Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for the question. She is someone who has argued relentlessly for the need for the Murray-Darling Basin to be managed as a national system, rather than be managed on a state-by-state basis. The authority have been recommending for some time the figure of 2,750 in terms of the environmental outcomes that they believe best optimise the environmental, social and economic outcomes. They have been putting forward the concept of a mechanism that allows us to deal with that.

What the government announced last week was how the Commonwealth would engage with the mechanism, by providing the additional 450 gigalitres. It does not resolve every issue in the plan and there is still discussion happening in earnest with the different jurisdictions across the Basin, but it does resolve the commitment of this government to make sure that we are able to restore the Murray-Darling Basin to health. To have that guarantee of the additional 450 gigalitres is a very big win for those people who have been advocating for the health of the Basin. It is a very big win for each of those South Australian members, in particular, who sit beside me and behind me here.

The decision of the government to do this through infrastructure measures should have been something that those in irrigation seats were able to claim as a win themselves. So I was shocked when a number of members—including the member for Murray—got together over the weekend to condemn what the government had put forward. They described it as having 'crippling social and economic consequences'. The reason I was shocked to hear this was up until now every word from those backbenchers has been that if you do it through infrastructure measures it is a win-win outcome. That is what the member for Murray said in her own media release on 18 June: 'Upgrading infrastructure is, in fact, the most efficient and long-term cost-effective method of securing environmental water,' which I table. That is what the member for Murray said in a media release of 29 August this year: 'Additional water should come from environmental works and measures, including the Lower Murray, or from investments in water savings,' Dr Stone said, which I also table.

Those opposite have to realise that there will be occasions when they want to rail against something from the government. But when you have a win you do not have to say no. When you have a win and there is something you have been arguing for that the government says, 'Yeah, we will do it that way', you do not have to say no then as well—unless it is actually the position of those opposite that they just oppose improving the health of the river.

Even if you get to the stage where you have 450 gigalitres being delivered through investment in local communities, through investment on farms, through all the things those opposite previously decided was good for the local economy, if it is good for the river those backbenchers are opposed. (Time expired)

See this speech in context