Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise today to take note of answers given by this side of the chamber to questions asked by that side of the chamber, particularly in relation to a question asked by Senator Farrell in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and comments of recent days. Firstly, it is a beat-up. The Australian government—the federal government, the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government—stands by the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. We have never said anything to the contrary, and we stand by that today. Much of the comment that has been going on around this particular subject seems to have been driven by a communication that occurred between Minister Joyce and Minister Hunter, the South Australian water minister, and it seems to have been a desire of the South Australian government to beat this up into something that it was not. What has actually been happening here is that we are seeing the South Australian public, the river system and the potential implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan put in jeopardy by a government that is prepared to play politics instead of sitting down at the table and discussing the real facts and the issues that are on the table before us.

Firstly, the 450 gigalitres of so-called up water, to which Premier Weatherill and Mr Hunter seem to have themselves so terribly exercised about, was water that was negotiated when Minister Burke was the environment minister in this place. The act says that an additional 450 gigalitres must be recovered through efficiency improvements which have neutral or improved social and economic impacts. That is, we need voluntary participation by irrigators and we need states to agree to the measures that will go into the delivery of this water. Now, nobody is saying that we are moving away from the 450 gigalitres. What we are saying is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that there will be some challenges in being able to deliver this water under the current terms of the methods and measures by which we can return it that are not going to possibly and probably have consequential detrimental impacts to the river communities, not just in the upstream states but also in South Australia, in the Riverland, in the community in which I live.

What Barnaby Joyce is seeking to do and what I am seeking to do is to sit down and have a constructive conversation about ways in which we can deliver the plan in full, as per the legislation, without having catastrophic negative impacts on our colleagues who are irrigators along the entire Murray-Darling Basin system. I think that is an entirely reasonable thing for the federal government to be doing. But we also need to remember that no change can be made to the plan unless all the jurisdictions agree, and that includes South Australia. Premier Weatherill and Minister Hunter know full well that no changes can be made to this plan without their approval. They know they hold the trump card there, yet they are quite happy to jeopardise the implementation of this plan by playing politics, poking the upstream states bare to see what is going to happen, just for some political gains at home. This is irresponsible behaviour.

So, I would say to Premier Weatherill and to Minister Hunter that we need to sit down and have a conversation, because there are two paths we can follow here. We can follow a path of mature, responsible, adult debate about how we are going to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full but without causing detrimental impact to our irrigation communities that supply so much support for the economy of Australia. Or we can embark on a path of mutual destruction where we destroy the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. South Australia will ultimately be the largest loser from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan not proceeding because South Australia currently stands to be the greatest winner if the plan proceeds as currently legislated.

I also draw attention to comments today about the 70 gigalitres in the northern basin review that has been reported by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. That is all that has happened. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has put this on the table as what they would refer to as the northern basin adjustment mechanism solution, much the same way as we have agreed to an adjustment mechanism in the southern basin to make sure that we deliver our environmental outcomes by using other measures so that we are taking the least amount of water out of productive use. But that does not mean to say that we will shy away from delivering environmental outcomes such as keeping the mouth of the Murray open nine years out of 10 and making sure that the wetlands and floodplains are getting water periodically.

What we have seen from the South Australian government is nothing more than a beat-up that is currently jeopardising our ability to negotiate an outcome for the benefit of all of our basin states and all our basin communities and, ultimately, given the economic value of this plan, the whole of Australia. (Time expired)