Quotes
Well I think there's been a need as many have said for national leadership on it and it is difficult given the way constitutional responsibility for land and water lie with the states and some states have managed it well, some have not, that's not really a shot at present state governments I have to say.
Well I don't know if that's entirely fair but it probably took the drought to get a really good Australian stoush like the argument about drought proofing in Australia to get a national debate well and truly up and it frankly is time, in fact it's pretty much over time that we had that debate.
We really can, if we do this properly, end the angst, end the uncertainty, end the investment drought that's beginning to emerge in some parts of the country because of this and move into a much brighter future. That's what we've got to do.
We made certain that there were decent transitional arrangements to get us to where we wanted to go. The same principle will have to apply here or we won't get there.
We have to have a way of dealing with this that engenders confidence, trust, gives us every chance of getting the right outcome and boosts both sustainability and economic return at the same time.
They've got to tell us what is necessary to ensure the future health of the river system.
That's the reality and now we've got to clean the mess up but we have to do it in a way that doesn't ruin farm communities.
People forget that a huge proportion of our jobs still depend on agricultural production in Australia so of course there are exports. That's easily overlooked.
No I haven't and all I can say is that if it's cost $600,000, I hope we get $600,000 worth of value out of it.
Look there are going to be, there are already adjustment processes in place but the point is that you'll actually make them work and get satisfactory outcomes if there's decent burden sharing along the way. If there's, if you like a proper transitional assistance.
It is one of the issues that will have to be worked through however let me make the point and I think anyone would accept that if you set it up properly, not only will you get better environmental outcomes, you have a chance to create more wealth with the available resource.
If we get it right, there need not be losers.
I'm not being evasive but I am saying I'm not a scientist and I'm not directly involved in the consultation however the science must be sound, it must be agreed and the consultation must be of a high quality or no one will have any confidence in the process.
I personally think that is an idea that might very well be worth looking at but again it would need to be properly accountable and I think with treasuries involved it would be, so that you've got balanced assessments, the weighing of social and economic factors as well as purely environmental considerations.
I just say to you that I don't think we ought to be in the business of command and control unless it's necessary, really necessary on the basis of agreed science, essentially you ought to move water around according to where it's going to give you the right balanced proper return.
I don't know the taxpayer has perhaps much of an understanding of just how much wealth has been and is being and can be created that flows through the economy and just how many jobs depend upon it.
I don't know that I can give a definitive answer to that, I can only say that if we create the right climate those who are producing those products will have the opportunity to move into a higher value product if changes are needed if we get this right.
I can't think of any more important issue. If we get this right, we'll not only preserve our landscape for future generations we'll be able to generate I think more investment and more job opportunities in the inland and we sure as hell need those jobs.
Can I say to you that one of the reasons why we have to involve treasuries in all of this is because you must run an economic eye over a proposed change, changes not just allow them to be subject to the whims of environmental departments and environment ministers who from time to time can be rather driven by ideology.
But my point is that you design something in the end that precludes any unhealthy trading practices that are not going to serve your environmental or your economic objectives but now is not the time to do it.