HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2008. Page 362.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:34): Mr President, I suggest that, as this bill and the Murray-Darling Basin Bill relate to the same matter, we have a conjoint debate. Obviously, we can deal with them separately in committee, but at the second reading stage I believe it may help the council if we have one debate rather than two.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy with that as long as the council is happy with it. Members' second reading speeches will cover both bills.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:36): I rise to make a contribution to this bill on behalf of Liberal members. As this is the key issue facing our state, I understand that a number of my Liberal colleagues will also want to make a contribution from their own personal perspective. This package of measures, including the consequential bill, the Murray-Darling Basin Bill, which I will address very briefly, has also been sold as a reform of the Murray-Darling management but, in fact, it is really a dud and only reinforces what the arrangements have been thus far.

What this country is crying out for and what I think the community demands is that we have a genuinely independent body that makes decisions based on science. There is nothing new in this bill. We need some breakthrough measures that will override the parochial interests of various states and some of the practices of those states, particularly in light of the COAG decisions, which have resulted in a wild scramble to grab water from upstream.

I also refer honourable members to the debate on this bill in the House of Assembly, which constitutes a thorough examination of this issue, on 14 and 15 October. I refer, in particular, to the contribution of the member for MacKillop, our water spokesperson, who has done more justice to this topic than I suspect I am able to.

The Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill is the chief bill of the two, and it refers a range of powers from the states and territories to the federal jurisdiction and provides that the federal minister will be the principal minister. Some of the other technicalities are that the powers and functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission will be transferred to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which has been set up under the commonwealth Water Act 2007, which was passed under the previous Howard government. It will also mandate critical human water needs as part of the Murray-Darling Basin operations.

As I have said, the reality is that this would have occurred in any case, although it took place under particular negotiations. Thirdly, the basin water charges and water market rules will be regulated under the ACCC, which will determine or approve regulated charges, which is probably one of the most positive aspects of this bill. Many of these particular measures were really agreed by COAG in 1994 and were negotiated under previous arrangements, although they were not as explicitly stated in the legislation as they will be now.

Going back over some of the history of this issue, interestingly, I was provided with a document by the member for Bragg which talks about some of the history of the Murray-Darling Basin prior to federation. Indeed, The member for Napier, in his contribution, referred to some historical issues, which made quite interesting reading, and noted how little has changed over the century. I refer to a document entitled 'Memoirs of Sampson Newland CMG' (sometime treasurer of South Australia), which was printed in Adelaide in 1926. Mr Newland said some things that I think are quite germane. In chapter 12—The River Murray League—he said:

Somehow as time went on the national spirit of the people changed and petty rivalries between the colonies as to how much each was entitled to use hampered progress, and thus it came about that Victoria and New South Wales entered into large schemes of diverting the water from the River Murray and its tributaries.

Several active associations were formed in various settled parts of the Riverina country to protect the interests of navigation, and, meanwhile, successive governments of South Australia played ignominious parts, spending years attending useless conferences, discussing and wrangling with our sister states over the division of the water calculated to flow for given periods through certain gauges.

So far as Victoria and New South Wales were concerned, the true object of these conferences was to discover how little South Australia could be induced to accept and to gain time to push on with their own works in their respective states.

If we move forward several decades, as I mentioned, in 1994 we had the COAG agreement, which was historic in altering the regime under which the Murray-Darling Basin would operate, and it has really carried forward for the past 14 years or so.

In 2007, then prime minister Howard, recognising the desperate need for a proper management plan for the Murray-Darling Basin, provided a very generous sum of money (some $10 billion) as an inducement to ensure that the states cooperated with the new agreement. As we are all aware, Victoria held out for political reasons—to assist the Labor Party to gain office. I think that was a most shameful act. When we consider that the initial proposal by then prime minister Howard was nearly two years ago, how much more could we have gained had we taken action earlier and, indeed, had the state Labor government taken action earlier?

On reading the member for MacKillop's speech, I am reminded that Premier Rann spoke to the National Press Club in February 2003 and said, 'We need to do things differently in regard to management of the basin. We need to reduce our reliance on the River Murray.' That was some time ago (prior to the last state election), but nothing has happened.

One picks up anecdotes around the place and, when I was in Israel last year on a Water Trade Mission, people from interstate water utilities said that they had regular hook-ups with all the water utilities around Australia, including South Australia. They had been shaking their head at the fact that, for such a long time, rather than take some action, this government's attitude has been to pray for rain, and it has really been forced into adopting the Liberal Party's policy of supporting a desalination plant in South Australia. The government has been even tardier in relation to stormwater harvesting, which has been driven largely by local government without much support from this state government.

To return to the bill, it has been referred to as being of a similar structure to the Reserve Bank. Anyone who can make that statement is either a fool or does not understand what they are talking about. The Reserve Bank is a genuinely independent body and uses its own expert advice in order to make decisions. I am sure that it certainly does not pay any attention to the letters it has received on occasion from this state Labor Premier when he likes to pretend that he is doing something.

We have also heard the argument about its guaranteeing critical human need. As stated previously, this has always really been part of the dilution flow, which is part of South Australia's allocation. Indeed, carryover water has also occurred through negotiation.

A document, which is referred to as the 'tabled text' and which comprises some 300 pages (I am obliged to the member for MacKillop for supplying me with his marked-up copy), in effect becomes a schedule to the act. The bill itself has only some seven clauses. So, the mechanics of how this bill operates is that matters will be referred to the commonwealth by two particular means: those which are referred through the table text—which is 304 pages—and matters which are referred to as subject matters. That really is a collection of matters which are referred to the commonwealth, and both are quite separate.

Clause 6 refers to how to undo the legislation once it becomes an act of parliament. Clause 5 refers to how to undo subject matters, and clause 6 refers to how the states would need to undo all of the matters together. It has been stated—and I think it needs to be restated in this chamber—that the states still retain a veto over any decisions made by the authority. So, in that sense, having any sort of independent body really is overridden by that process. The powers really remain with the states.

If we look at some of the activities that have been taking place recently, a very interesting piece on Four Corners talked about some of the activities in Queensland and some of the enormous dams that are being built on the Gwydir River just in time, before these arrangements come into place.

The Weekly Times, which is a very comprehensive paper for people with rural interests published in Victoria had, I think on 3 September, an article entitled, 'Water grab leaves southern irrigators...DAMNED'. It has a picture on the front of some bulldozers which are actively cutting out massive dams and further diversion channels on a Moree property. I think the proprietors of that property were actually questioned on Four Corners, and I will refer to that in just a moment. On page four, the article states:

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission's Independent Audit Group estimates Queensland and New South Wales irrigators have increased the capacity of the on-farm storages by at least 1.6 million megalitres—

which is 1,600 gigalitres—

since the interstate cap on diversions was signed in 1995.

I think it is fairly clear what has been taking place. The urgency with which any federal authority is to be promulgated is really quite stark. I will just refer to the Four Corners piece where journalist Sarah Ferguson refers to the Gwydir Valley and Moree, where the 1970s—as she puts it—'saw a veritable cotton rush.' She questioned one of the irrigators as to whether water stealing takes place. She said, 'Seery's son Stephen admits he has helped himself to water when it flooded out on the plain'. She then asked Stephen Seery, 'Do you ever steal water?' He said, 'Um, I wouldn't—don't believe so, no.' She then said, 'Do you think he might have done in the past?' He said, 'Um, maybe we might have borrowed some.' She said, 'What's borrowing water?' He confesses, 'It's non-returnable. She said 'Where did you borrow it from?' and he said 'Oh, it was probably flood plain harvesting, I guess, in the early days.' She said 'And that's still going on, though, isn't it?' and he said 'Maybe it could be, yeah.'

People from those parts of the world were described in the 1970s as cowboys, and it appears that not much is being done to ensure that everyone has their fair access to the water and that those who are taking additional water will not, in fact, be doing so.

At a time when our irrigators are on 11 per cent of their allocation, irrigators on the Lower Lakes effectively have zero, because there is not any water for them to use. The southern Darling irrigators are on 100 per cent and those on the Murrumbidgee are on 100 per cent and, at the same time, the Victorian government is building the Sugarloaf diversion. In response to that, an action group called Plug the Pipe has been set up. Its campaign is entitled 'No north-south pipeline to Melbourne'. Indeed, even the Mansfield branch of the ALP has opposed it, as have the Victorian Farmers Federation, environmentalist Tim Flannery, Greens leader Bob Brown, Victorian Liberal leader Ted Baillieu, federal coalition leader Malcolm Turnbull, our former colleague Nick Xenophon and a whole range of other stakeholders.

Interestingly, the way forward has been described by certain stakeholders. Honourable members may be aware of a recent report published by the Australian Conservation Foundation on 16 October 2008. It is entitled 'Land and water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. How governments can secure benefits for industry, communities and the environment by integrating investment in water acquisition infrastructure improvement and structural adjustment in geographically targeted zones'.

