HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-04-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: DRAFT MURRAY-DARLING BASIN PLAN

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (15:56): I move:

That the 64th report of the committee, entitled Water Resource Management in the Murray-Darling Basin Volume 3, be noted.

This is the Natural Resources Committee's third report on water resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin. This report considers and makes recommendations on the draft Murray-Darling Basin plan. This report draws on evidence from 76 witnesses and 21 written submissions, together with three fact-finding trips that the committee made to South Australian river communities, including the Riverland, Chowilla, Lake Victoria, Goolwa, the Lower Lakes and Coorong, Mannum and the Lower Murray swamps.

A number of expert briefings were also received and a comprehensive literary review was undertaken. This evidence and, consequentially, this report encompass the breadth of views expressed by the South Australian community. The River Murray is the lifeblood of this state, with its health underpinning much of the state's history and ongoing prosperity. As well as supporting communities in the basin, the River Murray is also a critical source of water to Adelaide and communities as distant as Keith in the Upper South-East, and Whyalla, Kimba and Lock on the Eyre Peninsula.

South Australians have argued passionately to protect the river system in times gone by and now we must do so again. While experts like Professor Peter Cullen (sadly, now deceased) have warned us for decades of the consequences of overallocation, the recent millennium drought has shown us all the graphic and devastating results that long-term overallocation and overextraction of basin water resources have on our natural resources assets and communities.

While touring South Australian river communities, members heard from a number of residents and stakeholders. Rose Faehrmann from Riverglen Marina at Mannum said that in their town 15 tourism, retail or other businesses had disappeared during the drought and not returned, highlighting the effect on the economy in just one of South Australia's river towns.

The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Board told the committee that a number of native fish species have not been seen in the river since the drought and would be unlikely to survive long term if not for captive breeding programs. Joan Pfeiffer from Long Flat showed members the now acidified groundwater on her dairy farm following prolonged drying and wetting of the Lower Murray swamp flood plains. Blanchetown pistachio grower, councillor David Peak, related to the committee the immense stress—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Pistachio, I think, isn't it?

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: Pistachio; yes, you are right—experienced by many individuals as a consequence of the drought and the dramatic damage done to the social fabric of the majority of South Australian river communities. In a number of instances the stress and depression brought on by drought has, sadly, contributed to a number of people taking their own life. These are stories from people living and working on the river, reminding us that the consequences of not dealing with the underlying problem of overallocation and the uncertainty that causes are serious, and can be catastrophic. The Australian community needs a long-term solution to overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The Goyder Institute—whose damning expert panel assessment report was unfortunately not released until Monday this week, too late to be considered in our report—back in 2011 estimated that South Australian drought impacts exceeded $790 million between 2000 and 2009, while drought legacy impacts such as acidification, riverbank collapse, dying river red gums and black box forests, as well as a severely degraded south lagoon of the Coorong and elevated salinity in Lake Albert, are ongoing problems and unlikely to be rectified by the new regime proposed by the draft plan.

The basin plan process provides the best opportunity yet to deal with the root cause of all these problems. However, the committee believes that in its current form the basin plan fails to meet the objective of the commonwealth Water Act 2007 and does not meet the social, economic, cultural or environmental needs of South Australia and South Australians. Significant amendments are needed and key pieces of additional work are still required.

For example, the committee is recommending that the basin plan should include salinity targets for Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert of less than 1,000 and 1,500 electrical conductivity units respectively for 95 per cent of the time, measured as a ten-year rolling average. Whilst on this subject, I must say that, when the Murray-Darling Basin Authority gave a presentation to the committee, it was quite disconcerting to hear them say, on evidence, that they felt they only needed to measure the quality of water in the Coorong to judge the quality of the environmental outcomes in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert. That was a very telling comment from them.

There is also a need for water height targets for below Lock 1, with the height of Lake Alexandrina to be above half a metre of the Australian height datum—equivalent to mean sea level—for 95 per cent of the time, measured as a ten-year rolling average, with water heights never again allowed to fall below mean sea level, which has proved most devastating. It is also this committee's recommendation that prior to the finalisation of the basin plan, additional hydrological modelling is needed to determine the viability of removing some of the operational constraints that we are told prevent greater environmental outcomes in South Australia and elsewhere in the basin.

