Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given that the Prime Minister has not made his officials available to brief us, how much of the $10 billion water plan is additional to what the Commonwealth and the states were already committed to spending in their budgets, prior to the water plan’s announcement?

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Commonwealth’s offer of $10 billion is new money—that is, it is additional to all of the money which the Commonwealth had previously committed in relation to the National Water Initiative and in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, and it is in addition to the top-up which I announced in last year’s budget. If the states hand over management of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission—get a load of this—there will be a significant saving, a huge saving. If the Labor states hand over to the Commonwealth, they will save money. They will take money which they otherwise would have been required to put into the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. They will save it because they will not be putting it in. There are the bona fides of the Commonwealth.

If you talk about looking a gift-horse in the mouth: is any state premier seriously going to have us believe that you can manage an interstate waterway better by having four separate governments with competing aims and objectives, and would any state premier seriously say that they will reject an offer to get a significant new injection of $10 billion, which does not actually cost them and which will produce savings? If the states want to maintain their expenditures in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, in addition to the Commonwealth’s $10 billion, I am sure that we would accept that as well. From a party that is interested in water and climate change, maybe that offer will be made this afternoon by the state governments concerned. We will be watching very closely in relation to that.

I come back to this point, which I made on radio this morning: is this investment something that has just become apparent now? No. This investment has been something that most people who have thought about it would have thought should have been done over the years—maybe even years ago. Why wasn’t it done at Federation? Why wasn’t it done at the time of the Second World War? Why was it not done in the sixties?

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Owens interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Parramatta is warned!

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why wasn’t it done in the seventies? I will tell you why. The Commonwealth government never had the wherewithal to put $10 billion into the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. When we were carrying $96 billion of federal debt, we were spending nearly $10 billion a year in interest payments. Now that we have got rid of that, we have the capacity to invest in this infrastructure. This would not have been possible without economic management. Let me say that, whatever your objectives in relation to climate change, in relation to water and in relation to social objectives, you will not have the wherewithal to pay for them without economic management in this country, and that is what this government stands for.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline for the House the impact on regional economies of major new investment in water infrastructure, particularly in my electorate of Mallee? How will the coalition government’s water security plan generate more jobs?

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mallee for his question. Obviously, as has been pointed out this week, the value of irrigated agriculture in Australia is significant—about $9 billion worth of production. That production feeds and clothes some 60 million people both in Australia and in export markets overseas. What has been identified—and the member for Mallee as a practising engineer would understand the technical detail of this—is that up to 30 per cent of the water that is diverted through irrigation out of Australia’s river systems is lost due to poor infrastructure, through absorption and through transpiration and the like. What we are proposing to do with the $10 billion package that has been put forward is address that very issue.

The notion of being able to create more from the water we already have, without another drop of rain falling, is not necessarily a new or revolutionary idea. It has been around for a while. Some of the comments that have been made following the Prime Minister’s announcement of our water plan bear this out. One of those comments was made by Col Thomson from the New South Wales Irrigators Council. He said:

This package is bold and breathtaking in its scope and intent. The core issues raised by the Prime Minister are not new to New South Wales Irrigators members, nor are the proposed solutions any different to what has been identified and in many areas already put into practice.

The difference between the circumstances now and those in times gone by is exactly what the Treasurer pointed out: the ability of the Commonwealth to pay for what is needed to be done.

We, as a government, have a record on this in recent years. In relation to the question asked by the member for Mallee, last year we invested $167 million in the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline to save billions of litres of water in that area. Just for the stock and domestic circumstance, 103 billion litres will be saved in the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline system by removing 85 per cent of the waste from seepage and evaporation.

Earlier than that, back in about 1999, along with the South Australian state government and irrigators, we invested about $15 million in the Loxton irrigation system, where we secured that entire irrigation system into pipes. It addressed a drastic circumstance, and we saved almost 4.8 billion litres in that Loxton irrigation system in the member for Barker’s electorate. It was in 1999 that we invested that. Last year, we invested in the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline. This year, we have put on the table $10 billion to save 3,600 billion litres of water coming out of the system and to put it back into the system, with 50 per cent of that becoming available for industry, for irrigators.

We have consistently identified the ability to save water through investment in infrastructure, and that is exactly what we are doing in this circumstance. The Prime Minister is going to meet with the premiers of the relevant states this afternoon. We urge them to come on board with this plan. This is a bold and breathtaking plan. As Col Thomson said, it is bold and breathtaking in its scope and its intent. Its intent is to fix up a problem that has been identified and that has existed for many, many years. Where we are able to look after the interests of both industry and the broader environment as far as the watering system in those rivers is concerned, it should be done.

The last point I want to make and to continue to reinforce is that the reason we can do this is that we can do it without having to borrow any money. We can do it because of the good economic management that has been practised in this country over the last 10 or 11 years. That is why it has never been able to be done before, and that is why it can be done now. That should be clearly recognised.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Did the minister agree with the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources when he said that there may be the need for farms to be acquired in what ‘may be regarded as in effect a compulsory acquisition’?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is not required to answer a question asking whether he agrees with another minister. Nonetheless, I will call the minister.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I relish the opportunity to answer this question, and I thank the honourable member. I would suggest that the extract that the honourable member has presented to the House is incomplete or, at worst, inaccurate. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources made it very clear that overallocation funding is largely and as entirely as possible for structural adjustment. That aspect of the package starts and finishes with assisting irrigators, whether it is with relocation or the like.

There is an element, of course, in regard to the purchase of water allocations, but it will be done on the basis of structural adjustment. It allows me to say that it may very well be with regard to the configuration of irrigation systems. You might retire non-viable areas and the like with the support of farmers. And irrigators have welcomed this. The honourable member is trying to make a political point—unsuccessfully—when irrigators themselves have expressed support for the package. After all, the implications for irrigators are overwhelmingly positive, and that is how they have seen it. The cornerstone of the plan is a commitment of $6 billion to modernise irrigation infrastructure off farms, $3 billion on farms—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, under standing order 104. I asked a clear question. Does he support compulsory acquisition?

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pyne interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt is warned! The minister is in order. I call the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler interrupted me when I was outlining the benefits of the package to irrigators, not political point-scoring. There is $6 billion for off-farm efficiency, $1½ billion for on-farm efficiency and $3 billion to tackle overallocation. And the irrigators deeply appreciate all aspects of the package, especially the fact that 50 per cent of the efficiency savings will be returned to them.