Dr STONE (2:47 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Minister, how much of the $5.8 billion set aside by the former coalition government for improving water infrastructure management in the Murray-Darling Basin has actually been spent by your government?

Mr BURKE (Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) —I thank the member for the question. Obviously, since I answered a similar question from the member for Mayo yesterday and said that due diligence had not yet been completed on a number of these projects, between yesterday and today that remains the case. I can report, though, that some projects have already been completed, including the South Australia Lower Lakes Integrated Pipelines, at $120 million; the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline, in Victoria, at up to $99 million; the $3.2 billion for state priority projects, which focus on improving water efficiency and infrastructure, agreed as part of the Murray-Darling reform agreement in 2008. Obviously, many of these projects—

The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Wentworth on a point of order?

Mr Turnbull —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Wimmera-Mallee pipeline has got nothing to do with the $10 billion National Plan for Water Security.

The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Wentworth will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.

Mr Turnbull interjecting—

The SPEAKER —The member for Wentworth will resume his seat! The member for Wentworth has stretched the friendship! There was no point of order, and the member for Wentworth should know that he should not approach the dispatch box in that manner. The minister has the call.

Mr BURKE —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The project—

The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Mr Pyne —The point of order is on direct relevance. The projects about which the minister is speaking are not about the $5.8 billion plan that the former coalition government announced.

The SPEAKER —Order! The member will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on the point of order?

Mr Albanese —On the point of order: it is out of order because it is against the new paradigm of one point of order per question.

The SPEAKER —I am ill equipped to adjudicate on this, in that I have not got a document that is approaching the Holy Grail—the agreement—with me. But my understanding is that it reads that there is only one point of order on relevance. Having ruled that the member for Wentworth was not even making a point of order, and him being very close to absolutely disruptive behaviour—and he was very lucky: the minister is being directly relevant, as far as I can ascertain, to the question. I illustrate that, without myself knowing absolutely every program that is available, I could not adjudicate. I realise that I am making assumptions, but the minister has the call.

Mr BURKE —On the project that I referred to: the completion and the way it was funded following the 2007 election were obviously after the change of government, and it was funded within the program, as I am advised. So the fact that funding may have been intended to be done from a different means when the member for Wentworth was the minister does not necessarily change how things were ultimately done when the project was completed following us coming to government. For anyone to subsequently want to argue that projects of that nature are not relevant to the Murray-Darling Basin I think is drawing a very long and sad bow.