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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Murray-Darling Basin is in environmental collapse after years of mismanagement. We're facing a climate emergency, which will make, of course, droughts worse and more severe. Last summer we saw mass fish kills. Just in the last 48 hours, we've seen another one in the Menindee Lakes. Towns have run out of clean drinking water, and farmers cannot afford to buy water for their stock and crops. In response, the federal government, with their New South Wales colleagues, have decided to spend public money on building dams while overriding environmental and economic assessment. Building dams won't make it rain. In New South Wales, because of their laws, even if these dams are built, water allocation rules mean that the water won't be used for the community or the environment. All evidence shows public money for these dams will only deliver water for big corporate irrigators. Will the government release their cost-benefit analysis, or haven't they bothered to do it?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Cormann, while a minute is granted for questions, standing order 73(1)(a) does contain some guidelines around the role of statements and, effectively, preambles to questions. I would urge senators to keep that in mind. It reads, 'Statements of fact or names of persons, unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated, shall not be contained in questions.' I urge all senators to keep that in mind when they are considering preambles. Senator Cormann.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point is that the government is, of course, absolutely committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and ensuring that the ensuing benefits flow to communities, farmers and the environment. When it comes to the questions in relation to dam infrastructure, the Basin Plan sets sustainable diversion limits, which are how much water can be used in the Murray-Darling Basin while leaving enough water to sustain the natural environment. Basin state governments are responsible for allocating water, and they determine the maximum amount of surface and groundwater that can be extracted from the river system—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Senator Hanson-Young, if you're rising on a point of order on direct relevance, I urge you to consider that it was a very broad minute-long question.

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

I accept that, so I'm going to make it simple. The question was: will the government release the full cost-benefit analysis of these proposals?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, with all due respect, with a preamble like that, you don't get to pick out the words at the end and restate that that's the question. The minister can be directly relevant to any part of the question asked. You had an extensive preamble. The minister's entitled to be directly relevant to any part of that.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that ruling, Mr President. I will again say that the government is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, ensuring that the benefits flow to communities, farmers and the environment. I would also point out that the plan is the product of collaboration and cooperation between the federal government and relevant basin state governments. In that context, I was also making the point that basin governments may choose to build new infrastructure or make changes to existing infrastructure—for example, raising dam walls to store more water and improve water security for basin communities. That is entirely consistent with the plan. New or expanded dams don't create water but rather intercept and store large volumes of water which can then be managed as regulated releases.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is required to ensure that state governments are using no more than the long-term annual average limit of water that can be taken from individual catchments within the basin. This requires that state governments have taken the maximum level of water used into consideration in any new development proposals. Any new infrastructure in the basin would need to be filled and used by entitlement volume within the sustainable diversion limits, and all new dams would require the necessary environmental, development, cultural, heritage and other approvals from relevant government authorities. There is not a regulatory responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to approve new dams. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (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 listened very carefully to the minister's response. And given your response, Minister, whose water allocation under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be cut as a result of water being taken out by these new dams? Will it come from small farmers, towns or the environment? We know it won't be coming from your big corporate irrigator mates.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely reject the premise of the question, and clearly Senator Hanson-Young did not listen to my detailed answer, which made the point that new or expanded dams don't create water but, rather, intercept and store large volumes of water, which can then be managed as regulated releases. I also made the point that all of this water that is stored within dams needs to be used by entitlement volume within the sustainable diversion limits. So this is not a matter of somehow taking more water. It is a matter of storing the water that is available to ensure that it can be used more effectively at the appropriate time.

Scott Ryan (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

Isn't it true, Minister, that the government's rote response, far from being a plan, is simply to abandon economics and the environment, and the only plan the government's got is to pray for rain?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely reject the premise of this question. It's a rather offensive question. We've got rural families and communities around Australia suffering from the impact of the drought. This government is standing shoulder to shoulder with those families and those communities, and we have appreciated the level of bipartisan support for many of the efforts we've put in place. Let me just say that it is a completely outrageous proposition and I reject the premise of the question. We have a very ambitious plan to support drought-affected communities now and into the future, building drought resilience into the future, and we are absolutely focused on doing the right thing in the public interest, in the national interest, at this difficult time and also building the necessary infrastructure to secure a better future.