Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this very important motion. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has always been about managing and sharing water fairly so that the basin can sustain future generations. What we mean by that is that it has environmental flows, so everyone along the water can benefit—farmers, growers, people who live in cities that depend on the River Murray for drinking water, as we do in Adelaide at times, as well as the environment. Ask any South Australian—and you yourself would know, Madam Deputy Speaker—and they'll tell you exactly why this motion on the Murray Darling Basin Plan is important.

We haven't forgotten the millennium drought. Those of us from South Australia all remember it. I remember going up to the Goolwa lakes, at the River Murray mouth, and you could basically walk across it at one point in time, because the flows had diminished. We haven't forgotten that millennium drought, which devastated communities all along the river, and more so in South Australia. It also devastated industries and the environment. That was from about 2001 to 2009, and it is what led to the plan's coming into effect in 2012. We knew action had to be taken, for the benefit of growers, farmers, industries—for everyone—because without the sustainability of the river there would be no industry, no farms and absolutely no environmental flows

So, we know that the Murray mouth almost closed in 2002. As I said, I remember seeing it myself, seeing the lakes at Goolwa, where there were areas where you could actually walk across, and you could see dead fish. We certainly haven't forgotten the way it was. At the time, when we came into government we negotiated the Murray- Darling Plan and we basically put it into place, but at the time many in this place sabotaged the plan, or they weren't interested in the plan. That's a real pity, because that plan was for the benefit of everyone along the river. As I said—I'll go back to it—it was for the benefit of the farmers, the growers, the environmentalists, the environment, the people who rely on the River Murray, because without an environmental flow there will be no river.

There's no doubt that many in this place still don't want to see this plan delivered. One of the main components of the plan is to return an additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water to the end of the river in South Australia. This was based on scientific evidence. It wasn't just a figure that was pulled out of the air. It wasn't a figure that was just made up. This was scientific evidence. It was the amount of water that was required to ensure the long-term survival of the wetlands and ecology of the river downstream. If the river is not connected to the sea downstream, so that you have environmental flows taking place, the results are potentially catastrophic. Over the last decade environmental water has made a significant difference in keeping the Murray River flowing continuously all the way to the Coorong. Without this additional environmental water there would have been no flow to the Coorong for three of the last eight years. Can you imagine three of the last eight years without having flows coming through that Coorong?

So, keeping the connection open is important, and it's also helped to flush more than three million tonnes of salt out to sea. That's salt in the River Murray, which cannot be good for the growers, for the farmers et cetera. So it's been essential for maintaining water quality in the basin, which is better for those people at the bottom end of the river who can still produce their products, grow their fruit and other products, as we've seen in the riverland. But, of course, I've got to say that, of the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water that was promised, only two were delivered in the coalition's government over that last nine to 10 years—two gigalitres out of the 450. We know that some people are calling the target an upper limit. Well, what is the limit? If that is the upper limit, what's the limit?

See this speech in context