Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

May I remind the Senate that the Howard government was the first national government in this country’s history to take responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin, to accept that a national government had to act and, with the good husbanding of the resources of this country, to be in a position to set aside $10 billion for the Murray-Darling Basin to put in place the programs which the current government inherited. We now witness the lethargy with which this government approaches that great legacy—$10 billion to accept responsibility at a national level, in the face of irresponsibility at state level, for the Murray-Darling Basin. All programs that are in place are there because the Howard government produced the surpluses that enabled a $10 billion investment in the Murray-Darling Basin while keeping the budget in the black and continuing to produce surpluses.

What we note from the agreement which Senator Xenophon has apparently reached with the government is that, while it may be appropriate for the Murray-Darling Basin, this does not go to economic stimulus. Water buybacks and exit grants are not about providing stimulus to the economy; they will not of themselves provide any stimulus to the economy. We note, while subject to further inspection, very little in relation to the issue of investment in water infrastructure. Investment in water infrastructure must be on time and on budget, and we will continue to hold the government to account for the necessary investment in water infrastructure. Investment in water infrastructure will assist the productive capacity of this economy, but buying people off their land and out of their water does not amount to an economic stimulus, albeit that those measures may be worthy and may be an appropriate part of the overall package.

I am disappointed that Senator Xenophon has felt that his clear opposition to this package can be compromised by measures which involve cross-trading on issues that do not go to the substance of this package, which is about economic stimulus. These are not about economic stimulus, albeit I continue to recognise the integrity of the position he brings to bear. But never let it be thought that any of those of us from South Australia on the benches on this side of the chamber are anything but earnest in our commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin, and we will continue to do whatever we can to ensure that there is appropriate and responsible investment by this government in restoring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin.

I conclude by simply saying the opposition has been entirely principled in its approach. Of course we could have simply said, ‘Yes, we’ll wave this package through.’ But we know this package is not affordable. It will saddle future generations with untold debt. It will reduce the flexibility of the government with respect to any deepening of the crisis which the globe faces in relation to the economy and it will saddle future generations with billions and billions of dollars of debt for which this government has given us no indication whatsoever that it has a plan at all as to how it will repay those billions of dollars.