Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this debate on the COAG review of the National Water Commission in accordance with the National Water Commission Act 2004. I find it quite bewildering that members of the National Party can continually stand here in this place and talk about their concerns for the people in Mildura, Shepparton and the Murray-Darling Basin, given the history of the lack of analysis of and decent progress on the Murray-Darling Basin problems under the Howard government. The National Party had 11½ years to deal with the problems of the Murray-Darling river system, but they did nothing. Why? They did nothing because it would have meant their having to admit that the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and Australian scientists were correct and that climate change is a problem that has to be dealt with. The coalition, for 11½ years, refused to deal with it, and they still refuse.

What was the approach of former Prime Minister John Howard to the Murray-Darling Basin? He suddenly woke up one morning and said: 'There's a problem in the Murray-Darling Basin. How do I fix it? Let's throw some money at it.' There was $10 billion allocated overnight to the Murray-Darling Basin, with no plan, no strategy, no understanding of what the money was for—to the extent that Dr Ken Henry, the then Secretary of the Treasury, threw his hands up in the air and said, 'We've not been asked for any advice on what the implications of this $10 billion spend are.' Did the $10 billion spend go to cabinet? No, it did not. It was typical of the Howard government to wake up one morning, understand that they had a problem and throw money at the problem.

On the one hand, you had John Howard throwing money at every problem, such as the problem of the Murray-Darling—with no strategy, no analysis, no scientific basis—and, on the other hand, you had that failed Treasurer Peter Costello out there trying to cut taxes and cut taxes. So the big spend was on and the big tax cut was on. That created a problem for the structural basis of the economy, and we are still faced with that. This mob across the Senate have got no understanding of how the economy works. They have got absolutely no economic credibility at all.

When the history of Peter Costello is written, it will say Peter Costello needed a spinal transplant because he could never stand up to John Howard and get a decent economic policy in place. John Howard was too busy throwing the money out—every budget a new record of what he could give to areas where there was a problem. The economic profligate John Howard had absolutely no understanding: 'Here we go: the Murray-Darling Basin, $10 billion. We won't take that to the Treasury to find out what the Treasury thinks about it. No, let's not do that. We won't take it to cabinet to see if any of the cabinet ministers have got a view on it.' They would not, because they were all spineless like Peter Costello anyway. So the former Prime Minister John Howard had his way with government funds—just throw them out there. They would throw the money around. Peter Costello would try and cut taxes to try and be the epitome of a coalition Conservative Treasurer. And what did we end up with? We ended up with a mess. We ended up with no investment. We ended up with productivity declining in this country. We ended up with no approach to the Murray-Darling river system. We ended up with nothing on the environment. You were frauds and you are still frauds and you should admit it.