Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) 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 Minister Joyce, who says that delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full is 'impossible'. Does the minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister?

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. The government will be implementing the Basin Plan consistent with how the Basin Plan was written and agreed to by members of the Labor Party. It will be implemented. In that agreement it states that we will not do anything, we will not produce—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

On a point of order, Senator Farrell.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, it was a very simple question to the minister. Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full is impossible? That is the question.

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

I think we need to be a bit fairer to the minister and allow him a bit more time to answer the question. The minister was certainly on topic.

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

As I was saying, we will be implementing the Basin Plan, and we will be implementing it in the fashion that was agreed to between states and territories and the former government. In that agreement it is very relevant to note that, on the issue of whether additional water will be delivered under that agreement, under clause 717 it says that the efficiency contributions to the proposed adjustments must achieve neutral or improved socioeconomic outcomes compared with the outcomes under benchmark conditions, and that is what we will be implementing.

There is obviously an issue at the moment. There was an issue under discussion about whether that additional water can be delivered consistent with this condition that was agreed to by the former government. There are different views at the moment, as I understand it, between states and territories on this issue. There are different views between governments of states and territories of different political parties on this issue, but we are committed as a government to ensure that we deliver a balanced Murray-Darling Basin Plan and that we deliver a Basin Plan that delivers environmental outcomes, that delivers on economic and social outcomes and that delivers a triple bottom line, because we all want to achieve things for the environment, but we must do so in a way which does not pull the economic rug out of communities that produce our food, that put our protein on our tables and that produce jobs in regional areas. All of these things must be balanced, and we are committed to doing that while we implement the Basin Plan.

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

Senator Farrell, a supplementary question?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to Mr Turnbull's previous commitment to South Australians that the Basin Plan would ensure that 'South Australia is no longer neglected and treated with contempt by the upstream states'. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister ignoring Mr Turnbull's commitment and walking away from the Prime Minister's promise to South Australians?

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

We are not walking away. As I just outlined, we are implementing the plan as agreed and as the terms are written in black and white. That is what we are doing. That is what we are committed to.

There are some people in this debate who are treating people with contempt—that is definitely the case. We know that the South Australian water minister, the other week, did treat people definitely with contempt. We know that certain words was used, which I cannot repeat here, words that might rhyme with 'firetruck'. Those words were used, and the South Australian Premier has not, that I have seen yet, condemned that behaviour. He has walked past that behaviour. He is not condemning it. That is what I would call 'contemptible behaviour'. That behaviour should be condemned, but it is not being by the South Australian Premier. He should come out and admonish his minister about it, but he came out and excused it on ABC radio the other day. That is inexcusable. That should be condemned.

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

Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister is intent on ripping up the Basin Plan, is it safe to assume that his advice of 2010 still stands and that downstream states just need to 'move to where the water is'?

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

The starting statement—the starting words—in your question are incorrect. We are not ripping up the Basin Plan; we are implementing the Basin Plan. Indeed, we will also implement the Basin Plan in a much more responsible way than the former government was doing.

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

South Australians should move to where the water is—is that the government's position?

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

The former government—I think Senator Wong might have had something to do with it—was buying water willy-nilly all over the place, with no consideration of the impact on basin communities. They were paying out $300 million to Johnny Kahlbetzer and more than $20 million to buy Toorale Station without even considering the impact on these basin communities.

That was not how the Basin Plan was meant to be implemented. The Basin Plan was meant to be implemented in a way which balanced economic, social and environmental considerations. That is not the approach of the former government, but it is the approach of this government. That is what we are committed to doing. We are committed to doing that with the states and territories. We should all get back to cooperating about this important national reform.