Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (14:16): I want to thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. He has shown a long-term interest, as have the many South Australian members on this side of the House, in wanting to see a good outcome in a national approach to the Murray-Darling Basin. One hundred and twenty-two days ago, the consultation on the draft plan began. There are only 26 days left in that consultation process. There have been meetings held, which a number of members from each side of this House have attended. Some members from my own side have made submissions. I know the member for Kingston has made a submission, calling for a tougher plan and wanting a better outcome for South Australia. I know some members opposite have stood up and asked for the numbers to go down in respect of their communities. The difference between the submissions from each side of the House during this consultation process is that on this side of the House, when we are participating in that process, we participate with the certainty of knowing we will be on the side of backing the reform when it lands. We know that we will be on the side of having a national approach to the Murray-Darling Basin, whereas the most notable submission from those opposite was the one made by the Leader of the Opposition at the Griffith meeting, when he said that he would only support a 'good plan' without defining what a good plan would or would not involve. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER: The honourable member for Wakefield will remove himself from the chamber under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How could this be relevant to the question the minister was asked, to verbal the Leader of the Opposition, when the opposition is also in favour of a national plan for the Murray-Darling Basin? The SPEAKER: If the Manager of Opposition Business takes a similar point of order, he will be ejected under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The minister was asked whether there were any limits on progress and he was answering the question. Mr BURKE: There is a clear game that is going on during the consultation process with the Leader of the Opposition not defining what a good plan is or what a good plan would be. With 26 days to go, he is running down the clock without saying what he would and what he would not support. If your support is conditional— Mrs Griggs interjecting— The SPEAKER: The honourable member for Solomon will remove herself under the provisions of standing order 94(a). The member for Solomon then left the chamber. Mr BURKE: then you have got to let on to the public what those conditions are. Instead, what happens is they just run down the clock so that when the basin authority comes back with a final plan those opposite can say, 'Oh, that's not what we meant by a good plan,' and then, reluctantly, the Leader of the Opposition will be compelled to vote no. Who would have thought? Who would have thought that you would have a design of a line which is—every step of the way there—to not let on what sort of plan you would vote for, and, in the whole consultation period, to run down the clock for the final 26 days and not make clear what the conditions would be for coalition support? Make no mistake: there are people on this side of the House who are arguing strongly for changes to the plan. But there is no-one on this side of the House, during the consultation period, who is saying, 'Let's spike the reform.' There is no-one on this side of the House who is saying that we should abandon the hope of having a national plan. Yet every word that has come from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition has been designed to get to the day the authority comes back and then say, 'Oh, I never thought I had to support something like that—I will just vote no.'