It is an interesting read, because it acknowledges the genuine concern of a number of irrigation communities that will effectively see their community infrastructure destroyed if a certain number of irrigators leave those districts. It has referred to a CSIRO report entitled 'Sustainable yields', which has predicted impacts of climate change on water availability over the next 30 years, including all existing local and regional natural resource management and environment data. It has come up with what it describes as a traffic light rating across irrigation districts. One category, green, has good prospects of remaining viable for irrigation in the future; the second category, red, is categorised as unlikely to be viable; and the third category, amber, relates to districts where conclusions about future viability cannot currently be drawn from regular scrutiny of available data.

The scientists propose that, in terms of the federal government's buyback of licences, rather than purchasing licences on an ad hoc basis, seeking to grab a headline for having been good girls and boys and having purchased a significantly large irrigation licence (which may not even exist, so, in effect, they are purchasing air), they target the purchase of irrigation licences to areas that the science tells us are unlikely to continue to be viable, based on current data and overlapped with any data that may have implications regarding climate change. So, rather than having viable districts where people may want to trade their properties but where future generations will be able to continue to farm, we sell out those areas that are particularly unviable. I think that is an indication of the approach that the federal government ought to be taking.

I think it is disappointing that the federal government is not being more aggressive with the states in staring them down and saying that this is in the national interest and it is time to sidestep those parochial interests that are devastating some of our communities. I would be surprised if there is a politician in this parliament who has not been to the Lower Lakes and, if they have not, I urge them to go and talk to some of those communities.

On that note, I think it is also disappointing that the federal government chose not to support the amendments put forward by the new members for Mayo and Barker, which sought a $50 million assistance package for the communities of the Lower Lakes. I remember listening to an ABC Radio program when it went to that site. The difficulty for a number of people who are not actually irrigators but have businesses in, and are part of, the community in those districts is they are in limbo land. They do not know what the future holds, and it is extremely stressful for anyone continuing to carry on business as usual when they do not know whether their business is viable into the future. We need to have proper exit strategies for the people in the community in those districts, not just those who are irrigators.

I also refer to the package that was cobbled together by the commonwealth with this particular state government to give irrigators $150,000 to exit the industry and sell their water to the federal government. There were several weeks during which those water licence holders could not even get hold of the criteria and could not get through to people on the telephone. It was just a shambles, and it was all for the sake of the government's being able to say it was doing something in response to this problem, yet it seems they never got the facts first. It is always done at the last minute and it is ill-prepared.

With those comments, I advise that the Liberal Party supports this bill but is highly critical of the approach this government has taken to the water needs of all South Australians.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:57): I rise to support the package of bills to hand power over the Murray-Darling Basin system to the commonwealth. There are three problems that I would like to outline as challenges in dealing with this issue.

The first is drought. Any farmer will tell you, 'You get drought one year in seven, so they say—sometimes more, sometimes less.' You just cannot plan for this, but the environmental consequences of drought, when it does occur, need to be factored into any management of the system.

Secondly, regarding the issue of over-allocation of water down the length of the system, with the Cubbie stations of this world eating up vital water resources and leaving little for those downstream, allocation needs to be fair and equitable but also workable, taking account of all the water available. I commend the water audit currently being undertaken by the federal government and wonder why someone did not think of doing this sooner.

Thirdly, any authority needs to look at the short and long-term environmental health of the river system as a whole. I refer to the view of Professor Mike Young and the Wentworth group of scientists that there needs to be a certain amount of water in the system to satisfy the environmental needs of the system before you even begin to consider allocating water. This environmental water consideration must factor in the health of the Lower Lakes as well.

As I mentioned previously, climatic and environmental issues need to be addressed in any proposed allocation system. These two bills are, in my opinion, long overdue. It should be the case that the law leads rather than follows. Cooperative action by all states should have been taken two years ago when the federal government first proposed that there would be one authority to manage the entire Murray-Darling Basin system, and I would have thought that this state would be a leader in the legislative charge to action instead of just following.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:00): I rise today to speak about this bill. This is one bill of a reform package of two complimentary bills, the other being the Murray-Darling Basin Bill. I indicate my support for both bills. We all know that we are in a critical stage in our national history. The factors behind this enormous challenge for the community and the government have been well canvassed. These include climate change, resulting in extreme temperatures and rainfall fluctuations; the current extended drought; uneven water distribution to communities and irrigators; and inept management on the part of both state and federal governments over many years. I need not dwell on the associated buck-passing between all at the expense of proper water usage and conservation.

It is the case that the factors to which I have referred are now converging into what may well be an all too real social, ecological and economic disaster. Water levels along the Murray-Darling are at historically low levels. Below average rainfall, poor inflows and above average temperatures have added to the plight of the river and that of the people who dwell along its banks and rely on its bounty. We all know about the situation in Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina and the government's continuing efforts to alleviate the exposure of acid sulphate sediments.

The actual and prospective economic costs to our state have been well canvassed in the media and elsewhere. We all know the human cost. The potential for social dislocation inherent in these circumstances is almost too heartbreaking to consider, but we must consider it and we must act now. This is the time. The South Australian Labor government, its counterparts in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and the federal government have acted in unison. On 3 July 2008, these parties entered into an historic agreement on Murray-Darling Basin reform. This agreement enables them in concert to better manage the pressures of water over allocation, environmental deterioration, climate change and economic transition in order to better meet future needs and to safeguard and augment the river's social, environment and economic value.

The pivot around which the reforms operate is the limited text-based referral of the powers by the basin states to the commonwealth. Following that process, the commonwealth will then amend the Water Act 2007 in various respects. One of these amendments will create the new and independent Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This authority will take responsibility for the efficient operation of the river system, while still protecting state water-sharing arrangements.

By virtue of the agreement, South Australia for the first time will have access to upstream storages of our choice in which to store water for critical human needs and private carryover. This will allow us to carry over and store some 300 gigalitres of water, representing a real reduction in the risk of a major failure in the supply of potable water to communities in South Australia. Without this reform—as all those opposite should well know—our state has no ongoing access to storage. Meanwhile access to storage for carry over of water for private purposes will assist our irrigators in their increasingly desperate plight.

I noticed in the newspaper recently a push by irrigator Mr Tim Whetstone, who is President of the SA Murray Irrigators Association, to gain Liberal pre-selection in the seat of Chaffey. It is well known and acknowledged that the Hon. Karlene Maywald in another place is probably one of the most knowledgeable persons in this state parliament regarding the River Murray. She has given her heart and soul—and her family has given their heart and soul—to the people of Chaffey. It staggers me that this candidate for preselection—who seems to be the front runner for preselection—is openly criticising the state Labor government for its handling of water issues in relation to the River Murray.

The silence of the South Australian Murray Irrigators Group over 10 or 11 years of absolute inaction by the Howard Liberal government is probably one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the Riverland. 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, and its current Chairman, Mr Tim Whetstone, is no more than a stooge—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Every opportunity you grovel in the gutter.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I seem to be getting agreement from my colleagues opposite. The Hon. Ms Maywald in another place is probably the most knowledgeable person and has probably done more for the people of Chaffey with regard to the problems of the Riverland than has anyone in the history of the state.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: The people will make that decision.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The people will eventually make that decision: they will have a choice between a very competent minister in a Labor government and a person who for years has been part of an association, the irrigators group, which has done nothing to pressure the Howard government into any action regarding the problems of the River Murray. They came up in January last year prior to the election with a half-baked, concocted policy that was more to do with run-in to the election with something than actually looking after the interests of the people of Chaffey.

In today's paper I noticed an article headed 'Water rat faces prison', an article regarding water theft in the Riverland. I am going to speak here from my own experience when I was secretary of the Gas Employees Union for quite a few years and represented the interests of those employees.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Stephens will take his place in the chamber and cease interjecting.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I represented the interests of gas industry workers. When the Labor government decided to sell Sagasco to Santos, I organised 5,000 people to march down King William Street against the Labor government. Despite the fact that I was a member, was on the state executive and our union was affiliated, I still marched our members and the public—5,000 of them—down King William Street to Parliament House because we knew that selling Sagasco to Santos was not in the interests of our members. That is what representing people in an organisation is all about.

What has the Murray Irrigators Group done? What has Mr Tim Whetstone done? There has been deathly silence. He has now come along and decided that he wants to be the member for Chaffey. So, someone who was not known anywhere is out there criticising a very competent minister, she having given her life blood to Chaffey. He is no more than a Liberal stooge. Under the heading 'Water rat faces prison', the article also quotes Tim Whetstone—he is out there doing quite a bit of talking now—and states that 53 million litres of water have been stolen from the River Murray and someone has been charged. This does not happen overnight. Obviously this has been going on for a long time. Now this has come out, it has put a question mark over the integrity of many irrigators in the Riverland. Yet, 99 per cent of those irrigators are honest, decent people who are suffering badly. We now have a situation where, only now that the person has been caught and charged, the South Australian Murray Irrigators Group Chairman comes out and makes a pretty ordinary comment. There was nothing about protecting the integrity of all irrigators up there, so you really question the integrity of this person who would now like to be the member for Chaffey.

