Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the Acting Prime Minister's previous answer. Given the 450 additional gigalitres is to be acquired through investment in on-farm infrastructure, how can it be possible for there to be negative consequences for communities caused by taxpayers paying for farmers to improve their infrastructure? Isn't it the case that the National Party is simply looking for any excuse while the Prime Minister is away to tear apart the bipartisan consensus on the Murray-Darling?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very special day. It is a very special day, now, on two accounts: one is that I am the acting—

Mr Feeney interjecting—

Well, I reckon I'll be over here longer than ever you will be! But the other one is this: that is the first question from the Labor Party I have ever got on water. That is how much concern—

Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gorton is warned.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

they have for water. So it is a special day. Note it in your diary: on 21 November in the year of our Lord 2016, the Labor Party decided to ask me a question about water! And I welcome it. It might be that we were doing such a good job there was nothing worth asking a question about. They might have thought it was a strategic weakness.

But I thank you. I thank you for asking me this question, amongst other things, on the average price, because we have got $1.77 billion in the account; if you take out the $200 million for works and measures, that is $1.57 billion, and, for $1.57 billion, you have not got a hope in Hades of delivering 450 gigs—not a hope. Are you suggesting—and you might want to talk to the member for McMahon—that you are going to put more money on the table? If you are, I welcome it. I look at the member for McMahon; he has got his arms folded; he is not saying boo; he is not saying a thing.

And what we got—in the brief amount of time with the respected minister, or the person who is supposed to be the minister, in South Australia—was apparently that the Commonwealth would just fork out and pay for it; whatever it required, we would just find the money. We never actually found out where they are going to find the money from. And this is the issue—these are the complexities that we are trying to deal with. I say once more: we would appreciate it, if we take the effort—if we actually make the call to South Australia, write the letter to South Australia, go to South Australia and have the meeting in South Australia—if the minister from South Australia manages to stay there for more than 10 to 15 minutes before tearing out the door.

We are trying to make sure that we land the plan and have things work out. And I acknowledge: the first iteration, under the Labor Party—you did a good job on the second—was a complete and utter disaster. We were on the edge of, almost, civil disturbance. So it is a highly contentious issue. And we are doing everything in our power to make sure that we get this thing through. But we are going to require a bit more diligence and a lot more courtesy than we are currently getting from the Australian Labor Party.