I would like to sum up by quoting Tom Trevorrow, a Ngarrindjeri elder and chairman of the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority. Mr Trevorrow, speaking on behalf of his people, the traditional custodians of the country encompassing the Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth, told the committee:

In our beliefs, the lands and waters are a living body. It is a living thing and not something to be looked at and to be used solely for economic purposes. We look upon it as used for survival. We need water, a right amount of water, good quality water to flow down through the river into our lakes, into our Coorong, out through the Murray Mouth to keep our lands and waters alive and to keep all our stories and our culture and the Ngarrindjeri people alive.

If we are deprived of water then we will be deprived of our culture, of our cultural rights within our lands and of water to pass on to our next generation of children. That is the way we look upon our water: it is a cultural right. It should be sufficient and good quality water coming down into the lakes and out through the mouth.

Finally, I wish to thank all those who gave their time to assist the committee in its inquiry. I commend the Presiding Member, the Hon. Steph Key MP, and members of the committee: Mr Geoff Brock MP, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC and the Hon. John Dawkins MLC, as well as former members, the Hon. Russell Wortley MLC and the Hon. Paul Holloway MLC, for their contribution to this report. All members have worked cooperatively on this report.

I would also like to thank in particular the committee staff: Mr Patrick Dupont, Mr David Trebilcock and Mr Mark Siebentritt. Mark was seconded to the committee in the last three months and has provided invaluable assistance to it. I thank them all for their assistance in this report. I commend this report to the council.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:06): I rise to support this motion and to thank the Hon. Mr Kandelaars for presenting it today. We indicated to members earlier in the week that we actually need to move this motion and have it voted on today so that the view of parliament can be presented as a submission to this inquiry. It is important that both houses get the opportunity to vote on this before that happens. I understand that the House of Assembly did that in a time-limited manner earlier today and that further debate is going on regarding a motion that has been moved by the Premier in relation to the government's submission.

I think that sets the scene for the history of the Natural Resources Committee doing this work. I think it was in February last year that the Minister for Water, the Hon. Paul Caica, referred this matter to the committee with the view that the multipartisan group—represented by nine members, three parties and two Independent members—would present a view of the parliament that was separate to and independent from that of the government of the day.

I should also say that at the time the committee accepted that reference, it was pointed out to the minister that the committee has a significant workload. It deals with regular annual reviews of the NRM boards, their expenditure and particularly increases in their levy rates, and a range of other matters.

It was pointed out that, for us to do this work and do it properly, we would need some extra resources. I have to say that the minister was quite willing to find some extra resources from within his departmental budget to assist the committee in doing so. However, the management of the House of Assembly, which administers the Natural Resources Committee, felt that it would be better if those extra resources came from the budget of the House of Assembly, or the parliament, rather than from the government, to arm our independent report into this whole matter of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan. So, thank you to the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk of the House of Assembly, who insisted that those extra resources come from their budget and not from that of minister Caica.

During the course of the inquiry, the committee got out of North Terrace and went to a range of areas in South Australia within the Murray-Darling Basin. We also went across the border into New South Wales, not to any great extent, but as far as Lake Victoria. Lake Victoria, while it is in the far south-western corner of New South Wales, is a very valuable asset to South Australia. I think very few people in this state know how valuable Lake Victoria is in the way in which it allows SA Water to manage the flow of water into our state. Through the system of Frenchmans Creek, the lake itself and then Rufus River, water flows are managed to assist in the way the river is controlled as it comes down through South Australia. We are very grateful to SA Water for showing us around the Lake Victoria system on that visit.

On that same visit, we saw a number of environmental works and met with irrigators, food producers and environmentalists in several Riverland communities. Some weeks later, we met with a range of people who also have an interest in the Murray-Darling system, but in the Lower Lakes area. We also took the opportunity to travel across the barrages. It is unfortunate that many South Australians will never have the opportunity to travel across the barrages, because they are not open to the public and there is a very good reason they are not open to the public. Like Lake Victoria, the barrages are very important but unfortunately a lot of people will never get to see them in their proper operation.

Following that trip, and I have mentioned it before in this place, we ventured down to the South-East to have a look at the Upper South-East drainage program, which has recently been mentioned in this place in noting the report on that project. There is a direct relevance to the Murray-Darling Basin. The way in which we deal with additional water that comes out of the South-East into the Coorong is certainly relevant to the whole Murray-Darling Basin system, particularly that area of the Lower Lakes and Coorong.