The people of Chaffey will have a clear choice in the next election: a competent minister in Karlene Maywald who has given her heart and soul to the people of Chaffey, and her family lives in the area, or a Liberal stooge backbencher who lives in Gilberton, whose family lives in Gilberton and whose kids go to school in Adelaide. That is the clear choice. Hopefully, the choice they will make is to keep the great representation they have now in the Labor government and they will continue to be represented by a well-respected and competent minister.

The provision of water for critical human needs is the absolute priority for the communities that depend on the Murray-Darling Basin. The governments involved have acknowledged this by propounding a three-tier system to manage future scarcity. I wonder also whether the Riverland Irrigators Group is going to come out and congratulate the federal government for actually doing something. It is actually doing something.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It actually takes a plan and organisation to do it. Things do not just come out of the sky. I know that as an Independent on the back bench who never has to deliver anything you can take that attitude, but people who are responsibly governing actually have to plan and put things in place. It is the easiest thing in the world to be an irresponsible backbencher; the hardest thing is governing responsibly for the people of South Australia.

The first tier provides for normal water sharing in accordance with the new agreement. In times of uncertainty, when it is questionable whether sufficient water will be available to alleviate seepage and evaporation, consequent to the delivery of critical human water needs, conveyance water will be a priority under tier 2. Conveyance water is that water required to cover the losses that I have described. If this occurs, the ministerial council will determine how water is to be shared in response to the prevailing conditions on an ongoing basis.

Significantly, under these arrangements, all states will remain responsible for securing and providing the volume of water required for critical human needs. Along with our new right to store water, this will enable our government to carefully and appropriately manage our state's supply during dry periods. In recognition of the good sense of a uniform approach to regulation, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's role in setting water market and charge rulings will be extended.

So, water market rules set by the commonwealth will now apply to all relevant bodies within the basin, not only those within the ambit of the commonwealth's constitutional powers. In addition, the water charge rules will apply to a larger range of transactions. However, it should be noted that charges relating to urban water supply beyond the point of removal of water from a basin resource will be excluded.

South Australia has taken a dominant role in developing the framework this bill outlines, and much of this is as a result of the great involvement of the greatest water minister this state will probably ever see. Ours is the first state to introduce reform of the legislation. But among the congratulations, let me introduce a note of caution. Despite the significance of the agreement, there is no quick fix for our rivers. The Hon. Ms Bressington thinks that this can be fixed up overnight, but it takes time to do this. The Howard government took 11 years to do nothing, which has only exacerbated the problems and the crisis up in the Riverland.

The reforms will be carried out in the medium to long term to facilitate better management for our most precious resources into the future. Of course, immediate needs are being dealt with by other mechanisms but we will need to remain both patient and vigilant. It has been a long journey for all governments involved in the negotiations that have resulted in this and the related bill. Surely we can all agree that this well considered framework is so much more productive of goodwill and cooperation than the ill-conceived ham-fisted takeover proposal put forward by the previous government in January 2007.

As I said when I first rose to speak, we are at a critical stage in our national history. Any delay in passing this bill and the Murray-Darling Basin Bill could delay the commencement of the new authority's functions, scheduled for 1 November 2008. I urge the speedy consideration and passage of this bill and related legislation, and I commend all those involved.

I register my support for these measures with much hope for the future of South Australia, as we move forward cooperatively and confidently with our state, territory and federal colleagues.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:16): I rise to make a few comments about the two bills before us relating to the River Murray. I am sure the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who is obviously the lead speaker for the opposition, has covered the bill in reasonable detail, although I will pose some questions at the end of my contribution in relation to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment, so that the government is better placed to bring back advice on some of the definitions and the things the honourable member discusses in his amendment.

Having listened to the Hon. Russell Wortley talking about the long-term planning to be put in place for what he believes to be a solution to solving the problems of the river, I remind members opposite that, in 1989, the Premier, the Hon. Mike Rann, made his first speech in this parliament in relation to climate change. He must have been a visionary then, because he said that he could see that, because of climate change and the hole in the ozone layer, we were facing a crisis. However, he did nothing about it. He talked about it, but he did nothing about it.

So, 20 years later, the Premier is now saying that he is going to act. It is typical of this government and the leadership we see from this government on a whole range of issues, but particularly on this issue. Over the past almost seven years we have had, by and large, a declining asset in the River Murray and less and less water being available to our irrigators and declining groundwater. I was an irrigator myself in the South-East. In fact, I think I am the only member of parliament whose entire income, prior to coming to parliament, was made from irrigation. Most other members of parliament who were farmers had some dryland farming income, but my entire income was derived from irrigation. So, I am probably better placed to talk—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Russell Wortley interjects, talking about where I live in the eastern suburbs. I will have him know that I have just installed the latest sub-surface irrigation in my lawn and planted South Australia's most drought, salt and detergent tolerant lawn so that I can have a green space that is environmentally friendly. I have used the expertise I gained over 20 years of farming to come up with a solution rather than sitting there and whinging. We talked about—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Where do you live?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind honourable members that question time finished some time ago. I will not tolerate questions across the chamber by honourable members. It is not much interest where any honourable member lives.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your protection and guidance, Mr President. As I have said, what we are seeing with this issue is a Premier and a government that are happy to talk about issues but never really step up to the plate to deliver any outcome. Just this weekend, we saw an article about the wind turbines—the Premier claimed this wonderful initiative to put wind turbines, albeit small turbines, on buildings around the CBD to put electricity back into the grid. However, not one of these wind turbines has ever worked. In fact, the company that brought them here went broke. Really, most of the time, this is a person who leads a government and who talks about issues but does not do anything about it.

This government is led by someone who made a statement 20 years ago about climate change. Largely, the government's approach has been to get on its knees and pray for rain. Sadly for the state, that has not happened. I know that, when the desalination plant was being discussed, after the Liberal Party had announced that it would build one for metropolitan Adelaide if it were in government, the Premier told the federal government, 'Well, we probably should build it, but what if it rains? We might not need it then.' This person leads the government, but he has shown no leadership whatsoever on water in this state.

If you look at what has happened in relation to water in this state over the past few years in a chronological order, much can be attributed to the former Liberal government. The first Waterproofing Adelaide strategy was conceived by the last Liberal government. The threat to the city's water security was identified, and a range of options was canvassed to meet the challenges ahead. So, eight, 10 or 12 years ago, when we had a Liberal government, these issues were identified and a strategy was put in place.

The Rann Labor government's Waterproofing Adelaide document shows that, under drought conditions, such as those experienced in the Murray-Darling catchment since at least 2002, Adelaide's water demand would exceed its water supply by 2007. It is in the government's own documents that all these problems existed, but the trouble was that all it wanted to do was talk about it: it did not really want to commit to solving the problem.

The government failed to take up the initiative of building a desalination plant. When the Liberal Party announced it, it was poo-pooed and looked upon as a joke. Minister John Hill said that we did not need one; treasurer Kevin Foley said that it was too big; the Premier said we did not need one; and minister Maywald said that we did not need one.

Of course, as you know, Mr President, in opposition you have limited resources, but a committee of two or three people within the Liberal Party put together the proposal that Port Stanvac was the logical place to look at and explore as a sensible place to put a desalination plant. But, arrogant as it is, the government chose not to listen to us and, in a bipartisan way, say, 'Yes, that's not a bad idea. Let's get on board. We'll support you, and we'll ask for your support, and investigate it.' Having spent a lot of money putting together a high-level committee, 12 months later it recommended that Port Stanvac was the logical place to build a desalination plant!

This again demonstrates that the government has always played politics with water and prayed for rain. It has never really had the courage to grasp the opportunities when they present themselves. You only have to look back to the offer of $10 billion put on the table by the former Liberal government: it was the first time in our nation's history that the federal government recognised that there was a problem, and $10 billion was put on the table.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The member opposite interjects and says that that is a joke, but $10 billion was put on the table. The state Labor premiers and the National Labor Party President (Hon. Mike Rann, Premier of South Australia) played games for political reasons. We could have had a federal agreement, and we could have had something in place well over 12 months ago, but they wanted to play games and extract the maximum political benefit for the Labor Party. They were not really interested in South Australia or in the communities along the river that the Hon. Russell Wortley talks about. Has he ever been to the river? He would not even know where it is most of the time.

We saw that the Victorian Premier at the time (Steve Bracks) held out, and we saw this political agenda, driven by the Labor premiers, to defeat the former Liberal government, with no concern about the outcome for the rest of the nation or the communities along the river.

I grew up in a rural community, and I know that you, Mr President, have spent a significant amount of your life in rural communities. They can start to disintegrate because of a downturn in a commodity or a prolonged drought, and we are seeing that in the Riverland. Certainly some of the permanent plantings have been lost there, and they will take decades to recover.

