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 Nash. On 26 July, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce, said that allegations of theft and corruption in the Murray-Darling Basin were 'overwhelmingly an issue for New South Wales'. Only four days later, the Prime Minister announced a compliance review by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Minister, what changed? Or was the Deputy Prime Minister just brought into line by the Prime Minister?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. I think, at the outset, it is important to assure the Australian people of the coalition government's absolute commitment to the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. Indeed, that has been very obvious for some period of time. We can look back at the National Water Initiative under John Anderson. We have seen the Murray-Darling Basin plan come into creation—and I do have to credit the current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, for the work he did on the water plan. Interestingly, it has been a difficult period. It has taken 100 years to get this plan into place. There have been times, of course, when we have had to make concessions on both sides, but I do acknowledge that the opposition, the Labor Party, has worked with us from time to time to ensure that we do get good outcomes for the Murray-Darling Basin.

In relation to the senator's question, I do not think it is an exclusive thing that one jurisdiction should take responsibility to respond to the allegations that were made. Of course, primarily, the allegations were made in New South Wales, so New South Wales is the appropriate jurisdiction to take the lead in the response. But, of course, the Commonwealth is committed to the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We do have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and it was quite appropriate to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority conducted a review of the compliance regimes which were ordered. I don't see that it is mutually exclusive—that one jurisdiction should take the lead in the response. Indeed, I think everybody out there in the community would want us to respond to those allegations—and I do note that they are allegations. They should be treated as such. We have seen a methodical, sensible response from both New South Wales and the Commonwealth to those allegations.

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

Can the minister confirm that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority compliance review announced by the Prime Minister cannot compel witnesses to appear, cannot take evidence under oath, cannot compel the provision of documents and cannot protect whistleblowers?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and those of us across the government are very confident that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be able to conduct this review appropriately, thoroughly and independently and will draw on the powers to which it is afforded. What we don't need in this situation is a response that is not balanced, not measured and not appropriate.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order. Pause the clock. Point of order, Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was clear and unequivocal. It was about compelling witnesses taking evidence under oath, the provision of documents and the protection of whistleblowers. The minister has not gone near any of those questions.

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

The minister has gone near those, but I will remind the minister of the question.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to take this specific detail on notice for the senator, but I do note—and the senator may not be aware—that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has significant information-gathering powers under the Water Act, including powers to request information directly related to the implementation of the Basin Plan. This has been a very considered response from the government. I think people out there in the community would think that we are indeed doing what we need to do in response to the allegations at hand.

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

Senator Farrell, final supplementary question.

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

Why does the government continue to refuse to heed calls for a national judicial inquiry, through the COAG process, empowered to properly investigate the allegations of theft and corruption? What does the government have to hide?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I reject that the government has anything to hide. We have nothing to hide and, indeed, are not doing so. The government, as I think has been clearly stated, does not consider that the establishment of a judicial inquiry or a royal commission is either necessary or justified.

We know that that sort of inquiry would take about nine to 12 months to actually conclude. I think the people across this nation who do have an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin would be looking for a very quick response on the allocations that were made. In addition to the Commonwealth's review of the Basin-wide compliance, the New South Wales independent investigation and the ANAO's review into National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–Darling Basin, the current allegations have also been referred to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the New South Wales Ombudsman. Across all of those things we have seen a very considered, a very balanced and a very detailed and appropriate response.