I should also mention the visit we did to Mannum and areas around Murray Bridge, where we took evidence from a lot of people in that part of the river, particularly between Lock 1 and Wellington, and in many instances a lot of the media focus is on the Riverland and Lower Lakes, but quite often those people below Lock 1 and down to Lake Alexandrina have been forgotten. So, it was very valuable. The Hon. Mr Kandelaars has actually used some illustrations in his speech of the evidence we gained from people in that particular area.

The report is a very good report. It was unanimously supported by the nine members of the committee and was one that reflects a lot of the issues I have come across in my time as a member of parliament, particularly the first 12 years that I was here, when I was the responsible Liberal MLC for the Riverland seat of Chaffey. I worked that area very hard in the absence of a Liberal member over that time, and I am delighted to see that it is now well represented by Mr Tim Whetstone MP.

In that 12 years, I came to know very closely many of the issues reflected in this report, and those issues relate to the amount of work South Australian food producers and irrigators have done to smarten up their act—work that has been done by the communities, irrigators and state and federal governments has contributed to that. The way in which irrigation practices differ now in South Australia from what they did when I spent many months on a small Riverland fruit block with my uncle is vast. South Australia, unfortunately, does not get enough credit for that work. When you go upstream you will see that a lot of those practices I am talking about back in the 1960s are still happening. You actually do not have to go all that far from the South Australian border—if you go not too far south of Mildura you will see open concrete drains with great big cracks in them.

Also the report reflects the fact that our irrigators and food producers in the Murray-Darling Basin in South Australia are looking for certainty and recognition that they are a food bowl, whether it be produce, beef cattle, milk or wool. A whole range of agricultural produce comes from those areas on top of, of course, the enormous wine industry in that region. The people who produce those products and those who are associated with them seek certainty. Their communities also have suffered very much from the uncertainty over many years of irrigation restrictions and threats from ill-informed people about what the future of irrigation should be. There are still some very negative impressions given to people who live in metropolitan areas about irrigation practice. As I said, with almost no exceptions, South Australia is way ahead of the pack on that.

Another issue that I think is reflected to some extent in our report and certainly was one that was brought to our attention when we visited the Mid Murray, was the mental health impacts in communities that have resulted from the issues with the river, with the drought and certainly with water restrictions. There is no doubt, from the work that I have done in the suicide prevention area, that this uncertainty, this pressure that is put on people, impacts on many long-term irrigators—second, third, even fourth generation—so they have felt that they cannot keep up their property or their farm; they have had to give it up.

Those sorts of impacts weigh heavily on people's mental health. While I am pleased to see that a Riverland chapter of CORES (Community Response to Eliminating Suicide) is being set up and raising money in its own area as we speak, it is unfortunate that that has been necessary. That is another issue that I think we need to remember when we deal with the communities that are impacted throughout the Murray-Darling Basin.

I will just make some brief comments about the recommendations that the committee has made. I will not go into the full detail. I do urge members and others to access the full report and take that in, but certainly we have recommended:

that minister Caica lobby the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to ensure that the basin plan includes salinity targets for Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert of less than 1,000 EC and 1,500 EC respectively, for 95 per cent of the time, measured as a rolling average over a 10-year period;

water height targets for below Lock 1, with the height of Lake Alexandrina that remain above 0.5 metres AHD for 95 per cent of the time, measured as a rolling average over a 10-year period;

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

targets that will see the Murray Mouth open with river flows for 100 per cent of the time;

stronger requirements for monitoring and evaluation, including in relation to salinity and water height below Lock 1; and

a chapter describing the adaptive management framework that will be adopted.

Regarding preliminary terms for the 2015 review, the committee strongly supports the requirement for additional hydrological modelling to be undertaken that assesses the impact of removing selected operational constraints combined with water recovery on the ability for basin plan targets to be met.

In addition to these proposed changes to the basin plan, the committee recommends that the minister should also lobby his colleagues in the Australian government to undertake an independent basin-wide audit of the cost of further water savings from infrastructure investments (or improvements) and identify the extent to which these savings can make up the gap between the volume of water recovered to date and that still required; and review the moratorium preventing irrigation on land on which a Murray-Darling Small Block Irrigators Exit Grant Package has been received, with the aim of determining how best to avoid the creation of stranded assets and maintaining the viability of the irrigation system as a whole.