The Hon. Russell Wortley talks about decades of inaction. He outrageously attacked the President of the River Murray Irrigators Association, Mr Tim Whetstone. Look at some of the initiatives that were promoted by the former Liberal government and supported by the local community. Salt interception schemes were introduced by the former Liberal government to reduce inflows of highly saline groundwater into the river near Waikerie. A series of pipelines carrying the salt has been put out to the Stockyard Plains disposal basin. That was one of the first initiatives to be put in place.

The rehabilitation of the flats near Murray Bridge was also instigated by the former Liberal government to reduce pollution in the river and improve water quality and irrigation efficiency. One of the most important initiatives was the rehabilitation of the Loxton irrigation system, where all the open channels were replaced with a high pressure pipe system to both conserve water and reduce quantities of salt being carried back into the river. These are projects that the former Liberal government put in place—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Financed by federal Labor.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He has just hit the nail on the head with that interjection. We had the state Liberal government working with a federal Labor government to get a good outcome for our Riverland communities. What we have had in the past few years is a state Labor government not prepared to work with the federal Liberal government for political reasons, and neglecting the communities in the Riverland.

To this day, we still have some 12,000 kilometres of open channels in Victoria and New South Wales delivering water. Why isn't the Premier in his capacity as ALP President showing some leadership? Why isn't he bringing the other premiers to the table, promoting some big investments in infrastructure to see those open channels put into pipes? You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that open channels—and some of them are huge—have massive amounts of evaporation and seepage. The seepage probably benefits groundwater; it replenishes some of the aquifers, but the evaporation is just lost. I know that there was a proposal years ago by some irrigators and business people to pipe the Anabranch of the Darling and keep the water, because only two per cent of the water that flowed into the Anabranch actually made it into the Darling; the rest was lost to evaporation and seepage.

We can see that there are some wonderful opportunities to be gained by investing in infrastructure but, of course, we have not ever seen it from this government and from this Premier, because they have wanted to leverage the biggest political benefit they could get out of this. They have always believed that it would rain one day and mother nature would solve our problems. In the meantime, they will have leveraged the best political advantage for their comrades in other states and for themselves.

The Hon. Russell Wortley referred to the COAG agreement signed earlier this year. A big meeting was held here in Adelaide and television announcements were made that everybody was happy and all the state premiers and the Prime Minister lined up. However, when one actually looks at that agreement, one realises that it is quite flawed. The individual basin states will retain their rights to frustrate the national approach with the so-called independent body being subject to political interference from state governments. There needs to be genuine will from all the parties; from all the states. Again, it comes back to the leadership of the Premier in his capacity as national President of the ALP. We as a state have an opportunity if the Premier is prepared to step up and show some leadership.

Last week we saw his own party realise that they did not want his leadership here. There was a whole range of agitators. The Hon. Russell Wortley talked about water rats earlier. I am sure the Premier has some water rats of his own on his team. There seems to be no sense of urgency in this agreement. The Hon. Russell Wortley says that we must act quickly and pass this legislation for the referral of powers, but the basin plan under the COAG agreement is not due until 2011 and the state water plans will remain in place until 2019. That is 11 years away. If the river continues to decline at the same rate that it is now, there will be nothing left by 2019. This national agreement was a joke. Again, it was done for political reasons.

There has been no attempt to stop the Victorian government and Melbourne Water's plans to divert water from the basin for Melbourne's use. The only person who is standing up to it, I note from the paper, and who was threatened by the Victorian government, which said he would be forbidden to attend or would be expelled from the meeting, was the Hon. Nick Xenophon, who was going to attend the public meeting in Victoria. I have not caught up with what happened and whether or not he attended that rally.

However, having said that, there was someone in there fighting for South Australia against Victoria. Where is Mike Rann and the Hon. Karlene Maywald, whom the Hon. Russell Wortley talks about as our greatest water minister? Why is our water security minister not over there helping to secure our water and stopping them?

Members opposite are just a joke. They have delivered nothing for South Australia. The major rivers, such as the Darling, the Murrumbidgee and the Goulburn, still remain under state control. It is a bizarre concept that the rivers that feed the main river—the Murray—are controlled by the states. So, they can stop all the water coming out of those rivers and not let any into the River Murray.

The Hon. Russell Wortley made some comments about the regional communities—and, obviously, the Hon. Russell Wortley needs some water and is going for a drink. I think we have to realise that it is the Riverland communities where the real harm and the damage is being done with respect to our regional communities. The fact that this government has been prepared to play politics with water for as long as it has done has meant that the real losers in the end are our Riverland communities. I just hope that, in the end, it rains, because certainly the government has not delivered any outcomes for those communities.

I believe that, in an Adelaide sense, the government has also failed to capitalise on the opportunities to fast-track stormwater harvesting, and those sorts of projects, and also recycled effluent. The state government was not even prepared to match federal funding to extend the Virginia pipeline.

In these general comments about the River Murray—and, in particular, this bill—I will now refer to comments that have been made with respect to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendment. The amendment is basically to change the definition of 'critical human water needs'. My understanding is that, in this bill and this definition it is, if you like, the dilution flow that has been spoken about in this sense with respect to critical human needs, and not the water that goes to irrigators or comes to Adelaide or our country towns for critical human needs. That has to come out of each state's allocation. So, all we are guaranteed under this measure is dilution flow.

I hope I have explained that properly so that the government, through the minister, can explain that it is not about each state's allocation; it is about the dilution flows to deliver the water—the transport mechanism, if you like—here to South Australia. I indicate that I support the bills, but I also recognise this as being many years of neglect by the Rann Labor government.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:33): I rise to indicate my support for the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill and the consequential Murray-Darling Basin Bill. I do so with some hesitation, but I recognise that any delay to the passage of these bills would only further protract the lengthy negotiations and set back the 2011 release of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

I was a little distressed by the comments of the Hon. Russell Wortley, who said that backbenchers do not have to deliver on anything and, therefore, we can afford to be irresponsible. For the record, I make it very clear to members opposite that they are members of the government. It is their ministers who are required to deliver, not the backbenchers. It is not within our authority to be able to develop such legislation and negotiate. So, I will expect a written apology from the Hon. Russell Wortley at any time that suits him.

Water has certainly been a hot topic in recent years, particularly in the past few months. The situation at the moment is a bit of a dog's breakfast. The recent federal Mayo by-election—in an electorate that takes in the area most affected by the years of improper management of the inflows to the Murray, the Coorong and Lower Lakes—was described by commentators as one that would be won and lost on the issue of water. I find it interesting that this was also a by-election in which Labor did not field a candidate and the Liberals' Jamie Briggs only just got over the line after a massive swing towards the Greens. This blue ribbon seat (which previously was held by Alexander Downer for 25 years) is suddenly on a knife's edge. The message is clear: the local community is tired of the spin and inaction of the major parties on water.

In many ways, the health of the River Murray, the Coorong and Lower Lakes is a barometer for the health of the local community, and at the moment, like the river, the local community is dying. I have spoken with many local residents, who have told me of the suffering going on down there at the moment. Industry is drying up and farmers are walking off the land. Towns are being driven into the ground.

The bill before us today fulfils a long awaited intergovernmental agreement signed in July this year by the Murray-Darling Basin states—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. I acknowledge the efforts of all those at the negotiating table and hope that the Murray River will be the ultimate beneficiary of their work. The Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill, in compliance with sections 51 and 37 of the federal Constitution, refers to the commonwealth the necessary powers to manage the basin system to ensure the provision of water for critical human needs, to regulate the trading of water licences and to transfer the functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which was established in 1988, to the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

The intention behind the transfer from the commission to the authority (other than creating a new website and logo) is the development of an aforementioned Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The basin plan is scheduled to be handed down in 2011, with an interim report prior to that. Developing a strategic plan that provides for the sustainable and equitable extraction of water from the Murray and Darling systems is no easy mandate. The bare reality is that, for too long, the Murray and Darling systems have been over-allocated, with water bought at a price not comparable to its worth. This has led to the inefficient use and often wastage of our most precious resource. Reining in this exploitation must be the priority of the basin plan.

Confounding matters, the plan to be prepared by the authority ultimately rests with the federal minister, who has the power under the intergovernmental agreement to amend the plan as she sees fit without the approval of the authority and signatory states. In fact, I am led to believe that the adoption of the basin plan is the only power under the IGA not requiring unanimous agreement among the states that is preventing a state from having the right to veto. While I, like most others, can foresee the shenanigans the right to veto will create, I am also uncomfortable leaving the adoption of the basin plan solely in the hands of the minister, who can amend without consultation.

In addition, under the intergovernmental agreement, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority may recommend amendment to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement only if it is needed, with the ministerial council not obliged to make those changes. While one can understand why this is so, to my mind it guarantees that the negotiations between the states (which have been described to me as 'painful') and the subsequent politicking will only continue into the future.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Hear, hear!

