Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the minister outline to the Senate what the government is doing to restore the health of the Murray-Darling Basin and to ensure our long-term water security?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ferris for that question as she represents the state of South Australia, the state that I also represent, which is of course at the end of the Murray-Darling system. The fair division of the Murray-Darling Basin’s waters has been a challenge for this great federation since its inception. For a century we have wrestled with this problem. Juggling all the varying demands on the river in an equitable way has really proved too hard for governments of both persuasions over the course of the last century, all with their own state interests and priorities, and the evidence is now in: it is clear that the multistate management of the basin over the last 100 years simply has not worked. The basin is in a critical state as a result of years of excessive exploitation by state governments of both persuasions over the course of that century.

That is why the Prime Minister has now announced a revolutionary plan to rescue the Murray-Darling Basin. Instead of parochial governments making decisions in their own interests, it is time for the national government to manage the basin in the national interest. The Prime Minister’s plan does depend on the relevant states—the four states—referring their constitutional water powers to the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister has written to all state leaders and he has convened a meeting this Thursday, to which all state and territory leaders in Australia have been invited, to discuss the detail of the plan.

The New South Wales Labor Premier, Mr Iemma—to his credit—has confirmed his government’s support. Other premiers have by and large been positive. The exception, regrettably, is Mr Rann, the Premier of my own state of South Australia. I think most South Australians, knowing the critical state of the Murray-Darling Basin, are quite bemused that Mr Rann seems to be the critical and main opponent of our rescue plan. South Australia has clearly been the biggest loser from the current arrangements and can only benefit from a unified approach that saves water upstream of South Australia. Mr Rann’s alternative of an independent commission will not work. We will of course be taking advice under our plan from water experts, but we do not believe an unelected, unaccountable body should have total control of the Murray-Darling Basin.

The other great benefit that Mr Rann should recognise is that the federal government is putting its money where its mouth is. As is well known, if the states sign this deal the federal government will invest $10 billion over 10 years, the biggest investment in water infrastructure in our nation’s history, with practical measures on the ground such as investment to stop waste and seepage and evaporation by lining and piping major delivery channels across the basin with the water saving shared between irrigators and the rivers. We will have on-farm water metering, major new environmental engineering works, a sustainable cap on surface and groundwater use and an end to the overallocation of water, with a $3 billion program to assist with structural adjustment. These are the investments in infrastructure that will allow us to deal with the droughts of the future in a much fairer way.

The government is also providing support for water infrastructure investments outside the basin. Through our Australian Water Fund, $850 million is being provided for water investments, with states bidding for projects ranging from pipelines to recycled water and desalination. Our water policy shows that this government is getting on with the job of developing new and exciting policies to deal with our nation’s significant challenges, particularly in the area of water. We are not having meaningless summits or slogans; we are getting on with introducing the most revolutionary action plan to save the great Murray-Darling Basin.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister indicate when the Department of Finance and Administration first became aware of the Prime Minister’s recent Murray-Darling Basin announcement? Can the minister advise when his department approved the costings associated with the announcement? Is it in fact the case that his department did not do any costings of the Prime Minister’s package before it was announced? Can the minister advise if the department has subsequently undertaken this costing work? Will he please indicate when these costings will be made public?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like Senator Wong, I have read Laura Tingle’s article. I found it very interesting reading—fascinating—and no doubt it is a matter that the opposition can pursue in Senate estimates next week. I also note that Mr Rudd apparently does strongly support this plan, as now do most of the Labor premiers. I am happy to assure the Senate that Treasury and Finance officials were consulted, prior to the plan’s finalisation, over its costings.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I again ask the minister if he can indicate when the department of finance were involved in the costings work associated with this announcement. When were they first aware of the announcement and the costings associated with it? Can he also explain why it is the case that the costings that are currently provided do not provide detail as to when the money will be spent? Could the minister indicate whether he agrees with the Treasurer that there can be no information about how $10 billion worth of taxpayers’ money will be spent until the states sign up? Can the minister explain how Australians are to be satisfied with the scant details of this announcement, including the detail of how the $10 billion will be spent, when most of the Prime Minister’s existing $2 billion Australian Water Fund remains unspent?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Senator Wong’s point: spending under other programs is of course a function of us agreeing to spend money in response to proper bids from the states. If the states fail to put in properly costed and sensible bids then we are unable to release the funds. That is responsible government. I do agree with the Treasurer that, obviously, exact details of the profile of the spending of this plan are subject to the states agreeing. We first have to get a proper and legal referral of the powers of the four states unified to the Commonwealth before we can determine the spending profile that will occur. We will release that profile as soon as we are able to. I would certainly hope and expect that in the budget there will be a profile of the spending of this $10 billion, because we do want to do it. We are an open government; we want to negotiate with the states on this matter and we are interested to hear the states’ ideas about this. (Time expired)