The review should be conducted with input from the Central Irrigation Trust, the Renmark Irrigation Trust and the many and varied private irrigation trusts seeking to preserve the original intent of the exit grant package. This review should also include consideration of best practice design of future similar policies.

I should add that I think that it is important that all those irrigation trusts are consulted in relation to how that is dealt with. Only last week, for the first time, I discovered a new private trust (to me) around Lock 4, where there are only four irrigators involved in that trust. We need to recognise that not only is there the Central Irrigation Trust with probably 10 or 11 incorporated smaller trusts underneath it but then you get a tiny one at Lock 4, so we need to take all of them into account. The committee is also of the view that the compliance options allowed for under the basin plan and the Water Act 2007 require further investigation.

The committee also believes that by the time of the 2015 progress review, the MDBA must ensure a comprehensive water quality and river height monitoring program is in place in the Lower Lakes and that a report on key indicators is completed by the time the review commences; that the authority must demonstrate progress in quantifying water requirements for cultural flows and to maintain Indigenous values; the MDBA must demonstrate it is facilitating this across the basin states. This is considered to be of great importance by the committee and there is a clear gap in the development of the basin plan to date.

The committee also believes that the MDBA must continue to monitor both post-drought recovery, drawing on economic, social and environmental indicators and conduct a structural adjustment assessment to ensure there is security and continuity for those who continue to farm. This will include, first, investigation of critical thresholds for maintaining the viability of irrigation districts and trusts across the state, such as the Central Irrigation Trust, the Renmark Irrigation Trust and private irrigation trusts; and, secondly, the assessment of drought recovery requirements such as the investment needed for lasering floodplains in the Lower Murray swamps and repairing cracked levee banks.

Once again, I commend the report to members of parliament. It is a pity that we have to move it and vote on it in one day but the committee has no say in that. We have to have it through the parliament today because submissions need to be in by 16 April. I would like to thank all those people who gave evidence to the committee, whether it was here in Parliament House or on location. In most cases, people gave up their time during their normal period of employment or occupation to come in to give their wisdom and experience of their own local area to the committee, and that was very valuable.

I would also like to thank all the other members of the committee. As I said before, when I was first told that I was going to be on a committee of nine people with an unreasonable, I think, imbalance between the two houses—the fact that there are only three of us from the Legislative Council and six from the House of Assembly—I wondered how it would work. However, I have to say that the committee has worked very well together.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Multipartisan.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: A multipartisan committee, as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire says—and, in most instances, we have had most of the group involved in our visits, and I think that is a great achievement.

I also pay tribute to the chairmanship of the Hon. Steph Key. It is no accident that she works very hard making sure that all of the disparate backgrounds and views of that multipartisan group are heard. She runs a very good committee, and she is also very fair to witnesses, whatever the views of those witnesses may be.

I also pay tribute to the staff of the committee. The Hon. Mr Kandelaars has referred to the work they do for us, but I particularly make mention of Dr Mark Siebentritt, who has come on board with us over the last three months or so. His passion for the whole issue of the Murray-Darling was evident to me the first time I met him. He has provided very valuable input to the committee, and his report writing and preparation have been exemplary. I commend the report to the council.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:32): I also rise to support the 64th report of the Natural Resources Committee. I was pleased to be a member of the Natural Resources Committee involved in the deliberations regarding this report. I put on the record also my appreciation in relation to the staff and my committee colleagues. This was quite a demanding exercise. On one occasion, I think that we had a meeting every other day in one month, and it was not possible to have everyone there for every one of those meetings.

But given that it is such a large committee, there were always a significant number of members present and, on the majority of occasions, most of us were present. That was partly because of the passion for the River Murray and our knowing that it was important that we did get a report together as soon as possible. This took up a lot of our time, and it meant that we had a backlog in our other electorate and parliamentary duties.

It also meant that there were resourcing issues for the committee in relation to this. These are things we have to deal with, but I think it is important for all of those involved in looking at the resources for committees to know that, when there are special requirements for committees, it cannot be done without there being some additional input needed, both in financial resources and the hours members put in.

I also put on the public record my appreciation for all of those people who put in both written and oral submissions. There was a lot of passion, intelligence and experience with respect to the people who put in those submissions. I will not be speaking for too long on this motion, because other members need to speak. I think we will end up covering this motion in an integrated way between all the members speaking here today.

