HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-10-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Murray-Darling Basin

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Water and the River Murray and Climate Change a question regarding the Murray-Darling Basin.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am sure the minister is aware, as indeed all my colleagues would be, that the federal Senate is currently conducting a very detailed Senate inquiry into the issues regarding environmental flows, buy-back, high security water, water allocations, impact on townships along the Murray-Darling Basin system and a whole gambit of other issues regarding previous agreements between the state and federal governments and parliaments. My question to the minister is: has the South Australian government put a written submission to the Senate inquiry?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:26): I thank the honourable member for his most important question. It really serves to highlight again the strong action this state government has taken under this Premier to fight for South Australians and the whole community, which is so dependent on the River Murray. It is only because of the Premier's outspoken support for a whole state approach or a whole river approach, I should say, to dealing with the problems of the Murray that we've actually got the plan as it currently exists.

Premier Weatherill will always be remembered, I think, as being the champion of the River Murray, certainly from this state's perspective, in taking up the issue at a federal level. At the time, not being supported by a federal Labor government, it was because of his actions in standing up for this state that we got the plan delivered. I am very pleased indeed that the federal government and the new Prime Minister is also saying that he is strongly of the view that the plan shall be delivered on time. So, we are very pleased to be working with the federal government on these matters.

The successful implementation of the plan is hoped to deliver better outcomes for the whole state, for our industries, our communities and, of course, the environment, all of which depend on a healthy and resilient river system. The basin plan is being fully integrated into South Australia's ongoing water management arrangements and significant progress has been made, and I can give the council a couple of highlights in that regard. As at 31 August 2015, 142.3 gigalitres has been recovered or is under contract against the state target, which leaves a gap of 41.5 gigalitres. This gap is likely to be addressed by South Australia's share of expected adjustments to the sustainable diversion limits, which will be determined in June 2016.

Community and stakeholder input into the draft long-term environmental watering plan for the South Australian River Murray water resource plan area has been sought. The plan is expected to be complete by November 2015. We are also seeing progress on the ground. For example, in 2014-15, I am advised that over 770 gigalitres of water was delivered to South Australia, among other things, to water 2,300 hectares of the Chowilla floodplain and maintain connectivity at the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and the Murray Mouth. Irrigators are concerned that the basin plan focuses solely on water management without considering social and economic outcomes.

The state government is very keen to ensure that local industry is not disadvantaged by water recovery; this is why we pushed for SARMS 3IP. Under this $240 million program for irrigation industry improvement, over 168 funding offers have been made with potential to return 34 gigalitres to the environment. Every dollar of investment is expected to stimulate around four times this value in economic activity, I am advised.

The state government continues to work with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and other basin governments to implement the basin plan. Water recovery and a 1,500 gigalitre limit on water purchase has been a topical point of interest in recent months. Over 1,956 gigalitres has been secured, just over 71 per cent of the basin plan benchmark of 2,750 gigalitres. The prospect of reaching the target is good, given that only half of the funds committed for the infrastructure and water recovery program have so far been spent.

In addition to water recovery projects, the basin plan also includes a mechanism to adjust sustainable diversion limits through either increasing or reducing the amount of water recovery required. A recent review of the sustainable diversion limit adjustment supply measure found that an environmental water recovery offset of about 500 gigalitres was plausible, with the potential to increase this volume through further refinement. This means that basin plan environmental outcomes can be achieved with less water recovery. Based on that review, it is likely that further water purchase by the commonwealth government to achieve the basin plan water recovery target of 2,750 gigalitres will be limited.

On that basis, as I have said previously in this place, I removed my opposition to the commonwealth government’s proposal to amend the Water Act to cap water purchase for the environment to 1,500 gigalitres. The amendment to the Water Act also provides more opportunities, through off-farm efficiency measures, to recover an additional 450 gigalitres of water to achieve enhanced environmental outcomes without additional socioeconomic impacts.

It is very important though—and I keep mentioning this when I am talking to my interstate colleagues, either on a one-to-one basis or at ministerial councils—that we also concern ourselves with issues of addressing constraints. Constraints limit the volume and the timing of environmental water delivery through the river system. They include existing river management rules that limit flows, structures such as roads and bridges, and privately owned land close to the river that becomes inundated during environmental flows. These are all significant problems that need to be overcome, but the state government will not be endorsing a package of SDL adjustment mechanisms, so-called down water, without a corresponding program of works to address the constraints measures, which is the so-called up water.

Business cases that detail how to address constraints in the River Murray, including broad estimates of implementation costs, are currently being developed and an independent review of 27 August 2015 found that this work is on track. Basin ministers, I am told, are planning to agree on which constraints should progress to detailed investigation through to June of next year, with final implementation by 2024. At the last ministerial council meeting I asked my colleagues in the commonwealth to make sure that we are given an early view of the constraint projects that will be addressed before the end of this year at the next ministerial council meeting.

The basin-wide environmental watering strategy was published by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in November 2014. The strategy guides environmental water holders and basin governments in planning the management of environmental watering over the longer term to meet environmental objectives. Importantly, the strategy provides for environmental outcomes for the Coorong, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth.

Another important issue regarding the river is salinity, from South Australia's perspective. There has been significant investment in salinity management and infrastructure across the basin in the past 25 years—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Point of order.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: This is all very interesting but it is filibustering. It is a simple question. Has the government put a submission in to the committee of the Senate, yes or no? He is filling out time because they haven't done it. We want an answer.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, do you want to complete your answer?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr President, I was in the process of finishing my answer, and perhaps I would have, had the honourable member not jumped to his feet. But he has given me the opportunity to address the errors—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Start again, Ian.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, I could indeed start again, as the honourable member behind me suggests. Let me just finish talking about salinity. It may not be an important issue for the honourable member who asked the question but it is a very important issue for irrigators in this state and it is a very important issue for the government. There has been significant investment in salinity management and infrastructure across the basin in the past 25 years by state and commonwealth governments. Despite this, salinity remains an ongoing risk to the productivity and environmental condition of the Murray-Darling Basin.

A new strategy is under development to ensure that collective effort to manage salinity continues as the basin plan is implemented. The strategy builds on the strengths of the existing accountability framework to address contemporary salinity issues in a cost-effective and risk-based adaptive way and is expected to be completed in late 2015.

These are important considerations from South Australia's perspective on the delivery of the plan. The honourable member mentioned that inquiry conducted in the Senate of the Australian parliament, I think chaired by Senator Leyonhjelm, and ably assisted by Senator Bob Day, I think, the Family First representative from South Australia. I have very real concerns that their attempts to unwind the South Australian support for our plan are behind this Senate inquiry, but of course to assist those members in their position to assist the Senate in their consideration of the valuable input that South Australia has made into the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the government has made a submission to the inquiry.

If the honourable member had asked Senator Day, for example, whether the South Australian government had achieved permission from the inquiry to put in a slightly delayed submission, he would probably have been informed by his colleague that in fact we have had that permission granted, and I believe the government has a submission ready to go sitting on my desk waiting for my signature today.

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