $1 billion was for the Food Bowl project, which was to put open drains into pipes. South Australia did that about 10 years ago. So, Mr Brumby has got his state an extra $1 billion to do something that we have already done and I think, from memory, he received an additional allocation of 150 gigalitres of water out of the Murray. He has held the other states and Prime Minister Rudd to ransom to get that, and that is the basis of this new legislation. That MOU—which really illustrated blackmail, if you like—was the basis for this legislation.

As I understand it, South Australia and each of the states will remain responsible for the construction of works; that will still be our jurisdiction. So, the cost of any infrastructure remains the cost of the states. The allocation of water within this state remains at 1,850 gigalitres, which, from memory, it has been since the mid-1970s. Frankly, if we could get 1,850 gigalitres we would all be very happy people.

What we are talking about is figures: fresh air. The water is simply not there. The illusion that there are thousands or millions of gigalitres sitting, for instance, at Menindee Lakes is completely false. When we went to visit Menindee Lakes there were cattle grazing on Menindee Lakes, and they had been there for quite some time. I think there are some 250 gigalitres still stored in one of the smaller lakes, and that is the only place—if we do not get very large rains—that Adelaide will get water from this summer. So, we do not have any extra gigalitres of water, and we are still responsible for the construction of all works.

The legislation abolishes the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and sets up an authority. However, the authority has advisory powers only. The part that I find quite frightening is that any state can pull out. At any stage any state can simply give notice—and the Governor can set a time, but they can say, 'I don't like that. I'm going to spit the dummy and go home.' Just as an example, they could say, 'I've got an extra billion dollars now, so I'm going to pull out of this agreement.' So, although this legislation purports to give powers to the commonwealth, in my opinion, it falls well short of giving real power to the commonwealth.

It does (and I think this is a very good thing) for the first time give us access to upstream storage of our choice. So, we now have some choice to store, I think, up to 300 gigalitres in such dams as the Hume, which we previously have been unable to do. However, again, 300 gigalitres, if we can ever get that in storage, is about two years for Adelaide, with no irrigation water. So, from what I can see, we have not done particularly well out of this deal at this time.

The authority has been tasked with preparing a whole-of-basin plan. As I have said, if we look at the history of the development of irrigation throughout Australia, one could only say: best of luck to them. It will be an extraordinarily difficult task to be achieved within, one would hope, a very short time, because we are talking about the brink of unprecedented disaster.

However, it is not estimated, even in the minister's speeches, that that plan will be ready to be introduced under two years. My question (amongst others) is: what will happen in the meantime? We are going to hand over this authority and then we are going to receive advice as to how we can get water. Right now, there is no water. However, even if there was, what additional rights does South Australia receive? Indeed, what additional rights does any irrigator receive?

From what I can see, we have a long way to go before we have achieved a whole-of-basin authority. I would much rather have preferred these powers to be vested under the commonwealth government but to be operated by an independent authority at arm's length from any of the states. That is not the path that has been chosen. I genuinely wish those involved with the development of these plans well, because I think the future of, certainly, South Australia as we know it, but also the other states, is dependent on getting this plan right. However, I must say, having looked at the legislation, my best understanding of it is that the chances of our being successful are quite remote.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (21:53): In rising to speak to both bills in a cognate fashion, I indicate that I will be supporting the second reading of both. I also acknowledge the contributions made by my colleagues, led by the deputy leader (Hon. Michelle Lensink), and the comments made on a range of issues contained within these pieces of legislation by my other colleagues.

The Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill is the first of the bills, and I suppose the political disruption to the $10 billion Howard plan has been well documented, both outside this chamber and also here tonight. The incoming Rudd government showed little desire to tackle the issue until it was embarrassed into placing the matter on the agenda at the COAG meeting held here in Adelaide on 26 March this year. A hastily cobbled together memorandum of understanding was agreed to at that meeting, with an intergovernmental agreement being signed off at the subsequent COAG meeting on 3 July. That agreement obliged the basin states to refer some powers to the commonwealth to broaden the effect of the commonwealth Water Act 2007.

