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

To round up discussion on this amendment, if any of the things that were referred to by the Leader of the Nationals or the member for Farrer were actually in this amendment, I would give a very different speech, but they are not. I explained, when I moved the amendment, precisely the answer to the question that the member for Flinders has just pointed to, which is: what is the significance of the amendment? Can it mean a situation of compulsory acquisition? What does it mean if for some reason—unexpected, because we believe there is more than enough money—you were tracking to less than 450 gigalitres? What it would mean is this, and this is what would be mandatory: there would be a couple of points between now and 2024 where it is audited and made public to the parliament as to whether or not there is enough money there to get to 450 gigalitres. Whether additional money is put in place is a matter for the budget of the government of the day, but this amendment means that there is a clear line of sight as to whether or not there is enough money there.

We have put something that is all about making sure there is a parliamentary scrutiny of a clear line of sight as to whether or not there is enough money there—we believe there easily is. But we have something that is simply about a clear line of sight, and we get that sort of response. Everybody deals with consensus in their own way, I guess, but it is fairly extraordinary to get those sorts of reactions to something that is about making sure that there is a clear line of sight for every member of parliament between now and 2024 as to whether or not enough money has been set aside. And there should be a clear line of sight, because if it turns out, contrary to all expectations, that not enough money was set aside then every member of parliament should know what that would mean, and that should be a serious issue that is considered in the budget by the government of the day. Without this amendment, that could not have been guaranteed, but now that would be guaranteed. It does not involve compulsory acquisition. It does not involve alternating back to general tender buyback for 450 up.

The Leader of the Nationals ran the argument, 'Why have you got this reference taken out saying that it can't be used for dams and storages?' Because, when you find more efficient ways of using your dams and storages, that contributes to the 650 down. That is already counted before you get to the final 450 up. That is in the plan because it is one of the ideas that came from the original Windsor report, which their members signed up to.

See this speech in context