Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, in relation to Senator Singh's preamble, I will let others form a judgement on the basis of Senator Singh's trying to justify why it is that she and the Labor Party are voting against amendments that she says, in her own words, would add value and lend greater credibility. They were her words. She says the amendments would add value and lend greater credibility but she is going to vote against those amendments. It is a nonsensical position but others can form their own judgements; I will not re-litigate the arguments, there.

In relation to Senator Singh's overall question, 'Why do this?' as a government we believe that if you can get things done more efficiently it is worth doing so. The budget savings from this measure amount to around $20 million. I am sorry that Senator Singh does not think that $20 million of taxpayers' money is worth saving if you can save it. We on this side of the house do believe it is worth saving if you can save it. We do not believe that $20 million is inconsequential. It may only be a small fraction of the enormous scale of government expenditure that occurs each year, but it is still $20 million. It is still $20 million that taxpayers are paying for or that we have to borrow, sadly, in our current deficit situation. So we believe it is well worth saving. But we are doing so in a manner that we think is completely responsible.

We are not saving all of the costs associated with the National Water Commission; we are, instead, directing funding from National Water Commission appropriations to the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture and the Productivity Commission so that the various important functions that we value in the National Water Commission can be continued into the future

The funding required to undertake the work has been redirected to other agencies to ensure that work is undertaken whilst getting the savings that we can without jeopardising the quality of the work in place.

Senator Singh can claim time and time again that, somehow, the loss of the National Water Commission will endanger delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I am yet to hear any evidence that demonstrates how that could be the case. Ultimately, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, approved by this parliament, and delivered through the work, largely, of the Department of the Environment working with the states. It is the Department of the Environment that undertakes all of the water-recovery activities associated with delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The National Water Commission did not develop the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It does not do work in implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Its role is to undertake a five-yearly assessment of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That five-yearly assessment will still be undertaken every five years by the Productivity Commission instead.