The principal changes will be to transfer the powers and functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin authority. The authority is set up under the commonwealth Water Act 2007 to mandate that critical human water needs will form a part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and that basin water charges and water market rules will be regulated under the act, with the ACCC playing a vital role in determining or approving regulated water charges and developing water charges and water market rules. The claimed benefits for South Australia will be: formalised access to upstream storages; the formalising of water-sharing rules under normal low or extreme low-flow scenarios; and the formalisation of water flows for critical human needs. In practice, there will be little difference to where we sit today.

The other bill is the Murray-Darling Basin Bill 2008 and, under that bill, the transfer of operations from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin authority—an authority which will be responsible to the federal minister rather than the ministerial council—will make the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 redundant. Some of the functions under that act will need to remain under the state minister. This bill enables that to occur and amends a number of other state acts, which I will not detail, in recognition of the changed governance of the Murray-Darling Basin.

A number of people have gone into some detail about the legislation, and I think that tomorrow we will have some opportunity to examine both bills in detail. I note there are 300 pages of tabled text, which is something that is new to me in my time in parliament.

I wish to make some general comments on what this government has done in relation to management of water and related issues during its term of office. I have been in the parliament for 11 years and I have been working closely with the communities of the Riverland, particularly, but other River Murray communities in this state in general throughout that time. What I have seen particularly over the time since the current government came to power in 2002 is that it makes an art form out of splitting communities—out of making different groups of people in the same towns, districts or regions fight against each other—to take the heat off themselves. I have seen it happen in a range of issues across the board, but particularly in relation to water.

I think that, when the first water restrictions on irrigators were introduced in this state a few years ago, the way in which that was done—without any consultation, to pit the various commodity groups in the communities against each other—was a sign of things to come. While the people are unhappy with another group that they think is getting a better deal, they are not venting their anger at the government, and the government sails away nicely while people are unhappy with some of their own colleagues.

We saw that in relation to the debate about whether Chambers Creek should be blocked off where it flows into Lake Bonney. That caused great consternation in the Barmera community. The fact that the debate went on for so long caused more community unhappiness, and it was a similar scenario to that first situation in relation to the water restrictions. We have seen it in relation to the way in which the government and some others have tried to pit the Lower Lakes communities against the Riverland communities, and, in some cases, I must say that has been successful. That is a great shame because all the river and irrigation communities in this state need to work together.

Generally they do, but they have faced this onslaught from the government, which has sort of put itself into a corner saying, 'Well, you've got to fight for yourself against that other community.' I find that obnoxious, I am afraid, but we continue to see this going on from this government all the time. I suppose that last point about the communities of the Lower Lakes and the Riverland has been exemplified through the long debate about whether or not there will be a weir at Wellington. This government has been talking about this weir for so long. If it really wanted to get on and do it, it should have built it by now. I do not agree with the weir, but it should have done it by now. It has continued to cause consternation with those communities.

The other treatment of the irrigation communities which I found particularly offensive happened late last year when many irrigators, having pleaded with the government to let them know what percentage of water they would be allocated long term and being told they would get nothing more than 16 per cent of allocation, went out and bought water costing up to $1,100 a gigalitre. They did that on the basis that they would not get any more than 16 per cent. So, what happened? Suddenly late last year (I think it was in November) they were told, 'You can have 22 per cent.' Some people welcomed that because that was a bit extra, but then suddenly it went up to 32 per cent—no good reasons for it, no science behind it, just the minister and the government bowing to a bit of pressure.

The $1,100 valuation on that water suddenly came down to about $400 overnight. The treatment of the communities of the river in that way is still something I find very annoying, and it just shows that the government and the minister who purports to represent Chaffey do not understand the community at all. One of the other things I do not like about the way in which this government has managed the irrigation industry is that it has tried to pit the private irrigation schemes against the irrigation trusts, particularly the Central Irrigation Trust. I think that is unfortunate, because some very good operators are in both systems. Again, if you want to take the heat off yourself when you are not doing a good job, make the people in the industry fight against each other.

As a result of increasing publicity about the plight of the river—and no-one doubts the increasing plight of this great river in this state—we have seen an increased amount of irrigator bashing. There are some people who think that we should not have any irrigation schemes at all on the river. Those people are ignorant of the fact that, as the Hons Caroline Schaefer and Robert Brokenshire have said, the food bowl of this nation is based on the Murray-Darling Basin system.