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Thank you. While removing the current Murray-Darling Basin institutions, it also appears that the intergovernmental agreement has done little to streamline the basin bureaucracy, with the establishment of the authority, the new ministerial council, the basin officers committee and the basin community committee. As I learned during a recent briefing, who advises whom has only become more complicated.

However, despite these shortcomings, it is my earnest hope that the authority does not become lost among the burgeoning water bureaucracy and that it is able to exercise the little independence remaining to develop a strategic plan free from political short-term pressures. However, as mentioned, this seems unlikely, as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan ultimately lies in the hands of the federal minister.

Over the past 200 years river regulation within the Murray-Darling Basin has dramatically altered the surrounding landscape, most notably in the Coorong. Slowly and surely the problems have been building over the years to the point where, exacerbated by the drought, we are now in a crisis, and, with South Australia as the exit point of the Murray, we have repeatedly been short-changed, most notably in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. Due to its position the Coorong bears the brunt of actions and decisions made throughout the basin, of which we currently manage only half. At present, as members would be aware, we do not manage above Menindee Lakes.

I also make the point that, while we are aware of the water storage upstream and its effect on the Coorong and the Lower Lakes, some 20 years ago South Australia elected to be solely responsible for the welfare and maintenance of these heritage icons. In all fairness, no-one would have thought that Australian states would actually be engaged in a water cold war. This says a lot for how times and the Australian way of life have deteriorated and, as a result, we will now—and probably forever more—have to face the reality that the Australian Federation has suffered serious blows because of nothing more than the dirty and unconscionable gains of politics. Some 20 years ago no-one could have foreseen where we are right now, but people do expect that governments will do their duty to ensure that the most basic of human needs are met—and well met.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Could have 10 years ago when Howard was in.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Could have, would have, should have—and you guys in six years have done very little, as well. We all are to blame for this. Everyone who has been in this place and everyone who has made decisions in this place and the other place on the management of water has to be prepared to take a level of responsibility for what is occurring now.

The water quality of the Murray-Darling system has deteriorated due to factors such as polluted drainage, land clearance and erosion, and that has led to a reduction in the number of species inhabiting the region. Due to the extraction of water for irrigation, there have been reduced flows and this has meant long periods where no fresh water has reached the Coorong via the barrages. This has adversely impacted the salinity levels of the system, divesting it of nutrients and allowing sand to accumulate inside the Murray Mouth.

So we have the Coorong, which was declared a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention in 1985, being brought to its knees. Many species found at the Murray Mouth are being replaced with marine species. The habitats of 14 threatened species of bird are under threat, as are the Australian pelicans which make up the world's largest breeding colony. This is despite the federal government's established agreement with Japan and China to protect habitats of migratory birds. However, it seems that our government and the other basin states have ignored the plight of the Coorong.

Basically, we have been the whipping boy for other states, which have built diversions and storages with almost no checks and boundaries, particularly in the area around northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. The Eastern States have ridden roughshod over South Australia for years by doing deals with each other and not properly relating to the caps. It seems that the worse the natural circumstances—such as the present drought which officially began in 2002—the worse the rorting that occurs and the higher the percentage of water allocation to our eastern neighbours.

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, South Australian irrigators are currently on a 15 per cent allocation, while other states are on between 80 to 95 per cent. Recent figures reveal that 93 per cent of the river's water is used upstream of the SA border. It simply cannot go on. The only way in which it can be fixed is for the Rudd government to take control and assert itself over the vested interests of the states. If that fails to happen the consequences will be disastrous.

However, we have a plan for a plan. While such criticism may be unjust, it is reasonable to argue that the Lower Lakes and their surrounding communities do not have three years to wait for a plan. They are in crisis now and in need of urgent assistance. It has been said to me in outside briefings from well-known and well-respected experts on the management of the Murray-Darling system that steps could be taken to bring relief immediately.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Leadership would be a great start.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Leadership would be a great start. One suggestion was that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd invest $3.5 billion now to buy back water entitlements for the River Murray because of past over allocation, and that would be enough to have the Lower Lakes and the Coorong saved from immediate destruction and buy us about an 18 month reprieve.

During these 18 months it is vital that a 10-year plan be developed in order to maintain the health of the river system. It was also stated that whatever decisions are made they should be based on science and not on politics. This science includes infrastructure plans, water allocations and long-term plans for the preservation of our own food bowl in future times of drought. This state needs to reconcile that we have sat on our hands for far too long, while other states such as Victoria and New South Wales have planned for an uncertain water future. We are now suffering the consequences of decades of indecision and lack of foresight, and we are seeing our agricultural world shrinking before our very eyes. How can South Australia support the population growth that is part of the Strategic Plan of this state without even being able to supply the bare necessity of water resources that this includes?

In Russia, the bureaucrats were responsible for the Chernobyl disaster. In South Australia the story will be the same for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. It is time for the government to step outside the square and take notice of the experts who are more than willing to offer their services in an effort to save the Murray and the Lower Lakes. History shows that the government does not always get it right and, with the livelihood of this state at stake, we cannot afford to use a lucky-dip approach any longer, and nor can we afford to expect other states to bear the burden that has been created through our own negligence in planning for the future.

South Australia is often referred to as the driest state in the driest inhabited continent, and it seems that this phrase and knowledge in itself is a loud and clear warning that water would always have the potential to be our nemesis. Unfortunately, it seems that the urgency now upon us was not present in years past. While it has always been convenient for the South Australian government to lay blame for the slow progress on other state and federal governments, I have come to learn just how slow this government has been to react to not only the present drought but also the realisation that the once bountiful flows of the Murray are no longer.

Unlike the Victorian government, the South Australian government has failed to develop a comprehensive plan for the management of our piece of the Murray. The highly lauded sustainable water strategies that divide Victoria into four regions, and strives for the sustainable balance between urban, industrial, agricultural and environmental water needs, seems a far shot from anything the South Australian government has produced. Despite the plight of the Coorong being so glaringly obvious, the South Australian government is yet to put forward a workable plan for its recovery. All we have seen and heard is spin.

While I am just as inclined as any South Australian to argue that the additional $1 billion given to Victoria would have been more appropriately spent rescuing the Coorong and the Lower Lakes or upscaling our water licences to high security, I can also understand why Victorians are reluctant to compromise the plans they had in place so they could be part of a national agreement. Such inaction led to the extraordinary situation of the Victorian Premier slamming his South Australian Labor colleague, the Hon. Mr Rann, for his handling of the issue. Now it has been said that, if our Premier had the fortitude of Steve Bracks or John Brumby, and aggressively put forward the rights of our state earlier, we would have had better outcomes, and I have to say that I agree. I also add to that the foresight of the Victorian Premier in developing strategic plans for the management of the Murray.

The consensus of water experts is that individual state plans will be unsuccessful in restoring the Murray. Mike Young, University of Adelaide Research Chair in Water Economies and Management, is one of many who believes the current Murray-Darling agreement is seriously flawed, as he said last month in The Advertiser. Another expert, Professor Wayne Meyer, University of Adelaide Professor in Natural Resource Science, whilst being critical of the state government's overall performance on water management said that it should be given credit for keeping the pressure on the Australian government and the other Murray-Darling Basin state governments to improve management of the Murray.

I agree 100 per cent that only national control and management of the Murray can save it from the desperate situation it is in. State governments were elected to represent the people of the state, and you can bet your house on the fact that they will remain unconcerned with problems facing alternative states. I am hopeful that the intergovernmental agreement will enable the better management of the basin, because it is clear that we are at breaking point. I look forward to the swift passage of both these bills.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:50): Before speaking on this bill, I put on the public record (as I always do when there is any potential to question anything I say) that I own a property on the River Murray, but we do not irrigate with water from the River Murray.

I was hoping that today would be a joyous occasion and that I would speak for only a couple of minutes to say, 'Well done, everyone. A great bill and a monumental occasion for South Australia which guarantees a healthy, vibrant and economically strong Murray-Darling Basin for the future, particularly for South Australia.' But, unfortunately, the fact is that I do not have the confidence to say that with respect to this bill and the way in which it has been negotiated.

I say at the start that I find it very difficult to come into a democratic place which operates under the Westminster system and, effectively, be asked to rubber stamp the most significant legislation I have ever debated in this chamber—that is, to rubber stamp something that has been drafted and put forward 100 per cent by COAG and the ministerial council—and to be subjected to threats, potentially, if I try to amend this bill in any way at all to make it a better bill for South Australians. That is a matter that concerns me.

When I attended ministerial council meetings, whenever there was any national agreement (and I was involved with some of them with respect to firearms and such things), you always ensured that you fought for the very best possible legislation for the state you represented. That has not, in fact, occurred on this occasion, and that is a great pity for the future. As I noted in Hansard, a member in the other place said that, in 50 years people will look back at this legislation and say that it was not a good piece of legislation for South Australia and it did not guarantee the healthy, strong and vibrant river system we had the opportunity to provide.