First of all I want to say that, whilst I support completely the recommendations of the committee in this report—and I trust that it will pretty much dovetail in with what the government will be putting to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and from what I can see and understand that is the way it will be—I think it is very important that the government and the parliament both see the issues for South Australia around the health, wellbeing and longevity of the Murray-Darling Basin system as being common issues—and I think it is fair to say that that is what we are talking about here today—so that we can have one strong voice for South Australia in putting a representation to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Having said that, I think it is disappointing that this is the second draft plan that has been put forward. The first plan obviously had some enormous problems with it, not the least of which was the horrendous economic impact it would have had on our South Australian irrigators. But what we now have, I believe, is a plan that has had a lot of political influence from Canberra and, to an extent, from Eastern State governments and members of parliament.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists said way back that, for a healthy river system, we might need up to 5,000 gigalitres of water, then there were debates around 4,000 gigalitres. We note, by the way, that the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists withdrew their support from the commonwealth government because they were not happy with the work being done on sustainable flows for the environment. The parameters of this whole plan were—and I hope still will be—to see water flowing naturally out of the Murray Mouth 90 per cent of the time.

The second Murray-Darling Basin plan did address some of the issues with regard to irrigators, and that was important. It is interesting that the committee finished its report just a day or two before the Goyder report came out, and both our report and the Goyder report have highlighted serious concerns about the 2,750 gigalitres. I have to put on the public record that there is no evidence that I felt comfortable with which said that 2,750 gigalitres of environmental savings and flows for sustainable diversion limits is anywhere near enough. That was raised again only yesterday with respect to the final examination of submissions that was undertaken by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority here in Adelaide.

It will be a real dilemma if we discover that 2,750 gigalitres does not provide sufficient water to meet the criteria required for a healthy river system. I think the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the Eastern States' governments and the commonwealth government need to have a look at what is common sense. A friend of mine from America told me that it is taken as a given with any legislation and management of the river systems over there that the mouth of the river system has to be healthy. If the mouth of the river system is not healthy then sooner or later, unfortunately, you are going to see a very unhealthy river.

Even with this draft plan, we seem to still be focused on the politics. I hope we are wrong but, from all the scientific evidence given, it appears that 2,750 gigalitres will not ensure a healthy mouth of the Murray-Darling Basin system at Goolwa, and if that does not occur then we have all failed. The politics started to come into it when prime minister Howard first realised that there was a serious issue and something had to be done. Unfortunately, at that time the then premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, decided to play politics for the then federal opposition and we did not get a sign-off. We then had a situation under prime minister Kevin Rudd where every state in Australia was a Labor state and we still did not get a plan or legislation that would ensure the sustainability of the river.

I acknowledge that we do need a plan, and this is a start. However, I would desperately call on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to consider most rigorously the recommendations in this report. Whilst I acknowledge that there needs to be a plan and a starting point, that plan should not be so far out of kilter that it does not meet the objectives of the Water Act 2007—and in our report we noted:

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

Of course, we did not know what other members of parliament were going to say when the committee approved this, but it is interesting that in just the last few days we have seen Sarah Hanson-Young, Nick Xenophon, our own government through our Premier Jay Weatherill and a range of other politicians coming out and asking whether we have enough environmental flow and whether or not this plan is actually legal with respect to the objectives of the Water Act 2007.

I have a couple of finishing points that I think are very important. One of the things we noted when Dr Rhondda Dickson, the CEO of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, gave evidence was that she said that when it came to the Lower Lakes they were actually assessing that as a whole; that is, Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina were being measured and treated as a whole.

The Hon. G.A. Kandelaars: And the Coorong.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: And the Coorong. I just shook my head. There is no way known that you can assess Lake Albert, Lake Alexandrina and the Coorong as one. They are separate parts. The way nature has constructed the system is that yes, they are integrated, but they are separate. There are some real issues there. Even with all the blessed water that we have had come through in the last two years, at the moment Lake Albert is still at 5,000 EC units—yet they are not even measuring that. At the same time they are not measuring it, there is the work on looking at proper drainage of all the silt from the bund at the Narrows.

It looks nice when you go down there and see the bund removed, but if you look closely you do not have to go far under the water to see what is, I suggest, tens of thousands of tons, or more, of silt that has to be urgently removed. Then there is the debate and the science on the pipe system from the other end of Lake Albert into the northern end of the Coorong. That work needs to be sped right up, because we have a chance of making some enormous environmental differences right at the moment.

