Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I will make a couple of points. The first is that the government is very clear on and very conscious of the importance of ensuring that taxpayers get value for money in terms of the return of water to the river. For example, there have been occasions where the government has been asked, including by some senators in this chamber, to purchase water at double the market price and, in terms of value for money for the taxpayer, we have made clear that there are difficulties associated with offering that sort of premium. We are also very aware in the context of irrigation and infrastructure projects that we do need to ensure reasonable value for money for taxpayers.

I would make the point that this could have a range of consequences, in different regions in the basin, which senators who are supporting this may not be aware of. For example, irrigation districts which have already achieved significant savings and have become efficient over time for a whole range of economic reasons and have been driven to install more efficient investments, more efficient irrigation systems and practices would find it more difficult than the most inefficient irrigators to achieve the 50 per cent requirement in 86AA(2)(b) of the amendment.

Senator Xenophon would know that that is a view put by some South Australian irrigators—that they have already achieved significant savings and that they are highly efficient and therefore for them to have any funding for infrastructure projects in their region, subject to the amendment that the senator is supporting, would become more difficult than arguably in irrigation areas where you still see open channels and the like where there may arguably be more readily available savings.

We clearly understand the importance of the policy objective for this infrastructure investment. It is about ensuring a viable, productive future for irrigation communities and irrigation industries in the context of declining water availability. The whole purpose is to enable an adjustment to climate change and to enable these communities and industries to become more efficient, which, by definition, means you have to look to water efficiencies.

In terms of accountability around that, the government will continue to ensure that due diligence is applied both to state priority projects through the bilateral agreements with the states and to any other investments under this infrastructure aspect of the government’s programs, because we recognise it is in the best interests of all that efficiencies are gained. However, the amendment, in our view, is overly prescriptive. Whilst we recognise the views put by the crossbenchers on this issue, the government are not minded to support the amendment.