I know that, once this bill has passed both houses, the Premier and the minister will issue a press release saying, 'It took 100 years, but we did it! We achieved it!' A lot of smokescreens will be raised about this issue, because the focus of this legislation is about making a million people—the key voters in this state—think that the government has done a grand job for them in saving the River Murray. The government hopes that this legislation alone will ensure that the vote in the marginal seats will be sufficient to return it to government. However, I say that this bill does not guarantee a sustainable future for the Murray-Darling Basin and that it especially does not guarantee a sustainable future for the water supply, environmental flow and the health of the river system from the border east of Renmark through to the Lower Lakes.

Having said that, I again say that I see this legislation as an affront to parliamentary democracy. That is why I have put forward an amendment, and I ask all members in this chamber to have a close look at this amendment in the interests of their constituents, because this amendment will at least help to secure a sustainable food bowl for South Australia.

I will speak more in the committee stage about the issue of states opting out, but I am very concerned about clauses 5 and 6 of this bill, which effectively allow a state to opt out. I did not think that would happen with this legislation. I thought that, once locked in, they were locked in for good. That is the only way this bill will succeed to its full potential. To be fair, there may well have been a lot of genuine intent from a number of people in the government in South Australia and in other states. However, the fact of the matter is that some people were much smarter and more clever, and they were able to manipulate and negotiate a far better deal for their state.

We do not have a level playing field with this legislation. In the briefing, I raised the issue that a state can veto what is going on, and I am advised it can effectively opt out of this agreement. I was told at the briefing that money was involved in this, and I acknowledge that there is: part of the package for this scheme involves a sum of approximately $13.9 billion. By the way, that is over 10 years, and I think that in itself is far too long. I cannot understand why, with the surplus and the fact that we need to spend on infrastructure, there is not an acceleration of infrastructure projects for more efficient water use, particularly in the Eastern States, which have not done anywhere near what South Australian food producers and successive governments have done over a long period.

The water buyback should be accelerated and a proper price paid, not doing over the irrigators or the food growers when the banks say, 'No more! We're not giving you any more money for temporary water. We are going to come in at bargain basement prices as a government, drip-feed several million dollars a year, and pick you off grower by grower.' How outrageous and how undemocratic!

The bottom line is that, when the 10 years are up and that money has been spent, if there is a federal Labor government and all the states have a Labor government, except one, and that state starts to be put under enormous pressure, what will the Liberal government do in that state? Alternatively, if there is a Liberal government both federally and in every state but one, and that state is under pressure in relation to water supply for that state, it can opt out and say, 'Sorry; we hung on for 10 years, but it didn't work. It was pathetic legislation, and I'm going to stand up for the rights of my state.'

They will destroy the system, and they will never get a chance like this again. This is not about spin doctors. This is the main artery to the heart of South Australia. This is the water supply we need for our future. We should get it right, and we should have fought for a better deal. I say to the media: do not buy the lemon; have a very close look at this legislation and highlight to the community and the taxpayers of this state the weaknesses in this legislation.

As for the ministerial council, I ask: where does the real control lie? It can comment on the basin plan and send it back to the authority. In fairness to the officers, I will put some of this on the public record now so that they have a chance to come up with some answers in the committee stage. Who will ultimately decide what will happen in relation to the basin? We do not have an independent authority. There is no real independent authority as this legislation stands. In one of the Premier's media releases before the last federal election on 7 February, he stated:

My stance has now been vindicated with Greens Senator Bob Brown [and his party, the Green Party] from around the country, publicly endorsing my call for an independent authority...

The Premier said that he wanted an independent authority, that he wanted to remove the politics from this issue and that never again did he want a situation where politicians could muck it up. That is what has happened in the past, and we all have to take responsibility for it. However, here is an opportunity. The Premier said:

...endorsing my call for an independent authority made up of people with science, environmental and community expertise.

On 7 August, the Premier said that he 'remains committed to the River Murray rescue plan, including the establishment of an independent authority to oversee the river'. He also said:

Earlier this year, I negotiated with the Prime Minister for an expert-based authority to manage the river.

I took that statement to imply, in part, that it would be absolutely independent, that it would look at the health and wellbeing of the river from the head of the catchment to the Lower Lakes, and that it would also look at equity and fairness, which has never been in the system.

South Australia is allowed only about 6 per cent of all the water in the basin. I thought that this was our chance, and I agreed with the Premier. I was going to back him 150 per cent, but then I got this legislation—only a few weeks ago, by the way, although we are supposed to pass it by 1 November. This situation has been 100 years in the making, yet we are forced to rush this bill through the parliament. My experience in the parliament is that, when you rush bills through, you get a dog's breakfast of a bill—and this is one of those bills.

On 27 March 2008, Mr Rann said that he was delighted that an independent authority would be established to manage the Murray-Darling Basin and that it would spend the next few years consulting with the states to develop a basin plan which will have final sign-off by the federal water minister and then be managed by the authority whose decisions will be made on the basis of science and not political considerations. On 3 July 2008, the Premier said:

This is a stunning result for South Australia. South Australia has lobbied for an independent authority to manage the Murray-Darling Basin. I asked what persuasive powers does the minister have—that is, the state minister—with the commonwealth minister. Will there be transparency in how the minister makes her or his decisions in the future? What exactly is meant by 'the final sign-off by the federal water minister' in the 27 March release? Is this now not the case, or is the new authority not really independent but, rather, subject to the federal minister's veto?

I do not know, because the legislation is not detailed and extensive legislation; it is a few pages, and I am talking here about both bills at once. They are just a few pages. But the devil is in the detail, and we never even had a chance to look at the devil in the detail of the bill. This is something that I have not experienced before in the years I have been in the parliament whereby it is called a text—368 pages of text. What does it mean? What are the legalities around that text? I have not spoken to a colleague anywhere of any political persuasion that actually understands the legal ramifications of the text. It is massive and it is complex, and we have less than two weeks to go through it.

Under this agreement, on the question of independence, is it the case that in absolute real terms—when it is all boiled down—nothing changes? Maybe that is a bit harsh. Maybe they are steps in the right direction but, if we really look at it and analyse it, the truth of the matter is that little or nothing changes.

Let us talk about the 1,850 gigalitres minimum allocation. Growers are asking me whether we are getting this now. The answer is: no, we are not. I want to put on the public record my appreciation, and that of Family First's, of rural and regional South Australians along the River Murray in South Australia. Only about 15 years ago, when the state was on its knees, these people had the intestinal fortitude of best practice food producers. They had the intestinal fortitude (between tourism, horticulture and viticulture) to go out there and invest significant amounts of money along the whole of the River Murray system—dairy farmers below Lock 1, right down to the Lakes.

Having had the privilege of sitting around the cabinet table and being briefed by the treasurer and the premier at the time, I can say that it was investments like that and people who were absolutely committed (to this day) that got this state's economy going again. Then it came into the city and flowed from there.

It is a difficult situation for those people at the moment, and they need to know their sustainability and they need to know that the legislation will, as best as possible, subject to mother nature, guarantee them the opportunity to continue to produce food for South Australia, Australia and to export. We do not want to have to import the sort of food that we are importing at the moment. If we do not get this legislation right, our fruit will come from Chile, Argentina and China, and we will lose more social fabric. We will see communities without proper opportunities in the future, and I will talk more about that in a moment. I do not have any confidence in food coming from China, and I do not think that anybody else in this parliament, or in this state for that matter, has any confidence in that.

If we get the 1,850 gigalitres of water, will it be a situation where we would have any real concern for permanent planting survival and cropping from those plantings? In what circumstances do we actually get more than 1,850 gigalitres? I would like to know about that, too. If we see floods and good water coming through the river system, under this legislation, in what circumstances can we get more than 1,850 gigalitres?

Exclusion of the tributaries really frustrates me. In fact, it beggars belief that this is a Murray-Darling Basin deal. When one looks into the details, it does not include the whole of the basin; it does not include absolutely all of the catchment of the River Murray Darling Basin. These are, I believe, a few fairly straight questions for the minister, who should be willing to not spin and cover up for the deals done to keep Victoria happy. In fact, really, I should not put these questions to the minister but to the Premier.

It is incredibly unprofessional that a lot of this stuff was done only after The Advertiser had front-page stories and COAG was coming to Adelaide. I would love to see the agenda. In fact, I would love the Premier to table the agenda of COAG so that all my colleagues can see it and see whether or not the Murray-Darling Basin matters were even on that agenda, or whether it was actually rushed through that night or the next morning.

There was only one clear winner out of that—and, wow, what a Premier he is. They might not realise it in Victoria, but sit here and have a look. He did far better than Prime Minister Rudd or Premier Rann. He did far better for his state.

I have some questions. The scientists all say what the basin includes, but does this agreement include all the tributaries in the basin? If it does not, which tributaries are not included? What were the terms of the agreement by which those tributaries were not included? Should the Premier have fought for irrigators, food producers, environmental flow and the Lower Lakes as hard as Premier Brumby from Victoria fought to get these exclusions? We have missed out. It is a cop-out.

