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 Prime Minister, who yesterday wrote to the Premier of South Australia to convey his government's commitment to implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full and on time. On the very same day, the Deputy Prime Minister refused to back away from his statement that the delivery of 450 gigalitres of upwater, key to the plan, did not have a 'hope in hades of being delivered'. Who is correct, the Prime Minister or 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 Senator Gallacher for his question. We will deliver the plan on time and in full consistent with the plan as put in place. I do feel like we are running a few repeats here as we get to the end of the year because we have gone over this before this week. But the plan has in its place a number of conditions around the delivery of the 450 gigalitres that Senator Gallacher mentioned, and we are committed to ensuring that those caveats and those conditions are upheld because that is what is in the agreement—that is what is in the plan—and what is in the plan must be honoured.

As I have also expressed in this place before, some of those conditions—some of those caveats in section 7.17 of the Basin Plan act—go to the fact that, to deliver additional water, we must make sure that it does not deliver additional detriment or socio-economic harm to those communities that rely on water. What we want is to make sure there is a balanced outcome here for all of those people who live in the Murray-Darling Basin and all of those people who rely on the Murray-Darling Basin. All Australians deserve to be respected here, and we need to make sure we do not trade off some Australians against others—that is not our approach. Our approach is to make sure we deliver a plan that is balanced and that is delivered in full and on time.

We have seen the substantial economic harm that has been imposed on those who live in often small country towns from the ad hoc and uncoordinated buybacks. Unfortunately, they were buybacks that were put in place under a government that Senator Gallacher was involved in. They led to the total destruction of some of these towns—their employment base—and we will not subscribe to that and we will not sign up to that. By doing that, we will be acting consistent with the Basin Plan.

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

Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question?

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

I refer to Senator Birmingham, who this morning said, in relation to the Prime Minister's deal with Senator Xenophon, that Minister Joyce would still be involved. He said, 'Nothing's changed.' Minister, isn't it clear that Senator Xenophon's deal has delivered words and not water?

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

What we do need here, obviously, is the agreement among basin states and stakeholders to proceed forward with the Basin Plan. So, when we have discussions about the additional 450 gigalitres or the overall implementation of the plan, including environmental works and measures and other projects, we need to make sure that basin states are on side.

As it stands, there are disagreements among some of those basin states. There is a Victorian Labor government who is opposing additional delivery of water through the Murray-Darling Basin. It is strange that we do not hear questions from Victorian Labor senators here on these types of questions. I know some of them, like Senator Marshall, have great interest in some regional community towns in Victoria, like Ballarat. He is very interested in Ballarat right now, so I am sure he would be interested in keeping the McCain potato factory going in Ballarat. But we need to make sure we have a balance here, and that is why we have committed to more discussions at COAG—to elevate it to that level. That is what is needed and that is what a responsible government does to deliver the plan.

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

My second supplementary question is: does the minister agree that the delivery of the plan in full and on time, including the 450 gigalitres of upwater, is essential to ensuring the future health of the Murray-Darling Basin?

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

What I have said is we are committed to delivering the Basin Plan. We do think that delivering that Basin Plan will improve the environmental health of the basin, but it will also make sure that we deliver balanced economic and social outcomes for the basin as well. And I am sorry to have to continue to repeat this point, but maybe we do need to read section 7.17 of the Basin Plan for the senator. It says:

If, after calculating the total supply and efficiency contributions under—

other certain sections—

… is not satisfied that a determination of proposed adjustments based on those amounts can be made under this Division that satisfies the criteria below, the Authority may reduce the total supply contribution, or the efficiency contribution for any affected unit, to a level at which such a determination can be made.

That is the 450 gigalitres. And then below that there is the point 'the applicable criteria are the following', and it includes including adjustments achieved and 'neutral or improved socio-economic outcomes'. That is what is in the plan. That is what we are doing, and we are committed to doing it and we will deliver it in full.