Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Hansard source

If the minister does not want to answer questions, perhaps he could rise and give an indication to the chamber why he is refusing to answer questions. This is most extraordinary given the gravity of the issue. The fact that the minister is not prepared to give the chamber the respect of an answer is extraordinary. They are very, very simple questions. We need a yes or no answer to whether buybacks will be considered as part of the 450 gigalitres and why 'up to' was removed. These are very important questions and the fact that the minister is refusing to rise and answer very simple questions takes away any small amount of confidence we on this side of the chamber may have had in the process. I assume the minister will sit there and will not stand up again, or if he does it will be to make a prevaricating comment such as Senator Joyce referred to.

On this side of the chamber we can only have the understanding that buybacks may be part of the 450-gigalitre requirement in the future. We have to assume that, because the minster will not give us an answer otherwise. We already have the 2,750 gigs—this is over and above—and 'up to' is a perfectly appropriate request of the government. The government know this because, as my colleagues Senator Joyce and Senator McKenzie said earlier, it was originally in the legislation. The government know that this is the right thing to do and that it is appropriate. This is only because of the fact they are being corralled and handcuffed by the Greens on this issue, which is no way to run policy, particularly water policy. I give the minister another opportunity to answer my question, with a simple yes or no, or it will have to be the understanding of this chamber that buybacks indeed may be a part of the 450-gigalitre requirement.