Mr Brumby received $1 billion, just like that. We ended up with $600 million. We have had that for a while now, by the way, but most of the people living along the whole of the River Murray system do not understand the detail of the $600 million. I do not know whether or not I was asleep (I do not sleep much), but I have not been invited to a briefing that gives me, as a member of Parliament, absolute detail to know where all the dollars of that $600 million are going and how this $67 million is being spent—how much is being spent on taking the water from Jervois to Currency Creek and Langhorne Creek and across to Meningie and the Raukan community and the Narrung peninsula. I have no idea.

I also do not understand why, for crying out loud, at the same time all this is happening, private investors are building a pipeline from Jervois down to their irrigation properties. Where is the coordination, the management, the planning and the transparency? It is not here. And we are just supposed to accept the government's word? Come on!

I want to talk about the environment—in respect of which I believe the Premier should have played absolute hardball, with no negotiation. The Premier had an opportunity here and, in my humble opinion, this Premier has failed with this bill and he has failed regarding the future opportunities of South Australians with respect to the river. I would be happy to debate this with the Premier anywhere at all.

The trump card the Premier had, as I see it, was that before the last federal election Prime Minister Rudd told all Australians that he would fix the River Murray; that whatever was needed, if they voted for him as Prime Minister he would fix it. South Australians voted for him in droves, and now they absolutely and categorically expect it to be fixed 100 per cent—I am talking about this from the point of view of fairness. There is this nonsense about them saying, 'Well, I can't make it rain.' Of course they damn well cannot make it rain, because they are not God. So, they cannot make it rain, and no-one is stupid enough to ever think that they could. However, they are legislators and leaders, and they could have done a lot more. The Prime Minister made the commitment, so why did we not play the hardest possible game that we could?

With respect to environmental flows, why were not gigalitres of water committed to the Lower Lakes and work done on the survival of permanent plantings? I would like some answers on that. I am advised that, even now, 30 gigalitres of water down to the Lower Lakes would at least give them a chance for one year. I pray to God that we will again receive proper rains from next year. However, in the meantime, let us have some leadership, because 30 gigalitres could be sent there tomorrow if there was real leadership. It could be down there within a week. All they have to do is drop a bit off all the locks, from Lock 1 to Lock 9, and they could help the bottom end.

Why was there not a strong argument to ensure that we had water supply from the Lower Lakes back up? It is a whole river system, and we cannot continue to pull too much out of the top. Our modelling has to be on a worst case scenario that the water is still from the bottom up. That is the only way in which to have a healthy river system. In America, where there is a situation similar to ours—where there is a significant major river system running through, I think, three states—it is enshrined in legislation that the bottom end of that river system must be protected first, and that is the only sensible way in which it could be done.

However, this legislation does not do that. This legislation does not do anything to guarantee or give people confidence with respect to their businesses, their social environment, environmental issues and all the things they need. Where is the water for the Lower Lakes? What priority will the lakes have to receive water from a 1,850 gigalitre share? What is the amount that the government has set aside out of that 1,850 gigalitres (if it receives it) for the Lower Lakes, and has the government done any modelling of that nature?

I would like to see a pie chart, if one is available, or some graphs, charts or spreadsheets—and the government must have them. I think we are entitled to have a look at them. Before the committee stage I would like to see the information that shows, when we receive 1,850 gigalitres, how it will be distributed. No-one knows at this stage. However, someone in government must know. What percentage do they have there for SA Water, for environmental flow and for irrigators? No-one knows. That information is locked away in a ministerial or departmental office somewhere. Let us know.

I understand that the commonwealth environmental water holder within the legislation will have a licence to use water, like any other irrigator. What is the minister's best estimate of the water the holder will have available? If the answer is that it is up to the authority to decide, that is a common answer and begs the question: are we building the top of the pyramid without knowing the foundation? By that, I mean that these two current bills are just the top of the pyramid. We were not initially given the middle section that I talked about, where the devil is in the detail—that is, the tabled text—which still has to be passed by parliament. The bottom section is the basin plan and other scientific matters that the new authority still has to come up with. It is paper thin on detail and wide open on uncertainty.

If it were not all Labor states that were dealing with this legislation at the moment, there is no way known that it would get through without serious amendment. And rushed? Let us just talk about that for a minute. It was introduced in the other place on 23 September 2008, debated and concluded effectively over only two sitting days, 14 and 15 October, and then introduced in this place on the last sitting day, 16 October. I have mentioned previously but I will say specifically now that it was a bill of five pages but it had a sister bill of 17 pages and 304 pages of tabled text.

Why the hurry? I reckon that if we were to all talk on this topic for the time that we should, and if we spent as much time in committee as we should fleshing out the real detail behind this so that we could expose it to the community and get a little bit of feedback from talkback radio on the way and have enough time to digest all this and put it into language that we could send to the key stakeholders throughout the state, we would need a bit more time, but we would do a better job of it.

But do you know what would happen if that was to take place, Mr Acting President? The government would accuse Family First, the Democrats, the Greens and the Liberal Party of holding up this history-making legislation, and it would try to blame us by saying we were making it difficult for it to get the bill through. That is what it would be telling the media. But that is not true. What we are doing is missing out on a golden opportunity for South Australia.

As I said, why the hurry? There is a commitment to pass this bill by a certain date. What is the significance of that? Parallel to this, and what is not happening fast enough, is consideration for the futures of the growers in this state right now. This legislation is not going to fix anything for them immediately. There is a lot of work that should be going on right now to address issues for growers for this season, and I want to talk about a couple of those things in a little while. So the government should not attempt to hoodwink people and tell them that it has to be hurried through now. The only reason it has to be hurried through now is two P words: 'political' and 'political'. That is the only reason it is being hurried through now.

I turn to SA Water. I want to know what SA Water's allocation is. In other words, how many gigalitres is SA Water permitted to take out of the basin? If we are to give fully informed consent to pass this handover package, will the minister tell us the parameters, in terms of gigalitres, of how much water SA Water is allowed to take out of the river?

Also, what is the status of water restrictions? Food producers along the River Murray complain to me that, whilst they have a legal licence and allocation, they obviously are only getting a very small percentage of that at this point in time. They go on to say that people on town supply are required only to water at certain times and, whilst through altruism and concern for irrigators and the environment, that has produced some reduction in water use, it is not strictly a water restriction of the same nature as that which applies to a food producer in percentage terms of the reduction in their licensed allocation. What it is actually is a restriction on the timing of the use of water. I would like the minister to outline what impact this plan will have on water restrictions in Adelaide going forward, and I will be asking that question during committee.

On a related matter, and of much concern, is Victoria. I want to talk for a moment about how much water the city of Melbourne is now taking and what it is projected it will take out of the Murray-Darling Basin—I highlight 'Murray-Darling Basin'—by taking water out of the Goulburn River? How does that work out on a per capita basis between Adelaide and Melbourne residents?

In relation to the legal access to the Hume and Dartmouth dams, I congratulate those who got that in, because it had to happen. But I want to know what will be the legal access to water that spills over the top of the dams when we get a good year? What are the legal mechanisms around opportunities for South Australia in that instance? In relation to the 1,850 gigalitres, which I understand allows water to be held back so that South Australia can get water in the future, will we be holding back water in other states' storages by taking less than our 1,850 gigalitres? In other words, will the government choose to take, say, 1,250 gigalitres one year so we can hold back 600 gigalitres for another year? I do not know, but I would like an answer.

I want to talk about critical human needs. I have a question for the minister: what was intended by what I see as incredibly broad political wording in the definition of 'critical human needs' in clause 3? When I was arguing for a flow of water for environmental purposes and survival of the Lower Lakes, I raised the issue of the Menindee Lakes, where there had been an increase in water, and the negotiation to allow some of that to flow through. The answer I got from the minister, via the media, was along this line: 'Well, that is critical human needs for Adelaide and towns supplied by SA Water.' So I took that to mean only two things: for human consumption and sanitation purposes within households. But, when you start to look at this, it is far broader than that.

I know this is a committee question but, if the minister and the government are in such a hurry to pass this bill, I put them on notice now that I want clarification of all this. I ask: what are 'prohibitively high social, economic or national security costs'? That is contained in the definition of 'critical human needs'. We have had some legal advice on this. Also: for whom is it prohibitive? Does that mean communities or family farms? Or, is it prohibitively high for the government of the day?

I challenge any honourable member to defend the present clause as a narrow clause. It is not a narrow clause. It is wide open—it is as wide as AAMI Stadium. That is one of the reasons Family First will move an amendment that I will address in more detail in committee. I have sent to honourable members the text of my amendment. It is about protecting permanent plantings by ensuring that the broad wording in the definition of 'critical human needs' is certain to include permanent plantings. People have to drink water in order to survive, and they also have to eat. If we cannot produce our own food, where are we going as a state and as a nation? We cannot mine ourselves out of trouble forever. We can sustainably grow food.

