Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:01): I thank the senator for his question. As I said yesterday, we are implementing the Basin Plan as agreed to. We are committed to that plan. We are making sure that plan is implemented and we will do so consistent with the way the plan was put in place. Of course, under that plan, there are certain elements that need to be implemented. There are certain elements that were contingent on things happening. For example, there was agreement in that plan to investigate and look into whether or not more environmental water could be delivered—under the plan, environmental water that was called 'upwater', this 450 gigalitres. There were set criteria for that water to be delivered. The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong: The point of order is on relevance. The question went to a very specific point: the difference between Senator Ruston's statement that the plan cannot be altered without the agreement of jurisdictions and the Deputy Prime Minister's office, which was reported to have said that the states do not need to approve changes. We want to know which of those is the government's position. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. It is difficult for me to arbitrate in some respects. I am going to tell you the reason why. The question was asked: who was correct in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? The minister, at the commencement of his answer, said the plan will be implemented in full. I can only assume that that means the plan will be implemented, and that means that the plan is there; it is the correct plan. I cannot interpret whether the plan relates to one minister or another minister. So I am going to call the minister, and the minister has the call. Senator CANAVAN: I am trying to, in the short time I have, provide some context here. I obviously have not seen those quotes that have been reported in the question, so I cannot comment on them completely in the context that they were made in, but what I am explaining is that we are committed to implementing the plan in full. But under that plan there are certain changes to the water delivery that might be made contingent on other events, and there are set criteria that have to be met for those events to occur. So for this 450 gigalitres the plan explicitly says that the additional water can only be delivered if it is done in a way which achieves mutual or improved social or economic outcomes. So to make that change, and to add this additional water, if you like, as a change—if you want to use it in those terms, although it is not changing the plan as such, but it would change the amount of water delivered—we need agreement on that outcome. And there is some disagreement among states and territories—that is my understanding—about what can be achieved or whether this water can be delivered consistent with that criterion that was agreed to in the plan. The PRESIDENT: A supplementary question, Senator Gallacher.