Most of the irrigator bashing we have seen in the media pales in comparison with what we heard yesterday from the Hon. Russell Wortley. I think his performance yesterday in bashing the volunteers of the South Australian Murray Irrigators Association was outrageous—and the Hon. Rob Lucas highlighted that this evening. It was based on the fact that one person, who has done a lot of work for SAMI (as the organisation is known), has sought preselection for the Liberal Party. He is only one of the nominees for preselection but, because of that, the Hon. Mr Wortley has decided to belt this organisation and call it disgraceful and all sorts of other things. I think his comments undermine his performance in this council considerably.

The reality is that the irrigation industry in this state has done extraordinarily well in managing the water resources compared with many other areas of this nation. I have not had the benefit of travelling as widely as the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, and as a member of the Natural Resources Committee she probably has seen things I have not seen when I have travelled along the river as a private citizen. One does not have to go far to see that the way in which water is delivered and used on various crops in other parts of this country is way behind the general practice in South Australia.

I comment again on the Hon. Russell Wortley. Yesterday by way of interjection he indicated that rehabilitation of the Loxton irrigation system was financed by federal Labor. That is absolute rubbish—and he should know better. The reality is that the Loxton rehabilitation scheme was funded 40 per cent by a federal Liberal government, 40 per cent by a state Liberal government and 20 per cent by the growers themselves. The Hon. Russell Wortley comes in here and says things that are just plain wrong.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: And he knows it!

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: As the Hon. Mr Lucas interjects, 'And he knows it.' I think he does but he just does not care. I am concerned about the people in the Riverland who rely on the river for their income, and of course the other communities along the length of the river and in the Lower Lakes area. Generally, Riverland producers and irrigators have always been resilient and positive. Throughout my life I have not seen the Riverland region under such stress—and I have had a lifelong association with that region. I cannot recall any other period where there has been such a widespread impact on horticulture and associated industries.

I heard a call the other day from within the Riverland community, highlighting the fact that the government does not recognise the social impact on the community. I talk particularly about the Riverland, but I know it applies right the length of the river. I think most people in this place understand my concern with the threat of suicide and the need for more work to be done in the area of suicide prevention, and I take this opportunity to urge the government and the new minister to take that into account and make sure that community-based schemes are put into operation to address the widespread distress people are experiencing, despite that resilience and positive attitude that I mentioned earlier.

In conclusion, a different COAG agreement should have been signed in which all states referred their constitutional powers to the commonwealth without any state veto and having a truly independent Murray-Darling Basin authority established to manage the river in the best interests of the nation. I support the second reading of both bills.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (22:11): At this point I seek to move the bills through the parliament as expeditiously as we possibly can, as it is important legislation and South Australia has made a commitment to endeavour to get it through both houses of parliament by 1 November. In closing the debate I take the opportunity to address some of the issues that have been raised by members in this place in relation to the independence and roles of the authority. There has been considerable rhetoric in relation to the independence of the new authority. It is important to make very clear what these referral powers do and what the independent authority will have the ability to do.

The authority will be an independent expert body reporting to the federal minister for its functions under the commonwealth Water Act. The new authority is quite different from the existing Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which is comprised of state officials who have represented states' interests in the past. The authority will have two clear roles: first, to develop and enforce the basin plan and, secondly, to take on the functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

The federal minister is the final decision maker on the basin plan, and there is no veto power by the ministerial council or the states on the development of the basin plan. It is important to point out that it would be inappropriate to give all decision making in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin to non-elected members of the community. We have a strong view that at the end of the day there must be an elected member in the federal parliament with whom the buck stops. However, the federal minister cannot direct the authority in relation to the basin plan on matters of a factual or scientific nature, the assignment of risk to the commonwealth related to reductions in allocation or about monitoring of compliance or enforcement of the basin plan.

These restrictions on the direction power of the minister are set out in sections 44(5) and 175(2) of the existing commonwealth Water Act 2007. When the basin plan is tabled before a house of the parliament, the minister must table any directions to the authority. This ensures that the minister is accountable for any directions given to the authority. In relation to the role and powers of ministerial council, it has an advisory role with respect to aspects of the plan that may affect the social, environmental and economic outcomes of the state, but it does not have veto power.