Let me put before the council for its consideration, as it thinks about Family First's amendment, what the Premier said in a media release on 7 February 2007. The media release states:

I have made it clear that I am willing to cede our state's constitutional powers over the Murray—

we all are, subject to the legislation being fair for South Australians and, hopefully, better than it was in the past—

but only if there are adequate safeguards and assurances for flows to South Australia.

That is what the Premier said. Are members happy with that? Is what the Premier said in the legislation? I cannot see it. I cannot sit comfortably at home tonight and feel satisfied that, if anyone in South Australia comes to me, there are adequate safeguards and assurances for flows to South Australia. I will not lie to them. The truth is that there are not those safeguards and assurances in this bill. I beg the media to look at it and tell the public of South Australia that they are not there. They are not there, and I will do what I can to ensure that people realise they are not there. As one member of this council, I do not want them coming for my blood. The media release continues:

I'm also aware that commentators have said that South Australia is out on its own, that I'm being increasingly isolated, and that John Howard's takeover bid will prevail tomorrow without the safeguards I have been demanding. I'm not backing down and I'm heartened by statements made yesterday by the premiers of Queensland and Victoria. The River Murray will be the loser without the safeguards I am insisting upon.

That is what the Premier said. He said that the River Murray will be the loser without the safeguards on which he was insisting. Well, they are not there. They are not there for South Australia. It continues:

The fact that cotton and rice growers are opposing South Australia's position is, in my view, a vindication.

Our amendment does not protect annual crops, such as cotton, rice or wheat. These can be planted at any time once temporary water has been purchased. The amendment provides a responsible safeguard if a state government really has a plan for the long-term future of our irrigation communities. There must be a basic question to both the commonwealth and state governments. I want this debate raised, and I will do what I can to get it on the public debating platform.

Do we want a Riverland, as we know it, being a food producing bowl? Do we want a dairy industry, as we know it, along the River Murray and the Lower Lakes? Do we want family farming or are we writing them off? Are we writing off family farming? Sadly, I think there is a wink and a nod between the state and commonwealth governments, that they are happy to write off family farmers. They are happy to bring in the corporates and leave the management investment schemes in place—which I thought were gone.

Members should think about the Barossa Valley where we have best-practice wine grape growers and wines such as Hill of Grace and Grange Hermitage. They are all complaining because the corporates are now in the Barossa Valley, spending as fast as they can. I do not think they are irrigating from bores or using recycled water in the Barossa Valley. I think they are bringing that water from the River Murray.

While this is a chance to strengthen and stop this, Timbercorp (the forestry company) through MISs is planting thousands of acres of almonds just over the border. It is getting a water licence for that project, yet South Australian food producers are on their knees. I have spent a fair bit of time around the Riverland and along the river system because, next to my home district, I love it. I lived up there for a while. They are salt of the earth people. They farm at best practice. They generate an economy and stand on their own two feet whenever they can, but during their time in need they are not getting support. They are not getting support—and I condemn the government for it. I do not care whether it is a Liberal or Labor government. If it was a Liberal government in power now, I would be condemning it, too.

Where is the support for family farming? How did this nation get built? Families came to South Australia in 1840 to do family farming. They built this economy and governments—and the federal Liberal government was just as bad—rolled over and had their tummies scratched by the corporates. They encouraged MISs, yet we cannot even guarantee water for family farmers for the survival of their permanent plantings. It is not good enough.

Does this government have a plan for a reduction in the number of family farms? If it does, is it consolidating them into white collar farmers, corporates and shareholder monopolies? I want to know that. Come out and say that I am wrong and show me why I am wrong. All rural people ask the same question. I can tell members that, if we got this right, we would see immediately a reinvigoration of confidence in those areas.

Yesterday I was visiting some rural growers. Has the government got a plan for growing food for our own use and for export? I am proud that my son is a fourth generation farmer. He is a very good farmer, but he cannot work in the future against climate change or all the other problems, including accreditations and input costs, and then have the corporates working against him, as well. Farming families and best practice food producers yesterday told me that they are actively discouraging their kids from taking on their properties. They are actively discouraging them. I was always brought up to encourage the next generation because of the experience, the ethos, the passion and the love of growing food.

There is nothing in my life that has been as rewarding as being a food producer, visiting people and looking at the food on their table and knowing that we had a part in providing that food. It is the most fantastic thing, working with nature. These people are actively discouraging their kids from going on because they have lost confidence, as they have not had direction from the government. Where will our labourers come from if the experience is lost and workers from family farms give up?

The Hon. A. Bressington: From China.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My colleague says, 'From china'. The labour will, actually, because the food will be produced in China. I thank my colleagues for their patience, as I have nearly finished. However, when we get to committee I will be in there for the long haul with quite a few questions, as will others, because we have missed a golden opportunity here. If I am wrong, I ask the Premier and his government to show me where I am wrong, but I am not wrong. We have missed a golden opportunity, political point-scoring on our future!

I will comment on a couple of other issues. I am calling today for things to be done for food producers right away. We may be ridiculed in the media and by the government for spending a bit of time talking about this. Is it democracy or is it now the dictatorship? When my father went to the Second World War, with a lot of other fathers, backed up by a lot of women doing their job supporting them, do members know why he went there? He went to fight for democracy and against dictatorship, and I am not sure that we have a true democracy here right now. Whether this legislation goes through on 1, 2 or 3 November does not really worry me. It worries me whether we get it right, and I do not think we will get it right; it certainly is not right at the moment.

Whilst New South Wales may have rushed through its legislation in a couple of days, I am cynical about that. That is not anything to champion. New South Wales rushed this supposedly mirror legislation through both houses of its parliament, I am told, in a couple of days. I wish I had had time to read the detail of the debate. I am cynical, because New South Wales has not done any favours for South Australia in the past when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin, nor has Victoria. I am told that Victoria and possibly Queensland will not get it through by the date agreed by COAG, 1 November. They are not sitting or they will take longer to deal with it. I do not know whether members saw Four Corners last Monday week. I saw just the last part of it but will be looking at it in detail. I suggest that members look at it with respect to the attitude of the Queenslanders. What does it say about the agreement?

I am calling for something like the old agriculture department's rural industries assistance scheme. There are food producers right along the river who need two things right now: first, they need assistance to buy temporary water because the banks may not give them finance this year. We heard here today from the Minister for State/Local Government Relations that $2 billion was a great initiative for the tramline extension. I would like to debate that on another occasion, but if you can find $2 billion for that you can find a few million to subsidise some interest rates so that our food producers can obtain some of that temporary water and create income for this state and some GST that will be returned to the coffers. They need subsidisation right now. It could be done next week in cabinet and they could buy and produce, rather than simply keeping their permanent plantings alive. This legislation will not help them immediately.

The other point I make in conclusion is that the Premier said, when an announcement was made about an exit package for irrigators, that it was the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle. He is so wrong! It is one very small piece of a jigsaw puzzle that we are not completing here with the debate on the bill. Why just an exit package? It is an ill-thought through exit package, because it does not, for example, allow for the house to be subdivided off so that the next irrigator can buy the property; it actually pays them to rip out the permanent plantings. It implies that if you have only 30 acres or less you were not growing very good crops in any case. That is wrong and ill-thought through, and there should be a comprehensive restructure package.

Before the global financial crash there was buoyancy, which I hope we can see continue. In my industry, the dairy industry, they are exporting their backsides off now because the dairy restructure package worked. That same package needs to be given to the Murray-Darling Basin, with the principles and modelling of that package adopted for those growers and irrigators while we debate this bill. Then we will start to get somewhere, because we will have the survival of our food production and our food bowl.

The final point with the legislation is that, whilst it is an attempt—and only an attempt—to get some sort of fairness into sustainable water supply through the Murray Darling Basin, there is no legislation I am seeing from the government to ensure that we start to wean ourselves off the city, and that all those people who rely on the River Murray start to wean themselves off it as well. If we are serious about the River Murray and about a sustainable future for South Australia, we would have a holistic comprehensive water strategy and plan and we would have a stack of other legislation in here that we would be debating, but it is not here. There is some from the Independents and crossbench members, but neither of the major parties, Liberal or Labor, has anything when it comes to a comprehensive water strategy and relevant legislation to ensure that we get that sustainable future.

I have been pretty critical of this legislation, and some members will go out there and tell the media that and they will also try to tell their constituents. However, I have been critical of the legislation because I was a great supporter of the principles we were going to be debating in this place. As I said earlier, if the legislation had fought for a better deal and absolute independence, with no interference from politicians in the future and if, for once in 100 years, we had a Murray-Darling Basin system that was fair and equitable for all Australians, I would not have stood up and spent the past 50 minutes, or whatever it is, debating this bill. However, that is not the case, and it is one of the greatest missed opportunities I have seen.

In closing, I place on the public record that history will show that, if we pass this legislation in its present form, democracy will be gone; we will be like puppy dogs; and we will have missed the greatest opportunity ever to fix the only river system on the eastern and southern side of our nation of Australia. I say to my colleagues: we could have done better, but we did not have the leadership.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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