Senator LEES (2:36 PM) —My question is to Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister representing the ministers for agriculture and the environment. Can he tell the Senate how much water, if any, has been restored to the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin in the last five years? Specifically, how much water that was previously allocated has now been left in any or all of the rivers to improve their health? Is it correct that the amount restored—the total—is zero?

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) —I thank Senator Lees for her question on the Murray-Darling Basin. It is an area in which the Howard government has shown real leadership and has worked very closely with the states and territories to advance environmental outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin system. I know that Senator Lees follows this issue very well and would recall that it was only midway through last year—and I am just trying to find my notes with the actual date—that the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council made the decision to return flows to the river to get environmental outcomes. From her gesticulations to me I think she is asking: how much of that has actually got there? I do not have the figures in front of me. I suspect that by this time it is probably not a lot, because a lot of work has to be done to go to those particular areas where we wanted the environmental flows to make a difference. We were not so much hung up on quantities as outcomes. We wanted to make sure that the five or six listed sites did get sufficient water to ensure that they were able to operate and regenerate.

Senator Lees will recall that the Howard government has committed some $200 million to address the issues of overallocation of the water in the basin and the states between them have committed an additional $300 million. I just remind Senator Lees that, while the Australian government has committed $200 million to that, Mr Latham, in a great announcement of what the Labor Party were going to do in the Murray-Darling Basin, actually committed a Latham government to a payment of $150 million—that is, $50 million less than the Howard government has already committed to the Murray-Darling Basin. So, Senator Lees, whilst you on that side—alone, I suspect—understand the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin, regrettably, the Labor Party have so little interest in the Murray-Darling Basin and the environmental flows there that they have promised a commitment of $50 million less than the Howard government has already committed.

Senator Lees will know that the states are actually responsible for specific water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. The states in the basin are committed to the cap and have agreed to implement the Living Murray initiative. I would hope that all those particular initiatives—in fact, the best science we have indicates that it is more than a hope—will deliver environmental outcomes back into the Murray-Darling Basin in the future. It is going to be long, it is going to be hard and it is going to be a very complex operation, but we will get the health back into the Murray-Darling system and we will do it in a way that does not destroying families, businesses and lives.

Senator LEES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I was actually looking for the outcomes—not for the players or the promises—and at what we have actually achieved to date. I ask the minister to take the question on notice and come back with the details. I also specifically ask him: can he confirm the insidious practice of borrowing river environmental flows, with the agreement of state authorities, including water authorities, for agricultural and other purposes and then forgetting to repay those borrowings?

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) —There are allowances to be able to borrow forward. They do have to be repaid. You are expressing a concern, I think, that the South Australian government has borrowed forward but has not repaid. We at the ministerial council do keep a fairly strict eye on that and, whilst we have no punitive measures to take—we cannot throw South Australia in jail—we do discuss that openly. South Australia by and large has been responsible insofar as the operations of the Murray-Darling Basin system go. In relation to the particular detail that you are requiring, I will obtain further information from Mr Truss, who is Chairman—and I might say a very good chairman—of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, and I will get back to you with those details.