When making changes to water available for diversion, potentially there will be significant impacts within communities. It is only appropriate that there be consultation on the changes those communities will have to live with. Under the referral of powers the authority also takes on the role of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in managing the river operations for the shared surface waters of the River Murray and the Menindee Lakes system of the Lower Darling River on behalf of the basin states and the commonwealth. In this role the authority is both managing the river to distribute water to the states in accordance with the state water shares and managing the assets owned by the states. Decisions made by the authority can affect the timing, delivery and quality of water being sent down the river to South Australia and to the other states.

As such, it is appropriate that the basin states continue to have appropriate involvement in this decision-making. If we did not have that appropriate involvement, it could be an arbitrary decision of a body that sits over in Canberra to change the delivery and timing of flows into South Australia, which may not meet the needs of our communities.

Dealing with state water shares and South Australia's 1,850 gigalitres minimum entitlement flow, I point out that, in regard to state water shares, the basin plan will set the available amount of water in the longer term, and also seasonally each year—it will determine the size of the bucket. The state water-sharing arrangements that distribute that bucket will remain the same and require agreement by all the states to change the shares. Currently, 50 per cent of the shared water resource goes to New South Wales and 50 per cent goes to Victoria collectively, and they must supply South Australia with our minimum entitlement of 1,850 gigalitres. South Australia has to agree before there is any change to our state water share, as defined by the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and the subsequent Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and Commission decisions.

The mechanism used involves a text-based referral. The process of referral of powers based on specified text is consistent with the approach taken for other complex referral legislation, such as the corporations and the terrorism legislation. The text-based referral is important because of the need for consistency across the states in relation to the text that is referred to the commonwealth. South Australia has shown leadership by being the first state to introduce this legislation in the parliament and to table the amendments to the federal government's Water Act 2007. The tabling of that document was done in the other place over a month ago, to enable members opposite and, indeed, members on the crossbenches to read and absorb it and seek whatever briefings they needed. A termination clause is included as a standard clause and was included in the recent referrals, such as the corporations and the terrorism legislation. It is a standard procedure in such legislation because constitutionally this parliament cannot bind future parliaments.

In regard to environmental water, the basin plan will set sustainable diversion limits on the quantity of water that may be taken from the basin's water resources. This will ensure that a greater quantity of water is available for environmental needs. The plan will provide for a comprehensive environmental watering plan that will coordinate the management of environmental flows throughout the basin and ensure that environmental assets are protected. This includes environmental water recovered by the commonwealth and basin states under water recovery programs, such as the Living Murray initiative and the Water for the Future program. It must seek to improve the health of all Ramsar sites, including (importantly) the Lower Lakes, the Coorong, the Murray Mouth and other key environmental sites in the basin.

Access to storage upstream to carry over and store water for critical human water needs and private irrigation is also a critically important component of the reforms which does not exist currently. Currently, South Australia has no ongoing access to storage capacity and it is forced to negotiate to seek approval from the other states for this access on a case-by-case basis. That is not an effective way for us to manage our resources and our available water. This will allow the state to carry over and to store around 300 gigalitres of water for critical human water needs (18 months' supply) and to deliver this water in times of low flows, reducing the risk of a major failure in the supply of potable water to South Australia. There are provisions about that storage that say it should not impact upon the capacity of New South Wales' and Victoria's ability to store water. What that effectively means is that, when the dams are spilling, South Australia's water will be the first to spill (if it spills), or we can call that water down and store it in other places, such as Lake Victoria, or other storages, for subsequent use.

What else does this package deliver that we didn't have before? There are a number of things the basin plan does that it did not do before. The basin plan will now have to be prepared with regard to critical human needs water being the highest priority use of water. Critical human needs include core human consumption requirements in urban and rural areas and non-human consumption requirements that, if not met, would cause a prohibitively high social, economic or national security cost. The details around the critical human water needs will be determined under the basin plan, including the amount of water required in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria to meet the critical human needs of communities dependent on the River Murray system and specify arrangements for carrying over water in storage. Each of the states will remain responsible for securing the water to meet critical human water needs.

