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

I have made it clear to various stakeholders, various irrigators, that this $50 million was the first tender process and that I wanted to ensure that we continue to improve in terms of management of that process. That is why we commissioned the review. That is why we established a stakeholder committee to give us feedback. Surprisingly, Senator Nash, I agree with you. I think it is a well-managed program, but I think governments can continue to improve the information that communities have, and we will do that.

I will pause here and say that one of the asks of some members of the community—though not all of them—has been that the government tell them what a fair price is. I have been clear with them that that is not for the government to do. Obviously, we can publish information about price in the market but, ultimately, that is a decision that an irrigator needs to make. It would not be appropriate at all for government, as a potential buyer, to be advising the potential seller what a fair price is.

What we have done is sought to purchase water at prevailing market prices. An obvious reason for this is to provide value for money to the taxpayer, but it also ensures that both the buyer and seller consider the agreed price to be fair and reasonable. The department is directing prospective sellers to publicly available sources of market information. We are assessing sell offers against prevailing market prices so that the impact on the water market is minimised, and the assessment process takes into account the average yield of each entitlement. That is an important point because, whilst there has only been the first completed round in the current tender, obviously the government is potentially a very large player, over time, in the water market. So we do need to continue to consider our impact on the water market.

Information on our purchases in 2007-08 is available on my department’s website and it is regularly updated. Information on prices paid is being posted on state registers as soon as trades are finalised, as is the case for other water trades. I have referred also to the independent review assessment and stakeholder consultation which occurred post the first purchase program. I would like to make the point that the independent assessment did endorse the approach taken by the government, concluding that the first purchase round was efficiently run, that water purchase decisions were appropriate and that it delivered value for money. That assessment was released in October and it is also available on the website.

In terms of community consultation, the committee I established provided direct input into this assessment and also endorsed the first phase of the purchasing. I acknowledge that they had certain views, and made certain recommendations, about the issue, and we are taking these on board and considering them. Eight regional workshops were held to obtain feedback from the wider community. One of the things that the department have changed as a result of this purchase is that we are publishing a summary of water entitlement prices reported on state registers so that sellers have improved access to market information. So we are committed to ensuring appropriate transparency, and we are doing that through the mechanisms I described. However, our view is that those mechanisms are the best way to deal with these issues. Again, what the coalition is seeking to require is a legislative instrument to ensure transparent operation of the water market. Some of the issues in subsection (2) are covered by the information available on the web, to which I have referred.