Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan. I refer to the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Ruston, who yesterday said:

… the MDBP cannot be altered in any way at all, without the agreement of all the jurisdictions.

But the same day the Deputy Prime Minister's office told the world that states do not need to approve changes. Who is correct: the assistant minister or the Deputy Prime Minister's office?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. As I said yesterday, we are implementing the Basin Plan as agreed to. We are committed to that plan. We are making sure that plan is implemented and we will do so consistent with the way the plan was put in place. Of course, under that plan, there are certain elements that need to be implemented. There are certain elements that were contingent on things happening. For example, there was agreement in that plan to investigate and look into whether or not more environmental water could be delivered—under the plan, environmental water that was called 'upwater', this 450 gigalitres. There were set criteria for that water to be delivered.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on relevance. The question went to a very specific point: the difference between Senator Ruston's statement that the plan cannot be altered without the agreement of jurisdictions and the Deputy Prime Minister's office, which was reported to have said that the states do not need to approve changes. We want to know which of those is the government's position.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Wong. It is difficult for me to arbitrate in some respects. I am going to tell you the reason why. The question was asked: who was correct in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? The minister, at the commencement of his answer, said the plan will be implemented in full. I can only assume that that means the plan will be implemented, and that means that the plan is there; it is the correct plan. I cannot interpret whether the plan relates to one minister or another minister. So I am going to call the minister, and the minister has the call.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to, in the short time I have, provide some context here. I obviously have not seen those quotes that have been reported in the question, so I cannot comment on them completely in the context that they were made in, but what I am explaining is that we are committed to implementing the plan in full. But under that plan there are certain changes to the water delivery that might be made contingent on other events, and there are set criteria that have to be met for those events to occur. So for this 450 gigalitres the plan explicitly says that the additional water can only be delivered if it is done in a way which achieves mutual or improved social or economic outcomes. So to make that change, and to add this additional water, if you like, as a change—if you want to use it in those terms, although it is not changing the plan as such, but it would change the amount of water delivered—we need agreement on that outcome. And there is some disagreement among states and territories—that is my understanding—about what can be achieved or whether this water can be delivered consistent with that criterion that was agreed to in the plan.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A supplementary question, Senator Gallacher.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning Minister Frydenberg gave a clear commitment that there would be no backtrack on the delivery of water to South Australia. Will the minister confirm Minister Frydenberg's commitment that the Basin Plan, including 450 gigalitres of upwater, will be delivered in full and on time as Mr Turnbull promised?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy again to reiterate and confirm that the Basin Plan will be implemented consistent with what was agreed. And, under that agreement, there have to be certain tests outlined in that agreement. It will be met and we are committed to it. Can I say that this is an area that requires cooperation among the states and territories to create the plan and to implement the plan. It is an area where it is difficult, of course, to get that agreement from time to time. I refer the senator—through you, Mr President—back to a quote that Minister Tony Burke made in 2012, where he was referring to this when he was responsible minister. He said, 'If we worked on the basis that the only way to get an agreement was for every state to be completely happy, we would wait another century before we manage the Murray-Darling Basin.' And he is right about that that: it is difficult to get agreement among the states, but we have got an agreement. We are implementing that agreement; we are implementing it in exactly the way that it was designed and we are committed to it.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning the Nationals member for Mallee congratulated the Deputy Prime Minister for admitting the delivery of 450 gigalitres was 'never going to be achievable'. Isn't it clear the coalition never intended to implement the Basin Plan in full and on time as Mr Turnbull promised?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): That is completely incorrect. It is completely incorrect, because the facts do not align with that version of events. The facts say that we are implementing the plan. We are recovering the water, and can I say that we are doing so in a way which is a lot more balanced and a lot more coordinated than what the former government was doing. It is not just how much water we recover in this process; what is also very important is how we do that recovery and what we use that water for. That has a lot of impact on the environmental benefits that this water will achieve and also the social and economic harm that it may cause in basin communities. We are doing so in a way that is strategic, that is coordinated and that is not just buying water back willy-nilly all over the basin, with no consideration of what its impact is, just to meet a target. We are not interested in just meeting numbers. We are interested in the overall outcome and the overall health of the basin, and that is exactly what we are doing. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, on a point of order?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I want to apologise to you and the Senate. I came in wearing this, and I know I should not have.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should not be holding it up, either.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had forgotten I had it on. I apologise to you and the Senate.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, on the point of order?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it should be compulsory for Senator Macdonald to wear it, with the drivel that comes out of him all the time.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Cameron.