The basin plan must be prepared to ensure that conveyance water (that is, the water required to deliver the critical human needs water to where it needs to be extracted) will receive first priority from the water available in the system—not just South Australia's dilution flow but the entire component of conveyance water across the basin—for all critical human needs. South Australia is guaranteed dilution flow under the current agreement, but this does not deal well with drought conditions.

In some years, there may not even be enough water to meet conveyance water; therefore, the changes make it mandatory that the basin plan sets in place arrangements for identifying the risks, setting aside a reserve and maintaining that reserve not just on an annual basis but over several years. This does not happen under the existing arrangements. The reserve policy will take into account inputs from the key tributaries of the Murrumbidgee, Darling and Goulburn rivers, which does not currently happen.

The basin plan must now specify arrangements for monitoring matters relevant to critical human water needs, including water quality and quantity, ecosystem health and social impacts on communities. The basin plan must also now assess and manage risks to critical human water needs, including the inflow predictions to the River Murray and the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme, which transfers significant net quantities of water into the Murray-Darling Basin.

The basin plan will now also provide for that all important inter-annual planning to inform decisions about how water is made available for all users in order to meet critical human water needs in future years. That is in addition to what the basin plan must already do in relation to the mandatory requirements of the existing commonwealth Water Act 2007. There are also significant enforcement requirements.

In relation to the length of time to develop the basin plan, members have criticised the length of the time (2011) it will take to have a basin plan. The basin plan was never intended to address contingency planning for the current drought. It was about planning for the longer term governance and for the better management in the medium to longer term of the Murray-Darling Basin system. A process is in place currently that was established in November 2006 where we are dealing with drought issues. What this plan and this referral of powers will do is ensure that, when we are faced with a drought like we have now again in the future, and as climate change impacts on the available resource, we will be better prepared to deal with that.

The basin plan will provide the foundation for re-establishing the sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin water resource. It will include long-term sustainable diversions—limits, caps—that are enforceable by the authority. It will include the identification of risks to the basin water resources, including climate change and land use change. It will establish an environmental watering plan and a water quality and salinity management plan. It will establish water trading rules. It will provide for addressing critical human water needs and it will put in place substantial monitoring arrangements right across the basin.

The reforms will also establish a three-tier system under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement for sharing water in the River Murray system and the key tributaries under normal, low water availability and extreme drought conditions. The plan, the reform package and this entire new governance arrangement to which all states in the commonwealth have agreed will assist us to better manage the system into the future. It is critical for the environment, the irrigators and the communities that rely on the basin's water resources that the new authority gets the plan right. This will require scientific and socioeconomic analysis, as well as extensive public consultation. In particular, consultation with affected communities will be important to the authority's considerations in setting sustainable surface and groundwater diversions limits.

The plan is due in 2011. To prepare a plan in less time will result in a potentially inferior outcome with far-reaching consequences for those affected communities.

I understand that honourable members have indicated that they have specific questions they will raise during the committee stage of this bill, and those questions will be responded to at that time.

It is an extremely important legislative package that will take us through to a new age in relation to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. This is the first government in 100 years that has been able to achieve a referral of powers to the commonwealth to manage the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. It has not been achieved before; it is historic.

This government has underpinned changes for the betterment of the future of this nation and for the betterment of the security supply to all our communities and the environment of the Murray-Darling Basin in the longer term. I am very pleased to say that it is legislation to which members have given their support.

In conclusion, I thank the many people who have been involved in getting us to this stage in the negotiations with the commonwealth and other states and the work that has been undertaken within the South Australian government. I thank the Premier and the Minister for the River Murray for their great leadership in driving major reform of the Murray-Darling Basin. I thank parliamentary counsel and the ministerial and departmental staff who have worked so hard to get this legislation to this stage. Negotiations have gone on for nearly two years, and they have resulted in major reform that will see us in good stead in the future.

I look forward to much better outcomes for the health of the River Murray, and I am sure all members join me in those sentiments, and I look forward to the underpinning of the security of supply to all users in the system, for irrigators, for human consumption and also for the environment.

Bill read a second time.

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