Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Senator Conroy. I refer to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan released by Minister Burke today. Can the minister confirm that the plan does not guarantee delivering 3,200 gigalitres back to the environment? And can he confirm that it is true that there is a high probability that significantly less water might be returned and that the impact of the further 1,700 gigalitres of groundwater impact is completely unknown?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for her question and longstanding interest. At the risk of repeating myself, after 100 years of argument across this country, we have now put forward a plan. We have accepted the Murray-Darling Basin Authority plan and, yes, I can confirm that this is a plan that is committing to delivering a restoration to the health of our rivers at the same time as supporting strong regional communities and sustaining food production. I can confirm that the government has accepted—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This is a very serious issue and people need more than just the brief read out again. I asked for a yes or no answer about whether or not the minister could confirm that the plan does not guarantee delivering 3,200 gigalitres back to the environment. Yes or no, Minister, and what is the impact of groundwater?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was broader than that. I believe the minister is answering the question. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. The minister has one minute 22 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm, again, that the government has accepted the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's recommendation to return 2,750 gigalitres of surface water to the environment. This sets up a mechanism which allows governments to improve environmental, social or economic outcomes on the proviso that improving one outcome does not sacrifice the other. As I have already said, the government is committed to providing an additional $1.7 billion to relax key operating constraints and allow an additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water to achieve greater environmental outcomes.

I think the points I have made are very clear, very clear indeed, and I am not sure I can offer a lot more on that particular issue than confirming exactly what I have said. I will get some information for you and hopefully have it by the time you ask your next question on the groundwater issue.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for acknowledging he has no idea what a further extraction of 1,700 gigalitres from groundwater is going to do to the 3,200 gigalitres promised, but I ask: given the plan is based on delivering considerably less water than the science says is needed to save the Murray-Darling Basin, to save the magnificent red river gums and the Coorong, will the government confirm that this plan is actually a political exercise, not one based on science, not one based on climate predictions or a concern for the environment and that in fact the government is now condemning the river and its communities to a very uncertain future? (Time expired)

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the good senator is inviting a debate rather than seeking information. We will have plenty of opportunity, I am sure, in the near future to do that. In terms of groundwater, I am still chasing some information for you on that. But let me be very clear about this: this government is committed to getting an outcome that is balanced—balanced between regional communities and the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We have set out unashamedly to restore that health. So I disagree with the premise of your question when you assert that this is purely a political outcome.

The answer to the question of groundwater is, hopefully, going to arrive in a moment. Yes! For decades the Murray-Darling Basin has been treated— (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I notice the minister obviously did not get the brief from Minister Burke saying that you cannot compromise on fundamentals, and that goes particularly for science, but I ask the minister: can he confirm that the plan represents another example of the government and opposition getting together against the environment, and that is about to happen again on 7 December at the COAG meeting, where once again political expediency and the interests of the Business Council will triumph over any commitment to a healthy environment?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I utterly reject the premise of that question. I utterly reject it. It is absolutely just wrong. The authority on groundwater sustainable diversion limits et cetera used the available groundwater models and, in areas where these were not available, a CSIRO developed resource risk assessment method which uses estimates of recharge and scales back recommended limits on use based on an assessment of the level of connectivity, the geology and the quality of data to allow access only to a fraction of the estimated recharge so that the resource is not being mined. I am sure that is very clear to all senators.