I want to finish with some points on agriculture and tourism. There is no doubt that along the whole South Australian river system we have had a lot of money spent by individual growers and farmers and from state and commonwealth governments, over the last 20 years in particular. We have not been able to get any acknowledgement from anyone in the commonwealth or the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that we should be given some offsets or compensation for that.

We also still have a cloud hanging over the head of high security irrigators. Yes, they have 100 per cent water allocation for the next 12 months, but there is still concern over whether or not they will be able to have sustainable, high security ,100 per cent allocations most years.

The tourism and agricultural benefits for the whole River Murray, through South Australia and indeed right through the Murray-Darling Basin system, are enormous, and rely on a sustainable, healthy, environmental river system. That is the challenge facing the commonwealth and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and I encourage them to have a close look at this report.

There is a long way to go yet but, as I said before, we do at least have a starting point. If there are some sensible amendments that focus on sustainable agricultural water availability and clearly sustainable and healthy river systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, proper environmental flows coming right through to Goolwa and the mouth of the River Murray—if those things can be corrected and if strong leadership can show in the next few months, then I believe we will achieve what we all desire.

This is a time for strong leadership, not for playing politics and copping out. I support and commend the report, but I appeal to those who are now going to take over decision-making to look at it in the long-term interests of the river and future generations not only of South Australians but of all Australians.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:44): The Murray-Darling Basin Plan represents a crucial opportunity to reform the basin in a manner that guarantees a healthy and productive river. To be effective the plan should detail a vision for sustainable communities and irrigation as well as sufficient protection for a delicate environment that incorporates over 30,000 wetlands and is home to more than half of Australia's native fish species. It is becoming increasingly likely, however, that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will fail not only the river but also those people and communities that depend on it for their livelihood.

The Greens share the concerns and wishes of all South Australians in that we want a healthy and productive river. Yet the best available peer-reviewed science that would assure such an outcome and protect our environmental assets is being undermined by a government and an authority that appears determined to instead emphasise politics over evidence.

The Greens recognise—as does the South Australian community—that, as a state at the end of the line, South Australia has the most to lose from an inadequate plan. As the Natural Resources Committee report outlines, neither our environment, our economy nor our communities have fully recovered yet from the previous drought.

The future of South Australia is closely linked to the health of the River Murray and, without substantial revision, the proposed basin plan simply cannot revitalise the river system or protect its long-term viability. The future of the Murray-Darling Basin has been a top priority for the Greens and an issue that all South Australian Greens MPs have been assiduously working on.

Members might recall that last year I organised a briefing for all South Australian state and federal members of parliament. Members attending the briefing heard from Tim Stubbs of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and Professor Chris Miller. Both speakers emphasised the enormous opportunity the plan offers to reform the Murray-Darling Basin and tackle both environmental concerns and the future sustainability of the irrigation industry. Such sentiments were also included in the Greens' motion on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan late last year.

Yesterday, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority public consultation meeting was held in Adelaide, and I am pleased to say that all four South Australian Greens MPs were there. My colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks and Senators Hanson-Young and Wright were there with other members of parliament.

I want to reflect briefly on some of the comments made by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority Chairperson, Craig Knowles, when he effectively said that any plan is better than no plan. I think that is an incredibly inappropriate approach to take. We have at least $9 billion of taxpayers' funds at stake, and the Greens believe that it is absolutely crucial that we get it right. As the nation's leading scientists have repeatedly emphasised, this plan has to be dramatically changed if we are going to deliver a healthy river for all Australians.

Remarkably, no Murray-Darling Basin Authority representative was able to provide an explanation yesterday as to why a draft plan returning 4,000 gigalitres of water had not been modelled. We know from what the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists told us that close to 4,000 gigalitres is the minimum amount of water necessary to ensure the long-term health of the Murray-Darling Basin. A range between the high 3,000s and the low 4,000s of gigalitres has been repeatedly emphasised by Australia's eminent scientific groups. I understand that this is consistent with the work of our own Goyder Institute for Water Research. Anything less than this range will not be sufficient to protect the long-term sustainability of the communities along the river, nor will it be sufficient to secure a future for irrigation or to keep the Murray Mouth open.

