Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on the government’s national plan for water security? In particular, would the Prime Minister advise the House of the reasons the Victorian government has given for its opposition to this important reform?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Boothby. He represents an electoral division in the state of South Australia which has a very big stake in the success of the $10 billion National Water Initiative that I announced on 25 January this year.

I must say that I am puzzled at the attitude being taken by the Victorian government. It is at odds with the view expressed to me on at least two occasions by the Victorian Premier when I have personally discussed this matter with him and when he has given me every encouragement to believe that it would only be a matter of time before Victoria joined the national water plan.

This plan has been endorsed by New South Wales, by Queensland, by South Australia and by the Australian Capital Territory. The Premier of Victoria wrote to me on 22 May expressing his view that the scope of powers envisaged under the draft bill are ‘beyond the terms of any discussions to date’. With respect to the Premier—and I say this courteously and politely because this is a matter where we should deal with each other both with courtesy and in good faith—that statement by him is wrong. The referral of powers that we have sought is completely consistent with the referral of powers set out in the communique which came from the water summit of 23 February 2007. That communique—and this is the communique which was supported by New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and the ACT—made it quite clear that the Australian government would assume responsibility for a number of functions, including water planning, water rights and water pricing. Without a unified approach to matters such as water pricing and trading practice, the management of water resources will not be consistent and markets will be distorted.

I believe very strongly, as I am sure do most members of this House, that it is overwhelmingly in Australia’s interests that the Commonwealth assumes control of the Murray-Darling Basin system along the lines that I have outlined. The only government that is standing out is the Victorian government. We have not asked for more in the draft legislation than we asked for on 23 February. It is not correct of the Victorian Premier to argue otherwise. In the letter he wrote to me he did not provide me with any real detail as to where he felt the draft legislation went beyond the request or the remit canvassed in the communique of 23 February. So I frankly confess to utter puzzlement as to what the Victorian Premier is getting at. We need Victoria; Victoria’s irrigators will suffer and the irrigators of other parts of Australia will suffer if this plan does not go ahead.

Let me say that I have every confidence in the way the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources has been handling this matter on behalf of the Commonwealth, and he will be meeting his counterparts, I gather, in the next few days to further canvass these issues. But, the Premier having written to me, I have written back to him today responding essentially along the lines of this response. But I have indicated that if he is willing to provide me with more detail of his concerns I invite him to come and see me in Canberra next week so that we can personally discuss the issue.