Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Canavan, the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Turnbull government commit to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in its entirety, including the additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water that will result in an overall 3,200 gigalitres recovered for the river? This is the minimum amount, shown by science, that is required to give the river a fighting chance, to keep the Murray River healthy and to ensure that in South Australia our agriculture and environment are protected.

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

I thank the senator for her question. I can inform the Senate that the government will implement the Basin Plan in full, as agreed to. Senator Hanson-Young mentioned a number of components of that Basin Plan, one of which was the potential to provide an additional 450 gigalitres, above and beyond what was agreed. That additional 450 gigalitres will be delivered—or the consideration of that 450 gigalitres, I should say—consistent with the Basin Plan.

In the Basin Plan 2012, which Senator Hanson-Young's party and other parties voted for, one criterion under section 7.17 reads:

The efficiency contributions to the proposed adjustments achieve neutral or improved socio-economic outcomes …

So there must be no detriment to the social and economic outcomes for the basin in delivering this additional water. That is what has to be looked at before it is delivered. That is what the Basin Plan called for, and that is what the government is committed to.

I would make the point that we have seen, particularly through the Northern Basin Review, how important it is to get this right. That review has shown that if you buy back water in an uncoordinated way and when you take water out of communities it does have an impact on those communities, it does have a real-world impact in terms of jobs. What has happened so far has already led to the loss of 700 jobs. What this government will not do is trade off people's lives and people's opportunities to have jobs and to provide for their own families against other things. What we are committed to doing is ensuring there is a balance between the economic, social and environmental outcomes of this plan, consistent with what was agreed to. That is our commitment to the Australian people, and that is what we will do.

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

Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask for a clarification from the minister. I asked whether the 450 extra gigalitres would be delivered, not whether the government would consider delivering it. Will you deliver the 450 gigalitres in addition, putting the total figure to 3,200? Yes or no?

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

To help the senator, I might quote directly from a South Australian Department of Environment, Water and National Resources website that states that the Basin Plan 'sets a target of 2,750 gigalitres by 2019, with potential to increase this by another 450 gigalitres'—'potential', Senator Hanson-Young. That is a direct quote from the South Australian government. The 450 gigalitres was always, under the Basin Plan, potentially able to be delivered but was only going to be potentially delivered in accordance with the criteria of the Basin Plan as agreed. So that criteria has to be met. We will not agree to any additional water that causes detriment on a social or economic basis, because of jobs cost, the impact on families in the basin and the impact on our ability to have access to fresh and cheaply available food in this country. They are all important objectives for the Australian people. We have a balanced approach in this plan and we will implement the plan in full.

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

Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to clarify that that is precisely why the Greens did not vote for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We knew you would squib it. We knew you would screw South Australia eventually. Earlier this week, Senator Xenophon indicated that his support for government bills, including the backpacker tax and the ABCC legislation, would be dependent on the delivery of this extra 450 gigalitres. One of those bills has already passed. How much water, if any, will you promise?

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

We will deliver water back to environmental flows for the Murray-Darling Basin consistent with the Basin Plan. Our position has always been the same. That is why we have just completed the Northern Basin Review that was part of the Basin Plan. That review has recommended that the water recovery target in the northern basin should be reduced by 70 gigalitres. I know that Senator Hanson-Young might not like to take the advice of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority but that is the independent umpire in this area. That independent umpire has concluded that that 70 gigalitres that would not be recovered in the northern basin would lead to a three-gigalitre reduction in the water that goes over the barrages in South Australia. That is the connectivity between the north and the south. So 70 gigalitres in the north translates to only three gigalitres less at the barrages. According to Senator Hanson-Young and the philosophy of the Greens, they would prefer us to have a policy that would lose 200 jobs in the northern basin for that three gigalitres. That is not our approach, Senator Hanson-Young. Our approach is a balanced approach, and we will not put Australian jobs ahead of every dream the Greens might have. (Time expired)