The 2,750 gigalitres of water proposed in the draft basin plan is not based on the best available peer-reviewed science. It delivers few ecological benefits, with many flood plains along the river set to receive only small amounts of water or no additional water at all. It is an amount of water that risks further degradation from salinity and declining vegetation and threatens the loss of species of plants and animals. The lower reaches of the Murray in particular would remain at risk of low water levels and high salinity. Importantly, 2,750 gigalitres of water is not nearly enough to ensure that South Australia can withstand future droughts and dry periods.

While the Natural Resources Committee report outlines some admirable principles and recommendations, the stated water recovery scenario of 3,200 gigalitres is still inadequate. I note that the formal South Australian government submission is yet to be finalised and that the House of Assembly is debating that matter at present. If the Murray-Darling Basin is to be a healthy productive system for ourselves and for future generations, the plan must be based on and informed by the best available scientific evidence.

It is also important to note that the legality of the draft basin plan has been brought into question by a number of groups, including most recently by the Victorian Environmental Defenders Office. I point out for the record that I was an employee of the South Australian branch, if you like, of the Environmental Defenders Office and a life member of that organisation. The claims that have been made are that the current basin plan is inconsistent with the objectives of the Water Act of 2007. What that means is that we have a draft plan that may be illegal, and if it is legal it will still do little to protect South Australia's environmental assets. With billions of dollars of taxpayers' money at stake, we simply cannot be guided by a plan that appears to be doomed to fail on multiple grounds.

In conclusion, the Murray-Darling Basin plan is an enormous opportunity to finally get this right. If the plan is not informed by the scientific evidence we will inevitably have to return and repeat this process all over again, at great financial and environmental cost, once rainfall decreases or drought returns across the basin.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:51): I rise to support the report of the Natural Resources Committee on water resource management in the Murray-Darling Basin. I recently visited irrigators in the Riverland. This visit further reinforced my view that it is vitally important to have and maintain a healthy river system. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority's plan provides us with an opportunity to correct previous mistakes such as over-allocation and it is important that we get it right for future generations.

During my visit, I met with a number of irrigators and it was highlighted to me that South Australia has been exercising world's best practice with irrigation and water licensing. There are a number of measures which set South Australian irrigators head and shoulders above their interstate counterparts. My contribution will be predominantly outlining these practices, as I believe it is important that they are acknowledged and put on the public record.

First of all, South Australian irrigators are all metered, whereas not all interstate irrigators are. South Australian irrigators can only use what they have been allocated, whereas there is no assurance that interstate irrigators are using their allocated amount in cases where there is no meter. I am not suggesting that people are stealing water, however it is easy to imagine situations where more water may be inadvertently taken because it is not metered.

South Australia's water delivery systems are far superior when compared to the rest of the nation. Almost all South Australian irrigators have pipes, whereas many irrigators in other states have open channels, exposing them to evaporation and leakage issues.

In 1979, given the total national allocation, South Australia soon recognised the need to cap licences in order to ensure a healthy river system and to ensure the resource was not exhausted. No other state has sought to cap the number of licences they issue. Over time, New South Wales and Victoria have over-allocated their licences, and in more recent times, when South Australian irrigators were losing their crops due to the drought, Queensland continued to issue water licences, and continues to do so now.

South Australian irrigators are using world-leading technology for irrigation crop management. Using a system that was developed in the Loxton Research Centre, irrigators are able to accurately measure the amount of water required to irrigate their crops. This minimises wastage and therefore the drain on the Murray. In one example, a property went from using about 130 megalitres a year to only 50 megalitres a year as a result of using this irrigation crop management system.

These measures were all undertaken with both the needs of irrigators in mind as well as the needs of a healthy river system. It is not a matter that irrigators are being greedy and wanting more water than other states, or to the detriment of the environment, it is about having enough water to economically sustain those who have invested their lives in the area. It is important for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to recognise and acknowledge South Australia's exemplary history with regard to water management. I hope that with the continued lobbying of the federal government a fairer outcome for South Australia will result.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:55): I thank the Hons John Dawkins, Robert Brokenshire, Mark Parnell and John Darley for their valuable contributions. With the Murray Darling Basin Plan, as members have been told, it is critical for this house to pass this resolution in that this will become the South Australian parliament's submission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. With that I commend the resolution to the house.

Motion carried.

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